Calvin: Free Will Combined With Divine Grace Is Corruption

“We must, therefore, remember what we quoted from Augustine, that some men labor in vain to find in the human will some good quality properly belonging to it. Any intermixture which men attempt to make by conjoining the effort of their own will with divine grace is corruption, just as when unwholesome and muddy water is used to dilute wine.”   [Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Book Two, Chapter 5, Section 15]

The illustration Calvin used in the above quote is very powerful.  It clearly explains what would happen if God’s election had to be combined with our free will choice to accomplish our salvation.  Anytime you combine something that is pure with something that is not pure, the end product is no longer pure.  It is impossible for the pure to remain pure.  God’s election is pure, our will is impure (totally depraved).  So, we can now see that God’s election cannot be combined in any way with our will (even in the most minuscule amount) to accomplish our salvation.  This means that if we have to cooperate (accept the free gift, seek Him, give our lives to Him, ask Him into our heart, etc.) with God in accomplishing our salvation then we cannot be saved.

Libertarian free will is a hot button issue today.  It is the first objection usually posed against reformed theology.  Do we have free will?  If so, in what measure?  If not, are we robots?  Proponents of libertarian free will are very dedicated to it.  In fact, it is nearly impossible to change their mind….only the truth of God’s word can do it.

What do you think if Calvin’s illustration?

Is Matthew 1:21 A Valid “Proof text” For The Reformed Believer Or Not?

One of the verses that I often cite when explaining my transition to a reformed theological position is Matthew 1:21.  The context of his verse is an angel telling Joseph that Mary has not been unfaithful to him and that the child she is carrying of the Holy Spirit.  The angel tells Joseph what to name the child and for what reason the Holy Spirit has supernaturally impregnated her.  See for yourself:

Matthew 1:18-25 (18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.  (19)  And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.  (20)  But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.  (21)  She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”  (22)  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:  (23)  “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).  (24)  When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,  (25)  but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Verse 21 conveys a very specific message.  It says that “He will save His people”.  Note that it does not say that” He will make them savable” or “He will make salvation possible”.  I need to make this distinction because of an article recently posted over at Society of Evangelical Arminians under the title of “Matthew 1:21:  How Calvinists Blind Side A Text“.  As you can imagine, the title caught my eye so I read it.  It is a short article but it gives a good understanding of what the Arminian postition is.  The Article starts with the following paragraph:

One of the more inane prooftexts for Calvinism is Matt 1:21, “…for he will save his people from their sins.” Calvinists argue that this is a statement of definiteness, that it does not say that Jesus will merely provide the opportunity of salvation for “his people,” but instead, that Jesus will definitely save his people. They claim that this flies in the face of Arminian assertions that through Jesus, God provides a way for everyone to be saved.

The quick Arminian retort is simple: “What!? Do you Calvinists think that Arminians deny that Jesus will definitely save his people??? Of course, we Arminians affirm that Jesus will definitely save his people, just as the text says.”

The author correctly and briefly begins by stating the Calvinist position on this verse.  (For those who might be wondering the word inane means:  lacking significance, meaning, or point, i.e. silly).  He also addresses a common objection Calvinists present to Arminianism:  that in Arminian theology Christ’s death only makes salvation possible, it does not directly save anyone.

In my own personal experience, which includes believing in this way myself and then, once I accepted Reformed Theology,  discussing this topic with others who still hold this view, most will say the same thing the author does.  They will quickly and easily affirm that Jesus’ death will save His people.  But, when questioned on specifics of how, most actually come to the position that Jesus’ death only makes salvation possible.  At which point most who believe this way no longer want to continue the discussion because they see the hole in their theology but are unwilling to address it.

The author continues

The ultimate question is a matter of defining “his people.” Indeed, in Matthew’s Gospel, the issue which is pounded is whether “his people” consists of Abraham’s descendants only, or whether “his people” is actually the community of faith, consisting of both Jew and Gentile believers; obviously, Matthew favours the latter position.

I agree with him here that the ultimate question is who makes up His people.  This brings us to the point of Election.  Who gets to define who His people are?  Do we or does He?  It is my contention that only God, as Creator, has that right.  The Creator is always greater than the creation.

If you say that His people are defined by us, then that brings up several questions that must be answered.  How can God be truly sovereign if we have the power to decide who make up His people?  Why would Jesus choose to bear, on the cross,  the sins of those whom He knew would never choose Him?  If Jesus did bear, on the cross, the sins of those who would not choose Him then on what basis does God punish them (because the penalty has already been paid by Jesus)?

In conclusion, Matthew 1:21 is a Calvinist proof text.  The author of the post has missed the point of what is being proven though.  It proves that there is a definite group of people who are known as His people.  We must then move on to find out who these people are and how they become and stay His people.

Do you agree with my assessment?  If not, why?  What is your understanding?

