The Sovereignty of God, and Man's Free Will are the subject of the next few weeks of Sunday School. I hope you guys can make it in, this will be good stuff to bring in something to jot some stuff down on. We began already, with a sort of introduction, so I will go ahead and mention a few things.
The first is that this study will no doubt present a few different ideas, and their teaching in Scripture, but may or may not leave many people with different viewpoints. Welcome to the debate.
The Question is this: Is salvation an act completely of God, partially of God and partially of man, or completely of man?
We tried to outline two of the most popular viewpoints - Arminianism, and traditional Calvinism (or Reformed Theology, Doctrines of Grace, etc).
The Arminian view would go like this:
- Salvation is an act of man, where he is free in his will, because God is just and gives people freedom, and a person is free to respond or reject the gospel. That is why the Scriptures say that we "persuade men" to repentance and belief in Christ.
- It is unjust that God would predestine some to damnation and others to heaven.
- God can only hold men accountable for their rejection of Him if they are free to do so.
- Missions then is the work of man, aided by God, but without the work of men it fails.
- Man has the right to choose, fully and freely.
- Scriptural evidence - The Garden of Eden, God's wrath against those who make wrong decisions in Scripture, The doctrines in Scripture regarding God "desiring that all men might come to repentance." Joshua telling the people of Israel - "Choose you this day whom you will serve." The Great Commission as a commission given to man to accomplish God's work.
The Calvinist view is a little more involved, and traditionally goes like this:
This is usually given in the acrostic TULIP.
T - Total Depravity - People are lost in their sins, they are totally depraved. They are SO lost that repentance and faith are impossible for them, and apart from God drawing them and bestowing faith upon them, they cannot be saved. "There is none who seek God, no not one" as it is given in Isaiah.
U - Unconditional Election - God has predestined some to repentance and saving faith and others to damnation apart from Him. God's sovereign election is man's only hope, and so in his mercy He has brought a group from mankind to be saved. This electing is unconditional, it is not based on anything but His divine purpose. Romans 9, Ephesians 1, other places that specifically use the terms elect(ion), predestined.
L - Limited Atonement - Christ died only for the elect. That Christ's saving grace was so specific and personal, that the atonement (the payment for our sins) was done only for those who were predestined to come to faith. There was no need for a Sovereign God to place the sins of those who would reject the gospel (whom He had not predestined) on His Son. Scriptural Evidence - not really much, this is mostly a logical conclusion that may or may not have been held by Calvin, but was held by His followers.
I - Irresistible Grace - God's wooing and drawing of the persons that He has predestined is irresistible. This doesn't mean that people are dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, it simply means that God's work in a person's heart will undoubtedly bring them to a genuine faith. Man could not and would not resist Him. Scriptural Evidence - Jesus talking about "calling", and that those whom the Father has given Him will hear his voice and follow Him. Others as well, that don't come to mind right now.
P - Perseverance of the Saints - This is undoubtedly the easiest for many from varied viewpoints on predestination to accept. Salvation is once and for all. The true believer WILL persevere in the faith, because He who began a good work in you WILL be faithful to complete it. You cannot lose your salvation, but the fruit of your life is the mark of salvation. All who are genuine believers will persevere in the faith until the end (this does not mean sinlessness, or some sort of legalism, it simply means Christians while dealing with their flesh will grow in their relationship with Christ as a mark of the work that has been done in their heart). Scriptural Evidence - John 10, 1 John (all of it), James, Romans 6, etc.
Romans 9:22-23 is a controversial passage dealing with this issue: it says, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory." Some commentators are going to argue that this actually says "prepared themselves" because the Greek verb is in the middle/passive voice, while others suggest the passive rendering prepared by God," which would denote more of a calvinistic approach. It seems to me that the middle voice "prepared themselves" works best according to Paul's previous arguments such as the fact that man chose to sin and men choose Hell as well.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering what anybody else thinks about passages like this. It's definitely open to discussion, but I do think that Paul is trying to make a point within his discussion on election here. The word election doesn't have to carry a fully predestined type of meaning, and some scholars even suggest that God's elects those who choose him (even though that is somewhat counter intuitive). Does God predestine people to go to Hell for a specific purpose? Are the non-elect out of reach of the gospel? These are questions I've been trying to figure out. I'll keep posting stuff to keep your minds stimulated.
It's also important to not be confused about what people would call "hyper-Calvinists," for these people have more exaggerated views from that of historical Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinists are going to say that God's love is only extended to those he predestined to be saved, and Christ's death on the cross was only intended for the saved, and not the whole world. Essentially, they believe the holy spirit acts in certain people, and only those people are intended for salvation: there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do to influence the salvation of another person since it is all in God's hands.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, there is an extreme version of Arminianism, and these people are called "open Theists," believing that God himself can be "surprised" and that the future is beyond His reach. God is responsive to prayer, and He can change His will based on certain events, prayers, etc. God anticipates the future, and molds His will when the time comes.
