Predestination pt 2: Why I am not a Calvinist
Augustinian predestination
Saint Augustine of Hippo was by far the most influential Church father in all of Christianity and he's battle with the heretic Pelagius led him to develop a robust monergistic system of predestination. Monergism is the position that God saves people independent of human choice or input, this is basically the only point that Augustine and Calvin agreed on. Augustine taught that a regenerate (born again) Christian can loose their salvation if they live a life of sin that drives out faith, Calvin taught that the Spirit only regenerates the elect hence the only born again Christians are the elect consequently this means no regenerate Christian will loose the faith. Augustine taught a universal atonement, that Christ dies for all sinners and not just the elect while Calvin taught a limited atonement that Christ only died for the elect. Augustine did not believe in complete determinism, Calvin did. Lastly Augustine believed in what is know as single predestination while Calvin believed in double predestination. The Lutheran tradition follows the Augustinian model of predestination.
Against Calvinism
Irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints
I believe that Perseverance of the saints and irresistible grace stem from the same misconception
that is the Holy Spirit only regenerates the elect. If this is true then of course grace is irresistible because the only people who receive the grace of regeneration are those who are destined to not reject it by God changing their wills and of course the elect will persevere to the end because the elect by definition are those who are finally saved. But if the Holy Spirit can regenerate the non elect then irresistible grace is wrong because the non-elect will eventually resist grace, else they would be the elect if they didn't resist grace and Perseverance of the saints would be wrong because it would mean that a real regenerate (born again) Christian can loose their salvation (the non-elect). Lets take a look at Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? We are clearly told that if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. Implying of course that there was a sacrifice for sins for this person who ends up experiencing God's wrath (more on that in the limited atonement section) and we are told that this person has 1. outraged the Spirit of grace 2. That he has trampled underfoot the Son of God and 3. has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified. Said individual who will be in hell as verse 27 says, clearly has profaned the blood of Jesus of the new covenant and we are told that he was sanctified by this blood of the new covenant. If being made holy by the blood of Jesus isn't regeneration, then what is? Saint Paul addressing the Judaizing Galatians writes Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. Once again it seems that these who are severed from Christ where once joined to Christ and these who once had grace have fallen from grace, this is simply the natural reading of the text. There are many other passages in the scriptures referencing that a true regenerate Christian can loose the grace of regeneration. To address any scriptures referencing the perseverance of the elect and grace being irresistible for the elect I want to make it clear I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the notion that only the elect receive the grace of regeneration. Lastly I challenge any Calvinist to produce a single quote from a single Christian prior to the 1500 protestant reformation who believed it was impossible for a born again Christian to loose their salvation. John Calvin seems to be the first Christian (whose writings we have) that believed that only the elect are given the grace of regeneration, No one taught this prior to Calvin.
Limited atonement
This one seems ridiculous to believe when one considers all the passages that speak of the universality of Christ's atonement such as: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son" or 1 Timothy 2:6 "who gave himself as a ransom for all people". However it is important to note that not all times when the bible speaks of "all people", or "the world" it is actually referring to all people such as John 12:19 where the Pharisees say: "Look, the world has gone after him.” But it is obvious that not all people on the planet were following Christ. The reformed normally say that some of these passages that seem to be referring to the World actually mean just the Elect or all types of people. I do believe that this can be a fair reading of the text and hence limited atonement stands. But imagine for a second the bible already mentions Jesus dying for the elect and then proceeds to say that he also died for the rest of the world as well. This would refute limited atonement, well, lo and behold: 1 John 2:1 My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous. 2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.