Does Calvinism Teach That We Are Forced To Become Believers

One of the most common objections to Reformed Theology (Calvinism) used by non-Calvinists is that Calvinism teaches that God forces people to become believers.  This objection is completely false.  I feel the need to address this objection again in light of a comment made by my Pastor during his Sunday morning sermon on 9/28/08.  He made the comment that God does not force anyone to become a believer.  He was not talking about Calvinism or Election and the comment seemed a bit out of place.

People who use this objection are confusing regeneration and salvation.  I think this is the error my Pastor made during his sermon.  People hear the term Irresistible Grace and they immediately jump to the conclusion that it refers to salvation.  It does not, it refers to regeneration.  I made this error myself until I was better informed.

Calvinists teach that regeneration is the first step in the process of salvation.  It has to be the first step because of our spiritual condition as unbelievers.  Ephesians 2:1-7 says

“(1) And you were dead in the trespasses and sins (2)  in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience–  (3)  among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.  (4)  But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,  (5)  even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved–  (6)  and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,  (7)  so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.”

Before we can be saved we must be made alive again.  Until we are made alive (regenerated) we cannot respond to the Gospel.  God regenerates those He has chosen.  Ephesians 1:3-6

“(3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, (4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love (5) he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (6) to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.“

In regeneration, God removes the persons heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26-27).  He also gives them a new will (nature) (2 Corinthians 5:17) which is no longer a slave to sin.  This new will (nature) can, and does, now choose God and when it hears the Gospel proclaimed.  God does not force a person to become a believer against their will.  As you can see, Calvinists teach that believers have a choice.  The difference is that God knows that they will choose Him because He has already elected them before He created anything.

I hope this clarifies this issue some for those who might be struggling with this objection to Calvinism.  I know until I understood this, I had a hard time with Calvinism.  It was one of the main things that I had to overcome before I could accept the Calvinistic theology.  Please feel free to point out anything that I need to clarify or do a better job explaining.

Need Suggestions For A Good Study Of The Book Of Revelation

I am looking for suggestions for a good study of the Book of Revelation for my adult Sunday School class.   Any format (book, audio, or video) will be considered.  Please leave the name of anything you might recommend in a comment.  A brief explanation as to why you like it would also be helpful.

Thanks for your help

Is The Teaching Of Theology “Weak” In The SBC?

There seems to be a general conception that the SBC is weak on theology.  I first encountered this claim several years ago from a co-worker.  I don’t remember the context of the conversation but one comment he made has stuck with me ever since.  He was a Presbyterian and he made the comment that Baptists did not know theology.  At the time, it did not concern me because I did not think theology was an important topic.  I was very uninformed!

Recently, The White Horse Inn played some question and answers they did with some pastors at a conference.  I don’t remember the date of the show or the date of the conference where they did the interviews and I don’t know the denominational affiliation of all the pastors interviewed but I was shocked to hear some of the answers these pastors gave.  The interviewers asked the pastors if their congregation would be able to define certain theological doctrines.  Most of the pastors said some could and some could not but it seemed that many of them also noted that they don’t use the theological terms and that their congregations might not recognize the term but would know the concept.

With the last couple weeks, I had a member of my Sunday School class ask me what the point was in studying theology.  I can relate to the question because I had asked the same question myself only a couple years ago.  Her point was that by studying theology we can go to far into legalism and create divisions within the body of Christ.  After all, we have the Bible, so why spend the time on theology.  I have encountered this same thought in other people as well.

Now, to the point, Is the teaching of theology “weak” in the SBC?  In some churches the answer would be yes but in others it would be no.  There are many very good Pastors (some well known and others not well known) at SBC churches who strive to teach the truths taught in the Bible.  Some use the theological vocabulary and some don’t. Either way, sound preaching leads to sound doctrine or theology.  Sound theology is essential to someone growing in Christ.

I think that problem lies more with the individuals in the congregation than with the pastors.  The congregation has to spend time on their own exploring what is taught from he pulpit by comparing it to what the Scriptures say.  If people faithfully do this, then they can’t avoid studying theology.  If they don’t then they will never gain and understanding of what they claim to believe.  We must strive as church leaders to motivate our brothers and sisters to dig into the Word on their own.  Once they do this, we can overcome the reputation that the SBC is weak on theology.

What do you think?  Have you come across the same sentiments?

The New Hampshire Confession Of Faith: #2 Of the True God

We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God, an infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is JEHOVAH, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and earth (7); inexpressibly glorious in holiness (8), and worthy of all possible honor, confidence, and love (9); that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (10); equal in every divine perfection (11), and executing distinct and harmonious offices in the great work of redemption (12).

