I am currently the Site Coordinator for VLI at VCC , a volunteer role that allows me the privilege of being able to view the classes and Weekend Intensives even though I’ve already graduated and am no longer a tuition paying student. So last night, since as usual there wasn’t much on TV, I decided to watch the first two Systematic Theology II lectures being taught for the first time by Homero Garcia, Ph.D.
Now Roger Olson teaches Systematic Theology I and has done so for the past three summers that I’ve been involved with VLI. The book he authors “The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity” is one of reference books recommended for the topic. After viewing the first Intensive, One of the students (Adam) mentioned to me that he really needed to re-think some of his beliefs, to dig in and unpack further teaching on the subject as Roger made some pretty compiling points for his theology and had basically rocked Adam’s world.
I wonder what my friend Adam is thinking now after viewing last weekend’s Intensive by Dr. Garcia?
Oh did I fail to mention that Dr. Garcia is a 5 point Calvinist, while Dr. Olson is thoroughly Armenian? Okay students and Professors hold on to your seats cause Q & A was a wild ride!
So, why the wild ride? A quick look at the different theologies will bring that into focus (the Reformed side represents the Calvinist view and the Remonstrant side represents the Armenian view).
Reformed Views (TULIP) (monergism)
1) Total Depravity
· The fall has affected every aspect of human nature; so, people are totally dependent on God’s grace to seek God or to will or do good.
2) Unconditonal election
· God sovereignly predestines some fallen people to be saved.
3) Limited atonement
· Christ’s atoning death on the cross was done only for those he unconditionally elects or predestines for salvation.
4) Irresistible grace
· The elect cannot resist God’s grace. God’s effectual call can only be responded to with repentance and faith.
5) Perseverance of the saints
· Those unconditionally elected by God to be saved will persevere in grace and not fall from it.
Remonstrant Views (synergism)
1) Not total depravity
· Humans still have free will.
· They can choose or reject God.
2) Election is conditioned by faith
· God knew who would freely believe In Him. Election is conditioned on what a person would do.
3) Unlimited atonement
· Christ died for all human beings.
· Although he died for all, only those who believe in Him are saved.
4) Grace can be rejected
Humans are free to choose and therefore can resist the grace of God
5) Believers can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith.
Starting to get the picture? Those “strongly” in one camp or the other can get pretty darn emotional when this topic comes up with both sides evoking this answer to seemingly unanswerable questions, “Well that’s the mystery of God.”
Now I was raised as a “Free Will” Baptist and when I first came into contact with a 5 point Calvinist I was amazed that there were people out there who actually believed that God pre-ordained those who were to be saved and those who were not to be saved. That just wasn’t the God I knew! I mean what about John 3:16? “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Or, 2 Peter 3:9? “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but desiring that everyone to come to repentance.” Then, as my Calvinist friend argued, what about Romans 8:29 & 30; “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Well these verses put my mind into a tail spin especially as I am assured by Steve Robbins (Pastor and VLI Director) an ancient Greek scholar that the word translated as predestined is indeed translated correctly and does not mean simply fore knowledge. WOW! How do I ever unpack all of this and many more Bible verses that seem to set in contradiction to one or the other of these theologies? Do I fall back on the “mysteries of God” statement and just let it go at that?
When faced with this dilemma my mind keeps wondering back to the covenant that God made with Abram. Let’s begin with Genesis 12:1-3 which states “The LORD had said to Abram, "Go from your country, your people and your father's household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Psalms 135: 4 states “For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto Himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.” So when I read these verses (coupled with the teachings of my youth, how I was raised to believe) I can see that God did choose a person (Abram) and through him a people (Israel) and because it was the Old Testament and the old covenant never really saw how it might fold into the new covenant and this question of Calvinist vs. Armenian.
Let’s visit again the portion of the verse above that states, “and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Now for years and years I thought that this was just a prophecy of Jesus and didn’t really focus too very much past that thought. But what if I look closer at that statement? What if I see not only the prophecy but also what it meant to Abram in that day? Yes it was a prophecy of Jesus, but it was also a reason that Abram was elected. He and his seed were “elected” by God to be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth. Could it be, that by electing Abram, God was not rejecting everyone else but was raising a priestly people proclaiming the source of blessings, to proclaim God to the nations? That God’s purpose was that all nations should come to Him even under the old covenant?
Well, it seems to me that God called Abram and his descendents to be his “peculiar” treasure (one translation of the word peculiar means moveable); God also gives to Abraham and his seed a land flowing with milk and honey that just so happens to be geographically positioned so that in the Ancient Near East if you wanted to trade you pretty much had to pass through that region – thus bringing the nations into contact with Abraham’s seed (God’s priestly people).
