Exploring Theology

“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?

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.

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?

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).

How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil?  It may be said that such dangers are removed by carefully expounding the meaning to the people.  But such is the proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened discourse. [1]

Is this not true?  If you have ever discussed free will with someone who is a believer in free will you will know that most of their objections occur because they take the very position that Calvin describes in the quote.

Free will has become a “hot button” issue.  If you dare suggest that God is sovereign then the immediate response is “What about free will?”.  This objection has infiltrated every part of our culture today.  Even movies portray this false understanding.  Have you seen Bruce Almighty?  Remember the scene where God is explaining the rules of being God to Bruce.  He basically tells Bruce that he can do anything he wants except tamper with free will.

I admit that I don’t fully understand all aspects of this issue.  I plan to read some on it soon.  My theology study group is going to be reading Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards soon so I hope this will be a good place to start.

If you have any suggestions of good books to read on the subject, please share them in a comment.

——————————-

[1] Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, translated by Henry Beveridge, Book Two, Chapter 2, Section 7

This question was discussed yesterday in the theology study group I have joined.  It is an interesting question.  The group is currently reading and discussing Curt Daniel’s book The History and Theology of Calvinism.  We are in chapter 57 which is titled: The Extent of the Atonement.  In a section of the chapter discussing the dual aspects of atonement the following paragraph appears on page 423:

D. His son, A.A. Hodge, followed in this vein: “Nor is there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood. They admit also that Christ did in some sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it” (Outlines of Theology, p. 416).

The last sentence (which I have put in bold type) is which inspired the question.  As you can guess, a vigorous discussion ensued.  Some of the people present agreed with the statement but most disagreed.  The first thing that came to mind when I thought of “removing legal obstacles” was Justification.  Is Hodge saying that Christ justified any and every man?  If so, then why are not all people saved?  Others made the point that this equates to a univeral atonement. We are going to examine this issue further and discuss again at our next meeting.  I was shocked in our discussion to learn that the author (Curt Daniel) of the book asserts that the early Calvinists all believed in a universal atonement.  He said it was not until Beza came along that Limited Atonement began to be taught.  At times like this I wish I was better read in the writings of the historical figures.  It does motivate me to focus my reading more in that area.

What do you think?  If you are an Arminian I would expect you to fully agree with the statement.  If you are a Calvinist then you are probably not in agreement. Have you considered this issue?  How do you answer this question?

I am going to begin a new series of posts dealing with the Five Solas.  I have already posted a definiton of Sola Scriptura and will soon publish the first post in the series which will be discussing Sola Scriptura in more detail.

In case you are wondering, the Five Solas are:

1. Sola Scripture   (Scripture Alone)
2. Sola Fide   (Faith Alone)
3. Solus Christus   (Christ Alone)
4. Soli Deo Gloria   (The Glory of God Alone)
5. Sola Gratia   (Grace Alone)

Check back soon and comment on the posts.

Question 25: Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect?

Answer: The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two distinct natures and one person, forever.

Scripture: Galatians 3:13; 1 Timothy 2:5; 3:16; John 1:14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9.

Source: A Baptist Catechism (Adapted by John Piper)