I believe that God has been, is and will always be ruling over the plans, ideas or rulings of angels or man. I do not believe that man can ever thwart the plan of God. I believe that God granting sinners a real choice to accept His gracious provision of salvation ”by grace through faith” is more consistent with God’s sovereignty when considered in light of the totality of the picture presented in scripture and the fullness of the person of God.
Consequently, I do believe and extol the sovereignty of God, but I do not believe that necessitates or is even enhanced by viewing it through the lens of Calvinism.
I affirm that God is sovereign over everything without exception; therefore, He is in total control; further, I believe that creating a world where men are given a real1 choice demonstrates God’s sovereignty rather than undermining it. Without question, God’s permissive will does not preclude Him from intervening in the decision-making process if His purposes so require; however, neither does it necessitate that it be done in order to maintain sovereignty as long as He sovereignly chose to act in that particular way;
I further affirm that God’s full character and/or attributes, not just His sovereignty or justice, are to be considered when speaking of Him and His plans. Some of these are infinity, justice, mercy, love, grace, and power, and He possesses these attributes perfectly and infinitely. God is the sum of perfection.
Lewis Sperry Chaffer notes concerning this balance, “He is free to dispose of His creation as He will; but His will…is wholly guided by the true and benevolent features of His Person….The attributes of God form an interwoven and interdependent communion of facts and forces which harmonize in the Person of God. An omission or slighting of any of these, or any disproportionate emphasis upon any one of them cannot but lead to fundamental error of immeasurable magnitude.”2
Moreover, all of God’s attributes are more accurately reflected by accepting the truths of Scripture, which declare that salvation is provided and genuinely offered to everyone by God, and everyone can by “grace through faith” receive salvation, rather than by accepting the teaching of Calvinism that God only actually offers salvation to some since only that particular some can actually believe, and those are the ones He monergistically3 causes to believe by changing their nature against their will. Lastly, while some things about God are indeed a mystery because either they are not fully disclosed by God or understood by man or both, this is quite different than dilemmas generated by Calvinism’s overemphasis upon certain attributes or concepts like justice or predestination and defining sovereignty to necessarily preclude real free choice.
I disaffirm that salvation is monergistic, which means that God actively caused some to be saved by regeneration, and that act of regeneration was contrary to and against their sinful rebellious nature and will, and becomes synergistic only after regeneration; that there is nothing prior to that regeneration that can be done with regard to salvation;4 that man is passive in regeneration;5 further, that God selected to regenerate some and thereby either actively or passively chose to leave some in their lost condition,6 and therefore irresistibly pre-determined some to be forever lost and damned to a place created for Satan (Matthew 25:41).
Further, I disaffirm that the key to God’s sovereignty is causation, as the Calvinists seem to believe. When, actually, this definition of sovereignty is a product of defining sovereignty and viewing Scriptures relating to sovereignty through the Calvinist grid; moreover, that it is possible for a Calvinist to demonstrate how an unfettered decision by God to give man the ability to have a real free choice undermines sovereignty. Finally, I disaffirm the legitimacy of using mystery to serve as a satisfactory alternative to the biblical balance of sovereignty and human responsibility and/or that the response “it is a mystery” is a satisfactory answer to the dilemma caused by the Calvinist teaching of selective regeneration preceding and necessarily resulting in faith.7
Next Topic: Predestination and Foreknowledge
- By real I mean that before the fall, man could actually choose to sin or not sin. He could choose to do A or B. After the fall, I mean that God offers salvation to individuals, and concomitantly enables them to be able to make a choice to follow Christ or not follow Christ. This is in contrast to the compatibilist idea of choice, where man has a choice to follow or not follow Christ, but can actually only choose to not follow Christ until God regenerates him, which will without exception result in man choosing to follow Christ. [↩]
- Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Vol. I, Prolegomena, Bibliology, Theology Proper. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1976, p223. This citation is not intended to indicate Chaffer’s endorsement of my overall position, but rather to note the need for balance in handling the attributes of God, which I do not think Calvinists do. [↩]
- Calvinism teaches that regeneration is monergistic—God alone and man has no part in it. After regeneration there becomes a synergistic relationship between God and man, and man exercises faith, because he cannot choose to do otherwise. [↩]
- Monergism means that salvation is “[God’s] work alone” (Geisler’s Systematic Theology Vol 3, p192), which is based upon the Calvinist view that salvation is based upon God’s unconditional election to regenerate some prior to and quite apart from anything, even faith. However, if there is nothing that is a part of salvation and no one can do anything, even by the grace of God, to facilitate faith and thereby salvation, then why did Paul reason from the Scriptures in order to prove that Jesus was the Messiah (e.g., Acts 17:2-4)? Why did he attempt to “persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11)? Why did he beg people to be “reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20)? Why did God reconcile the “world” (note the use of “them”) to Himself (2 Corinthians. 5:19)? Why was Paul able to reason with the Jews concerning Christ, and some were persuaded while others “would not believe” (Acts 28:24)? Notice not that they could not believe, but they would not believe. Why would Paul believe and say “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22)?
