| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 94 Registered: 10-2002  |
Let me re-state the questions I had, because the answers given here have been wonderful---and have been things that I already agree with. Again, I'm working from what is intrinsically in the words "free will" and "predestination" rather than from a historical theology that has assumed those names. Yet I'm also working from the understanding that we have free will, but paradoxically we can't come to God unless He's already done the drawing---and further, that He gave us power to choose, He chose within us, so as we look back from the beginning, we see that all in us is what Christ has done from start to finish. Recognizing this truth, however, DOES NOT seem to warrant a crusade to eliminate or "correct" people when they say "free will". Call me crazy, but I think free will in general consciousness is an obvious thing, and that when we trip up on some finer point of semantics, it can be a real distraction. Let me put that another way: the major point is not aided if we respond "You don't have free will!" every time someone mentions the word. Again, I'm not disagreeing with what the wonderful things everyone's shared this far. But that they've shared what I've already agreed with tends to make me think that my point & questions weren't understood. So I'll restate them:
As I've put in bold above, I wonder at whether the popular conception of Calvinism is justified by anything he or his followers said. I've heard, for example, that Karl Marx developed his communist philosophy in reaction to Calvinist preaching. It seems the deeper theology that you've expressed of your understandings of Calvinism are basic and Biblical. Yet when we trumpet the word "predestination" and trumpet against the words "free will", we run the honest risk of being greatly misunderstood... not because our listeners are resisting the Spirit of God, but because they don't know the finer points of our theological explanations and are working off of what is intrinsic in the words themselves. Are we doing right when we seek to correct peoples' words and draw them into finer points? As a side note, I wonder what people think of the passage I quoted from Yancey? Would emphasizing predestination (or "sovereign grace") truly be a triumph if the gospel (grace itself) were not known and shown? It would seem from the passage that while "sovereign grace (election)" was known and believed, the grace of God (the gospel) was not. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 95 Registered: 10-2002 |
In a nutshell, 1) Luther is remembered for the gospel, but Calvin is remembered for predestination or Calvinism... Why is this? 2) Did Calvin say more than you believe? Did he say other things and carry "predestination" further? Would that be why he was remembered for it instead of the gospel? As Colleen said, "[Romans & Ephesians] clearly teach the doctrine of predestination and election... Yet we aren't expected to be able to come up with a formula for how it works." Did Calvin focus on making a formula for how it works? 3) Why is Calvin's Geneva (and Calvin in Geneva) not remembered for being graceful if he preached "grace"? 4) Is the gospel aided when we crusade against the words "free will"? Again, when 99% of people say "free will", they mean they are free to choose, and the Gospel actually demands this. Yet the Gospel also declares the good news that God's Spirit has been responsible for bringing us to Him, so we look through new eyes and see we have been carried all along. Wouldn't we do better to proclaim Gospel---mentioning the paradox along the way---rather than crusade against vocabulary? | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 96 Registered: 10-2002 |
Stan, you wrote:
I don't know how to say this, but this paragraph disturbs me. The "free-will" line is not nearly the greatest of the evils in the doctrinal history of the Catholic church. And I highly doubt the conspiracy of Arminius, Finney, and American Protestants to "bring the doctrines of Rome" to America. Where is the GOSPEL in all of this? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1753 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ramone, Sorry I am not making myself clear. But, you say that Luther was remembered for the gospel and Calvin pre-destination. I don't see this dichotomy. As stated above, Luther wrote one of the greatest works of the Reformation "Bondage of the Will", as Jacob linked to above. The very foundational truth that separated RCC from these two reformers was this matter of free-will. Luther had this famous debate with the RCC scholar Erasmus. Luther said that man had no free-will in choosing Christ. The Holy Spirit must do all the work in regeneration--then we can respond to the gospel by choosing Christ, only after we have been born of the spirit. Luther said the gospel of justification by faith alone had it's foundation on the doctrine of the bondage of the will. John Reisinger has written an easy to read short piece on the difference between free-will and free-grace, and documents clearly what the religion of Rome is vs. the true gospel of grace. Here is the link www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index004.htm Anyway, Ramone, I need more time to try to answer your questions. I am very busy today, so I will try to get back to you later, but please read this article by Reisinger and tell me what you think. In this article he documents how Calvinism was the pre-dominant faith of American evangelicalism, until Rome got a hold on Arminius and brought Rome's gospel to Protestantism. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1754 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ramone, The other classic article that explains how the evangelical church of today is really a disguised form of Romanism is linked here, www.modernreformation.org/rc01pelagian.htm R.C. Sproul documents here the false gospel of Finney and the Pelagian captivity of the evangelical church. In this article he quotes from J.I. Packer's introduction to Luther's book "Bondage of the Will", and documents clearly what the basic issue of the reformation was.. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1755 Registered: 3-2005 |
John 6:44 Jesus says "..no man can come to me unless the Father draws him." That greek word to draw means to pull against gravity--against your will. This is where the doctrine of Irrisitible grace is taught. John 6:44 Jesus says "All that the father gives me will come to me..." So, if you put those two texts together--no man can come to me unless drawn to me by the Father and if all that the Father gives him will come to Christ, then these texts can only have two possible meanings: Either all men are drawn by the Father and therefore all are saved, or only the elect are drawn and saved. This chapter is quite clear that Christ will save everyone the Father elected in Christ from the foundation of the world. If this is true, then it only logically follows that Christ pays the penalty for the elect's sins at the cross. If he paid the substitutionary penalty for the entire world, then everyone would be saved. It is true that historically, Arminianism has led to Universalism, and this fact was admitted to me by an SDA liberal named Larson who admitted that Wesley's doctrines would lead to open theism as taught by Richard Rice and other evangelical liberals. These same folks also teach near-universalism. In order for Calvinism to hang together Biblically, you have only to prove the doctrine of "Total Depravity". If there is no one who seeks God as Romans 3 puts it, and we are totally dead in our trespasses and sins as Ephesians 2 clearly states, then only the resurrecting power of the Spirit can change a sinner's heart of stone into a heart of flesh. John 1:13 says that we are born of God--not by any human decision, but by the will of God. The term adoption is also used in the New Testament. How many children can choose the Father that adopts them? And the concept of adoption is one of permanence. So, the Reformed faith of John Calvin really does have a solid Biblical foundation. Election is found all throughout the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. There is no example in the New Testament where a person is saved by raising their hand or going forward at an altar call, or reciting the four spiritual laws or the sinner's prayer. These acts do not save. Only the electing grace of God administered by the Holy Spirit to open up the blind man's spiritual eyes can save. It is a most humbling doctrine to know that we were saved apart from any work or decision on our part. But when we are truly born again, then we can make our firm choice to repent and become a true disciple of Christ. We then walk in the true power of the Holy Spirit. If this saving faith is truly genuine, then there is no way that we can lose our salvation. So, in summary, the TULIP of Calvinism fits together Biblically as follows: Total Depravity--The Bible says we are totally spiritually dead in Eph 2, and there is none that seeks after God Rom 3 Unconditional Election--We were elected in eternity past before the foundation of the world in Christ on the basis of no works we have done, or that God could foresee us doing, but according to His good pleasure and purpose of His will. Eph. 1 Limited Atonement--- or definite atonement. This doctrine is very important. Because if Christ paid the penalty for the entire world's sins, then it could be argued that his death really didn't save anybody. Our salvation would still depend on our will or our decision. In John 10, Jesus says he came to lay down His life for the sheep--He doesn't mention goats. Christ has a special sacrificial love for the church--the bride of Christ. If the church is his bride, then would it not follow that he doesn't commit adultery by loving the rest of the unsaved world in the same way as He loves the church? This doesn't take away from the fact that God loves the entire world and shares His common grace on all men. But the special and SACRIFICIAL love is for his bride. Christ exhibited that sacrificial love when he purchased all the elect's pardon specifically at Calvary--no need to pass a special Investigative Judgment or to pass other Arminian tests that other churches have. It is done, finished, and paid for. Irresistible Grace--As we saw in John 6:44, no man can come unless the father DRAWS him. Again, that drawing is against gravity, against our very wills. This was how I was saved, like CS Lewis said, "dragged kicking and screaming". Perseverance of the Saints--This is taught all the way through the New Testament. Those who are truly born again Christ will in no wise cast out. This is stated several times in John 6, John 5:24, and in John 10, no one can snatch them out of my hands. There are no lost causes and no mistakes in God's great salvation plan. The Father elected us in Christ before time began, and Christ specifically and fully accomplished that redemption on Calvary's cross, and the Holy Spirit seals the deal guaranteeing our inheritance. Ephesians 1. So, salvation was none of our own work. Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be the glory forever--Amen--This was the great theme and call of the Reformation) Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1756 Registered: 3-2005 |
I meant to quote John 6:37 instead of 44 twice above. "All that the Father gives me will come to me" Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4150 Registered: 12-2003  |
I'm finding that the more I study the Bible, the more clearly I see and sense God's complete sovereigntyóand it gives me great comfort and deep security that I never knew before. Yet this issue of "predestination/election" and "free will" is essentially an "in-house" discussion. It is not a dividing line between true believers and non-believers, and it shouldn't be an issue when we are presenting the gospel to people who do not know Jesus. When we are presenting Jesus, we do need to make people aware of their own need for a Redeemer and of their own need to respond to Him. That person will not know exactly how God's sovereign election is working in him or her (or even care, for that matter!)óonly after saying "Yes" to Jesus will they begin to understand that He called them rather than their deciding to find Him. I'm quite struck by the fact that so many women in my Monday night small groups over the years have little thought of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. In fact, many of them wouldn't really know what those terms mean. Many of these women talk about "free choice", etc., but at the same time, they speak openly about God's sovereignty and power and authority, and they trust Him in very deep ways, recognizing that the events in their lives are ordered by Him. I'm seeing that the way we as Adventists understood God's involvement with us, was not even really "normal Christian". We really saw ourselves as the center of God's attention and the focal point of our own universe. God Himself, however, is the focal point of the universe and the one to whom we give praise. I see the necessity of helping people from pelagian (really human-centered) backgrounds understand the reality of God's sovereign authorityóbut I also believe that God purposefully begins to reveal His power and sovereignty to us as we immerse ourselves in His word. The fine points of how choice works in a framework of election are not points of division between believers. And while I find myself more and more seeing all reality under God's soveriegn umbrella, I also find myself reacting against the labels of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" because they seem to suggest opposing poles of rigidity. They seem to suggest more a system of belief than simply the teachings of sovereignty and/or free will. And while I totally endorse sovereignty, I don't endorse the Calvinistic "third use of the law" and some other practices such as infant baptism. I don't believe these things are hereticalóbut I believe that they aren't clearly Biblical and can be confusing. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1757 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree that these points are not salvific. But the reason the discussion is so important is how it practically works out in our lives and in our beliefs about God. Understanding God's sovereignty over all things and over salvation has been a life changing experience for me, personally. Reading the great works of Charles Spurgeon and John Piper are so much more uplifting than reading the perfectionism of Charles Finney and John Wesley--this does make a huge difference! Ellen White copied her perfectionism from Finney and Wesley, and then claimed that it came from God. The more I study the great doctrines of Sovereign Grace, the more faith I have that God is really in control, and that His infinite grace knows no bounds. I agree that a system of theology is not saving in itself. But it makes a world of difference in how you view God and understanding that he "works all things together for good to those who love God, and are called according to His purpose" Romans 8:28. Speaking of John Piper and Charles Spurgeon, here are some excellent links to articles and sermons that help clarify regenerating grae, and effectual calling. Piper is here at www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/irresistable.html Here is a sermon by Spurgeon on effectual calling www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0073.htm Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4152 Registered: 12-2003 |
You're right, Stan, that understanding God's sovereignty is really significant in how we live our lives. It has been, as Jess (I think it was) said, the thing that has changed my worldview more than anything else besides the complete miracle of knowing Jesus. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 749 Registered: 4-2000  |
Stan, Thank you for your excellent, Bible-based thoughts in your posts above. Furthermore, you stated them very well. You made a good point about adoption representing permanence. In His grip, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 265 Registered: 2-2005 |
Stan, I agree with Dennis, excellent points! There are other places in the Bible we can see examples of our need to be called by God to awaken us from our spiritually dead condition. Here are a couple. 1. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants , but: ``THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.'' 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants . 9 For this is the word of promise: ``AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.'' Romans 9:6-9 (NASB) So the children of promise are the chosen ones. Isaac was the "Son of Promise" (even though Abraham had a total of 8 kids). Isaac was the child of God's choice, and it was His choice to bring him out of Sarah's dead womb. 2. There's what happened on the way to Emmaus with Jesus walking with the two men who didn't recognize him even though they were talking about his crucifixion. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17 And He said to them, ``What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?'' And they stood still, looking sad. Luke 24:15-17 (NASB) Then later on, at dinner: 30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. Luke 24:30-31 (NASB) So first He reveals Himself to us, then He opens our eyes to Him. It looks like He finds us, not the other way around. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1760 Registered: 3-2005 |
Heretic, Excellent points. This doctrine is taught throughout scripture. The arguments of the Arminians and semi-pelagians are from human reason and not from scripture. Jesus and the apostles believed the doctrines of sovereign grace to be important, and not side issues of interest only to theologians. If these doctrines of election were not important, then why does Jesus, Paul and the apostles spend so much time and emphasis on them? Dennis, It looks like we are in agreement again (smiley) Stan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 97 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Stan (and others), I'm also a bit busy today, but a few quick replies first. You wrote: "In this article he documents how Calvinism was the pre-dominant faith of American evangelicalism, until Rome got a hold on Arminius and brought Rome's gospel to Protestantism." My problem with this is that you are equating the predestination/Calvinism with the whole gospel itself, and anything else as non-gospel, particularly anything that "Rome" said (as if saying "Rome" made it obviously false). Again, I'm shouting that the point of predestination is good, yet it is not THE gospel. As Colleen noted, many women she knew indeed had great faith and true life in Christ, but did not know the finer points of what you've articulated. Should it then be such a divisive point, then? It strongly feels like defenders of Calvinism find it to be a critical doctrine, but as a result of that are perhaps often very divisive in insisting this, and very shocked at anyone who does not agree with or is unaware of the intricacies of the belief. As an illustration of how Calvin and Luther are remembered and what they're remembered for, go to wikipedia and look up their short bios on both: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin Finally, about the limited atonement you've suggested. It is a finely-constructed argument you present, but what do you make of 1st John 2:2? "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." Or the cry of John the Baptist? "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" I think that throws a wrench into the finely-tuned theological formula. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2002 |
Looking a little more around the almighty Wikipedia (laugh, people!), I found the following interesting quotes: Arminius wrote of Calvin: "Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself (a Dutch divine, 1551-1608); for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy. His Institutes ought to be studied after the (Heidelberg) Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination, like the writings of all men." ***** From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism "Despite the various contributing streams of thought, the central issue in Calvinist theology that is often used to represent the whole is the system's particular soteriology (doctrine of salvation), which emphasizes that man is incapable of adding anything from himself to obtain salvation and that God alone is the initiator at every stage of salvation, including the formation of faith and every decision to follow Christ. This doctrine was definitively formulated and codified during the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which rejected an alternate system known as Arminianism..." "...In this view, all people are entirely at the mercy of God, who would be just in condemning all people for their sins but has chosen to be merciful to some. One person is saved while another is condemned, not because of a willingness, a faith, or any other virtue in the first person, but because God sovereignly chose to have mercy on him. Although the person must believe the gospel and respond to be saved, this obedience of faith is God's gift, and thus God completely and sovereignly accomplishes the salvation of sinners." ***** Of the "TULIP": "The central assertion of these canons is that God is able to save every person upon whom he has mercy and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or the inability of men." "Calvinism is often further reduced in the popular mind to one or another of the five points of TULIP. The doctrine of unconditional election is sometimes made to stand for all Reformed doctrine, sometimes even by its adherents, as the chief article of Reformed Christianity. However, according to the doctrinal statements of these churches, it is not a balanced view to single out this doctrine to stand on its own as representative of all that is taught. The doctrine of unconditional election, and its corollary in the doctrine of predestination are never properly taught, according to Calvinists, except as an assurance to those who seek forgiveness and salvation through Christ, that their faith is not in vain, because God is able to bring to completion all whom He intends to save. Nevertheless, non-Calvinists object that these doctrines discourage the world from seeking salvation." ***** Now, in contrast... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism Lutheranism believes in a "Single Predestination": "God chose to save His children before the world was created, but does not predestine the lost to be damned. Unlike Calvin, who explained how the reprobate come to be damned (double predestination), Luther said it was a mystery -- something which humanity cannot, and probably should not, try to comprehend." ***** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism The major points of Arminianism: - Men are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation - Salvation is possible by grace alone - Works of human effort are not cause or contribution to salvation - God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus - Jesus' atonement was potentially for all people - God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe - Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith Differences between Calvinism & Arminianism: - Nature of election ÅEArminians hold that election to eternal salvation has the condition of faith attached. The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election states that salvation cannot be earned and therefore has no human conditions, and so faith is not a condition of salvation but the divinely apportioned means to it. - Nature of grace ÅEArminians believe that through God's grace, he restores free will concerning salvation to all humanity, and each individual, therefore, is able either to accept the Gospel call through faith or resist it through unbelief. Calvinists hold that God's grace to enable salvation is given only to the elect and irresistibly leads to salvation. - Extent of the atonement ÅEArminians hold to a universal drawing and universal extent of atonement instead of the Calvinist doctrine that the drawing and atonement is limited in extent to the elect only. Both sides (with a few exceptions among Calvinists) believe the invitation of the gospel is universal and "must be presented to everyone [they] can reach without any distinction."[41] - Perseverance in faith ÅEArminians believe that future salvation and eternal life is secured in Christ and protected from all external forces but is conditional on remaining in Christ and can be lost through apostasy. Traditional Calvinists believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which says that because God chose some unto salvation and actually paid for their particular sins, he keeps them from apostasy and that those who do apostasize were never truly regenerated (that is, born again). Non-traditional Calvinists and other evangelicals advocate the similar but different doctrine of eternal security that teaches if a person was once saved, his or her salvation can never be in jeopardy, even if the person completely apostasizes. ***** About "limited atonement": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement ***** About Calvin's idea of "irresistable grace", one page mentions this: "The saving grace of God is not resistible. Those who obtain salvation do so because of the relentlessness of God's mercy. Individuals yield to grace, not finally because God found their consciences more tender or their faith more tenacious than other people. Rather, willingness, and any ability to do God's will, are evidence of God's faithfulness to save people from the power and the penalty of sin." I tend to believe both, that it is a combination of both working together. God does get all the credit, yet this is also giving glory to Him for what He has made in creating us: a people who will love Him freely, not because we must, but because we choose to. I believe God wants a Bride who is enraptured with Him, you know? ***** In sum, I don't find most of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" as being mutually exclusive. I tend to believe the major points of both. I really like what each one points out, and I really like the Lutheran view as well. I believe that each is taught in Scripture, and that Lutherans are very correct to call it a mystery. However, I do strongly resist making "majors" out of "minors", and I think Calvinists have done that quite a bit as far as I've seen. I believe this is largely a result of trying to "map out" the mystery, so to speak. But am I crazy to say that I hear the praises of God in each theology, and that I believe both in His mystery? ***** P.S. In all of these things, I can't see the evil "gospel of Rome". | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1763 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ramone, Let us start with your last statement "I can't see the evil gospel of Rome" Well Martin Luther did see the evil gospel of Rome in ascribing free will to man. So does the apostle John, when he asserts in John 1:13, that salvation is'...not by the will of a father, or a human decision, but a man is born of God. The most important work of Martin Luther was "Bondage of the Will" where he had the great debate between a RCC scholar named Erasmus, where Erasmus took Rome's position that man had free will with regard to salvation. In that debate, Erasmus appealed to human reason, but Luther appealed to scripture. If we hold to an inerrant view of scripture, then it is clear from the whole testimony of both Old and New Testaments, that salvation is all of God. I agree Ramone that the primary focus of our gospel preaching is Christ and Him crucified. The gospel goes out to everyone. God will give the increas as to His own sovereign will. So, the primary focus of our preaching is not predestination--I agree with you on that. But, the gospel is that we are saved by grace alone, thru faith alone , on the account of Christ alone. Here is a quote from Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" P.69 "First, God has promised certainly His grace to the humbled: that is, to the self-deploring and despairing. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavors, will, and works, and ABSOLUTELY depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only. For if, as long as he has any persuasion that he can do even the least thing himself towards his own salvation, he retains a confidence in himself and does not utterly despair in himself, so long as he is not humbled before God." This is where the key to this problem lies. For a long time I rejected this doctrine of monergistic regeneration, and believed the Catholic and arminian view of synergistic regeneration. I wanted to be in control of my life, and be the captain of my soul. I was brought up in American "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality." I wanted to be in control of my destiny. This doctrine that Luther articulates above strips away all human pride. Salvation is truly by grace. To be continued later, Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1764 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is an excerpt from R.C. Sproul's article linked above called "Pelagian Captivity of the Church" " Shortly after the Reformation began, in the first few years after Martin Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg, he issued some short booklets on a variety of subjects. One of the most provocative was titled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In this book Luther was looking back to that period of Old Testament history when Jerusalem was destroyed by the invading armies of Babylon and the elite of the people were carried off into captivity. Luther in the sixteenth century took the image of the historic Babylonian captivity and reapplied it to his era and talked about the new Babylonian captivity of the Church. He was speaking of Rome as the modern Babylon that held the Gospel hostage with its rejection of the biblical understanding of justification. You can understand how fierce the controversy was, how polemical this title would be in that period by saying that the Church had not simply erred or strayed, but had fallen ó that itís actually now Babylonian; it is now in pagan captivity. Iíve often wondered if Luther were alive today and came to our culture and looked, not at the liberal church community, but at evangelical churches, what would he have to say? Of course I canít answer that question with any kind of definitive authority, but my guess is this: If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church. Luther saw the doctrine of justification as fueled by a deeper theological problem. He writes about this extensively in The Bondage of the Will. When we look at the Reformation and we see the solas of the Reformation ó sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia ó Luther was convinced that the real issue of the Reformation was the issue of grace; and that underlying the doctrine of solo fide, justification by faith alone, was the prior commitment to sola gratia, the concept of justification by grace alone. In the Fleming Revell edition of The Bondage of the Will, the translators, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, included a somewhat provocative historical and theological introduction to the book itself. This is from the end of that introduction: These things need to be pondered by Protestants today. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognised by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Lutherís day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimise and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters?1 Historically, itís a simple matter of fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all the leading Protestant theologians of the first epoch of the Reformation stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points they had their differences. In asserting the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them these doctrines were the very lifeblood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Lutherís works says this: Whoever puts this book down without having realized that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain. The doctrine of free justification by faith alone, which became the storm center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformersí theology, but this is not accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed by Augustine and others, that the sinnerís entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only, and that the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a more profound level still in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration.2 That is to say, that the faith that receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood until it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Do you hear the difference? Let me put it in simple terms. I heard an evangelist recently say, ìIf God takes a thousand steps to reach out to you for your redemption, still in the final analysis, you must take the decisive step to be saved.î Consider the statement that has been made by Americaís most beloved and leading evangelical of the twentieth century, Billy Graham, who says with great passion, ìGod does ninety-nine percent of it but you still must do that last one percent.î This whole article is linked at www.modernreformation.org/rc01pelagian.htm Now, as much as I respect Billy Graham, on what scriptural basis does he have to say that salvation is 99% God, and 1% man? Again to quote Sproul: Godís Sovereignty in Salvation This is the issue: Is it a part of Godís gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanityís utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformersí thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. And yet this view is the overwhelming majority report today in professing evangelical circles. And as long as semi-Pelagianism, which is simply a thinly veiled version of real Pelagianism at its core ó as long as it prevails in the Church, I donít know whatís going to happen. But I know, however, what will not happen: there will not be a new Reformation. Until we humble ourselves and understand that no man is an island and that no man has an island of righteousness, that we are utterly dependent upon the unmixed grace of God for our salvation, we will not begin to rest upon grace and rejoice in the greatness of Godís sovereignty, and we will not be rid of the pagan influence of humanism that exalts and puts man at the center of religion. Until that happens there will not be a new Reformation, because at the heart of Reformation teaching is the central place of the worship and gratitude given to God and God alone. Soli Deo gloria, to God alone be the glory." Those are strong words. This shows how far evangelicalism has strayed from the true message of the Reformers. Stan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 99 Registered: 10-2002 |
