BreakPoint Blog

Banner
Banner
Answering Rolley Haggard on Calvinism


In reaction to my recent feature article, "The Depravity Question: A Worldview Perspective on The New Calvinism," Pointificator Rolley Haggard launched a critique of not only Calvinism as Christian theology, but also of Calvinists as a group of Christians.

Among the charges, Rolley accuses Calvinists of consigning all non-Calvinists to heathendom for being “culpably . . . obstinately . . . heretically resistant” to the truth, and that to take the Reformed view of faith in salvation “is to take our eyes off Christ and His finished work...”

Most of Calvinism itself, he contends, is “utterly bankrupt.” And he suggests that to believe it is to glory in something other than the cross of Christ.

Rolley’s response to my article seems odd, especially since the intention and message of my article was to call Christians from all traditions—Calvinist, Arminian and Catholic alike—to embrace their common, historic theology of sin. In furthering this end, I even quoted Jacob Arminius, founder of Arminian theology and Calvin’s chief opponent in history.

Now, I’m not interested in making a full defense of Reformed Theology here. As a freshly minted Calvinist, I lack the training or credentials to speak with any authority. But like Rolley, I can recall years on the opposing team, and a firm (if ill-informed) conviction that Christians who believed otherwise had been seriously hoodwinked. There was even a time when I called what I now cherish heresy.

Nevertheless, through the patient effort of friends, my study of the Scriptures, and deepened understanding of history, I eventually admitted that my salvation—like that of every true believer—rests upon the rock of God’s sovereign choice, not my works or willingness. And though everything in my flesh hated the thought, I had to confess that, unless the words of Romans 8, 9, 10 and 11, John 6 and 17, and Ephesians 1 and 2 are unintelligible, God chose me, not because of anything in me or about me but purely “for the pleasure of his will,” and “for the praise of his glorious grace.” (Ephesians 1:5-6)

But most importantly, like Charles H. Spurgeon, I realized that nothing save God’s irresistible grace could account for the reconciliation of a sinner as stubborn as I am:

“Looking back on my past life,” Spurgeon writes, “I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. . . . I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon me—warnings were cast to the wind—thunders were despised; and as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, 'He only is my salvation.'”

Is faith “by its very nature, a repudiation of works” as Rolley insists? Yes. But this is only half of the story. Scripture makes it clear that even our cry of faith, by which we surrender to God’s grace our attempts at self-justification, is itself a gift of grace.

Contrary to Rolley’s generalizations, Calvinists do not view as rebels or heretics those brothers and sisters who lack a full understanding of God’s sovereign grace. The Lord's decision to save us does not depend upon our compete comprehension of that salvation. This is why I expect to meet in Heaven anyone whose faith rests in Christ alone—whether they be Reformed, Arminian, Catholic, Protestant, or whatever our friend Rolley is.

But as fully as I count my non-Calvinist brethren among God’s elect, I can no longer confess any Gospel but the one which so plainly leaps from the pages of Scripture—the Gospel of sovereign, unmerited, unsought grace which Isaac Watts so beautifully immortalized in his hymn, “How Sweet and Awesome is the Place”:

While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast,
Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,
"Lord, why was I a guest?"

"Why was I made to hear Thy voice,
And enter while there's room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?"

'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to taste,
And perished in our sin.

Pity the nations, O our God,
Constrain the earth to come;
Send Thy victorious Word abroad,
And bring the strangers home.

We long to see Thy churches full,
That all the chosen race
May, with one voice and heart and soul,
Sing Thy redeeming grace.

For the curious seeking further reading on this subject, I commend to you three of the resources which changed my heart and mind: Charles Spurgeon’s A Defense of Calvinism, a brief (and powerful) video from R. C. Sproul laying the foundation of sovereign grace in salvation, and a sermon from pastor Jim McClarty on total atonement.


Comments:

Total: 65 << Previous Page     Next Page >>
Not Smug at all, Gracious Brother Kevin
.
I, for one, reject the “antinomy” idea as merely a glorified synonym for contradiction, and an unfortunate contributor to much of the cognitive dissonance and resignation amongst Christians that anyone will ever be able to satisfyingly put it all together.

I believe the doctrine of salvation is completely rational (see Isaiah 1:18), but also, that as good as post-Reformation evangelical theology today is, we are not quite “there” yet in terms of articulating it so that “he may run that readeth” (Hab 2:2).

And, of course, it goes without saying that I completely disagree with Calvinists, who would contend that they do, in fact, understand these things quite well, thank you. But having been in their camp for so long – indeed, being a leader, a “ten point Calvinist” as one friend liked to refer to me – I know where they are coming from, and in large measure I know where they misunderstand both the text (the letter) and the spirit of the law.

