The beliefs of Calvinism can best be represented by the acronym T.U.L.I.P. Here are the interpretations of what each point of belief means to a Calvin, and what the Bible says in response.
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability)
What Calvin Meant: Humans are completely sinful, and incapable of doing good.
What the Bible Says:
Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
1 Timothy 4:4 (New International Version)
4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
Matthew 13
The Parable of the Weeds
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
THEREFORE: We are created in God’s image, and God himself deemed us VERY GOOD. We have chosen, however, of our own free will, through temptation by “the enemy”, to fall from that perfection that God originally created. That means we are imperfect and sinful – all of us, from the moment of birth. But we are STILL created in His image, and have, for that reason (and it alone) the capacity for good, the ability to choose good, to choose right. We are CAPABLE of making a choice to lead us closer to the Father because of the nature God gave us, just as we are CAPABLE of making a bad choice that moves us farther away from the Father because of our own disobedience and sinful nature. Man is sinful, but not TOTALLY DEPRAVED, by virtue of being a creation of God. God cannot and does not create Evil. We choose evil. Can we deny that non-Christians are capable of making a right choice, of doing good, even if it does not lead to their salvation? This can only be because of that quality endowed by the Creator, making all men in His image. We must remember that Jesus himself was human and flesh – it is Gnosticism to believe that all matter is completely evil.
1 John 4: 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
Unconditional Election
What Calvin Meant: God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not. Some are predestined to Hell.
What the Bible Says:
1 Peter 1:2 (New International Version)
2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Therefore: We do not earn our salvation. There is no formula for meriting the grace of God. God knows, however, the choices we will make in response to His calling, before we make them. He has the foreknowledge and knows us better than we know ourselves. He knows what we are and are not capable of, and what will work to His purposes. Using this knowledge, He chooses those whom He will to carry out His divine plan. Council of Orange 529 AD, Canon 12: "God loves us because of what we will be by the gift of His grace, not because of what we are by our own merit." St. Augustine said "God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding advises you to do what you can and to ask for what you cannot do,"(67)
Limited Atonement:
What Calvin says: Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect.
What the Bible Says:
John 3:16 (New International Version)
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
1 Timothy 4
9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
Matthew 23:37 (New International Version)
37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Matthew 13
The Parable of the Sower
1That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear."
Matthew 22
The Parable of the Wedding Banquet
1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
5"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Acts 13
38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.
Revelation 3:20 (New International Version)
20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
THEREFORE: God does not reject His creation – we reject HIM. MANY are invited. He is knocking at our door. If WE hear him knocking and answer, He will enter our lives. In the sower’s parable, the seed is spread on all different types of soil. A good farmer, however, knows where to focus his seeds to produce the best crop. He will not waste seed on poor soil, because he knows how the soil will reject the seed. He has FOREKNOWLEDGE. Does he not want all his land to be good for planting his crops? Absolutely. But our free will essentially determines the type of soil we will be, and how we will receive His message. God did not purposefully make “bad soil”, He did not create some people for the express purpose of going to hell, and He desires all to be saved, but knows (through His omnipotence and foreknowledge) that all will not choose Him. As St. Augustine stated : "God does not abandon those whom He has once justified by His grace, unless He is first abandoned by them." (68)
Irresistible Grace:
What Calvin Meant: When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted.
What the Bible Says:
Acts 7
51"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
Hebrews 12
15See to it that no one misses the grace of God
22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
25See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks.
The Book of Jonah
THEREFORE: God has the power and sovereignty to COMPEL us to Himself, but He chooses not to. He allows us to make a choice in response to His call. Why would He allow us this ability? Because He knows that love is not love if it is compelled. He allows us the dignity of choice. From the beginning – as Adam and Eve. Because He wants us to CHOOSE to love, as He chose to love us. Don’t get me wrong. God is VERY PERSUASIVE , and our will is no match for His, not by an infinite long shot. Ask Jonah about that. But the story of Jonah tells us something very important. God said “Go”, but Jonah said “NO!” Over and over again. Until God set the circumstances in motion to the point where Jonah finally agreed to God’s plan for himself. But God did not use Jonah as a puppet, as He certainly could have, taking him over so that He said yes instantly. He allowed Jonah the dignity of Free Will, and then He made it very clear to Jonah that the answer needed to be “YES”, and eventually Jonah changed his mind. Moses was reluctant to God’s call, as was Paul initially. That’s why it’s so worthy of emulation for those examples in the Bible who said “yes” without hesitating, immediately, without question. 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." The ultimate example is Jesus in the garden of Gesthemane “Not my will, but Yours be done”. Jesus died for us willingly, because it was the Father’s will – he was not COMPELLED to die for us. If so, there would have been no need for the devil to tempt Jesus. The temptation in and of itself shows that Jesus COULD HAVE chosen another path, but DID NOT of his own free will. He was in complete obedience to the Father, but he did not HAVE to be. Jesus had a choice, and made the right one.