 

——–

(7) John 4:24; Psa. 147:5; 83:18; Heb. 3:4; Rom. 1:20; Jer. 10:10

(8) Exod. 15:11; Isa. 6:3; 1 Pet. 1:15-16; Rev. 4:6-8

(9) Mark 12:30; Rev. 4:11; Matt. 10:37; Jer. 2:12-13

(10) Matt. 28:19; John 15:26; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 John 5:7

(11) John 10:30; 5:17; 14:23; 17:5, 10; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Phil. 2:5-6

(12) Eph. 2:18; 2 Cor. 13:14; Rev. 1:4-5; comp. 2, 7

The Future Of Calvinism & Arminianism In The SBC

Billy over at Classical Arminianism has put forth what he thinks will happen in the SBC theologically in the next 10 years of so (you can read the full article here).  He says:

“The real question at hand is, Can two opposing theological systems abide with equal force within one denomination today as it once did? Or will one theology “win out” over the other? I am not a prophet, but in my opinion, in the next ten to twenty years, I forsee the SBC being predominantly Calvinist in her theology;”

From my perspective, I hope that he is right.  I know that he is not thrilled about the possibility of the SBC becoming more Calvinistic in its theology.  He has stated that he will leave the SBC before or when this happens.  

What is your opinion?  Will it be a good thing for the SBC to become more Calvinistic or will it cause a split?  Will the denomination grow or decline if it becomes more Calvinistic?

John Calvin On The Depraved Nature of All Men

For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14:3, &c).  What?  Can you exempt yourself from the number of those whose feet are swift to shed blood; whose hands are foul with rapine and murder; whose throats are like open sepulchres; whose tongues are deceitful; whose lips are venomous; whose actions are useless, unjust, rotten, deadly; whose soul is without God; whose inward parts are full of wickedness; whose eyes are on the watch for deception; whose minds are prepared for insult; whose every part, in short, is framed for endless deeds of wickedness? If every soul is capable of such abominations (and the Apostle declares this boldly), it is surely easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit human passion to follow its bent.……..In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things……Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure. [1]

Bad things happen in our world everyday.  Bad people exist.  With that said, we must realize that it could be worse…much worse.  It is only God that stops it from being worse.

We don’t often think of God’s grace in this way.  We usually think of it in relation to what He has done for the elect.  This aspect of God’s grace is no less important.  We need to focus on this aspect of God’s grace from time to time.

—————–

[1]  The Institutes Of The Christian Religion by John Calvin, translated by Henry Beveridge, Book Two, Chapter 3, Section 3

The New Hampshire Confession Of Faith: #1 Of The Scriptures

Of the Scriptures We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction (1); that it has God for its author, salvation for its end (2), and truth without any mixture of error for its matter (3); that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us (4); and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union (5), and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried (6).

———-

1. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Sam. 23:2; Acts 1:16; 3:21; John 10:35; Luke 16:29-31; Psa. 119:11; Rom. 3:1-2

2. 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Acts 11:14; Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:16; John 5:38-39

3. Prov. 30:5-6; John 17:17; Rev. 22:18-19; Rom. 3:4

4. Rom. 2:12; John 12:47-48; 1 Cor. 4:3-4; Luke 10:10-16; 12:47-48

5. Phil. 3:16; Eph. 4:3-6; Phil. 2:1-2; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Pet. 4:11

6. 1 John 4:1; Isa. 8:20; 1 Thess. 5:21; 2 Cor. 8:5; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:6; Jude 3:5; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 119:59-60; Phil. 1:9-11

The Atonement: Universal or Particular (Limited)?

This is one of the “hot button” issues in the debate between reformed and non-reformed believers.

Reformed (Calvinistic) brothers believe in a particular (or limited) atonement. They say Jesus died on the cross to save only the Elect.  That He accomplished His intended task which was to save the Elect.  They cite verses like Matthew 1:21 to make this point.  It says “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” [emphasis added] This position says that only the Elect will have the opportunity to be saved and that all the Elect will be saved because this was the intention from the beginning.

Non-reformed (Arminian) brothers believe in a universal atonement.  They say that Jesus died for every and all men but that the atonement is only effectual on those who knowingly and willingly accept it.  This position basically says that everybody will have an opportunity to accept the call to salvation but only some will do so.  They cite verses like John 3:16 to make this point.  It says “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [emphasis added]  This position says that people must agree to accept the gift of the atonement before it is applied to them.  Basically it says that Jesus died only to make salvation possible for all people.

This was a very brief description of the two alternatives.  Much longer posts could be written about both positions but that is not my purpose here.  I have a simple purpose:  to get you to share what your position you hold and why.  So here is the question:  DID JESUS DIE TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE OR TO MAKE SALVATION POSSIBLE FOR ALL PEOPLE?  DO YOU BELIEVE IN UNIVERSAL OR PARTICULAR ATONEMENT?  WHY?  PLEASE GIVE YOUR REASONS (WHATEVER THEY MAY BE).