My inner geek is very happy. But like most geeky cool things, now that this cool thing exists I have to figure out what to do with it.

This post follows my announcement Calvinism: Planting My Flag.

In my days as a non-Calvinist I heard and saw many things by Calvinists seeking to promote Calvinism. Some of what I saw was good, some was not so good. In this section I want to write about Calvinist arguments (one in particular) and practices that do not do a good job of explaining how Calvinist theology properly represents Scripture. We will look first at arguments then at practices

Arguments

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard a Calvinist say something like, “God is sovereign, so people have no say in their salvation.” It is argued that because God has absolute control over the universe, individuals are not free to choose or reject God on their own. It is my feeling that arguments of this sort serve to limit rather than promote God’s sovereignty. I agree with non-Calvinists that a sovereign God could work salvation however he chooses. If God had wanted to enable all people to freely choose or reject him, I believe he could have done so. Sovereignty means he is free to do as he pleases. Calvinist arguments about God’s sovereignty essentially limit what he could do, making sovereignty something other than sovereignty. Out of his character God limits some of the things that he will do, but that does not limit the things that he can do. In a similar way, out of his own design and intention for his creation God limits some of the things that he will do, but that does not change what he can do. He could save all people, or he could enable all people to accept or reject him. He does neither of these things because neither of these things fits within his purpose for creating man.

Practices

There are several things I want to mention under this heading. First is the attitude of too many Calvinists. I do not know why it is, but for some reason Calvinists have the tendency to display a tremendous amount of theological arrogance and hostility. These are not good qualities. Calvinists have no monopoly on these qualities and non-Calvinists have some problems that Calvinists don’t tend to have, but the arrogance and rudeness I see in many Calvinists is inexcusable. Having a proper understanding of the nature of God, man, and salvation should drive a person to greater humility, greater service, greater love. If the character of many of today’s Calvinists were used to try and determine whether or not Calvinism were true, Calvinism would not fare well. We need to demonstrate the peace and love of God with all that we do, whether we are discussing Calvinism with a non-Calvinist or feeding the hungry in a downtown shelter or talking with a liberal theologian about the Bible. Are you glorifying God with your words, attitudes, and actions? If not, seek change.

Calvinists, you need to realize that the world is not split between Calvinists and Arminians. There are a lot of Christians out there who fall somewhere between the two headings (and some extremists who go beyond each position). It drives me crazy when I hear Calvinists refer to all people as either one or the other. You cannot make those who disagree with you be something they are not. Deal with people honestly and carefully. Take them on their own terms, not the terms you want to impose on them. It will gain you more credibility and make your own message easier to hear. If you argue with a non-Calvinist and you insist on calling them Arminian when they know they are not, why would they want to listen to anything you say? You cannot even understand where they are coming from, why should they trust that you can understand the Bible?

Finally, can we stop referring to Calvinist theology as the doctrines of grace? I understand the term, but it strikes me as an example of Calvinist hubris. Non-Calvinists fully believe in and affirm the grace of God. Non-Calvinist soteriology is built on the notion that salvation is fully a work of God’s grace. What they mean by that and what we mean by that may differ at times but Calvinists have no monopoly on teaching and affirming God’s grace. It is disingenuous to say we hold to the doctrines of grace as if implying that other Christians do not.

This post follows my announcement Calvinism: Planting My Flag.

Why I Am A Calvinist

I call myself a Calvinist not because I have been convinced by arguments or reasoning of Calvinist thinkers but because I have become convinced that the Calvinist understanding of the Bible is correct. That is to say, I am a Bible believing Christian and what I believe the Bible teaches about God, man, and salvation is roughly in line with the theology of Calvinism.

My Calvinism, then, is best expressed by appeals to Scripture. It is in the Bible that we learn that all people are thoroughly sinful, enslaved to sin, unable and unwilling to do anything but go their own way, living in rebellion to God. It is in the Bible that we learn the only way a person could desire salvation is if God first frees them from their enslavement to sin. In the Bible we learn that God only frees (transforms, regenerates – more on this in a moment) certain individuals and that not everyone will be saved or can be saved. Calvinism does not come from the mind of man, it comes from the Word of God.

I want to discuss Calvinism using roughly the categories contained above: the nature of man; the process of salvation; and the will of God.

