I've always wondered if saving faith is the sort of faith "that desires to follow after Christ." To follow Christ has come to mean in evangelicalism, as far as I understand it, a believer who is known for their faith in Jesus Christ because of a lifestyle that is consistent and visibly productive of righteous works.
Kev has been putting in a good deal of effort along with Mark Pierson on Kev's blog (On My Walk), in attempt to produce a dialogue with Lordship Salvation proponents concerning the meaning of saving faith. I'm really impressed with what they have thusfar produced. I highly recommend his latest two articles on this dialogue. These are excellent for introducing any reader who is new to this issue.
Kev's latest article is titled, "What is Faith? My Response To The LS Presentation."
Zane Hodges spoke in 2005 considering for what works are designed to give proof. His session is titled, "Once Again James 2." He is saying, if I understand rightly, that a general lifestyle of obedience has not a single mention in James 2. This is a five part video series. Parts 1 and 5 are the most direct - below.
JAMES 2:20-26
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
I've always wondered if saving faith is the sort of faith that by nature desires to follow after Christ. This insight seems to disconnect the idea even further.
Thanks to Don Reiher, who has been diligent to make available many conference sessions of free grace teachings. There are many to access to date on YouTube.
40 comments:
Michele, when I think about you I am reminded of this passage:
"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Acts 17:11.
On the other hand, there are some who remind me of another passage:
""The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, 'Why did you not bring Him?' The officers answered, 'Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.' The Pharisees then answered them, 'You have not also been led astray, have you? No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.' Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) said to them, "Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing , does it?' They answered him, "You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee...Do we not rightly say that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?'" Jn. 7:45-52; 8:48
Yesterday, on Sept. 11th, I was reminded of the old adage that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter." In other words, terrorism is simply misguided passion--sincere zeal pointed in the wrong direction. "They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think he is offering service to God." Jn 16:2 When I checked your blog this morning I was reminded of this sobering and sad reality once again.
God bless you Michele for being one of the "noble-minded" ones. God always honors that.
Gary
Hi Gary,
I appreciate your commitment to God's standard, of grace. I just hope that God will help me have eyes to see, that He willingly paid an inestimable price for each of my brothers and sisters. :D
Speaking of truth, I hope you have a thought from these videos. I have one thought thus far. I'm going to be bold. Why does anyone need Calvinism, at all? Can't scripture be explained without it? I probably don't understand... I appreciate questions such as "who is a believer?" and "who is being sanctified?" and I think it is biblical to ask those. But Calvinism means to inspect that only the persevering were ever saved. It's so theoretical, and not practically useful for anything, except for generating lively disputes.
Look forward to your thoughts.
Michele
* I edited the post to put in James 2:20-26, and also paraphrase here some of Hodges' comments from Part 1. I look forward to hearing any thoughts. My mind has been engaged!:
(paraphrase of Hodges)
The current debate is over the significance of our lifestyle as believers in Jesus Christ. Some say that justification by works is an automatic outcome of justification by faith.
If you asked a GES person what they mean when they say "justification by works," they might tell you, "We are justified by works when our lives are exhibited by the reality of our faith." I have accidentally orally committed this error many times. The mistake is to think that a general lifestyle of good works produced a justification by works. James knows nothing of such an idea.
To some a godly lifestyle is a necessary product of regenerating faith. To grace people, it is a way of manifesting our relationship to God.
When we assume that general lifestyle of holiness justifies us by works, either before God or before men, we are not speaking the language of James 2. The question of justification by works, is when and how?
Did you hear anything about lifestyle in these verses? I'm sorry folks, it's just not there.
Where is it? Lifestyle is totally irrelevant to James' idea. That is what James says; that is all he says, and what he says is enough.
Abraham and Rahab were justified by works on one occasion, and one occasion only. Because we know a lot about Abraham, we can read it in to this passage. What about Rahab? After this event we know nothing more about her. That's why we may understand that the justification by works comes from the occasion James is describing. James referrs to justification by works only in James 2:20-26. Not vs. 14-16. Here and only here.
