Hello all:
I’ve noticed a revival of Calvinism in the Church. I was in a teen class the other day listening to our new youth minister talk about predestination. John Mark Hicks has written an article on Calvinism vs. Arminianism on his website. The Christian Standard is running a whole series looking at Calvinism (very critically, I might add).
We in Churches of Christ are historically Arminian in our soteriological point of view. The Baptist embrace of Calvinism really turned Campbell off because he and many Christians couldn’t express a conversion experience that the Calvinism of the time required. Is this a point in our theology that we need to reevaluate? What is driving many to question this point of our beliefs?
Tell me what you think.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
March 8th, 2007 at 5:07
Hi Clarke,
I think both sides have some difficult passages to deal with. And I think sometimes both sides are less than intellectually honest with their difficult passages.
Both sets of difficult passages are truth from God.
We cannot earn salvation. Forgiveness is inherently undeserved. But that doesn’t mean that God is not free to place conditions on forgiveness.
Somehow, we will reap what we sow (Gal 6:7) Only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 7:21) Those who taste the heavenly gift and share in the Holy Spirit can still fall away (Heb 6:4-7) Those who have escaped the corruption of the world and come to know Jesus can still become entangled in the world and be overcome, ending up in a worse state than they were before they knew Jesus. (2 Pet 2:22). It is those who hold firmly to the end who will share in Christ.
Somehow, we are predestined. God knows the future, and can even be said to have caused it. When he forgave the Jews under the old covenant, he did so because Jesus would pay the penalty for their sins in the future. He chose to do things to Pharaoh that he knew would harden Pharaoh’s heart, before he did them. And he had the right to do those things. We have a hard time understanding God’s ethics because we cannot see the future like He can. We have no similar experience with which to relate to God. God clearly knows the future and takes it into account in his dealings with us.
I think God told us as much as we could understand, and even a bit more than many of us can. We just need to accept that both sets of difficult passages are completely true, and then admit we don’t understand all the corner cases.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:30
Excellent reply Alan. You nailed it. I eventually became Lutheran as a result of reaching the same conclusion. When I was going through catechesis, I asked my Pastor how this issue should be understood. He presented the arguments from both sides; Calvinism on one side of the chalkboard and Arminianism on the other side. After going through the arguments, he placed a big question mark in the middle of board and said, “that’s how Lutherans resolve the issue.” That’s not to say that the issues shouldn’t be discussed, and anyone who knows Luther knows he was a monergist, but how that monergism plays out with personal responsibility for sin is something that I don’t think people will ever be able to completely comprehend.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:21
i, too, have noticed a resurgence of Calvinism–especially among my younger friends. People in their early twenties that i know seem to have very little trouble accepting that some people are just “born to burn” (as one of them put it to me). These people are cutting their teeth on books like “Blue Like Jazz” and other neo-Calvinist material.
i think we have rightly rejected Calvinism. But i honestly haven’t seen that many of our people ever tried to offer a systemization of our beliefs that at least “competes” on a level as deep as Calvinism. i’m not saying i think we’re obligated to compete per se. It’s just that if you get deep into reformed literature at all, you realize they are dealing with concepts and implications and sweeping characteristics within their own views that plunge into far deeper thought than the shallow waters in which most of our members tread. i think as a result, many of us can’t really wrestle with questions that are important to Calvinists.
KC Moser is the only person i’ve encountered who at least seemed to present something rather tangible with regards to soteriology. All our other “heavy-hitters” seemed to basically admit to believing in justification-by-merit.
i will say this though, i’ve been reading a lot of Calvinist literature on the topic of apologetics in recent years, and i’ve come to believe that (minus the calvinism) the basic presuppositional approach is the most biblical one. And i believe it’s significant because it’s an approach which does make us deal with some of these larger theological issues (though i dont’ believe you have to embrace the Calvinist’s answers to those issues in order to take the presuppositional approach).
As far as predestination is concerned, i’ve started leaning more and more in recent years toward the idea that most of the passages we read about predestination had to do with election to service rather than to salvation.
Lastly, a question i have asked myself recently is, could a person believe that Calvinism was true and still be a NT Christian? In my understanding, if they came to Christ in repentance, baptism for the remission of sins and faith, i can’t see how i could say no to that question.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:19
Guy,
The best Arminian book I read while studying the issue was Grace, Faith, Free Will by Robert Picirilli. He is a Free Will Baptist and does a good job of presenting Arminianism in a way that corrects a lot of the neo-Pelagian tendencies of the contemporary Church. I obviously ended up unconvinced of his arguments, but it was a very solid illucidation of historical Arminianism. On the Calvinist side I found Lorraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination to be an excellent resource. In the end, I concluded that both theologies lean too much on systematics.
