Tuesday, January 23, 2007

a critical analysis of Calvinism from an Amyrauldian point of view

In the last few years, militant Calvinism has made a high impact upon evangelical life. Now when I say militant I want to clarify what I mean. A militant Calvinist is not someone who happens to hold in five points of Calvinism but those who believe this doctrine as central to their faith, and also consistently attempts to proselytize others to their position as if it were a new conversion. In my time I have been close to many Calvinists (mentors, best friend, wife’s family & my alumni). Calvinist who have a diligence in studying the scriptures and the humility to take it as it is usually are very fine Christians. Yet many, confuse the position of Calvinism with determinism and can often follow the path to heresy.

A few years ago during my senior year at Bible College I had a conversation with a fellow student. I had maintained a moderate position on the Calvinist Debate and he wondered how I was capable of maintaining such a position. I wrote this Basically as a completion of years of study on the subject. So here it is, with some updating.

Dear Clayton,

I give you these passages under the presupposition that we are both conservative Baptist that already believe in Total depravity, unconditional election, exclusive salvation and perseverance of the saints.

God is Transcendent and Immanent(inside and outside of the space-time continuum)

2 Peter 3:8, Matt 28:20

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

For the most part God the Father’s activity is in the Transcendent(outside)

Matt 11:27, 1Cor 2:9-14, Psalm 145:3 Isaiah 46:9-10

The Holy Spirit’s activity is mostly Immanent(inside)

Gen. 1:2, Job 34:14-15, 1Samuel 10:10, Eph 1:13

Jesus Christ’s active both transcendent and Immanent

Matthew 28:20, Rev 22:13, Colossians 1:15, 1John 1:1

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The Holy Spirit reveals the nature of God the Father to man

1Corinthians 2:10-12, Job 32:8

As well does Christ reveal the nature of the Father

Lk. 2:32, Col.1:15

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

God the Father Creates the souls of humanity

Zechariah 12:1, Isaiah 42:5, Hebrews 12:9, Psalm 139:13

God the Father is active in election(His choice of who his people are)

John 6:37, 39

Election is a transcendant activity that is predestined (beyond any timescale)

Ephesians 1:4 compare this with John 17:24

Upon creation of the soul, the elect are given potential faith

Luke 1:41, Jeremiah 1:5, Gal. 1:15-16, psalm 139:16

All people including the elect enter into depravity and are temporarily destined (as opposed to pre-) for hell

Ephesians 2:1-3

Jesus Christ sacrifice was initiated by God the Father as an act of Love

John 3:16-17, Rom.5:8, 8:39, 1John 4:7-14

God is all loving

1John 4:8

Henceforth, God is revealing his loving nature through the offer of salvation.

Then why not simply universalism?

A: Love is not evil 1Cor 13:5-6 to support unbelievers would be evil, and to force good is actually evil.

Therefore, universalism is contradictory. Jesus rejected the offer of universalism as tempted by the devil in Matthew 4:9-10

God makes propitiation for believer’s and unbelievers

1John 2:2,1Tim. 4:10

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The propitiation result’s in the grace of God.

Rom. 3:24

If the grace of God is a free gift then what is the free gift?

A: The righteousness of God Rom. 3:21

How righteous is God? There is no limit to God’s righteousness

Gen. 18:25, Deut. 32:4, Job 40:2, 8, Psalm 11:7, 97:2, 111:3

Can God’s righteousness do something besides save? A: yes, specifically judgement and Jesus will judge all men. Gen. 18:25, 2 Cor. 5:10, Matt 25:31-46

Can any form of atonement be effectively placed on those who are not willing?

A: the sin offering Leviticus 4:2, Ezra 6:17, Isaiah 6:7, 53:5 1 John 1:7

Does the sin offering remove all sin? A: no, just the unconscious sins

Lev. 4:1-9

General Atonement passages

Isaiah 50:2, 53:6, John 1:7,29, 3:16-17, 6:51, Romans 3:22-24, 5:18, 11:32, 1Cor. 15:22, 2Cor 5:14-15,19, Col. 1:20, 1Tim 2:4-6, 4:10, 1Peter 3:18, 2Peter 3:9, 1John 2:2, 4:14

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Open invitations:

Psalm 117, Ezekiel 18:32, Acts 17:30, Rev. 22:17

Parallels of the Atonement with Original sin

Rom 3:22-23, 5:17-18:this passage still can not promote universalism since salvation is based on the “obedience of the many” Rom 5:19, 11:32, 1Cor 15:22, the meaning of the word “world” used in 1John

Whom is it imputed to? Is it all the elect?

If that were so then salvation would be prior to Faith, as John Gill would believe. However scripture and the Southern Baptist Faith and Message say there is no salvation outside of faith/repentance toward Jesus Christ.

Matt 4:17, Luke 13:5, John 1:12, 3:3-21, 5:24, Eph. 2:8-22

Can the Atonement have other purposes than paying for sins (Christ office as priest)? A: Yes.