Perseverance of the Saints:
What Calvin Meant: You cannot lose your salvation
What the Bible Says:
1 Timothy 4
15Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Hebrews 10
35So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay. 38But my righteous one[f] will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him."[g] 39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
Matthew 13:
20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time.
2 Peter 1
10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
THEREFORE: There would be no need to encourage the saints to persevere, if there was not a risk on salvation being lost. There would be no use of the word “IF” in the above Bible verses, if salvation was secured regardless of one’s actions and obedience to God’s word. There would be no parable of the seed on the rocky soil. We have the hope of the promises the Lord gives us. We trust in that hope. But it is arrogance that leads to complacency to assume that we are all a “sure thing” by virtue of being one of the “special, chosen ones”. We persevere in the hope and promise of things to come, as the pearl of great price.
13 comments:
It is a good idea to think these issues through, but be careful about proof-texting. Any critique of Calvinism that does not address scripture such as Rom 9, Eph 2, and John 6:37-39 is not telling the whole story.
Doubtlessly, there is a lot of scriptural support for both sides of the argument. Unless we clip out certain verses we have to admit that both positions have an element of truth to them.
Both positions can be true so long as one is nested within the other. Man's responsibility fits nicely under the umbrella of God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty does not fit so well under the umbrella of Man's responsibility. If the Bible is inerrant, then Man is responsible for rejecting God, and God is responsible for saving man. It is not an either or proposition.
We should focus on how all scripture works together to make sense, not pit one scripture against another.
Total Depravity:
I agree that we are perfectly capable of choosing righteousness - the problem is that without God opening our eyes to what that is we are going to guess wrongly. "There is a way that seems right to man, and it leads to death."
It isn't that we can't choose rightly, it is that we don't - Our perspective is tainted by and manipulated by sin. Our minds live in a distorted reality, and our decision making happens in response to what we observe through our skewed perspective. Unless miraculously, He changes our heart, opens our eyes, and changes our perspective we will keep making the wrong decisions.
I don't see any disagreement on Unconditional election. Eph 2 8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."
Limited atonement is always the sore point. The truth is that both sides limit atonement - one side limited the effectiveness of God sacrifice, the other limits it's intent. Either way we come to the same conclusion however - not everyone is saved. Most modern Calvinists say that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for all, but only effective on those who are actually saved. Going back to the parable of the weeds, Is a weed going to become wheat? That is not the story that the parable tells.
On irresistible grace, I would suggest that by default we all resist God. That is what total depravity is. But like Paul on the Road to Damascus, sometimes God reveals himself in a way that we cannot deny. Our false reality is destroyed and a new true reality is implanted. So the fact that some people are able to resist is not evidence that Grace is resistible, it is just evidence that they have not received the full dose of saving grace yet, and they are still behaving according to their old reality.
Perseverance is somewhat the same animal as irresistible grace. If you are truly saved you are truly saved. Many people fool themselves into believing they are saved so that they don't have to deal with being saved, but they are not saved. Hebrews 12 and Psalm 23 tell us that God disciplines the ones that he loves. He will complete is work in us. Yes, we can stray, we can be deceived, but The Glory of God will always draw us back. No idol will be able to outshine him.
In my book. John 6:37-39 Is pretty much a slam dunk on Power of God's grace. All that have been given to Christ will come to him, and none will be lost. Jesus' mission will accomplish what it set out to do.
My experience has been that the more I talk through this with folks with the other perspective, the less we really disagree. The scope of our focus is just a little different. In the end, God still saves, and Men still choose him, and however that happens it is a glorious thing.