Adam
March 8th, 2007 at 10:41
well..maybe to your disappointment, i might fit into that neo-pelagian category as far as the state of an infant is concerned. but maybe a lot of CoCers would almost think i sounded like a calvinist when i talk about my view of the state of the lost is.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:51
Naaaah…I’m not disappointed. My parents are Southeran Baptist and you should be around for some of the more spirited “discussions” we’ve had.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:54
Guy:
John Mark Hicks addresses your idea of election to service instead of to salvation in his paper that I linked to above. In the S-C movement, that position is a minority one, but interesting!
-Clarke
March 8th, 2007 at 16:40
Yeah, i’ve read Hicks’ paper, and the mention seemed only brief. i appreciated his lengthy treatment on KC Moser’s work, but thus far i haven’t read much else from him that i felt was terribly meaty, but i admit my reading of him consists of maybe half a dozen articles thus far.
I’ve really enjoyed the Calvinist/Arminian stuff i’ve read from Jack Cottrell (What the Bible says about God the Ruler and another online essay or two).
i had felt for years that Romans 9-11 dealt primarily with the Jew/Gentile issue (to put it in a crude, oversimplified nutshell). And recently i’ve seen how Ephesians 1 could also be taken this way if you follow the “we”s and “you”s carefully enough.
i will say i side with the Calvinists in rejecting open theism. i think open theism entails a God that is far harder to defend apologetically. And i more or less like what Calvin has to say about the regulative principle. And as i said before, i think their apologetics are on the right track. So even though i reject their soteriological ideas, i’m certainly not claiming that there’s nothing to learn there.
March 8th, 2007 at 19:37
I don’t have too much to add here, that has not already been said but I can tell you the battle I had in my head over the whole Arminian/Calvinist debacle almost drove me from the faith.
“I think both sides have some difficult passages to deal with. And I think sometimes both sides are less than intellectually honest with their difficult passages.”
Right on Alan, it tends to happen when we approach scripture with a a tainted or preconceived notion looking to justify what we already believe. I of course am not speaking for all but sometimes we work out a passage just to make sure it fits in our Arminian stance or our church of Christ stance.
Good thoughts by all.
March 8th, 2007 at 23:40
One thing which has not been thought about is what if went with our hearts instead of our heads. Even before we aproach the scriptures is not the thoughts of God and the after life on our minds. Don’t we need to feel Gods presence before we read his words?
To me the Spirit and election are insepartable. Who wants to guess that Cornelius, or Mark or Luke fouled up at the end and are not going to heaven. Or what about the copyist of the Bible, those in the reformation and the restoration.
What about you and me? If we have purpose we have salvation if we are in the Lords will we have hope. Baptised or not, right church or not, scholar or not, sinful or not, doing the right things or not. I’m not talking about provoking God but rather giving up on ourselves as ultimate interpreters and thelogical partners of God.
Isn’t true no perfect church
no perfect translation
no perfect interpretation
I believe this is why the churches of Christ now some what humbled by embarrassing past views seek a God with wider arms and a more gracious spirit. Simply put we no longer felt that God was near.
March 11th, 2007 at 4:17
Clarke,
Thanks for bringing up the subject. I think Acts 17:26-27 sums up the confluence of God’s sovereignty and man’s choice.
26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
V26 says God “determined” and v27 says “men would seek…reach out…and find him.” V26 certainly gives a nod to God’s power and hand in matters. V27 Tells us that within the V26 framework, we must choose.
I do not see it as an “either God is sovereign or man has a choice” argument. It has elements of both. That is why I tend to lean to the side of Arminianism. Classic Calvinism does not allow for a hybrid, Arminianism does.
Sincerely,
Phil
March 12th, 2007 at 4:13
Great point, Phil
March 17th, 2007 at 9:48
Yes, I believe there is a rebirth of interest in Calvinism, but I think we’re looking for an explanation that is unnecessarily complicated. Most people do not think deeply enough these days about theology at all to have a clear understanding of what they believe. They simply hear or read something they like the sound of and latch onto it. Many people, unfortunately including many preachers and Sunday School teachers, who express Calvinist ideas wouldn’t even be able to explain the basic concepts of either Calvinism or Arminianism. The problem is that we Arminians have virtually abandoned Christian Radio and, to some degree, even Christian publishing to the Calvinists to the point that many people have simply not heard any opposing viewpoint. We must do a better job of publishing and broadcasting so that people who hear Calvinist ideas don’t mistake them for mere Christianity! Thank you for this website, which is certainly a major step in the right direction.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:01
i’ve been thinking about canonicity recently, and i’ve been asking myself, if the Calvinistic view of sovereignty is true, then why are there any such things as textual variants or rival “candidates” for NT books? Shouldn’t God have been able to make sure there weren’t such?
But i have to admit i have a “strong” enough view of sovereignty that those questions don’t really lose their force with me either.
March 31st, 2007 at 16:21
The issue with the Calvinist view of Sovereignty is that they make Sovereignty mean willy-nilly and arbitrary. Quite the contrary, a sovereign makes a law and follows it. Look at even the bad kings of the Bible, like the one who threw Daniel in the lions’ den. He was forced to it, because he make a law stating such would be done to anyone who prayed, and it just so happened that his buddy Daniel prayed. So, he had to follow his own law.