Providing Victory over Evil (Sin Death Devil etc,) (Christ office as king)(Christus Victor)

Rom. 8:37-39, Eph. 1:20-2:6, Col. 2:14-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, 1John 3:8, Rev. 12:11

Question: In the Christus Victor model all Jesus does is beat evil and therefore it becomes universalism so doesn’t that make you a Universalist?

A: Non-Christians are under the headship of the Devil, so when Jesus defeats Satan then all those who are under Satan’s headship are defeated as well. 1John 3:10

Providing the ultimate moral example (Christ office as prophet)

Luke23:47-48, Phil 2:5-11, 1 Peter2:21-24

Question: Doesn’t the moral influence lack an explanation of how he saved people?

A: This is true. However, these aren’t total explanations of Christ atonement, they are only aspects. This is what nags at the heart of unbelievers and inspires believers to move forward in Holiness. John 12:32

Salvation is imputed to those who have an active faith

Acts 2:38-41,Rom. 3:21-24, 4, Hebrews 3-4

Election is only effectual through the Cross of Christ: In other words Jesus is not Just securing salvation He is making it happen!

John 6:33, 35, 37, 40

Faith in the cross of Christ is only effective through the drawing of the Holy Spirit

Titus 3:5-6

The Holy Spirit only draws (and makes grace available) through the gospel.

John 3:18, 14:6, Rom10: 5-15

This grace is potentially available to all, plus the Holy Spirit is witnessing through natural revelation (even though this will not surpass their depravity)

Titus 2:11, Joel 2:28, John 12:32, 16:8, Rom.10:18-psalm 19

Even the non-elect are recipients of this grace filled gospel

Hebrews 4:2-3,10: 26

Only those who are elect have their faith stirred up by the Holy Spirit

Romans 10:5-15 & Deut. 30:11-20, John 12:32, Romans 10:17

Reprobates will reject the Holy Spirit and the elect may at first

Isaiah 65:12, Matt 23:37,Acts 2:36&41, 7:51&58&8:1, 2Cor. 6:1-2, Gal. 5:4, Hebrews 4:7, 6:4-7, 10:26-29

Those who place faith in Jesus Christ are then regenerated

Matthew 7:7-11, Luke 11:10-13, John 3:19, 21, Acts 2:38

God’s open Covenants

Gen 3:15, 9:9, 12:3, 22:18, Gal 3:10-18 & 23-29 (3:26)

Notes on Calling:

Hebrew: qara “to call” ‘ud “to bear witness”

Greek: Kaleo “to call” proskaleo “to call to”

Klesis “a calling” related to eklesia “the called out ones”

From the New International Encyclopedia of Biblical Words

God’s call in the gospel’s. The idea of call, when involving communication of a message, has always carried significant implications. A call is issued by a person of higher rank to those of lesser rank (cf. Ge 24:58; Ex 1:18, 12:21). Thus a call is something more than an invitation: it is a command and requires a decision by the ones called. The called are to hear and respond. Yet to call does not insure a response. Human beings can ignore and even reject the call of God. The freedom to reject is illustrated in OT History and is seen clearly in some gospel parables. Jesus told of a wedding banquet prepared for a king for his son (MT. 22:2-10). The King’s servants invited (called) the intended guest. But when those invited refused to come, the king turned to the streets to find the crowds that were needed to fill the wedding hall. The same story is repeated in Luke 14:16-24, with the same lesson taught. Those who are called but refuse the invitation will be excluded from the final celebration of redemption. In the gospels, then, ‘call’ is often used in the sense of invitation, with the response of the invited being uncertain. Indeed Mt 22:14 says that ‘many are invited, but few are chosen.’ The invitation is broad and inclusive. But few respond. Not all accept the invitation that God extends to us in Jesus. God’s call in the epistles. When we reach the Epistles, and especially Paul’s Letters, we find ‘call’ and ‘called’ used in a distinctively theological sense. There is nothing here of the gospel’s invitation with it’s uncertainty about individual response. ‘The called’ have heard and have responded. They are the saved, and to be called is to be already involved in salvation’s great adventure.” ….. “this has led some to suppose that God’s call is an irresistible invitation and that human beings cannot help responding to the Lord’s efficacious call. This interpretation however, misses the nature of call in the Epistles as a theological term. Here call is equivalent to salvation.”

In Summary: “call” can either mean command or salvation/employment. Kaleo and proskaleo are used in terms of a calling that is capable of rejection (Isaiah 65:12) and a calling that is salvation itself.

Notes on Roman’s

The passages 3:21-24, 5:18, 11:32 make the case for unlimited atonement as noted earlier

The text 3:22, 4:16, 5:2, 6:16 and 11:20 point towards a willful conversion experience. 5:2 goes against the irresistible doctrine directly since we enter grace.

Problem text

8:29-30 the “unbroken chain of salvation” that ensures that atonement equals salvation therefore it is either limited atonement or universalism.

Answer: this is not a complete description of salvation, but emphasis and encouragement to the believer of all that God does to ensure their salvation. There is evidence that this is true. These are described of those who are foreknown. What are they foreknown for? We find it in the previous verse (28) “those who love God” Verses 29-30 describes every thing that is done for the believer. The term foreknown is not saying that they are elect because of foreknowledge however. It is a loving term to help them be assure that they are not God’s chosen people through birthright but instead through faith.