To tip my hand a bit more, I also believe that, by and large, contemporary Christian music has caught the spirit of Biblical Christianity (cf. Jason Gray’s “More Like Falling in Love” – taken from a remark by G. K. Chesterton that “our religion should look less like a theory and more like a love affair”), and that with each passing year the church’s collective sense of the truth is being refined as together we continue to examine, debate, dialogue, and reformulate our understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus. I see divine purpose in all this “due process”, best summarized, perhaps, in Romans 11:30-32: God is out to save everyone He can.

My concise view on God’s sovereignty is this: that the sovereignty of God is the sovereignty of Love. God certainly has all power to do absolutely anything. But would He? Or would He only, always, act consistently with His nature, love?

Jesus is the key. In Him are hid “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”. “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.”

Etc.
Oh, dear
I do not mean to trivialize this real heart-concern on the part of anyone, nor am I trying to suggest that this subject is not of great significance. If I have conveyed that inadvertently, please forgive me.
I believe the technical term for this kind of matter is 'antinomy,' that is, something in which conflicting viewpoints are both apparently true. (I am pleased this kind of thing is also an issue in the secular world, such as in the issue of determinism and free will.)
To me, it seems clear that Scripture clearly teaches both: man is free and his choices matter, and God is completely sovereign. Doesn't Paul himself teach both of these viewpoints in successive chapters in Romans?

And I COMPLETELY understand how one's apprehension of a certain biblical truth can be absolutely essential for one's very existence and survival: my own life-history is peppered with many times where that has been true. (Or do I mean 'salted'?)

I agree with Packer that "the proper study of mankind is God" and yes, this debate does come to His Person and His ways, nothing less. And I will acknowledge, too, that not knowing Love very well, I often gravitate to a cerebral understanding of essential matters, and discount the very real part that Love plays in this universe. (to which you may reply: "yeah? so how's that working out for you?")

Please forgive me if I have seemed dismissive or glib. But I guess I do feel that there are certain aspects of the Person of God and His ways where our most appropriate response is silent, watchful humility. (Does that sound smug? I hope not!)
I’m With You, Kevin
.
I’m with you when you said, “…I also think the American church suffers from a surfeit of comfort, which permits it then to indulge unreasonable amounts of time and effort on controversies that at times are simply unfruitful. In ways, it strikes me as analogous to the navel-gazing for which Berkeley is so notorious.”

I’m with you. I really am.

And at one point I would have relished this debate about as much as a root canal. By a blind sadistic amateur. Nazi. Proctologist. With Parkinsons. Sans anesthesia. On muleback. Upside down. During a category-5 hurricane. Atop Mt. St. Helens, ten minutes after she blew. And no insurance.

But, alas, when you get down to it, you know what this debate is ultimately all about? (IMHO) It’s about what God is really like. That’s what it’s really all about. (IMHO)

So I’ll go ahead and lay all my cards on the table right now. If God really is the sort of Person Shane thinks He is, then the simple, honest truth is, I cannot love Him with all my heart, soul, mind, and might, despite the fact that He says that is His “first and Great Commandment.” I can’t do it. I’m just being painfully honest. (Talk about the implications of a worldview).

But if, instead, the following words of Christ are true, then I CAN love Him with all my heart, soul, mind, and might:

“If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?”

Kevin, the difference for me – and a great many believers, some of whom are just barely hanging on -- is the difference between loving God “in spirit and in truth”, and merely going through the motions from fear.

So you tell me: how important is this debate?

--
“He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.”

“God… hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son… who [is] the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person…”

“His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

“In Him is no darkness at all.”
"The best analogy I can think of for this is how Christ is said to 'intercede' before His Father on our behalf as a High Priest, (1 John 2:1) and the Holy Spirit utters wordless groans for us to God. (Romans 8:26) But of course, both of these Persons are God themselves. Do they actually persuade the Father of anything He has not first decreed? Of course not."

This sounds presumptuous to me, to say 'of course not.' It has the aroma of someone who claims to know the internal relationships and working of the members of the Trinity, and that is a dangerous claim to make, if spoken, and a dangerous attitude to have, if unspoken. Are you suggesting that the intercession of the Son (Rom. 8:34) is empty?

I think we must accept a significant degree of mystery here, and be respectfully humble in our ignorance.
The irony of error on sovereignty
...is that it blinds the one who believes it to accurately understanding the bigger picture.

It would be very similar to someone who argued that because a carpenter chose the tools with which to ply his craft, it was actually the tools, not the carpenter, who built the cabinet.

Likewise, the charge is leveled ad nauseum against Calvinism that it must be false, else why would God command men to repent, believe and evangelize? But this does nothing but demonstrate that the objector is arguing from his faulty caricature of Reformed Theology, not a knowledge of its actual tenets.