You can't stop reading Ephesians 2 at verse 9... go all the way to verse 10. "9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Nowhere in the Bible does it say faith ALONE leads to salvation. Calvin says faith ALONE, in his institutions. That's not Biblical. Luther actually added that word to his version of the Bible. That's not what the Bible SAYS. Faith and OBEDIENCE is required. And what does it mean to be obedient to the law? The fufillment of the law is love (Romans 13:8,10). Obedience is a choice. Works in and of themselves mean nothing. Carrying out the ultimate act of obedience (LOVE) is the work we are created to do. And love is a choice.
John 6:37-39; The Father chooses whom He will for His purposes... and Jesus expressly says in that verse that ANYONE who comes to Him will never be driven away.
I agree wholeheartedly that God's sovereignty is the pinnacle of all. It's only by his sovreign decree that we are allowed a free choice in response to Him. He made us this way.
And I believe, in response to your comment on Total Depravity, that God grants all men a "moral law" (as C.S. Lewis calls it) - it's instilled by our Creator, whether Christian or not. It sets us apart from the animals, makes us human, because we are created in His image. There are things that all of humanity universally deems as "good" and some that is universally deems "bad", through all of history. Why? All good choices stem from this intimate tie to our Creator,and thus humanity is not TOTALLY DEPRAVED, although we are weak and sinful. There is a difference. If all salvation comes through Christ alone (and it does), then where is the good we see in non-Christians coming from? We can't deny it. It's there. It has to come from an innate quality in humans that was put there at our creation, in His image.
Limited atonement - I don't think that one side limits the EFFECTIVENESS of Jesus' sacrifice at all. It is wholly effective, for those who choose to accept it. Because we're granted that choice. It is the perfect, complete answer. To limit it's intent goes against nearly the entire New Testament.
I do see how the more we discuss these issues, the more we realize there are central truths that we can all agree on. Semantics plays a huge role, though.
This subject has become an issue in my life (thus the extensive study and blathering about it here on my blog) as I have seen it tear apart a family, and turn a Christian child into an atheist adult, who no longer cares beause he's not one of the "elect". Essentially saying "Fine. If God doesn't want me, I don't want Him." And I've seen groups of people completely isolate themselves as "the elect", disassociating themselves from the rest of their family and communities, because they are freeing themselves of "the chaff". It breaks my heart. And I know that you will say that as much as this doctrine is pushing a child of God away from Him, and tearing a family apart in the process, it is bringing others to Him... you've mentioned that before. That happens everywhere (HOW many fallen-away Catholics are there????) But sometimes (MOST OF THE TIME) people fall away because of a culture rather than because of a theology. They see hypocrites in church, so think the whole thing is bunk. They don't like the rigid rules, so trash the whole thing. That's not rejecting a theology. That's not even UNDERSTANDING a theology. I see this Calvinist THEOLOGY expressly pushing people away from Christianity, and that's what scares me. And I see it's culture drawing people to it (the music is really inspiring and uplifting, there's a great pastor who gives a really inspiring sermon, there's lots of social interactions with other people just like them, and there's lot of feeling good about oneself - a feeling of being special and CHOSEN). Not that any of those are BAD things. But it's not the heart. I can't tell you how many people I know "church shop", looking for the one with the pastor that gives the best sermon, the one with a good program for kids, the one with the really great music. And if they can't find it, they start a new church for themselves. They're looking for a culture. It bothers me. All of that really means NOTHING. What does the church BELIEVE??? That's what's important. What are you actually DOING when you're going to a service? Are you sitting through a feel-good show, with lots of entertainment value? Or are you singing with the angels at the sacred worship of the Holy of Holies? There's a huge difference.
It's 3:30 in the morning, and I am absolutely positive that I am rambling, and making no sense, and getting off subject. I appreciate your willingness to have discussions. It's helpful to me. This subject has come up at this time in my life because of what I see happening here around me, and I feel like I need to clarify my own personal beliefs, and know WHY I believe as I do, on sound Biblical principals and the tradition of 2000 years of Christianity. I respect everyone with a sincere faith and love of Christ, and know that THAT is the most important thing, but sometimes I feel I need to DEFINE what I know to be true.
All truths are going to be twisted and used to justify sin. 2 Peter 3:15-16 points this out. Peter was specifically speaking of Paul's epistles, Perhaps Romans 9 and Ephesians 2. The fact that people twist a theology to justify their disobedience does not mean that the theology is disposable in it's undistorted state.