Another great issue is that the worldview of ancient times, especially in Jewish thought, was very corporate: the Israelites were God's chosen people because they were descendants of Jacob, and in their minds, that was enough. The same idea applies in Arminianism, for they believe that the ramifications of one effects the entire group. Arminian scholars say that Christ was the only elected person, and the church is "in Christ," and Paul's discussion in Romans 9-11 about the Jews is because of their national rejection of Christ which caused them to be broken off from God's original promises to them.
ReplyDeleteI don't at all agree with this point, but it's interesting to point out; I think that eternal security is quite clear in Romans as well as other books in the NT; Paul's description of justification in Romans 3-5 gives a clear picture that when God declares a sinner to be righteous, that is a permanent and lasting sentence, carried out until glorification after the end of days. Praise God we have hope (confident expectation) in His future glory!
I've often seen the Will of God pictured in 3 concentric circles: the innermost circle is the individual will of God (this is debatable in scripture) which is essentially God's specific plan for each person, the second, middle circle is God's moral will, as defined through his revelation to us by Scripture. This is the gray area, where there is freedom to move around, and make choices based on our conscience and convictions (Paul speaks about sins of conscience in Romans 14 and a couple other places). Calvinists cannot accept this circle because they will say that decisions are nothing more than reflections of God's predetermined plan and people are predisposed to follow a certain path, while Arminians are going to say this is true free will, since God has given believers the ability to choose what is right or wrong in morally gray areas. The outside circle is God's sovereign will, which is the ultimate plan of the world's fate where God is "pushing" the world towards it's predicted end.
ReplyDeleteThis is the clearest way I have been able to understand God's will, even though I don't hold tight to an individual will. I believe God does predestine those who he will call, but I am not sure if I can say that every decision I make was not actually a decision but instead a predisposed action arbitrarily imposed on me by God.
I've got one more thing to post about election. There are several views concerning election, naturally, and I will explain what I believe Paul is trying to convey especially in Romans. The Greek word means "to choose," and is rendered as election in many translations.
ReplyDelete1. All the options were known
2. "Election" is always in the past tense
3. "Election" is always in the middle voice (this isn't in English, but basically it means that the verb can be translated as "chose for himself" in a beneficial sense)
*4. It is never in the context of reprobation (the idea that if God chooses those who go to Heaven, then he must choose those who go to Hell)
5. The one chosen/not chosen has no legal claim on the chooser (we have no say in whether or not God elects us)
*It is not logically sound to say that if God predestines some to heaven that he MUST predestine those to Hell as well. Paul makes it clear that man's CHOICE to sin is the reason for his condemnation, and therefore God does not necessarily predestine people for hell. All people are in reach of the gospel, and all people are capable of salvation; it is part of God's character that he elects individuals before time existed that he foreknew would trust in Christ.
Wow, great thoughts Jared. Thank you. I think those are very well developed arguments on multiple perspectives that are very helpful. I would add a couple of things:
ReplyDelete- I believe the ultimate mark of Hyper Calvinism is a lack, and a feeling that there is no need, of evangelism. I don't know that I would view all in the limited atonement category as Hyper Calvinists, though it is definitely debatable that Calvin himself did not hold to this. I do not hold to limited atonement myself, but I think that the real mark of "Hyper" anything is that it no longer holds to the framework of the belief system - mainly in this regard, that somehow Scripture's numerous calls to evangelism are not necessary because of Calvinistic doctrines. Many if not most of the greatest evangelists in church history were staunch Calvinists. So I would hesitate to regard any Calvinists in the Hyper category simply due to a belief in all 5 TULIP points. Otherwise, men like George Whitefield and John Piper and numerous others are listed in this disfunctional faith category.
- I would argue that 1 Peter 2:1-8, culminating in verse 8, is a declaration that there are those who are prepared for reprobation, or at the least have been given over to that. This passage could be argued no doubt, but I believe in the context of how it is given, Peter is comparing those who have accepted the cornerstone, and those who have rejected it, and his remarks that they have stumbled because they were appointed to is a mark of prepared reprobation. Jesus' remarks about Judas, and the preparation of him for his role, Paul's remarks about Pharoah in Romans 9, and others also seem, at the very least, to leave the discussion on reprobation open.
- Your comments on the Greek middle voice are very helpful. I would highlight for the other readers that "chose for himself" mentioned above in regards to election is "chose for himself" referring to God, not referring to man.
This week's Sunday School lesson deals completely with the question of foreknowledge versus wooing and drawing, versus completely irresistible grace and reprobation.