Saint John wrote this epistle to believers in Asia minor so he's audience was likely a mixture between Jews and gentile believers, likely predominantly gentile. The Apostle accounts for believers as he address the audience as "My dear children" and he then says that Christ atones not just for his "dear children" but also for the whole world. 1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. The original Greek word for "especially" here is μάλιστα (malista) which can also be translated "most of all" but never means "exclusively" in fact in all 12 times it is used in the new testament it never means exclusively but rather is used to emphasize a particular group. This is a clear indication that Christ died for the whole world. I will address John Owen's objection later in this entry
Free will
The Westminster confession of faith and the 1689 London Baptist confession of faith both state in their 3rd chapter that: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". This is the chief confession of Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists respectively affirming complete theistic determinism meaning that all deeds of man have been planned out or written out by God, even the most evil, depraved and disgusting deeds of mankind have all been done by God's unchangeable decree. Now I am not saying that God cannot ordain evil because God ordained the most evil deed to have ever been done on earth, the death of our Lord Jesus Christ in Acts 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. So yes God can ordain evil but we know that a far greater and immeasurable good came from the death of Christ, which was the demonstration of the love of God and salvation for God's people. We see that God only ordains evil if a much greater good comes forth from it. This theory is confirmed by Joseph being sold into Egypt by his brothers in Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So can the Reformed prove that the sexual assault of toddlers and the millions of abortions are all due to some greater good God ordained, or can we conclude that these are the sinful actions of man absent of divine influence. Now I can't prove that there isn't some greater good God has planned but it's hard to believe that every sin done by mankind since the beginning of time had some greater good involved and that's why God not permitted it to occur but forced it to occur by ordaining it? Neither side can prove this hypothesis negatively or positively but one certainly seems far more unlikely especially since the Lord does not delight in evil. Yes man's wills are not free, meaning man cannot do good apart from God's grace and yes God ordains the salvation of the elect apart from works however it does not follow that God now forces man to do the evil that he does, else we are simply just puppets. If you think this does not imply that we are puppets then read the first statement of this paragraph again.
Double Predestination
This is the teaching that God elects some to eternal life (which we agree) and the rest of mankind God elects to eternal damnation (which we disagree). Consider this in the Calvinist system God 1. elects who he will save 2. he sends Christ to die for his elect people (Limited atonement) intending to redeem his elect 3. he sends the Holy Spirit to convert his elect people (irresistible grace). Now consider the Lutheran System 1. God sends Jesus to die for all mankind desiring to save all mankind 2. The Holy Spirit desires to convert all mankind. 3. God now brings some people to regeneration, Justification, Sanctification and Perseverance to the end (election). Why would we see it the Lutheran way as opposed to the Reformed way, well that is because of: 1 Timothy 2: 1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. This verse affirms the Lutheran view that God desires all men to be saved, now Calvinist mention that all people in this instance refer to all the elect but verse 1 and 2 specifically say the church must make prayers and supplication for all people for kings and all in high positions so that Christians can live quiet lives. If the all people does not refer to the elect in verse 1 and 2 then it cannot be the elect in verse 4 because they are the same group of people. In the Lutheran system we believe that when God chooses to give someone the gift of regeneration, justification, sanctification and perseverance to final salvation, this is God electing said individual. Think of it this way, you are not justified and sanctified and persevered because you are elect, rather your justification, sanctification and perseverance is your election while Calvinists believe that the benefits of Christs atonement are a result of election. The difference is that in Lutheranism it is not possible for God to "elect" people to damnation to everlasting hell because election is not a negative process but a positive one. So by our definition of election it can only go one way, while in the Calvinist system because election is merely a choice then yes one can be elected to damnation by not being chosen for salvation but if election is more than a choice but the bestowal of the gifts of salvation then of course one cannot be elected to damnation because there is no active opposites of these Gifts of Salvation that God applies to the non-elect. This is why John Owen's dilemma fails. John Owens say that if Jesus dies for the sins of the whole world then because unbelief is a sin it does not matter weather someone believes or not because even if they don't believe Jesus already paid for their unbelief so they aren't guilty of their sins even unbelief. But if Justification is the bestowal of the forgiveness of sins and justification is part of election then of course the non-elect don't receive any forgiveness of sins (even forgiveness of unbelief) because they have not been elected. Although Christ died for them they do not receive the benefits of Christ sacrifice not because of they're unbelief like John Owen assumes but rather because they have not been elected. In the 6th century council of orange, the church rejected double predestination and affirmed Augustine's view of predestination.
An objection can be raised that if God desires all men to be saved why does He not elect all men. This, God does not reveal to us in scripture but what we know is that many things God desires don't come to pass for some greater good. For example God certainly desired for Adam and Eve to obey him but God still permitted Adam to disobey him because there was a greater good that came from Adam's ability to choose, free will (prior to the corruption of human nature by the fall). Similarly perhaps God desiring all men to be saved only saves some and permits others to be lost for some greater good we are not told of. I am not saying that God can't elect all people. He certainly can but I'm saying he chooses not to for some greater good.
Conclusion
Many people have no doctrine of predestination so when they come across passages that speaks about predestination they suddenly throw their hands up and say "I guess Calvinism must be true" without realizing that the church believed in predestination 1500 years before Calvin was born. There are many passages that assert that God elects people to salvation but that doesn't automatically imply Calvinism. At the very least it implies a mild form of Augustinism there are still a few extra doctrines you have to prove before you arrive at John Calvin's predestination.
Comments
Post a Comment