More churches are preaching Calvinism. This system of beliefs is a long-time canon of the Presbyterian, the Reformed, and the United Church of Christ doctrines, and is an important tenet in about half the Baptist churches. Most megachurches preach it, and most evangelical authors believe it. It is a growing phenomenon among evangelical churches, according to a New York Times article (January 3, 2014). But what is Calvinism?
The doctrine was created by John Calvin, who lived in the 16th century. Its primary theses are summarized in the word TULIP.
T=Man’s Total Depravity
U=God’s Unconditional Election
L=Christ’s Limited Atonement
I=The Holy Spirit’s Irresistible Grace
P=Preservation of the saints
I would like to summarize each in turn, as Calvinists see them.
Total Depravity, according to Calvinists, means mankind has no desire, or, more importantly, no ability, to approach God for salvation from his sin, which prevent God from admitting him in heaven--without help. Man has no free will. Man is spiritually dead, and is not interested—even cannot—be born again or accept Christ. Consequently, the only way he can be saved is for God to take the initiative. Not from friends, nor evangelists. The seed they attempt to sow falls on a dead plain. God has to initiate.
Unconditional Election means God made a choice to save certain people before they were even born, without regard for any future works of theirs, good or evil, being part of His decision about who would go to heaven, who would go to hell. They were “predestined” for their final destination. The people He chose for heaven was a totally arbitrary move on His part; the decision was made before they were born. Those who would be ultimately saved were the "elect."
Limited Atonement: Jesus did not die for everyone; only for His ultimately saved elect people.
Irresistible Grace: God’s action to save a person who is predestined for heaven cannot be resisted by that person. Since they were elected, and predestined to enter heaven, God will not have His choice denied.
Perseverance of the saints: God keeps His people so they can never be lost. Once you are saved, you are always saved.
I would like to comment on each of these points, proving that they are not taught in Scripture. On several point, Scripture teaches the opposite, in fact. (I have another blog on John Calvin, if you’d like to know what manner of man he was.)
Total Depravity
Several of Calvin’s doctrines teach that man does not have a free choice. Calvinism teaches that man cannot approach God; God has to approach man. Abundant Scriptures dispute this. Consider Revelation 22:17:
And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
As the verse implies, "let him who thirsts...desires, take the water," we can have a desire for Christ and see our need because of our sin. The original King James says “Whosoever will…take the water of life…” That means “whosoever wills their mind to it, or “whosoever has a desire to…” God would not call us like this, unless we can respond. To think otherwise would be a cruel hoax on God's part. It’s our choice. We have the power to will ourselves to turn to God. In Deuteronomy 30:19 God says, “Choose life.” Joshua 24:15 says, “Choose this day whom you will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” In John 5:40 Jesus says,
But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
Would Jesus have said that if it were impossible to do, if we presumably are not able? Of course not.
Calvinists love to cite John 6:44:
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
There, they say, the Father must draw us first. But they fail to mention John 12:32, which explains what Jesus meant by being “drawn.”
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.
His crucifixion (and resurrection) does the drawing. Not some choice God made before we were born. Also, note the importance of that little word “all.” Truly a non-Calvin word.
Calvinists have another pair of favorite verses, John 12:39-40:
Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”
Folks, the idea that God blinds our eyes or erects obstacles to people wanting to be saved from their sin is slander to His character. Let’s not forget II Peter 3:9 about God’s love for us and His wonderful desire for our fellowship:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
So what is the meaning of, “He has blinded their eyes?” Quite possibly, this word is Jew-specific. The Jews had proven, by earlier chapters in John (like chapters 7 and 8) that they blinded their own eyes. They hated Jesus from the start. He disrupted the system. The phrase “He has blinded” probably means God often sets us in a circumstance that lets us see or make public which side we’re on. If we choose against Christ in such a test, it is the choice we do on our own. What He is doing is, He will not just let us drift into hell without a display to ourselves of where we stand. If we don't want to see it at that point, that's on us. Such a test is to our own benefit because it hopefully makes us think of our choice, and hopefully change our mind at some point, or makes us fear judgment if we see that we are in rebellion to Christ.
So, we conclude that God would not blind our eyes, without us blinding Him. He would love it if ALL would be saved; that’s the patient desire of His heart.
Or, consider Romans 1, where people that are reprobate have blinded vision. Plenty of Jews were (and, sadly, are) in that category. Here's another verse: When Calvinists read Ephesians 2:8-9:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
They think that faith is the gift of God. And, of course, they then assume God provides the faith—nothing we initiate. Well, to dispute this, any Greek student who studies grammar will tell you that the sentence is set up so that grace is the gift of God. Yes, His grace is not of ourselves. But God provides grace to everyone, not just “the elect.” True, we, under this definition, cannot boast that we did something to earn God’s grace. But this is separate from having to make a choice to put our faith in Jesus.