I am seeing a lot of youngsters being saved in the reformed churches right now, and the life change is profound. I don't think it is wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If you listen to preachers like Tim Keller, Matt Chandler, John Piper, Francis Chan, or Mark Driscoll, you will probably not notice Calvinism as a central tenet of what they teach.. It is the empowering faith that allows them to teach boldly. They teach the truth, even when the truth is very unpopular, and God brings people to repentance. If you teach the truth and it is rejected it is not rejected because the preacher didn't sell it right, it is rejected because most folks love sin and hate the truth. Amazingly - Because God is at work, they preach these hard messages and people with a hunger for the truth keep coming, and keep coming to faith.
There is a difference between total depravity, and utter depravity. It does not mean that we are as evil as we could be. It just means that our motives are sinful and selfish. We are still made in God's image, and have the capability to make and do great things no matter what our motive.
As far as Eph 2:10 goes, I don't necessarily disagree. True faith always leads to works. It is a chicken and egg argument from there.
For me this is a personal issue. I have zero faith that my father will come to faith of his own accord. He is stubborn, and he is fairly well educated on Biblical issues. I do have faith that God can change his heart, and I would think it would be sinful of me to give up that hope and that prayer.
I have asked a lot of Christians "Did God change your heart?" and all of them have said "Yes". They all seem thankful for it, not bitter. As such, I think this is a beautiful truth, not something that we should be ashamed of.
If we lift it up with the wrong motive and the wrong emphasis it can be evil as you are describing it. Used rightly it is powerful and soul saving.
I don't see Calvinist theology as pushing people away from Christianity.
Really the issues that are debated in Calvinism are something that every believe has to come to grips with when they pursue God to the point that they recognize that he is incomprehensible to our feeble human minds. We can map Him out so far, and then we get quite confused. We want to embrace certain promises, but by logical extension that means we have to deny some realities that we have taken for granted.
Just out of curiosity, what reformed teachers have you listened to? My guess would be John MacArthur. He can be a bit over the top. I would recommend Francis Chan, Alister Begg, Tim Keller, John Piper or Matt Chandler to you. I do think you have an distorted perception of what the movement is teaching and emphasizing. Rightly and humbly taught, it is some of the most powerful preaching you can hear. Arrogantly taught (as I would argue MacArthur does), it can leave a bad taste in your mouth.
God does not push anyone away from him. He calls all to repentance.
I would argue that the reason that people fall away is because they love their sin more than they love God. People are clever, and they can use all kinds of Scripture to justify their falling away, but the truth is that they love their sin. In the end, they are judging God, and none of us have standing to do that.
Adam blamed God for his Sin as well-- This woman that YOU MADE tricked me. I don't think the argument against Romans 9 being in the bible hold much more weight than the argument That God shouldn't have made women. God put it there for a reason. Some might use it to blame God for their sin, but it was still their choice and their arrogance that is the cause of their behavior, not God. They are responsible and they are the ones suppressing the truth that God has written onto their heart.
I don't want to worship a God of my creation, I want to worship God. I am a sinner, and if I pick and choose what parts of the bible I heed, I am going to worship wishful thinking, and not transformational truth.
I listen quite a bit to Alistair Begg, and do like him. I've listened to (and watched) Mark Kielar, and think he's just enough OFF in a subtle way to be dangerous. And I think you're right that many of today's preachers teach FAITH, and THAT'S what brings people to Christ. My critique is of Calvin and Calvinism. His TULIP, and his history and his Institutions. The message may have changed in modern times, and if so, I am glad for it. And if so, this is an outdated argument by about 500 years or so ;).
GOD CHANGES PEOPLE'S HEARTS. Absolutely. I in no way could ever argue against that. That in no way is what I am saying in the least, and I in no way have ever said that we come to God solely on our own, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, though, there comes a moment of free-will choice. I think we both agree with that. From the discussions I've had with some of the reformed theology, that free-will choice doesn't exist, because they feel it undermines the sovereignty of God. We've had discussions about how Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, if it was perfect. They feel that the Fall was part of God's original design. These are VERY well-educated people, people who have initimate knowledge of Calvin's teachings. They are who have inspired my "debates". Because God, even though He fore-knew the Fall, did not CAUSE or PLAN the fall of man. It is not logical, it is not possible. WE fell, of our own free will.