When Israel was given the law, it was not set out as a path to salvation (they were already elected to this through Abram who’s faith was credited as righteousness; see Genesis 15:6 – not who’s keeping of the law was credited as righteousness). The law was given to set God’s people, His treasure apart, to show them how to live in a pagan world. As I understand it, not given so that the nations could see they were “exclusively" God's, but to be the highlighter of how God’s people live and to draw the nations (inclusive) to the one true God.
So what happens if we take this election of Israel and lay it over these two theologies? Does it illuminate or does it bring up more questions? Could it be “both / and” instead of “either / or?” Could it be that yes God elects, not so He can reject others, but so that these elect can be His priestly people; called to proclaim the light of the one true God to the nations (the unsaved).
I haven’t presented this well and what I’ve written doesn’t totally express exactly what I started out to communicate. But as always, I have more questions than answers and know that I need to do loads more studying and unpacking to bring this idea into sharper focus and I would love to know your thoughts on the topic.
One thing stated by Dr. Garcia I am in 100% agreement. He told a story of a pastor's response to the question of eternal security as detailed in Calvin’s 5th point. The pastor said, well I can live my life one of two ways. I can decide that because I believe that through election I have eternal security I can live my life anyway I want. Or, I can live my life as though there is no eternal security staying focused on God and my relationship to Him. When I die I will find out the truth. If there is eternal security and I’ve lived my life as though there wasn’t I’m still going to be with Jesus. But, if there is no eternal security and I’ve lived my life in sin because I thought there was – what a horrible mistake I’ve made!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting topic. This very topic has spawned more thought in me than any other—I think, ultimately, Calvinists and Arminians ought to be able to discuss this in a manner that glorifies God collectively. In my experiences, I have witnessed and participated in both scenarios.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think it is interesting how you draw an observation of the Abrahamic covenant. This is a new way of looking at it and I will have to do some thinking about it as well as study. Doesn't the sovereignty of God in relation to election just seem to make you uncomfortable? It did me. But after study, I could not avoid the matter—kind of like what you said you went through. Election and Chosen is all over the Bible. It was uncomfortable to me because I think in terms of my idea of fairness. God is higher than me, thus wills out of His own just, righteous choice, which is far different than what I think is fair. I just read today in Amos chapters 3-5. It talks about how God is the active agent behind all the catastrophes His people experience. Classic example: Joseph.
I am willing to affirm, and even embrace, the entire sovereignty of God in all things. What I am not willing to do is explain how He does it. I can affirm the points of Calvinism (though, I think the wording of each point does not adequately represent a common understanding of its doctrines), but I cannot describe to anyone how this works. For in one hand, God is entirely sovereign, intimately foreknowing (predestination), and on the other hand, we find ourselves with the ability to chose that which we are able to chose (i.e. I drank coffee this morning). How does this work out? I have no idea, but that it does. Also, I know God's will supersedes my own. It's amazing really, and has caused in me a great sense of awe, humility (why in the world would God chose me, really?), worship, and some other cool stuff, lol.
I think, though, the pastor you quoted at the end of your post is in a misunderstanding of the assurance of salvation (security). Why in the world would a regenerated heart desire to live the rest of their life in sin? Simply because one would believe in eternal security does not necessitate—or even come close to—a negation of righteous living. If, however, I "live my life as though there is no eternal security," how can I avoid works of security? For "staying focused on God and my relationship to Him" is the very thing the believer in eternal security adheres to. This statement of his seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding. I would ask the gentleman, "What does God require for your salvation, or entrance into His Kingdom?" I would hope his response would be nothing more than "Jesus." After all, should I place my trust in a chair with three legs, knowing I will fall? Because my natural tendency is to fall if I am to bend my knees and pretend to be sitting—I can hold out for only so long and a three legged chair does me little good.
Jason (or should I say "beans"), I love your thoughts and your comments! For so many years I refused to have a conversation on the topic because of the emotional and mean comments I would receive (one friend used to yell me "Just rip Romans out of your Bible!" but refused to address any of the other verses that caused me to have issues with his strong calvinism).
ReplyDeleteI also hate the labels and definitely don't consider myself either (nor an open theist!) but am somewhere in the middle with a desire to understand the seeming contradiction.
I wish I had better brain power to really work into and unpack the Israel issue in regards to election and predestination as I do believe that there is a definite connection!
Right. I think (at least for me) most of us retaliate against predestination because we want to have a say (control) in our eternal trajectory. I totally believe in predestination, but am totally ignorant to the intricacies of the mind of God!
ReplyDelete—Jonathan