In Shakespeare's play Hamlet, there is a central scene where the famous "To Be or Not to Be" monologue takes place. Hamlet is wrestling with the full picture of life, death, and in that he is wrestling in the end with the futility of all efforts.For some, the nature of what we have talked about for the last few weeks could make the same impression on them if taken wrongly. In the big picture, God is in control, and our lives and existence are anything but futile. If anything, the Sovereignty of God gives us confidence in the future and the goodness of what is in store for His people.
For the last few weeks we have been looking at the questions surrounding buzzwords like "predestination" "Calvinism" "Arminianism" and many others. If you missed it, you missed it. But I will try to add in the substance of some of what we looked at.
The Tulip outline is outlined in a previous entry more fully, so check that out if you don't know what I am talking about. We tried to look at several of the points from a Biblical point of view. In the midst of 3 of the points - irresistible grace, limited atonement, and unconditional election we sort of skated on top of the ocean of depth that could be developed in these arguments. Here are some of the highlights.
Limited Atonement
With limited atonement, it seemed that we all affirmed that in the end, no matter what our stance on the current situation, Christ will have only paid for those who believe in the sense that they are the only ones to "cash in" on the atoning work that has been done. Limited atonement from a Classical Calvinist perspective makes logical sense (however it is unclear whether Calvin himself even held to this doctrine). So Calvin's students came to this conclusion from a logical and not necessarily a Scriptural standpoint.
Scripture states several times that Christ died for all men (though it is not necessarily true to apply that "all" to every human being, often in context when the Bible says "all" it is speaking of a certain group. For example, if I was to say at the beginning of class on Sunday "all are here, let's start." That doesn't mean that everyone on earth is there, simply the expected group). Still, the argument gets very problematic when sinners not atoned for have a case before God that Christ's blood was not available for them. Also, what does our evangelism become when we start having to say "Christ died for you!...I hope, at least"
We need to recognize though, that without a doubt, Christ knew the sins and the sinners he was dying for by name. Would God needlessly burden His Son with the sins of those who would not accept Him? The question is worth posing. At the same time though, it is hard to imagine the greatest sacrifice in eternal history just not quite being sufficient for some, that somehow there is not enough atonement left for everyone.
Unconditional Election
What cannot be argued is that there is no election, or predestining. Numerous times (Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John's gospel in numerous places, others as well) God's electing purpose is clear. The breakdown is what election fully entails.
Classic Calvinist - God has chosen who will come to Him, and who will not. When He created them, some were objects of grace, and others were objects of wrath (Romans 9). He has a right to do so, and His will is perfect. He not only foreknew who would be saved, but he draws them, woos them, bestows faith and repentance upon them, and completes the work of salvation completely on His own, for His glory, and this has been His intent for His elect since the beginning.
Sovereignty in Foreknowledge Argument (SFA) (I made this term up) - Many, especially in Baptist circles would argue that election is strictly a foreknowledge, and not a "choosing" in the strictest sense. This becomes problematic when it is noted that God created a being with knowledge of whether they would reject or accept Him, because to some that would seem that in essence He is choosing by simply creating with foreknowledge. The SFA though would say that God is loving because in that creation He maintains a person's free will, even though He knows their destiny.
There are so many further discussions in this, but I will stop at this point.
Irresistible Grace
The Classic Calvinist would say that God must make grace irresistible, because man is so depraved He would never accept it, no matter what. God must take His heart all the way to salvation. This would definitely hold weight in one sense, because we know how wicked the human heart is. There is no doubt for all of us, that salvation is not completely an act of man just deciding that a relationship with God sounds good.
Others would find it problematic though, to say that, while God draws, calls, and moves in people's hearts that He is the one who would bestow salvation on them apart from any will of their own. In Matthew, as Jesus weeps over the people of Jerusalem, saying he longed to gather them to Himself, but they were not willing, he seems to indicate that there is a part that human will plays in the process.
At the same time we see language like "Their eyes were opened" in Luke 24 speaking of the men on the road to Emmaus (though it could be argued that this is speaking solely of their physical ability to recognize Jesus, not what is taking place in their hearts. I would not fully agree with that though). In Acts 16, it is unmistakeable that in Lydia's heart the Scripture says that "The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things being said." Even there though, the text says that her heart was opened so that she could respond. There is a good deal of room for arguing on this one.
All of us would without a doubt say that God plays the biggest role in our salvation. He draws, calls, that He has to teach us faith and repentance in the least. Some would say that faith and repentance are also gifts that He must bestow, because we can't come to them on our own. I think that argument makes sense as well, but each scenario shows that they are not something our minds naturally come to.
To be fair to the Classic Calvinist as well, as we mentioned in class, irresistible grace is something that is not God dragging someone kicking and screaming into heaven. Instead it is the natural reaction of a human being under the saving power of God. Who of us could or would resist God when He begins to reveal Himself to us. Even Paul on the Damascus road didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming through the Mediterranean world after meeting Jesus, He was not only saved, but changed. Did he truly have any power to resist, or is the better question 'would anyone resist after being met by God in such a way?'
Other things of Note:
Hypercalvinism - this is a buzz word thrown around by many, and it could mean any number of things. It doesn't refer to people who hold to the Tulip doctrine, though many use it that way. Hypercalvinism is simply "disfunctional, unBiblical" ideas on election, etc. Some examples:
- The person who says evangelism is unnecessary because God is electing, and we don't need to be involved in it. That is in direct conflict with Scripture (Romans 10, Acts 1, many others). This person would be a Hypercalvinist, because His wrong views on election have made him passive, lazy, and unconcerned about what Scripture clearly calls people to.
- The person who views God's sovereignty having taken man's complete free will away. God has ordained how much toothpaste will be on my brush this morning for example. Most Calvinists would see there being unbreakable boundaries in God's sovereignty, but that God has not robotized people in such a way that every action is his working not ours. That's not to say that there aren't many little things that God has ordained. If His plan for me does not include me dying today, then I am not free to choke on my toothpaste.
Open Theism - Jared brought this doctrine up, and I think it is very helpful also to look at. In one sense, we could call this Hyper-Arminianism. That God doesn't have a sovereign plan, He just rethinks things based on the decisions we make. This is problematic for a number of reasons, that I don't think I need to go into. We would all be certain that what is written in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation are not "What could be if everything goes as planned" but instead "what will be."
Final Word
These are all issues that if we are not careful we try to "out-think God" on. We will be left with uncertainty in some way shape or form, and have to trust God. There is no doubt that He plays the largest role in the universe, and in our hearts as well.
Any arguments you are going to form on these issues must come from Scripture primarily, and logic second. Statements like "God's not like that" or "God wouldn't do that" don't mean anything if they aren't backed up by Scripture. Job's friends had ideas about the nature of God as well, and God was left saying "where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?" He would ask the same of us when we get too arrogant about our knowledge of Him.
If anyone would like to hear a GREAT lecture on this from two different Southern Baptist Seminary presidents - one what I would call an SFA (see above) - Paige Patterson, and the other a 5 point Calvinist (Al Mohler). Both are men that I highly respect. Click the link below for a copy of it, it is worth listening to:
http://www.sbts.edu/media/audio/Mohler/20060612pattersonmohler01.mp3