Justification by works is not a main theme of this epistle.
Hi Michele,
I'm pretty tied up with some things today but I just wanted to make a brief comment. I think you've summarized Zane's thoughts on that passage very well.
"Why does anyone need Calvinism, at all? Can't scripture be explained without it? I probably don't understand... I appreciate questions such as "who is a believer?" and "who is being sanctified?" and I think it is biblical to ask those. But Calvinism means to inspect that only the persevering were ever saved. It's so theoretical, and not practically useful for anything, except for generating lively disputes." I think you are getting the point about Calvinism very well Michele. I would go further and say that not only do we not need Calvinism to explain scripture, but that all 5 points of the TULIP are a dangerous man-made distortion of scripture. Once a person's thinking has been infected with the 5-points it totally controls and shapes their exegesis of scripture to the point that they are unable to see the plain meaning of the text or make the kinds of biblical distinctions that FG theology makes. What has always interested me about LS Calvinist is how little difference there is between their understanding of the gospel and "saving faith" and that of the Arminians. There really is no practical difference between the two views on the all important question of "what must I do to be saved?" The answer of both is that one must persevere until the end in faith and good works to be saved. "Fruit inspection" is the only way either of them have to verify the reality of their faith, and thus the validity of their hope of eternal salvation. When it comes to the issue of who is really saved, The Arminian says the non-persevering believer loses their salvation. The Calvinists just says the non-persevering "believer" was never a true believer to start with. The end result is the same for both theological systems--the non-persevering "believer" ends up in hell.
Is it any surprise then that so many Arminians love MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus"? No, because they know that he essentially believes and teaches the same "gospel" that they do even though he is a 5-point Calvinist! That's also why they BOTH rely so heavily on their misinterpretation of the books of James and 1 John to establish their understanding of what "true saving faith" is. Get into a debate with any LS advocate, either Calvinist or Arminian, and they will both immediately start "proof-texting" from James and 1 John ( as well as their misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus regarding discipleship and rewards in the synoptic gospels). The keys to the whole debate on LS are a correct understanding of James, 1 John, the discipleship and rewards teaching in the synoptics, and the significance and weight of John's Gospel (in light of it's evangelistic purpose). Zane once said that the Gospel of John is the "death knell" for Lordship Salvation since it clearly establishes the fact that repentance is not a condition for being born again-- just simple faith alone in Jesus Christ. Of course, this is in complete harmony with the teaching of Paul as well. Even though John MacArthur and other LS Calvinists insist that they believe in "faith alone in Christ alone", in reality it is "faith alone" as defined by their TULIP which says that a faith which is alone does NOT save! It is through the filter of their man-made Tulip that they attempt to explain away this obvious contradiction. That's why MacArthur can make many other non-sensical statements such as "salvation is free but it costs us everything", then just call it a paradox and walk away. For the man sitting in the pew this sort of theological sophistry is devastating because they simply take his words at face value (which, by the way, is a dangerous thing to do with a 5-pt Calvinist!). At least most Arminians will openly admit that they are teaching faith + works = saving faith. But as I've already mentioned, Arminians know that this is what MacArthur really teaches and applaud him for it even if JM himself can't or won't acknowledge it.
Anyway, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this if I were you Michele. It's a debate that's been going on for centuries and it's not going to be resolved on anyone's blog. I would highly recommend Zane's commentaries on James and 1 John if you don't already have them. In my opinion there are no commentaries in print that are as good as these. I consider them a true treasure that Zane has left the church and those who are struggling against the tide of mainstream evangelicalism for an understanding of scripture which is consistent with true FG theology. It was Zane's courage, humility, and lifelong commitment to a careful exegesis of scripture that is thoroughly consistent with "sola fide" (true FG theology) that made him the most powerful force of his generation against the distortions of LS theology. Zane would have never claimed to know everything or be perfect, but if it had not been for him, I might have never seen the truth because more than a few well meaning teachers in FG circles still carry quite a bit of residue from Reformed theology they've picked up along the way--teaching that's not truly consistent with FG and sola fide. He paid a heavy price for that in more ways than one, but, when all is said and done, I'm convinced that will be a part of his true legacy.