God's sovereignty is far bigger than merely choosing whom to save, for He ordains the means as well as the end. And the means by which He has chosen to gather His sheep are evangelism (Romans 10:14-15), willing repentance (Acts 2:38) and willing belief. (Acts 13:48) We are also to pray for the conversion of unbelievers, (Romans 10:1, 1 Timothy 2:1) not so that God's eternal election will change, but because He has, in some wonderful sense, allowed His children to participate in the process of pleading for the realization of His will.

The best analogy I can think of for this is how Christ is said to "intercede" before His Father on our behalf as a High Priest, (1 John 2:1) and the Holy Spirit utters wordless groans for us to God. (Romans 8:26) But of course, both of these Persons are God themselves. Do they actually persuade the Father of anything He has not first decreed? Of course not.

While evangelism, repentance and belief may all sound like human activities, the same passages also make clear that the evangelism, repentance and belief are all of God: "And God added daily to the church such as should be saved." "And all who were appointed to eternal life believed." etc.

Prayers for the salvation of the lost and appeals to the lost themselves are no contradiction to the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty for precisely the same reason the hammer and nails are no contradiction to the sovereignty of the carpenter.

There is no paradox, friends. Only a God in Heaven who "does whatever He pleases." (Psalm 115:3)
Paradox
Both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian (not Armenian!) debate are often guilty of setting aside Scripture that doesn't neatly fit their theology. The same Paul who talks about us being predestined in Ephesians was also "reasoning and persuading" people (Acts 19:8) as if they had a free will to choose. Other paradoxical pairs like this are all over the place.

God is at work in us, but at least from our everyday perspective, we make choices that have real consequences. If the solution to this were perfectly obvious, we wouldn't be debating it.

Praying for God to change the heart of an unbeliever seems to challenge both Calvinist and Arminian theology. Why should a Calvinist pray? You're either praying for something that's not God's will (saving a non-elect person) or for something he already decided to do. Why should an Arminian pray? You're asking God to overrule the person's free will.

Yet we clearly have examples in Scripture of asking God in prayer to do specific things (though I can't think off-hand of praying for unbelievers to come to faith). Prayer isn't just a matter of changing us (as is sometimes claimed); even the Lord's Prayer displays specific requests for God to act, with the clear implication that he might do differently if we didn't ask.

One is tempted to quote Hamlet to adherents of both positions:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
R.C.H. Lenski Didn’t Cringe
.
“The fearful difference between faith and works is that ‘faith,’ being trust, relies in complete dependence on another, on God, on Christ, on the promise and the mercy, while ‘works’ repudiate such dependence and rely on man’s own ability and attainment. *Faith permits God* [my emphasis] to put it wholly and completely under obligation to Himself; works not only repudiate this obligation to God but insist on putting God under obligation to the man who does the works, and the Jews tried to obligate God by means of even false works.” (The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8-16, page 637)

FWIW, Romans 3:25-26 states pretty plainly that faith in Christ’s atonement legally enables God “that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
Gregory, that was not a comment about Calvinists having a unique propensity toward violence. That was a comment invoking with historical irony the time when non-toleration of heresy was more common. Everybody had a propensity toward violence then. Tar-and-feathers was just the preferred method of Puritans who were notably Calvinists.
My own degree is in Philosophy (just a B.A.), and so I am very inclined towards working with ideas.

However, I also think the American church suffers from a surfeit of comfort, which permits it then to indulge unreasonable amounts of time and effort on controversies that at times are simply unfruitful. In ways, it strikes me as analogous to the navel-gazing for which Berkeley is so notorious.

Believers are suffering around the world, Muslim violence is affecting millions, our country is $16 trillion in debt, the political arena is polarized like I've never seen in my life, etc. In my own East Bay city, the percentage of Bible-believing Christians is somewhere around 1-2%-- we're right there with Japan!

The word 'perish' should be a very sobering word to all of us, and have a significant impact on those activities and controversies in which we engage ourselves. My two cents.
Ignoring your comments about Calvinists suffering from some unique proclivity toward violence, I might point to Titus 1:10-16 and 2 Peter 3:17-18 for your answer.

"Forewarning" the church, "silencing" false teachers and "rebuking them sharply" are apparently within the purview of church leaders, according to the Apostles.
Would you be so kind, Gregory, as to explain what this lack of tolerance of Pelagianism is to entail? Are we to use public auto-da-fe ? Or should we go a more traditionally American, not to mention traditionally Calvinist route and be satisfied with Tar and Feathers?