To say, as Calvinists do, that God has established the means to salvation, and therefore this may be the means of salvation, which in reality according to monergism has no real effect upon conversion, is just not the picture presented by the Scripture. The picture in Scripture is that these things do have an actual part in the process of salvation. They play a part, as does faith, by the grace and plan of God. To say that Paul was doing and saying this all out of obedience all the while knowing that the blind, deaf, and dead to whom he reasoned and pleaded could not hear or respond, anymore than a blind person can see you wink, is not the picture that is clearly presented in Scripture.
Moreover, according to monergism, if they ever did respond, it would have nothing to do with anything Paul or even with anything the respondent had done (see also 1 Thessalonians 2:16). Although Calvinists talk, at times, as though what we do matters in a person’s salvation, it is actually absolutely disallowed by their monergistic view of salvation. I do grant that Calvinist can be disobedient to God’s process, but this will neither hinder nor facilitate salvation. [↩]
- The Westminster Confession says, “This effectual call [to salvation] is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it. ” 69, chapter X, section 1 and 2. I add to this the clarification that he is not only enabled, but according to Calvinism, he is enabled against his will, and not only enabled to believe but made to only be able to believe rather than choose between believing and not believing; moreover, God indeed has foreknowledge, even of the future, contingent, free will choices of men and women. This allows Him to choose, foreordain, and predestine: He gave free will, paid everything necessary for the salvation of all, sent the call out to receive by faith, and predestined to salvation those who receive and respond to His grace. [↩]
- Whether actively as Hyper-Calvinism maintains, or passively as Calvinism maintains [↩]
- At times, when I talk to a Calvinist using the argument that if God monergistically selects to regenerate some, and to not regenerate others, and all whom He regenerates will necessarily believe, and all whom He does not choose to regenerate cannot believe, then God is the one deciding to send some to hell; further that this is an inescapable reality based on Calvinism since people are in hell because God chose not to regenerate them. I am told not to take that logic too far—i.e., it is a mystery. Of course they use logic all of the time. I do agree that God is just if He sends everyone to hell, and it is grace if He chooses to redeem one, but that does not answer this question nor does it measure up to the boundless, matchless and majestic grace, love, and mercy presented throughout the Scripture. [↩]
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
[...] The Sovereignty of God: Without the baggage of Calvinism Predestination and Foreknowledge; Without The Confusion of Calvinism Double Predestination Where Did Sin Come From? The Depravity of Man Atonement for Sin The Love of God: Calvinism does not measure up Grace World vs. Elect Faith and Regeneration Faith and Works Preaching of the Gospel I use the term “Major” Calvinist to include Five Point Calvinists regardless of other differences, .e.g. order of decrees, baptism…and refer to such in this paper simply as “Calvinists” or “Calvinism”. I use the term “minor” to include all other views which hold to one or more of the four points of Calvinism excluding limited atonement. Neither minor nor major Calvinists can be rightly classified as Arminian. The reason I am spending the time to address concerns with Calvinism and not Arminianism is because in Baptist life, questions regarding issues relating to theology are almost always related to whether one agrees or disagrees with Calvinism rather than Arminianism since Baptists, other than those like “Free Will” Baptists are not Arminian in their theology. Further, it is simply imprecise for a Calvinist to dismiss people like me by labeling us Arminian. [↩]Search my blog for Determinism, Free Will, Calvinism, Love of God, or listen to messages from 1 Peter 1:1-5, entitled Preservation of the Saints [↩]TULIP is an acronym for the five points of Calvinism 1.Total inability 2. Unconditional election 3. Limited atonement 4. Irresistible grace 5. Perseverance of the saints [↩]I was classified as a four-point Calvinist without any clarifications for many years, and have and still do respect and study countless Calvinist theologians including Calvin himself. [↩]While it is true that some “Reformational Arminians” have an understanding closer to Calvinsim regarding issues such as those mentioned as well as others than that of “popular” understandings, my beliefs are far closer to most Calvinists with regard to such [↩]An example of this is the work that is done by Calvinists in restricting terms like world, all people, all nations, everyone….in order to bolster support for limited atonement. [↩]This in no way implies that I am against “theological systems” or thinking systematically about theology, for my position is quite the contrary, and that is why my system has changed. [↩]No one verse can be read or understood apart from the complete revelation of God. Although all who maintain the inerrancy of Scripture would affirm this, our arguments surely seem to minimize it at times. An example would be Acts 2:47 that says, “The Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.” Should we rightly conclude, from that single verse, that God is the only one who plays a part in the salvation of people and that man plays no part because that verse only speaks of God doing something? Or could we rightly conclude that no one repented or believed the gospel, because that single verse doesn’t say anyone did those things? Could we rightly conclude that no one preached the gospel to those the Lord added to the church, because that one verse says nothing about anyone preaching? The reality is that no single verse or passage explains everything, whether it is John 6:44, 2 Corinthians 4: 3-6 or… The same is true of Acts 2:47. Clearly, John did not believe that regeneration precedes faith. He wrote at the close of his gospel: “But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31, italics added). [↩]This refers to the way some Calvinists use language that is inconsistent with the tenets of Calvinism in prayers, preaching, witnessing…or that tends to present Calvinism in a softer tone than it really is. This is particularly noticeable when they speak on the love of God, mercy, missions or when they pray…see blog “Faith And Regeneration” especially footnote on “new birth” in the disaffirmation. [↩]The section of theology that deals with salvation issues [↩] [...]