I was reading Justin Martyr's First Apology, a first century Christian and Church Father. It's interesting, but he expounds on this idea of predestination quite a bit, back around 150 AD. I always find it important to go back to the Church Fathers... those Christians at the dawn of the Christian faith, who were handed down the knowledge directly from the Apostles. To my mind, they interpret scripture the most PURELY. Here's what he says:
"And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received— of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that, in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of fellowship with Him. For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith.
For He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born. In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative.
But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed."
One last thing, then I'm done blabbering at you ;). I just had a thought about something you wrote...
"Doubtlessly, there is a lot of scriptural support for both sides of the argument. Unless we clip out certain verses we have to admit that both positions have an element of truth to them." So, the Bible, which we know CAN'T be wrong (as we accept by faith), can be INTERPRETED different ways. The Bible doesn't ever contradict itself in matters of faith, even if it appears to us as if it does. So the only thing that can be in err is our interpretation.
My question, then, is... on whose AUTHORITY is Calvin's interpretation's based? His own? If so, who gave that authority to him? This, I fear, is an ENORMOUS problem in the church today. Everyone reads into a passage exactly what they want it to mean. It's easy to do. And if the church I'm going to doesn't interpret things how I think they should, I'll just break off and start my own. Thus the hundreds of thousands of different "relgions" that all claim to be Christian.
Because of this simple fact, I am a strong and firm believer in Apostolic Succession. Because it makes sense to me. If I want to perserve the truth, and have it understood how I MEANT IT, then I will choose my select people, and make sure they get it EXACTLY right. They will in turn teach it to the next generation, and the next, in an unconnected chain, so that it does not get diluted or changed over time. The message stays PURE. THAT'S why I always seem to go back to the early church, I guess. Jesus granted His authority to the 12 - to preach the good news, to heal the sick, to bind in Heaven that which they bind on earth. They in turn granted that same authority to those they specifically chose and trained, and so on and so on. So that not just any joe on the street could say, "Oh yeah, but I think it means THIS." The early church writings are very particular that not just ANYONE fill a vacancy, but someone who had been taught by someone else who had the authority to teach him. For the same basic reason, it's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. We can't even stick to what our Founding Fathers intended in that document, and it's only 240 years old!
I guess, then, my next question would be what is meant by a "reformed" theology. Doesn't that imply a reformation back to an original? As in, what the original Christians taught and believed? Or does it actually mean reforming into something completely new?
For me, personally, I choose to stick to the view supported by Apostolic succession, and the early Christians, and the chain that can be traced right back 2000 years to the people who directly received the news from Christ himself.
I would argue that Calvin didn't come up with the ideas here. Augustine certainly expressed the same interpretation on many issues.
Moreover, it is important to note that TULIP was not Calvin's idea. He was long dead by the time that description was built, and the TULIP was built as a point by point rebuttal to 5 points put forward by the opponents of his teaching. - Not the best way to build a theology, and not the way that Calvin taught it.. If you want to challenge Calvin, you gotta go to the Institutes, not an acronym.
Calvin was a student of William Farel who was a student of Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, who was a Catholic Priest. The Reformation didn't spring up with Luther -- There where are a long list of pro-reformation priests. A significantly smaller portion where willing to risk be excommunicated to make their point.
The simple fact of the matter was that the Church was often more concerned with the politics and power within Europe, and Jesus had taken a back seat to the politics. A Jesus centered Priest is going to mention his concerns to his students. Thus the protestant reformation does not necessarily break the apostolic succession.
I am not sure that Apostolic succession is supported by scripture. Apollos for example wasn't rebuked, but was praised in spite of the fact he didn't have the whole story. Since he didn't have the whole story, we have to assume he was not trained and sent by Peter or the Church.
I don't deny that there are hypercalvinists who are dangerous and wrongheaded. Stick with guys like Alister Begg, and you will get a pretty good picture of the power and truth and love that comes out of the Doctrines of Grace.