The Nature of Man

The book of Romans gives us the starkest and most compelling picture of man as a completely sinful being, living openly and actively in rebellion against God. Listen to how Paul describes mankind in Romans 3:11-18 (in this passage he is bringing together several Old Testament passages):

“No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

This is not a pleasant picture of humanity. Some have argued that such views of people are overly harsh. Especially today we find many people who believe in the essential goodness of mankind. But we cannot escape the fact that once we get past Genesis 2 the biblical picture of humanity is very bleak. There is no rosy picture, no optimistic outlook of people who are simply misguided at times. We are sinful from conception on. How can this be? We see people perform acts that seem to be good. How can anyone claim that even the most praiseworthy acts of unbelievers are sin? The simplest answer is that their acts are performed for the wrong reason and to the wrong end. Saint Augustine said that God has made us for himself. Everything people do should be done with God in view and for the purpose of bringing him glory. In Romans 14:23 Paul tells us that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. The unbeliever does not act out of faith in God or for the glory of God. At best they might possibly act on behalf of another person (if their good acts are not simply to assuage their own consciences) but that is not good enough. We are to do good works on behalf of and for the benefit of others but we were created to do everything through faith in and for the glory of God. Anything not done in this way is sin.

Salvation is something made available through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. All people are called to repent and have faith in Christ. Because of his atoning death for us, all who repent and believe will be saved. The call to repent is issued to all people. The non-Calvinist believes the field is essentially level – that all people are equally able to respond to the gospel. Fallen man, though fallen, has been enabled to turn in faith to Jesus Christ for salvation. The problem with this view is it cannot be found in Scripture. As already mentioned, the biblical picture of man is bleak. In addition, we find passages like Ephesians 2:1-2: And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world… All people are dead in their sins. Nothing in the Bible indicates that all have been slightly revived so that they can respond to the call of the gospel; everyone is dead. In the coffin, in the ground, dead in our sins. Unable to move toward Christ to accept the free gift of his grace.

In John 6:44 Jesus himself tells us that people are unable to respond to Christ on their own. We will look at it again in more detail later but it fits in well here: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” On their own no one can accept Christ, no one can be saved. As we have seen, it is not just that people are unable, they are also unwilling. There are no people who want to be saved but cannot. Left to themselves, no one desires salvation. People are satisfied living life in their own way. They want nothing to do with God. No one wants to go to Hell but left to themselves people will rely on a million other ways to avoid Hell, never turning to God for salvation.

The Process of Salvation

If no one is able to receive salvation, responding to Christ by faith, how then could anyone be saved? The disciples of Jesus asked a similar question when told how hard it is for a rich man to be saved, Matthew 19:23-26:

And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

From beginning to end salvation is of God. From the work of Christ on the cross to our ability to receive salvation to our final glorification in Heaven everything about our salvation is worked out by God.

Let’s back up to Ephesians 2 where we earlier learned that everyone is dead in their sin. Just a few verses later we find the following, Ephesians 2:4-5:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved…

First we read that we are all dead then we find that it is God who makes us alive. Now, before you think that this shows God reviving all to be able to respond to the gospel, be sure to note the continuity in this passage: those who are made alive are joined with Christ, are saved, and – later in the passage – are joined with him in Heaven. In other words, those who are made alive will be saved. They are not revived and given the choice whether or not to respond. If they are made alive, they are made alive to salvation and are saved.

This is where the irresistible grace part of Calvinism comes in. Those who are changed by God will be changed. There is no question about it – they are not enabled to respond and they might or might not, they will receive the gift of salvation offered in Jesus Christ. It is not so much that these people will want to resist but cannot do so; rather, they will not want to resist. Once a person has been made alive – born again, regenerated, transformed – their new desire will be for Christ. When their bodies finally die they will go to be with God in Heaven, and they will be delighted and will give glory to God for the salvation he has given to them.

The Will of God

No one can be saved unless God makes them alive. Those who are made alive will be saved. Not everyone is saved, so God must not make everyone alive. Thus we see that God wants some to be saved but not others. (We could perhaps conclude that God is only able to save some and is unable to save others but responding to this notion is too big a rabbit to chase in this entry.) This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of Calvinism. Particularly in the modern world we believe that fairness and justice means treating everyone the exact same way. When we try to apply this to God, however, we begin to run into problems. God is not guided by popular ethics.

The first thing we must do is remember that we are all sinners who deserve punishment for our sins. We have all made ourselves guilty by living in rebellion to God. Such rebellion is part of our very nature as creatures who are dead in our sins. That God would send anyone to Hell is not an evil act of a spiteful deity, it is the just act of a righteous and holy God who cannot ignore sin. That God would save anyone is simply an act of divine mercy and grace. No one deserves salvation. If anyone is saved, it is an act of mercy.

Earlier I brought up John 6 and said we would return to it. It is time to return. Note the words of Jesus in John 6:35-40:

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

And John 6:44:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

The message in these is uniform and only supports what we have already said, though we see a few more of the inner workings. Only those who are drawn by the Father will be saved. All those drawn by the Father are given to Jesus. All those given to Jesus will be held firm, never cast out, held secure to the end. All those given to Jesus will be raised with him on the last day. In other words, all those given to Jesus will be saved. Those not given to Jesus will not be saved. Those not given to Jesus were not chosen by the Father, the Father chose not to draw them.