“Called” in verse 29 in the Greek is Pros kaleo most likely referring to their experience of the gospel testimony by witnesses. (Believers)

9:13 says that God hates Esau so why would he atone for him?

Answer: The term hate here is used as an idiom or ancient slang term for “loved less”. If God truly hated anyone, which is to want him or her dead, then Esau would cease to exist. Also many verses speak of Gods love for everyone. It is hard to imagine God completely hating someone he created in his image/likeness. Besides this passage is a quote from Malachi referring to Esau’s descendents. That we bring up God’s Judgement against all Edomites. When the point of Paul’s rebuke is against the idea of racial election and salvation. When Paul discusses the reprobate, God still shows patience, which in the Greek def. is related to mercy.

9:15 says God will have mercy on whom he will. =Limited Atonement

Answer: There is no doubt He will, but as it relates to the gospel how much mercy will God show in offering an opportunity of salvation? Move across to the next page and see 11:32!

9:19 the question implied who can resist his will? Paul never denies irresistible grace therefore he implies it.

Answer: Paul’s rebuke is that the Devil’s advocate is disobeying the Potter and consequently resisting God’s moral will. Paul stated it in this format so as not to undermine God’s sovereignty. Besides the Potter and clay illustration throughout the OT implies a free will (see Jeremiah 18:6-8).

11:29 Says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable and therefore Irresistible Grace.

Answer: This is true but the Greek word here is ‘clesis’ and refers to employment and salvation as opposed to an offer of salvation, it is the salvation itself which is irrevocable.

Doesn’t rejecting 5 point calvinism deny the Sovereignty of God? How can God be in control if others can reject his will?

sov·er·eign·ty (s¼v“…r-¹n-t, s¼vr¹n-) n., pl. sov·er·eign·ties. 1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state. 2. Royal rank, authority, or power. 3. Complete independence and self-government. 4. A territory existing as an independent state.(American Heritage Dictionary)

Sovereignty

of God, his absolute right to do all things according to his own

good pleasure (Dan. 4:25, 35; Rom. 9:15-23; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev.

4:11).(Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

The Sovereignty of God refers to the fact that God is in the highest of office in the Universe and that His will can never be thwarted.

However it does not refer to God having to make sure that all wills are equivalent to His. It simply means that He is in charge on His throne.

The idea that God has to have deterministic style predestination to rule the universe is a slam on His ability to even create. It states that He is not a very capable creator because he could not handle free will. I am not saying that God doesn’t use predestination but what I am saying is that His Sovereignty has nothing to do with determinism.

One may notice that there are many Calvinists who approach this debate, purely on a philosophical/theological bases. As opposed to starting with the scriptures, they use theological axioms of God as their defense. I have always found this dangerous because it takes the debate away from scripture and creates an unbiblical spirituality/theology based upon rationalism.

I label this group “militant calvinists”. This group focuses on the philosophy of the five point system. They evangelize this mindset and usually have little desire to debate other philosophical issue. One could believe 5 point Calvinism as a biblical interpretation and not be militant. The key difference is the use of the doctrine as a philosophical/theological paradigm with an intent of evangelizing the principles. I believe it is this mindset which leads to several of the heresies of hyper calvinism.

These include

Supra-lapsarianism (God predestines evil in all it’s forms)

Fatalism (a lower emphasis on morality and Know desire to fight evil)

Non-assurance of salvation (due to a lack of emphases on conversion)

Theonomy (God’s Chosen must rule with God’s Law)

Anti-missions/evangelism (the idea that the Great Commission today is an attack on God’s Sovereignty)

Deism (God uninvolved with the universe today)

The unloving God (God hating all unbelievers)

Eternal justification (salvation without conversion)

Etc.

Notes on 1John

World = kosmos

The phrase “whole world” in 1 John used twice

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

and 5:19 refer to the devils reign throughout earth because of sin

the term “world” is used in 1John as in the world that is evil.

Whether or not world is inclusive of believers it is definitely inclusive of non believers and

In 1John 4:14 we read “We have seen and testify that the father has sent the son to be the savior of the world.”

Also in John 17:9 Jesus does not pray for the world. Which gives a case for limited atonement.

In this verse John prays for Believers of that day. John 17:6,8 His prayer to us is more inclusive “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in me through there word.”(John 17:20)

Questions:

How can the classic Calvinist possibly interpret 2Peter 2:1?

The only possible interpretations are Apostasy or General atonement.

If God’s atonement were related to God’s love, then as a Calvinist; wouldn’t loving our enemies be a contradiction? After all, we shouldn’t try to be more loving than God, should we?

While the Doctrine of Election should be a doctrine that promotes humility, doesn’t God favor it true that one can become extremely proud since, after all, they are loved more than lost people are?

How come 5-point Calvinist are so confident about their preaching when (according to the doctrine of the effectual call) their gospel is only occasionally effective? In fact if one is not sure of the election of the congregation there is very little purpose to the ministry besides convicting of sin.

No comments: