There has been significant interest over the past decade in a resurgent Calvinism (or Reformed Theology). Some call it a “New Calvinism” (as per Collin Hansen’s book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists). The popularity of John Piper as well as the renewal of Calvinism among the Southern Baptists (specifically Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is a signal of a new vibrancy for the Reformed tradition. Read a review and discussion of this new phenomenon here.
The blogosphere is full of ongoing discussions between Arminians and Calvinists. My blogroll contains two such sites–Evangelical Arminians and John Piper’s Desiring God. The discussion is seemingly endless.
My own training was at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1977-1979 (M.A.R.) and 1981-1985 (Ph.D.). Consequently, I have a certain familiarity with the Reformed tradition, particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith. At the same time I grew up in the broadly Arminian Stone-Campbell tradition (often more Pelagian in character than Arminian) and have taught in schools within that tradition for twenty-five years. I have a certain familiarity with Arminianism as well. Indeed, I once told one of my Westminster Professors that my biblical, theological and historical studies at Westminister had helped moved me from Pelagianism to Arminianism but I could not cross the Rubicon into Calvinism.
I have a rather deep appreciation for Reformed theology as a whole though I cannot embrace the theological system itself as characterized by the TULIP. My books on sacramental theology, for example, evidence a great indebtedness to Reformed formulations. But I also have a deep appreciation for classic Arminianism (Arminius himself) and its related evangelical expression in Wesley.
It is important, I think, to understand what the Calvinist and Arminian think is so important–what is it that they want to preserve? This is a crucial question. It can be a significant starting-point for mutual appreciation even though we may not find full agreement.
At the heart of Reformed theology is the desire to give God all the glory and to exclude all human boasting in the work of salvation. Faith is wholly located in God’s electing grace and sovereign work. The ground of election is God’s own will. Humans cannot boast of their salvation in relation to anything within themselves; salvation is rooted in God’s act of election. Calvinists seek to preserve the glory of God as the sole cause of salvation.
At the heart of Arminian theology is the desire to proclaim God’s love for all humanity–for every single human person. The philanthropy of God is the root of salvation and this love extends to all; God does not desire the loss of any human. Arminians seek to preserve the faithfulness of God to his own relentless love for every one of his creatures.
The two cross swords in answering the question, “Why are some damned?” The Calvinist responds: “because they were not chosen” (or more specifically, they are damned because of their own sin and God chose to leave them there). The Arminian responds: “because they did not believe” (or more specifically, unbelief is a human rejection of God’s gracious offer of salvation). Calvinists accuse Arminians of making faith a meritorious cause of salvation which becomes a ground of boasting and detracts from the glory of God (in other words, humans save themselves with their own faith). Arminians accuse Calvinists of subordinating the love of God to the glory of God in that God leaves some in their sin to demonstrate his justice as well as for the sake of his own glory (in other words, he loves his own glory more than he loves his world).
Calvinists ask how faith as a human act does not become a human work of righteousness if God himself has not elected a person to faith out of his own grace. Arminians ask why everyone does not believe if the sole cause of faith is the gracious work of God in election and God loves everyone. The Calvinist wants to preserve God’s glory and the Arminian wants to preserve God’s love.
Ultimately–at least at a theoretical level or in the context of the Arminian/Calvinist debate–one must choose which is the priority of God’s heart: is it his glory or his love? Or, do we have to choose? That is a subject for another post.
May 4, 2008 at 6:19 am |
well, thanks john mark for getting me out off pelagianism during my time at dlu. the calvinsits do have something to give. i am learning that over and over again. but, true, i cannot ever see myself crossing that ULI line. T, as argued by Olson, from an A. standpoint, I totally agree with. P? who knows?
by the way, on an sidenote: the late stanley grenz is getting a lot of heat from piper, carson etc. wanna tell me the reason for picking “created for community” as a textbook for undergrad? still think it is a great book, no worries.
May 5, 2008 at 6:10 am |
Calvinism is the worst understanding of the sovereign grace of God that I have ever heard; except for Pelagianism, semi-Pelagainism, Arminianism, Lutheranism and any other explanation I have come across so far. (With apologies to Winston Churchill who is said to have made a similar comment about democracy.)
No doubt Calvinism it is a feeble attempt of a finite mind to comprehend and explain God and His salvation. It simply seems to be lacking less than all the other explanations on the subject.
Decades ago I had the pleasure of sitting in Lemoine Lewis’s Church History class and am still impressed with the manner in which he addressed the controversy. I wonder how many in our fellowship are aware Thomas Campbell held his Calvinism as his “private property” all his life and considered the Westminster Confession one of the finest expressions of Christian theology ever penned by man.
We would do well to strive to understand the doctrine better as we would benefit from the study whether we accepted the doctrine or not. Thanks very much for bringing it up.
May 5, 2008 at 7:17 am |
T(otal Depravity) can mean very different things to differeing people. I don’t have a fundamental problem with Olson’s take on it but even his definition is different in intent from the Calvinist (Dort) version of T. The Calvinist intent is to exclude any kind of synergistic cooperation between God and humanity in faith. P? I’ll have more on that later.
I still use Grenz. I think his emphasis on community, the eschatological community as goal (kingdom of God), is important. His work is often under fire from Carson and others because of the role he gives to tradition and contemporary thought forms in the formulation of theology. The difference between Carson and Grenz is the difference between Evangelicals and Postevangelicals.
May 5, 2008 at 7:32 am |
Thanks, Randall, for the comment.
Unfortunately, we all fall somewhere on that continuum from Calvinism is to Pelagianism. We cannot avoid historical alignment because we are historically situated.
Indeed, Thomas Campbell claimed the title “Calvinist” and never relinquished it. I think, however, he was using the term in a broad manner, e.g., the Reformed tradition as a whole (that is, the Westminster Confession as a whole). But it is clear that he did not regard his embrace of “Calvinism” as essential or necessary to the gospel or the project of restoration.
I think this is a good model. We can discuss and debate various historical understandings of Christianity but also understand that no interpretation is equivalent to the gospel itself. They often fall into the category of opinion and even metaphysical speculation.
May 5, 2008 at 7:49 am |
I’ve Got some serious issues with what you’re talking about, first and foremost… I don’t know what you are talking about.
I would like to know, and have always wanted to know, I’ve never known anyone, really that I trust enough in their theology, that could teach me from a proper foundationial viewpoint.
what i am saying here John Mark, is I have an awful lot of faith in your foundational viewpoints
And for me to say that and you know in what I think about theologians that says quite a bit my friend.
Blessings rich in California
May 5, 2008 at 8:17 am |
p.s.
although.. seeing as how it only took me 35 years to come to a conclusion of my study on faithfulness in Romans 3:21-through 26, and not without your help I may on add 24.
Which I think is pretty good for a person like me.
Being ignorant and all.
From a “theologians” point of view.
Now from God’s point of view and what I consider his providential working.
Thanks for being there John Mark.
I am a hard teach.
From my point of view I have been diligent trying to rightly divide the Scriptures,
and relentless in my search for God’s truth.
Again blessings rich in California
May 5, 2008 at 10:11 am |
Can I use this as a basis for understanding what you’re talking about or would you like to add to it.
Blessings rich in California
May 5, 2008 at 10:31 am |
Rich, I have deleted the long quote from Packer’s introduction to John Owen’s “Death of the Death”. It was too long, but is a classic piece that seeks to explain Calvinism and J. I. Packer is a major representative of a classic Puritan Calvinism.
May 5, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
thanks john mark i will try to get up to speed on this topic to comprehend your subjectmatter
blessings rich in ca.
May 5, 2008 at 6:07 pm |
Thanks, John Mark for your rely to to my comment as well as your comments on T(otal Depravity). I hope we are all struggling to understand the nature of our salvation. It cn be difficult to understand boith God’s nature and our own.
Recently a Coen Brothers movie titled No Country For Old Men won the Oscar for Best Picture. In the film Woody Harrelson asks Javier Bardem if he even knows what his own nature is. It is evident that Bardem does not even understand the question. I suspect the writer intended for his audience to ask themselves that same question. Regrettably we don’t.
We need to be careful in coming to any conclusion about the nature of man for if we accept the notion of T the rest of the TULIP logically follows. More importantly, we need to base our understanding and conclusion on scripture.
So what is the nature of man and how far did he fall? Some may think I fell into a shallow ditch along the side of the road. True I fell into the mud and got dirty but I was able to reach down and grab my bootstraps and pull myself out of the muck and walk out of the ditch and go take a shower and clean myself up.
Another may think I fell off a steep cliff and rolled down 75 feet but somehow survived the tumble. After gathering my wits I made a commitmetn to climp up the cliff. I scraped and clawed my way up. True enough, I got tired and discouraged along the way but God helped me. He encouraged me and directed me through the the roughest spots and with His help I reached the top. Once I was safe I avoided the edge of the cliff again lest I tumble once .
Yet somenone else might say that I fell into the abyss. I was hopelessly lost in sin and did not seek the Lord before He intervened in my life and saved me. There was nothing I could have done nor did I want to – not deep down inside. I willing chose to sin. No one held a gun to my head and made me sin. No one even twisted my arm to make me blaspheme, or lust or be proud or arrogant or any of the other behaviors in which I chose to engage. I did them all, and more, because I wanted to. It is tough to admit it but it is true. I did not become sinful becauew I sinned. Just the opposite, I chose to sin because I was sinful. It was my nature and a man will be ture to his nature.
T has been represented as the doctrine thart man is as bad as he can be, but I don’t know of any Calvinists that teach that. The presentations I have heard and read is that T is the teaching that every aspect of man’s nature (e.g. body, emotions, intellect, will etc.) has been touched by sin to a degree that he is unable to overcome it by himself.
My body has been corrupted by the fall. I body gets sick; I need a knee replacement, I have high blood pressure and cholesteral and other issues that will eventually lead to my physical death. I can not overcome it.
My emotions are subject to the same type of corruption – and I think I speak for every man and woman on the planet.
Relative to other men, I score well on IQ tests but there is no salvation to be found in my intellect or ability to understand complex cognitive processes.
And my will – what I can say? Like Paul in Romans 7, I do the very thing I hate. None the less, it is not me but sin which indwells me.
Scripture speaks frequently of the nature of man. The thoughts of his heart were only evil continually. So God brought a flood on the earth – and with good reason. The fool has said in his heart “there is no God.” Jesus asked the man, “Why do youi call me good since there is none good but God?” and of course there is Pauls condemnation of all men in the opening chapters of his letter to the Romans.
So how far did man fall? A little ways but he was able to climb back? Or did he fall farther and only with a lot of determination and some help from God was he able to get back on the strait and narrow path. Or was everyone else, like me, utterly, hopelessly lost in sin? There was no hope for me at all. “But God being great in mercy”… reached down and saved even me for He loved me with an everlasting love far beyond anything we are capable of. I think the scriptures clearly teach the later.
Is my salvation synergistic or the work of God as Jesus says in John 6? I could answer that it is synergistic if I explained that I fought against it and God did the rest. I did my part in that I rebelled and He did the rest. Man does cooperate with God in the reception of the gospel, but he does so becasue God enabled him to do it. I doubt he would have ever done it alone, left to his own devices.
It is not necessary to understand Calvinism to respond to the gospel. Most of us are saved as semi-Pelagians or Arminians. There is enough of the gospel in many presentations that a regenerated man/woman will respond. As God gives the growth we may come to understand more about the nature of our salvation, but that doesn’t mean a person will ever come to agree with the Calvinists. For we were never saved on the basis of our abilty to understand complex theology. The gospel, like all theology, is shallow enough for a child to wade in and deep enough for an elephant to drown in.
I have just travelled a long way and changed many time zones. It is 3:00 AM as I wrote this as I was unable to remain asleep. If I rambled and made a lot of typos, please overlook my errors.
May 5, 2008 at 8:18 pm |
I would think T only logically entails TULIP if it is defined and undestood as Calvinists understand it. I would agree we fell into an abyss and are wholly dependent upon God’s initiative and upon his enabling grace. The point at which classic Arminianism (not Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism) and Calvinism would diverge is in the cooperative nature of the enabling grace. God enables sinful humans to respond to the gospel. This saving grace, according to Arminians, is not irresistible. It is thus synergistic in the sense that grace is cooperative and God enables a free response or rejection of that grace.
The saving work of God is wholly out of his grace–the ground of salvation is found in God’s work. But the means of salvation is a cooperative divine-human movement. God enables faith and humans cooperate (synergistic–work with) with the grace of God. But humans can also work against and reject the grace of God. I think John 6 bears out this perspective, particularly in the context of the Johannine theology as a whole.
I certainly don’t think people have to understand the complexities of theology to enjoy God’s grace. My, if that were true, we would all be in a hole out which no one could climb.
May 5, 2008 at 10:00 pm |
I really do think that most of these problems are of theology revolves around a fundamental flaw in understanding Romans 319 through 26.
John Mark it skews the whole book of Romans to make, to say nothing of the four or five other times that Paul uses the phrase faith of Christ in other books.
I’m just wondering how this works just wondering how this works
2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish:
2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
2Co 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.
2Co 4:6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves;
May 5, 2008 at 10:07 pm |
Oh and by the way
I remember my mom coming over with the preacher one night right before I was 21.
And we sat down and had a little talk and I told him I would not believe anything that I could not plainly see was right from reading contextually out of the Scripture.
Who ever came up with do what they do and say what they say and you’ll be pretty safe.
Do those words somewhat which it might have been Campbell I am not sure.
Simple Christianity got me in what was simple as taken the better part of 40 years
blessings rich in California
May 8, 2008 at 1:49 am |
Hello John Mark. May God richly bless you and your ministry. In your reply to me you said “I would think T only logically entails TULIP if it is defined and undestood as Calvinists understand it.” Of course that is correct. I am wondering how Arminians understand T? I thought they belived in total depravity but also believed in “prevenient grace.” That is that God gave all men without exception enough grace to enable them to overcome the effects of the fall and come to faith on their own. Is this it, or pretty close? Perhaps I am mistaken as your comment seems to suggest that others understand T differently.
Different subject:
In your original post you said “At the heart of Arminian theology is the desire to proclaim God’s love for all humanity–for every single human person. The philanthropy of God is the root of salvation and this love extends to all; God does not desire the loss of any human. Arminians seek to preserve the faithfulness of God to his own relentless love for every one of his creatures.”
My understranding of Arminianism is somewhat different in that it seems to me to emphasize human ability to come to faith (all by myself) as the ultimate deciding factor in who is or isn’t saved. It is always some variation of the theme that god wrote a check with my name on it but it is up to me to cash it. The ultimate deciding factor for the Arminian is human choice rather than God’s choice. Logicaly some of the credit then belongs to man who chose to come to faith over the man that didn’t make that choice – or that one man initially resisited but eventually stopped resisting God’s calling and respnded in faith while the lost man continued to resist God’s relentless efforts to save him.
I must say this doesn’t leave me with a strong sense of God’s ability to accomplish what He intended if he fails to overcome the resistance of a puny human. Some argue that God doesn’t want to violate our free will. I decalre, sometimes I think some of us bow down and worship at the altar of Man’s Free Will.
I love my son and daughter and there is nothing I would not do to ensure their salvation. Would God do less for those upon whom He has set his love? Of course not! He works in our life and woos us. His calling is effectual. His gifts and calling are irrevocable. He accomplishes all that He wishes and is not frustrated by the will of man.
I do not think that Calvinists think God loves human beings less than the Arminian opinion. It seems to me that they recognize that God’s justice and righteousness and even his wrath against sin are included in His attributes as well as His sovereignty, knowldege and power. love, grace, mercy etc..
Your statement could be understood to evaluate God’s love based on the quantity of people saved rather than the quality of loving us in spite of how unlovable we are. I doubt you think that accurately expresses your perspective, so could you explain a little further. Calvinists believe God’s love in unlimited/unconditional to those that are His but not all of us are His in that special sene. From eternity past He made both Paradise and Hell and I think He knew what he was doing when he did it. Jesus indicated that some are children of their father, the devil. God has always made choices when it came to man, He chose Jacob over Esau, Issac over Ismael, Israel over the nations etc etc. I think the problem is that that offends our sense of fairness and right and wrong. We find God lacking if he doesn’t treat all of us equally.
You know Romans 9, especially verses 1 – 23. I don’t see how one can read that passage and not take it the way Calvinists explain it. Piper’s book, The Justification of God, lays it out well enough. I have heard Calvinists claim that that there has never been a substantial Arminian refutation of Piper’s explanation despite the fact that his book was published back in the 1980s. What do you think?
Grace and peace,
Randll
May 8, 2008 at 5:44 am |
Randall,
You ask alot of questions in one post.
On Piper’s book, I think Cottrell’s commentary on Romans does a good job as a general Arminian response. I would suggest that Romans 9 does not negate faith as a means of salvation where Arminians and Calvinists can agree. Read in the context of Romans 10-11, Romans 9 suggests to me that God’s ordained means of salvation includes humans cooperating with God’s gracious acts in faith.
My statement said nothing about quantity of people saved but rather is about God’s pursuit of all human beings out of his love. Clearly Calvinists believe in the love of God for the elect, but my problem with Calvinism is that there is no love of God for the non-elect simply because God did not chose to love them.
I’m not talking about my sense of fairness–God does not have to treat all humans just alike. Rather, I am talking about God’s own commitment to his love for all people which is what Scripture declares about God.
I would suggest that God’s desire to save all (that none should perish) is frustrated by human resistance to God’s intent for relational love. Humans do resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) and those whom God wanted to gather he did not because they would not (Matthew 23).
Faith is not a merely human act would be my response–it is not coming to faith all by myself. Not only is there prevenient grace, but there is cooperative grace as well. It is grace from beginning to end and God is active all along the line to empower faith.
Either God decides who will be lost and who will be saved by his own fiat independent of human instrumentality or God decides who will be lost and who will be saved through human instrumentality. I think the latter and not the former. This is God’s decision about how he will redeem and consequently it is not an assertion of human autonomy. Rather, it is human acceptance of what God intends.
The difference in the Calvinist intent for total depravity is to exclude prevenient grace for all. Classic Arminians (Arminius himself, for example) would never say that people come to “faith on their own.” With prevenient grace and God’s love for all humans and his will that none should perish, “T” does not logically imply the whole Calvinist system.
Thanks for the conversation.
May 8, 2008 at 7:19 am |
Randall,
One other point…..I suggest that the Calvinist and the Arminian are actually in practical agreement about human participation in faith. They both believe a human decision is involved and that humans participate in the act and perseverance of faith. Humans believe. Where they disagree is on why they believe and the relation of faith to election. They disagree about the theory, but they agree on the pragmatic experience of faith itself. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that we know our election through our experience (and, yes, even decision) of faith.
May 8, 2008 at 8:28 am |
i know that i learned bunches from that exchange
how about some more randall, if john mark doesn’t mind, how bout ithat john mark.
peace and blessings
your ignorant brother,
rich in ca.