We of course have to have a Ministry for the Eradication of Heresy. And perhaps an Index of Prohibited Books.
This non-toleration of heresy is a big project. But we have to do the Lord's work!
I feel I drew the line pretty clearly in this instance, Rolley. In fact, my chief complaint would be that I (and other Calvinists) seem to be the only ones drawing lines. Arminians like you need to start putting your feet down and stop tolerating the Pelagian theology which is commonplace in many churches.

The fact that I could walk into your average Arminian congregation these days and get away with a statement like "faith enables God" is highly diagnostic. Jacob Arminius and John Wesley would have cringed.
Sometimes I ponder
Sometimes I ponder I Corinthians 3:4, 1:12-15 and II Timothy 2:13. Paul was not only inspired, but amazingly Christ-like. But even he is not the One I follow.
“If all I ever do is coax Pelagians to orthodox Arminianism, I will feel accomplished and blessed.”

That’s laudable, Shane. But I humbly suggest going forward you take pains to clearly define and distinguish the Pelagian heresy from orthodox Arminianism lest you paint the enemy with too broad a brush and spoil the entire portrait of what is and is not evangelical Christianity.
And yes, I do know that feelings are not conclusive. Call it Hope. It was good enough for Abraham.
Yes I am an inclusivist, at least in the sense that I admit the possibility of miraculous intervention at a time unseen to the rest of mankind(like the moment of death). Not in the sense of believing that there are "many roads to God".

I am not sure I could bear being either an ultra exclusiveist or a calvinist.
Jason...
That was actually the straw that broke my Arminian camel's back two years ago. Confronted with the realities reported by Luke that God appoints the times and locations of the nations (Acts 17) and that he also controls--and cares--where the Gospel is preached (Acts 16:6-15), I had to admit that he does, in fact, decide who gets saved and who doesn't.

That is, unless you are either a.) an Inclusivist, or b.) want to argue that not a single Native American, Chinese, Polynesian or Aborigine was open to Christ for about 1,500 years.
Yes Rolley, I actually do think that Synergism is a slippery slope into heresy. Many manage to get their ice picks deep enough to remain in orthodox territory, but they must do so by embracing what I believe are plain contradictions and unscriptural suppositions (e.g. "Middle Knowledge," Wesleyan "Prevenient Grace," etc.)

But most, I believe, fall into another category entirely: those who simply never think about it. They admit their guilt, trust in Jesus, and live their Christian lives, never giving a second thought to the theological nuts and bolts behind their conversion. Actually, I have found that many ordinary Christians of a less intellectual bent will say things which sound implicitly Calvinisitc. The expressions, "save so and so," "get a hold on his life," and "change his heart, Lord," were not uncommon in my non-Calvinist upbringing. Of course, a strict free-will theology tends to undermine such prayers. Why pray if God seeks all equally and these have proved unwilling?

I do think most non-Calvinists with the dimmest consciousness of the free will debate are practical Pelagians. Sproul's statistics demonstrate that, since most Evangelicals apparently agree with statements like "God helps those who help themselves" and "man is basically good." Both of these convictions are fully Pelagian.

The struggle for the more well-informed Arminian comes from two contradictory admissions: He must simultaneously believe that God's grace overcomes natural unwillingness and enables salvation (what the Reformed crowd calls "regeneration" or "the New Birth"), but that man also retains the mysterious ability to revoke his enlightenment, either before or after justification (which most Arminians conflate with regeneration).

The Wesleyan and Classical Arminian views both suffer from this problem, since they must invent a second dispensation of grace in the Ordo Salutis to explain why all are "enabled," but only some are regenerated. These views both differ considerably from the more sophisticated Molonistic ("Middle Knowledge") view, which sees regeneration and atonement as limited to the Elect based on their foreseen willingness to cooperate.

The long and short of it: genuine, historical Arminians/Semi-Pelagians/Synergists are not heretics. They are deeply inconsistent, and their theology gives way to Pelagianism like hot butter to a knife. But as long as they keep their shaky footing, they are not heretics. This has long been the standard Reformed position.

Likewise, Molonists (like apologist William Lane Craig) avoid Pelagian ground since they confess the orthodox truths which Augustine taught in opposition to Pelagius. Their theology also escapes the messy divorce of "Prevenient Grace" from "regeneration" which plagues Arminianism, but it still (I believe) misses the mark of Romans 9:16.

If all I ever do is coax Pelagians to orthodox Arminianism, I will feel accomplished and blessed.
One thing to note, though, is that some people pretty obviously are in a better position to become Christians then others. Therefore, unless you accept inclusivism as well, you cannot plausibly accept Armenianism.
@ LeeQuod
.
Point taken.

And your priorities are (as a very good friend of mine would say) “spot on”.
Total: 65 << Previous Page     Next Page >>