I believe that God has the power to save all people. I also believe that God does not delight when anyone perishes. He desires the salvation of all people. I believe that God loves all those whom he has made. But God does not choose to save all people. Why not? The universalist escapes the question by saying that God does, in fact, save everyone. The open theist escapes by saying that God is unable to save everyone. But all others, Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike, must answer the question. Both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist have the dilemma of a God who could save everyone but chooses not to do so. If God can save everyone but does not do so, God must desire something more than the salvation of the individual.

The non-Calvinist would generally answer that God values free human choice and response. Only love which is freely given is of value to God. He would not want to receive love and devotion that came about only because of a work he himself did in the individual. So God is willing to allow people to go to Hell in order to preserve their free will.

The Calvinist, on the other hand, responds by saying that no one is able to love God. There is no free will response to God because there is no free will ability to love God. Humans have free will but their will is so bent and corrupt that the only desire of humans is to sin. Thus, left to ourselves, we would only exercise free will to sin against God.

The person who has been transformed by God, however, still acts on the basis of free will but of a free will that has been made new. That individual will desire God and will freely respond to Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that he will respond, but there is also no doubt that the person who has not been transformed will not respond to God.

That still leaves the question of why God does not save everyone. The Calvinist answer comes from Romans 9. In my opinion Romans 9 and John 6 present the most compelling, overwhelming case for Calvinism. They are not the only passages to support Calvinism, not by far, but they are the clearest and I have yet to hear a non-Calvinist interpretation that sounds at all convincing.

In Romans 9 God is addressing the question of why all Jews are not saved. His answer to that could be expanded out to the question of why God would allow anyone, Jew or Gentile, to perish in his sins. The central argument is found in Romans 9:19-24:

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory– even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

What Paul suggests is that God chooses to save some but not all so that his glory would be magnified all the more. This is one of the places where I still struggle some with Calvinism. How is God glorified when many people go to Hell? The answer given by Jonathan Edwards is probably correct but I am still wrestling with it. (I do not know the original source of this. I have heard John Piper and others refer to this from Edwards but I forget where he discusses it.) Essentially, Edwards argues that for God to be fully glorified he must be fully revealed. God is love and mercy but God is also wrath and justice. God does show love and extend mercy but he also has wrath and carries out justice. If everyone were saved then God’s characteristics of wrath and justice would not be revealed. We would not see them at work. In order for us to see God’s wrath and justice there must be “vessels of wrath” (as Paul put it) that will be subjected to punishment. God would not be just if those vessels of wrath were punished without cause. Their punishment is in fact just. Everyone who goes to Hell goes there because of his own sins. And we all deserve Hell. None of us is righteous. Those who are saved from Hell are saved only because of the mercy of God.

The last part of this discussion – why God desires the salvation of all but does not save all – is explained well by John Piper in his essay Are There Two Wills In God?

That is about enough for this post. I had intended for this to be shorter. I had also intended to post it earlier in the day. Failing in my first intention led to failing in my second.

This post is not so much intended to stir up debate as it is to simply declare what I believe and why I believe it. If it helps you make better sense of the Bible, praise God! If you wish to debate it,  feel free. But be civil.

The time for the major announcement has come. Cue the dramatic music; flash the lights; fill the stage with ominous smoke: I am planting my flag about Calvinism and it is firmly in the Calvinist camp. This post should come as no  surprise to those who have been reading my series Blogging Calvinism.

I have had some reluctance about firmly positioning myself on this issue. Over the past year or so my thinking has been challenged in a number of areas, making me a little skittish about any more theological shifting. In addition, I have changed issues on Calvinism once before. I was raised in a church that firmly and fully taught Reformed doctrine and I could argue Calvinism with the best of them. The move away from Calvinism came about six years ago, due in large part to the writings of George MacDonald. The transition back to Calvinism began several months ago. Thanks or blame for this (depending on your preferred side) can be given to John Piper. But since I have changed my mind on this once before, I want to be sure that any change now is definite and sure. It is not a bad thing when we change our minds. It could, perhaps, indicate good things about us. But it is a bad thing when we change our minds again and again and again. So may this be my last time to change sides on this issue. I think it will be.

I want to spend the next few days talking about my shift back to Calvinism. This entry is simply to introduce and index the series of posts. Tomorrow I will focus on why I am a Calvinist, what it is about my understanding of the Bible that makes my theology line up with Calvinism. Thursday I will respond to bad arguments people use to try to promote and defend Calvinism, also looking at some of the bad practices of Calvinists. In Friday’s post I will talk about what Calvinism means for the Christian life, primarily focusing on things that tend to concern people about Calvinism. Saturday I will raise some of my lingering questions. And Sunday I will write about what I have appreciated from many Calvinists.