But the Calvinists expect us to believe that after God has revealed in his word that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, that God will then arbitrarily rebirth a man of Spirit only without water. They teach that John 3:8 means the Holy Spirit arbitrarily rebirths people with no reference to anything about them save election.
Now, if it was the Holy Spirit who sovereignly refused to rebirth Nicodemus, why was Jesus arguing with Nicodemus rather than the Spirit?
It is clear, even simply by virtue of the fact that Jesus had this discussion with Nicodemus rather than with the Holy Spirit, that Nicodemus knew HOW to be reborn but REFUSED to do it. And contextually from what happens immediately afterwords we find that he was rejecting rebirth by rejecting John’s baptism, for Jesus says “if I tell you earthly things and you believe not” then John the Baptists says “I am of the earth and speak earthly things” indicating what earthly things Jesus was telling Nicodemus, namely that the rebirth of water and of the Spirit could be had in John’s Baptism.
March 31st, 2007 at 16:27
I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and I suppose some who think they are Arminian, are in fact not. Arminius believed exactly as Calvin in total inherited depravity and also in individual election of men to salvation. I believe, however, that God elected the church and those who enter the church become elect by virtue of being in the church.
Now, Paul argues that Jesus is the singular seed of Abraham “for he says not seedS as of many, but seed, which is Christ” yet although Jesus ALONE is the seed of Abraham, Christians are called the seed of Abraham by virtue of being in Christ. “If ye are in Christ, then are ye heirs” and “If ye be Christ’s then ye are Abraham’s seed”–I view election the same way. Christ is the sole elect. I am elect only by virtue of being in him. Therefore, the non-elect become elect when they obey the gospel and enter into Christ. Some term this corporate election. It is the logical third option to Calvinism and Arminianism, both of which are utterly confused by their emphasis on the individual rather than on Christ.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:44
I have spent a lot of time wrestling with this issue in recent years. It seems to me that the issue stands or falls on total depravity, and what constitutes a work. Are we able to choose God? Is faith a work or is faith a vessel given to us by God for his grace? Everyone can agree we are not saved by works. I haven’t reached very strong conclusions because the Bible seems to teach both. I am leaning toward calvinism, but I think Luther said it best in his preface to the book of Romans:
“In chapters 9, 10 and 11, St. Paul teaches us about the eternal providence of God. It is the original source which determines who would believe and who wouldn’t, who can be set free from sin and who cannot. Such matters have been taken out of our hands and are put into God’s hands so that we might become virtuous. It is absolutely necessary that it be so, for we are so weak and unsure of ourselves that, if it depended on us, no human being would be saved. The devil would overpower all of us. But God is steadfast; his providence will not fail, and no one can prevent its realization. Therefore we have hope against sin.
But here we must shut the mouths of those sacriligeous and arrogant spirits who, mere beginners that they are, bring their reason to bear on this matter and commence, from their exalted position, to probe the abyss of divine providence and uselessly trouble themselves about whether they are predestined or not. These people must surely plunge to their ruin, since they will either despair or abandon themselves to a life of chance.
You, however, follow the reasoning of this letter in the order in which it is presented. Fix your attention first of all on Christ and the Gospel, so that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then struggle against sin, as chapters 1-8 have taught you to. Finally, when you have come, in chapter 8, under the shadow of the cross and suffering, they will teach you, in chapters 9-11, about providence and what a comfort it is. [The context here and in St. Paul’s letter makes it clear that this is the cross and passion, not only of Christ, but of each Christian.] Apart from suffering, the cross and the pangs of death, you cannot come to grips with providence without harm to yourself and secret anger against God. The old Adam must be quite dead before you can endure this matter and drink this strong wine. Therefore make sure you don’t drink wine while you are still a babe at the breast. There is a proper measure, time and age for understanding every doctrine.”
April 9th, 2007 at 8:52
One more comment why I am leaning toward calvinism is that I just have a hard time accepting the fact that we as fallen people can do anything to gain salvation, even if all we are doing is choosing Christ. The reason I haven’t fully embraced calvinism is it seems that, in the calvinistic system, God is holding us accoutable for Adam,s sin and punishing us for something we have no choice but to do, because we are sinners by nature, through Adam.
April 17th, 2007 at 23:03
Hi,
I am hold to the Calvinistic view of Soteriology However, I used to be an inconsistant Arminian (holding to 3 of the 5 points). Which when pressed I did not hold to any of the points as properly understood and systematized in the Reformed writings. It was said well that once you understand the Calvinistic teaching of Total Depravity everything else falls into place.From what I have read I am glad to see you have labeled the Church of Christ as Arminian in thier Soteriology. This is the first time I have heard someone claim to be so.
Atleast there is consistency in that system of belief. With that being said, I invite anyone who wants to discuss these differences biblically with me to email me a the1kfamily@yahoo.com