Just a quick comment (OK. I wouldn't be able to write a quick comment if my life depended on it)... I agree with you that the church strayed from being Christ centered in the Middle Ages, and that there were many reformers inside the church struglging to combat that. Politics invaded the church. That's why our founding father's separated Church and State... not that the church would corrupt the state, but Vice-Versa. The key, though, is that the THEOLOGY of the church didn't change (it CAN'T be added to, from the moment the last Apostle died. That's the Church's credo). It can be explained, but it can't change. So even if "bad" people got in, they might act in evil ways (which they did), and use the church for wrong purposes (which they did), but they can't change the theology of the church itself. The church isn't set up to allow that. It's protected. So the reformers inside the church were trying to get the church back on track not theologically, but environmentally (although they THOUGHT it was theologically), which was wholly appropriate. They were trying to restore the CULTURE of the church, which absolutely needed restored. GK Chesterton once wrote that "the reformer is often right about what is wrong, but usually wrong about how to make it right". The problem with Luther and those that came after (and I have to admit that I attend a Lutheran church every other week - so I am in no way saying that non-Catholics are TOTALLY WRONG) are that they changed THEOLOGY in their effort to change CULTURE. They had to deny the authority of the church in order to get away from the church, and then they had to get rid of some of the books of the Bible to justify why they were getting rid of some of the traditions of the Church, and then they had to add a few words to get away from a cultural interpretation of the church that had got bent out of proportion (faith vs works)... and then in reaction, they started trying to be DIFFERENT from Catholicism for the sake of being DIFFERENT, and got rid of the sacraments and liturgy... on and on and on. So that the Theology got changed and diluted. And I feel, sadly (another post in the making here), that it's just diluting the power of the Christian church to wage war against Satan. It's taking away all the gifts Christ gave us for that battle. This is just my interpretation, by the way, such as it is. So while we are all Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and I respect deeply those Brothers and Sisters ,and admire their faith (which OFTEN far surpasses my own!!!) I feel like theologically, the FULL picture is the one that has been handed down through the generations from the time of Christ. I guess I see it as a matter of FULLNESS. That's really a totally different conversation than the one we started, though.
Apostolic Succession - look at how they replaced Judas. It had to be from one of the 72, one who had been with them from the beginning. Someone who had known Jesus. That's the first apostolic succession, really, although not for a formal church office per se. The earliest of Christian writers confirm the importance of Apostolic Succession. Clement of Rome (AD 95)
"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).
There are countless other references - but this one was written 25 years or so after St. John the Apostle died. Clement was taught and ordained by St. Peter himself, so... I'm assuming he's a good source for such things.
One last quick (I swear!!!) comment in reference to what you said here: "A Jesus centered Priest is going to mention his concerns to his students. Thus the protestant reformation does not necessarily break the apostolic succession. "
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura DOES break apostolic succession. It says that the ONLY authority is scripture - scripture alone. Not the church (where the deposit of faith is passed down from generation to generation through apostolic succession). But do you see how if we say "Scripture alone" we have to get rid of a whole other set of "tools" given to us by Christ? Namely, the authority and interpretation as handed down through the generations? Just a thought. But there again, Luther HAD to say "Scripture Alone", because once excommunicated from church, he had nowhere else to go. He couldn't say the church has authority when he no longer had any part of the church. So what was the new authority? Thus Sola Scriptura. I wrote a whole post on this here, if you're interested. I'd certainly invite any comments you had about that(as always): http://monicaaho.blogspot.com/2008/01/g.html
Couple comments...
Sola Scriptura does not undermine all other authority. It just requires all other authority to submit to scripture. If authority teaches something that contradicts scripture it is assumed to be in error, not the other way around.
This doesn't conflict with apostolic succession unless the apostles are teaching something that contradicts scripture.
As you admit, the church did go astray. I suspect that Calvin, Luther and others where rightly taught about what was wrong. I am happy to admit that they did go to far in many cases -- Jesus has one church, And we need to focus on him and bring as much reconciliation as possible, calling one another to repent and reform.. The reformers in general demonized the Catholic church, which was probably overstepping reality.
Many of Luther's works where written before he was excommunicated, and frankly I don't think his intention was to break away from the Catholic Church. His intention was to be able to call his congregation to repentance without them playing the "indulgence" card. Sin destroys, no matter how we justify it.
Nailing the 95 points to the church door was a means of stimulating discussion in a university type environment. It wasn't an act of outright defiance. As the church became more and more hostile towards him, he did become more politically defiant.
Post a Comment