On a side note, Calvinists argue that the words “free will” are not used in the Bible in connection of salvation. But the term is used 17 times in connection of offerings that we make to God, which we voluntarily give. That is a model of God’s intention. He does not like robots. He desires that we give ourselves to Him voluntarily, of our free will.
Unconditional Election
This is the Calvinist idea that God chose some of us to be saved, and His determination did not require any prior action of good works on our part; (they assume that we would claim to "deserve" salvation). It was unconditional love for the elect on His part (and unconditional bad news for the rest of humanity who were not so chosen. In effect, God chose them for hell). To dispute this, consider Romans 10:9:
…if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Well, does that place conditions on us to be saved? Of course. On the other hand, if God is making you open your mouth, and making you believe what He wants you to believe, then we would truly be robots. And we’ve already disputed that.
The favorite verses for this belief for Calvinists are Romans 9:10-18:
…when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
Calvinism tries to claim that Jacob was chosen to be saved by God’s election, unconditionally, beforehand--and Esau was not so chosen. But this is a New Testament quote from the Old Testament. Let’s look back, as we should always do, to get context, at the original Scriptures. We will find that the subject here is NOT salvation—and it is not even about Jacob or Esau! The first quote, “the older shall serve the younger” (see v. 12 above), was from Genesis 25:23. Here is the original verse:
And the Lord said to her (Rebekah, Isaac’s wife): “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.”
With the words “nations,” and “peoples” (twice), we see God is not talking about Jacob or Esau, but about their tribes of descendants. A very important find. You see, in later Scripture in Genesis, we don’t find Esau serving Jacob at any point (in fact, at one point, Jacob bows to him and gives him gifts). But we do see that the nation Israel (from Jacob) dominates over the nation Edom (from Esau). Thus, this entire quote is about nations. That’s what prophetically came true. Importantly, God can choose one nation to dominate over another without defying His rules on individual salvation.
The second quote, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” (v. 13 above) is found in Malachi 1:2-3. For context again, let’s take a look back, again, at the original:
"I have loved you,” says the Lord. “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the Lord. “Yet Jacob I have loved; 3 But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.”
Here again, the completion of the sentence put a whole different meaning on it: it refers to “mountains and his heritage”—thus, again, the nation, the descendants of Esau, are in view, not Esau himself. Consider also, the name Esau means "hairy;" and the word Edom (the nation) means "red." So he and the nation's DNA were red-haired folks. The words are tied together. So when you use the name, you could be referring to the ascendant of the nation. Thus, there is no clear evidence that God hated the man Esau. And thus, God does not doom a man before he is even born or “save” a man before he is born. Thus, His election in the Calvinistic manner of defining it does not stand. The Romans 9 verses, so loved by Calvinists, does not really say what they want it to say. The salvation of Jacob or Esau is not at issue as they think. To me, the answer is pretty clear: It simply makes no sense in God's character to say that He hated someone before they were born.
Let’s just talk a little about what brings about salvation in the Old Testament; Isaac was born of Abraham’s faith in God’s promise. It took faith to believe that they could have a son, since they were too old. Isaac was also born to a free woman, Abraham’s wife Sarah. Ishmael was born of a slave woman, born of Abraham’s weakness of the flesh.
Isaac, to show his faith, took a wife from God’s chosen people; Ishmael took a pagan wife. As you can see, they made choices. Faith in God produced salvation in the Old Testament.
God simply foreknew that Esau’s descendants would hate God, and worship idols (which is the case); so He chose the nation Israel to carry His Commandments and Old Covenant to the world, so people could see their sin before His judgment.
Let’s talk more about the big elephant in the room, the major flaw in Calvin's theology: how could God “un-elect,” and send a man to hell before he is even born? That’s what the election of a few, and thus the rejection of the majority, means. Such a thing is not His character, folks! All of His Word tells of His patience for all to turn to Him; He wants us to make a free choice.
For a Scriptural definition of predestination, look at Romans 8:29-30:
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
Note how it doesn’t begin as “whom He predestined, He foreknew...” It starts with His foreknowledge. What is foreknowledge? God is the master of time; He knows what every person in the world will do all their lives in all of history—before any of it happens. An incredible feat. What’s even neater, for us, is that He will inject Himself personally into our lives at just the right moment, doing everything with a goal of having us see His love for us and hopefully having us see the failure of the cultures of the broken world to keep us happy. Yes, He knew before we were born which of us would be saved. But foreknowledge does not mean that God was in control of our decision. He watched and wooed through time. He could see ahead of time that some of us would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. As a result, we were predestined for heaven. But even though He knew this before we were born, He never made the choice for us. He directs outside activity to help all of us lean His way, but some people still reject Him; and ultimately He has to watch us make a choice—for good or bad. Our election is our own.
Acknowledgement: The sermon of pastor Anderson, Five points of Calvinism Refuted, in 2013, has been softened, edited, and summarized. We've covered TU. See next week for the "LIP" of TULIP in Calvinism.
No comments:
Post a Comment