I picked this one up from Tim Challies. Vodie Baucham has added his thoughts about the pick of Sarah Palin for vice president. Whereas I am hesitant he is clear: he does not think this is a good pick. From his write-up:

My point is simple.  The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother.  Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it.  There is no higher calling.  Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womenhood is a group I appreciate and respect and I regularly read the stuff put out through their Gender Blog. In a recent post they discuss the issue of women serving in political office. I am still hesitant but they offer some good words.

Does Governor Sarah Palin Present a Dilemma for Complementarians?

When Sarah Palin was announced as McCain’s choice of Vice President many conservatives were excited. I hate to be a dissenting voice in a party that needs a bit of excitement but I am just not sure about the arrangement.

First I confess to a rather far-expanding complementarianism that leads me to be uncertain about the roles of men and women in political office. Scripture teaches that men are to be the leaders of homes and churches. People are right to point out that Scripture does not have much to say on the role of women in the political sphere (such as Mohler says here and several say here). I am only aware of one instance in Scripture where a woman was given any sort of authority over men. That woman, as you probably guessed, was Deborah. This post is not the place to do a long examination of Deborah so I would simply say that her example is exceptional, not normative, and the role she held was far more limited than most egalitarians would like us to believe.

On the other side, I am only aware of one passage that might say anything against women holding a leadership role. That passage comes in the midst of a list of judgments God has against Israel. Among their faults we find the following:

Isaiah 3:12
My people–infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.

Something about women ruling over the people contributed to God’s words against them. Was it the kind of rule the women provided, or that they allowed women to rule over them at all?

Here is what has caused me the struggle. Even though no Scripture directly addresses the political sphere, the case is pretty solid for the home and the church. Would God have us run our society in a way that is different from our homes and our churches? Keep in mind that the Bible says little about the political sphere but every example we have of God establishing a faithful political leader that leader is a man. In the New Testament the silence on the issue should not surprise us – the people had absolutely no say over who could be the leader. They had no influence in the political process so it never would have occurred to the writers to instruct the people to do anything more than pray for the leaders. They had no vote to cast, no Vice President to support. Whether or not women could rule was a non-issue for people who had no say in the whole process. This is one reason slavery is not directly opposed in the New Testament. What discussions we find show that slavery was not something affirmed and defended but we never find it outright spoken against. The people could not influence the political institution that enforced slavery.

Now I know we live in a secular society under a secular government. I do not believe the Bible should be our constitution – but I do believe in the free exercise of religion by the people and by politicians, meaning our decisions and actions can and should guide what we do in politics. The Bible is not our constitution, but our constitution should come out looking a lot like the Bible. As far as our leaders go, I will vote for those leaders who I feel best uphold biblical expectations for leadership and who will best promote a godly society. That includes characteristics that demonstrate a proper ordering of society. Is it the proper ordering of society for women to rule over men in politics but not in the home? So we find the unusual situation of Mrs. Palin having authority over Mr. Palin while also having to submit to him.

One other point of concern and that is their family itself. I am a strong advocate of women staying home when it is possible. There are circumstances where both the husband and wife simply must work, though this circumstance is not nearly so common in America as some might think. Children need their parents. Daycare is just no substitute. When necessary, it can work out by the grace of God. But I do not believe it is what God intends. Palin’s job as governor – and certainly as Vice President! – would keep her away from her children more than most working mothers and yet she has a family that needs a mother. Five children – one of whom suffers from a terrible disorder, another of whom is even now a young mother waiting to deliver her child. It sounds like her husband is spending a lot of time with the children so they do at least have one parent around but I am old fashioned enough to believe that the primary caregiver to children should be the mother. That is simply impossible in this case.

It also concerns me to hear how Palin has talked about her pregnant daughter. I agree that this is a private family matter and should be respected as such. Nonetheless, I have concerns with what Sarah Palin herself has said. Statements to the media are very affirming of their daughter (which is good) and express delight at being grandparents (which is good) but don’t even contain a hint that what has led to this is not good but is sinful. Not even the very weak phrase “our daughter made a mistake” was used. When Britney Spears’ sister announced she was pregnant and excited about being a mother there was quite a bit of concern that she was sending a message that unmarried teenage pregnancy is okay or even desirable. Palin’s statement essentially sends the same message but I have yet to see anyone express concerns over what was said (with some exception from leftist bloggers and journalists who say this shows the failure of conservative social idealism and abstinence only education). I’m not looking for an exposition on the sin of premarital sex but I would have liked for her to include some sort of comment that though they love and support their daughter and look forward to their grandchild, the actions that led to this situation were wrong.

None of this will change my support for McCain. Even if Palin herself were running I would probably vote for her, though my concerns would be even stronger. As I heard one person comment, I would rather have a woman in office with the pro-life record of Palin than have Obama in office with his strong support for abortion.

In the end none of these leaders will rule the day. God stands over it all and nothing will happen contrary to his plan and will for the world.