It’s still damnationist.
@Reggie_O_Donoghue, nice to hear from you again. I hope you are well; I’m praying for your Prime Minister.
Blessings and prayers for those on the other side of the pond.
Randy
At one point of my life I was convinced that by some deep, penetrating heurmeneutics, and study of historical theology, that I would be able to navigate the tensions between our will and God’s sovereignty. That quest has long elapsed, and I have come to believe that it is an arrogance to attempt to package scriptural teaching into a systematic superstructure and then to reflect back and diminish those verses of scripture that do not fit the system. This is done mainly to resolve what appears to be contradictory between free will and sovereignty, but I believe we are just supposed to live with the tension unresolved. The path back to tree of the knowledge of good and evil is blocked by an angel with a flaming sword. It is not given us to know the mind of God. God is transcendent.
Why would God give us a special revelation which consists mainly of exhortation and narrative? If systematic theology is what matters, then inspired scripture should tidily consist of proper theology, soteriology, eschatology, and so forth as a well ordered, sequential development of what you are supposed to believe. Rather, when the Bible says to choose, I take seriously that we have the ability and responsibility of genuine volition, not some sort of weasel willing choice for the only thing I have the ability to choose. When the Bible teaches that God has it all under control, I believe that is total. So while I think Calvinism and Arminianism both incorporate truth, they both also reach into a realm of human presumption and intellectual idolatry.
2 Likes
Right! I believe Enns says it is a recounting of how God is interacting with humans…though I can’t find his exact definition.
2 Likes
…and the fact is that the addition of both sectors still comes to choice and free will. The absolutist uncompromising position here is the denial of free will. We can acknowledge all the things that bereft us of free will to quite agree that there is nothing absolute, guaranteed, inviolable, or universal about free will, only to say that a smidgin of free will is still in there somewhere. And indeed this is good for taking judgementalism and self-righteousness out of the free will equation to still say “there but for the grace of God I would be also.” In fact, I often suggest that God has to intervene to liberate our free will from enslavement to sin so that we may have a choice. And perhaps there lies the meeting ground of the two positions, for does not both positions have God intervening to give us some crucial component? To give us choice or to give us faith? So the crux of the matter would seem to be that for the libertarian these are one and the same thing… faith is making this choice.
oh… have to continue this later… my wife wants to go out and see the cherry blossoms together.
2 Likes
We can also be free to enjoy the mystery of how an omnitemporal (I believe) God interacts with us who are bound in sequential time. No one’s free choice was violated in the setting up of the myriad of preconditions required to accomplish the several precise sequences involved in the events for Maggie to see God’s sovereignty so clearly.
…back from my walk under the cherry blossoms with just a few more words on this.
The conundrum is easily solved by another identification like that of faith and choice… where salvation is not a reward for doing the right thing… salvation is becoming the person who does the right thing for its own sake. There is a difference between trying to buy your way with the minimum requirements like the rich man in Matthew 19, and “faking it until you make it” where you do the right thing as means to change.
I thought the point of Jesus repeated refrain “your sins are forgiven, so go and sin no more…” was neither of these two extremes…
- God will forgive you always (putting too much weight on the first phrase)
- Last chance to stop it with the sin (putting too much weight on the second phrase)
But the point I saw expressed here is that what matters most is not what you have done but what you will do from now on. It is not about measuring your worth according to a record of your good and evil deeds, it is a matter of which road you take and which direction you choose go from here.
2 Likes
I don’t think Calvinism, rightly understood (and not all who take the label do), does that. I think that is a mischaracterization of Calvinism.
1 Like
I like that! And it could be that the “fake it till you make it” is merely one of the many tools given us to retrain our habits and to cultivate better inclinations in ourselves that can hold sway even when our feelings aren’t always in line.
1 Like
Although, becoming the person who does the right thing for its own sake I don’t think we can do unless we are saved and have an already changed heart. A person cannot do that without Christ in his heart beforehand – that sounds more like what I think of as becoming sanctified.
2 Likes
I’m probably rusty on the nuances and distinctions between what is referred to as “sanctification” as opposed to “salvation”, etc. And nor is this a request for education on those finer points here (unless you just enjoy rehearsing all that for whatever clarity you feel necessary). I tend to see it all as the whole of what comes (and continues in us) when we are in relationship with Christ and learning obedience to him. Christ makes it possible, and calls us to, in our own turn participate with him in the works he has prepared beforehand for us to do. We learn haltingly to be Kingdom citizens … here and now.
2 Likes
I won’t quibble. 
I wish I had the time to give this topic the attention it warrants. For many lockdown has meant more free time; alas, for me the opposite.
A couple brief observations will have to suffice. Please, read the in a friendly and charitable tone, because that was how try to write them 
First of all, Calvinism ≠ Reformed. Calvinism is a particular theological stance on salvation. But to be Reformed is to subscribe to a historical Christian confession(s) (Westminster, Heidelberg, Belgic, etc). That may require one to adopt a Calvinistic outlook but the two are not synonymous. Baptists, Anglicans, even Methodist, can and have been Calvinists without necessarily being Reformed.