Stan, It seems that you're assuming "the reformers" = "Calvinism". Additionally, it seems you've assumed that "Bondage of the Will" is---in your words---"Luther's most important work". This is because the Calvinistic belief of predestination is---to you---a most important belief, even "the true message of the Reformers" for you. I like how the Lutheran belief (I quoted above) refers to the mystery of predestination. Let's say again, the GOSPEL is not about the denial of free will. When we come to know Christ, we learn that His Spirit has done everything in us, yet along the way we make choices. It's the mystery of union with Christ---we make choices, yet He makes choices within us. I don't believe it's proper at all to try and divide it into percentiles. I think it is incredibly distracting to do so... it causes us to focus away from Christ Himself and instead onto our own theological formulas. ***** I noticed a few interesting things from looking up Calvinism & Arminianism. 1) Calvinist charges against Arminianism often rush to claim that Arminianism is simply Pelagianism/Humanisim/Universalism (or "Catholic"). 2) Arminian chargest against Calvinism sometimes rush to claim that Calvinism is determinism. BOTH of these represent an inability of the arguers to actually LISTEN to what the other side says about what it believes. 1) Arminius had strong words against Pelagianism, and Arminians today believe likewise. 2) Calvinists are likewise not deterministic. The way people rush to demonize the other viewpoint reminds me STRONGLY of something in Adventism----the fear of anti-nomianism. The moment you suggest that the Ten Commandments are part of the Old Covenant, many or most Adventists will rush to counter you as if you're advocating anti-nomianism. The way that many Calvinists talk about Arminianism is hauntingly similar to me. The odd thing, as I noted with Arminius' comment earlier, is that Arminius had great admiration for Calvin. Additionally, in discussion of these things, I hear much stronger and often harsher condemnation coming from the Calvinist side. To many Calvinists, those who disagree with Calvinism are anti-Gospel and anti-God. But I haven't quite seen such strong condemnation for Calvinists coming from the Arminian side. It's perhaps an unfair comparison, but I wonder if this is perhaps indicative of a root which might explain why Calvin's Geneva had so little "grace" in its society? ***** The Gospel in a nutshell: "God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life." Probably the belief of Calvinism I disagree with the sharpest is "limited atonement". John 3 shows why. The Arminian belief emphasizes "believing", and says that the benefits of the atonement are appropriated by faith. In this matter, it does seem that the Calvinists have mapped things out and in the process gone to an extreme which conflicts with Scripture. The Calvinist belief can be proved from Scripture, provided that other Scriptures are disregarded. This isn't unusual---we do this kind of thing all the time. Maturity should teach us that where there is a paradox, God will reveal His glory. We don't need to "force" things into one extreme or the other in order to systemize how everything works. ***** Jesus, Lord, we look to Thee; Let us in Thy name agree; Show Thyself the Prince of Peace, Bid our strife forever cease. By Thy reconciling love Every stumbling block remove; Each to each unite, endear; Come, and spread Thy banner here. Make us of one heart and mind, Gentle, courteous, and kind, Lowly, meek, in thought and word, Altogether like our Lord. Let us for each other care, Each the other's burdens bear; To Thy church the pattern give, Show us how true believers live. Free from anger and from pride; Let us thus in God abide; All the depths of love express, All the heights of holiness. Let us then with joy remove To the family above; On the wings of angels fly, Show us how true believers die. - Charles Wesley, 1749 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4163 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ramone, you make some important points. It seems that a great many of the seemingly unresolvable arguments about these subjects could be averted if we spoke of the concepts of election, sovereignty, predestination, free will, faith, etc. without the labels of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism". Those labels triggers reactions that are, sometimes, more intense than the concepts behind them would elicit. I see paradox at work hereóand that does not lessen the absolute overarching sovereignty and the election of God! I don't begin to know how to explain these things comprehensively, but I believe them and see them at work! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1765 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ramone, The evidence is overwhelming that it is the Arminian side that is calling Calvinism a false gospel. From your previous posting, it is clear that you are familiar with a very large group of churches who not only push the pre-trib rapture, but they are actively calling Calvinism a false gospel. This group sells books in their book stores that calls Calvinism false. Dave Hunt wrote a book on this a few years ago, and this book, along with several others continue to be sold in the bookstore of the church I used to attend. This church's radio station also carries Hunt's weekly radio program where Calvinism is said to border on blasphemy. Also, one of this churches missionaries was found out to believe in Calvinism, and as a result he was immediately cut off from missionary support, and even had to pay his own way back home. Can you come up with a similar example where a Calvinist church does these types of things to those who become Arminian? The example above is very close to home, since I was a part of that church. There are false Calvinists, called hyper-Calvinists, who are not Biblical, and they do put everyone else outside the body of Christ. I also remember my roots in Adventism. Ellen White was a big fan of Finney and John Wesley. Ellen's teachings on perfectionism didn't occur in a vacuum, she had to get them from somewhere. I am not saying that Arminians and Adventists aren't Christians because they believe in synergistic regeneration. The classical Calvinists of the MacArthur, Sproul variety believe that there is just enough truth taught in some of these groups, so that they are genuinely saved, because they believe the basic gospel which is stated in Acts 16 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Charles Wesley was indeed a great hymn writer and thanks for posting the words to that great hymn! Stan |