Second, Defining terms in these discussions is so important. For example, exactly does one mean by ‘free will’ and is that the same as how a Calvinist and/or Reformed person uses the term? Even among the Reformed definitions and opinions vary. My personal position is that the will is not ‘free’ in that our willed choices are driven by our desires. IE. We choose what we want (desire) to do. A key question for me then is, if a persons greatest desire is to sin will they ever choose of their own volition to submit to God’s authority? That said, I am still a moral agent who makes choices. In that sense Calvinism ≠ determinism. That’s just one of a number of terms that need careful definition (from both sides) for fruitful conversation to take place.
Third, In my experience most people reject an caricature of Calvinism or Reformed theology of salvation. When discussing this issue, people sometimes say ‘I could never be a Calvinist because I could never believe in a God who [XYZ]’ to which I often reply: 'Interesting, I don’t believe in that God either’ 
. Further, many are surprised to discover that the so called ‘Calvin’s TULIP’ was invented about 300 years after his death. Calvinist theology, after all, doesn’t begin with Total Depravity but initial goodness and the image of God… Then comes the fall.
Finally, anyone wanting to get their head around a Reformed understanding of sovereignty would do well to start with The Heidelberg Catechism (preferably a version which includes the ‘scriptural proofs’). They may be surprised at just how much the theological articulations of sovereignty are pastoral in nature. And again, that far from trying to look behind the curtain, the writers are simply trying to make sense (for better or worse) of God’s biblical self-revelation.
FWIW, I don’t mind where people ultimately land on this issue so long as they A. Make sure that what they are rejecting an accurate portrayal of the Doctrine(s) in question, B. they’ve considered the impactions and limitations of alternative positions, C. The position they adopt is still within the bounds of orthodoxy.
I hope that is a helpful addition to the conversation @Mervin_Bitikofer. 
Sorry I can’t engage more fully 
.
6 Likes
Thanks for that clarification… I often tend to think of those terms interchangeably. Though I guess I’m more likely to see “Reformed” used in a denominational or ideological sense, while Calvinism seems to be more personal.
2 Likes
I have no problem with that and use the same “santification” language myself. What I do have a problem with is when this is turned around to say that it doesn’t count unless you become a Christian first or that non-Christians cannot do what is right for its own sake. Indeed Paul says just the opposite in Romans 2. Turning things around like this is symptomatic of a component of legalism having become a part of your understanding of Christianity. I solve the problem by denying that Christians have any monopoly or control over God to say who can have Christ in his heart – that would be God’s purview not ours.
1 Like
@Reggie_O_Donoghue, I’m very interested in this point: would you be able to explain a little further…?
My favorite naive arguments against one part of Calvinism, predestination, is when you hear “It turns us into robots” and, sometimes in the same criticism, “If this is true, then we might as well do whatever we want.” What I like is that these are the two most inconsistent criticisms possible, as they are exact opposites.
Also, I never get the “it’s not fair complaint.” In Arminianism, if you have (for example) two twins with identical backgrounds and educations, and one accepts the gospel and other doesn’t, it must be because the former had an experience–perhaps meeting a proselytizing friend, that the other did not. There had to be some reason that prevenient grace was sufficient to put the former over the threshold but not the latter. Whatever was different, it was unfair. Calvinism does not have a monopoly on the unfair. The only soteriology that is fair is universalism.
1 Like
An interesting point. Thanks for sharing, @heddle. Is that the beard of the ‘Man Himself’ I spy in your avatar?
I’ve also heard it said that only universalists believe in a truly unlimited atonement since they argue that Christ died for all and all will be saved. Whereas, traditional orthodoxy requires an atonement limited by either its scope or its effectiveness.
That is to say, the Calvinist believes in an atonement that is limited in scope (Jesus died only for the elect) but unlimited in its effectiveness (all the elect will be saved). Whereas the non-Calvinist believes in an atonement that is unlimited in scope (Jesus died for everyone everywhere) but ultimately limited in its effectiveness (only some will trust Jesus for themselves).
Obviously an oversimplification, but I’ve found it to be a helpful illustration over the years. Mainly, because it helps make the point that we are not debating unlimited vs limited atonement. But rather, which limited atonement best makes sense of the biblical data.
1 Like
Greeting, @heddle. I agree that fairness doesn’t really exist, even with universalism. some of us struggle more than others to come to a knowledge of truth (even scientific truth) because of circumstances. I can’t recall if you’ve talked about the George Macdonald type of universalism? It’s more of an inclusivism that God won’t be satisfied with anything but full repentance, and takes as long as any parent to get there–even eternity. So, Hell would be considered purgatory when you eventually repent.
His “Unspoken Sermon” of “Justice” is the clearest example of that that I know, I think, but his novel “David Elginbrod” was on that track, too.
Thanks for your discussion.
2 Likes
This non-Calvinist believes we do not have to, or ought to, choose. I live with what I consider to be the Biblical tension unresolved.
3 Likes