I better get going cause I've got lots to do today. I think you are on the right track so keep up the good work. Despite what some say, I know you are not an "ally" of any particular person--just a sincere seeker of truth who tries to love all your FG brothers and sisters and "preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." I can't help but respect that since I have failed so miserably at it at times.
Gary,
An ex-roommate of mine lives in Seattle and her church just hired a new head pastor and his teaching has been odd. I asked her to explain. More than a couple sermons have been filled with put-downs of both himself and the congregants, all for the sake of illustrating total depravity. He spends a good deal of his sermons sharing this inner struggle he has with truly grasping how sinful he is. She is not the only one at her church who is uncomfortable.
I'm glad she knows the scriptures and especially the grace and love of God well enough in her own experience.
It seems it doesn't take too long of talking with believers before issues resulting from Calvinism come up. My husband also believes that John 15, 1 John and James are tests of salvation, but sometimes when I recite aloud to him a verse, such as lately, "Abraham was justified when..." he will agree with the limited teaching of what James is saying. This is all supported by additional insights such as those coming from this session by Hodges.
Hi Gary,
You said,
"The keys to the whole debate on LS are a correct understanding of James, 1 John, the discipleship and rewards teaching in the synoptics, and the significance and weight of John's Gospel (in light of it's evangelistic purpose)."
I'm so glad you said this.
I think there are three perspectives to approach the LS debate. 1 - being "reactionary" or "anti'" MacArthur's gospel and then writing apologetics; 2 - believing that the by-grace-through-faith gospel is/was the original gospel and the best, and 3 - to show others "how to know what the bible means by what it says," as Dr. R. writes in the introductory pages of the Nelson NKJV study bible.
# 1 approach (reactionary) leaves participants and listeners in a perpetually defensive posture and gives little support to prevent the demonizing of the other.
# 2 approach (standing at the Spiritual center of the gospel) calls participants toward patience and to personally pursue Christ to gain wisdom on how to demonstrate and explain the grace ethic and teaching.
# 3 approach requires something which I wouldn't know very much about. But - I am thankful that other people have given their life to establishing it (hermeneutics)!
Michele,
"The keys to the whole debate on LS are a correct understanding of James, 1 John, the discipleship and rewards teaching in the synoptics, and the significance and weight of John's Gospel (in light of it's evangelistic purpose)."
That was probably simplistic and misleading for me to put it like that because the debate over LS can get very complicated and involve many other scriptural passages and theological issues. I should have said that those were some of the key issues for ME when I was wrestling with this issue years ago.
Even though the term Lordship Salvation is a relatively recent way of labeling their position, the essential beliefs they hold are nothing new--there have always been those who have believed and taught what we now call "Lordship Salvation." Years ago I came across some quotes from ancient rabbinic commentaries on the faith of Abraham. It basically said that Abraham was saved because of his FAITHFULNESS to God, not by faith alone. A faith which was not obedient and faithful was not true faith they said, therefore it was not enough to be "accounted as righteous before God." This was the belief of the Pharisees in Jesus day, hence
their belief that obedience to the Law was the way to eternal life. The first time I ever read Luther's Commentary on Galatians I kept noticing that his Catholic opponents were using many of the very same theological arguments and proof-texts against him that LS advocates still use against FG today! Catholic theologians still use the same arguments and texts that John MacArthur uses! These Catholic theologians are openly trying to prove with these arguments that, while salvation is by God's grace, it is nevertheless by faith AND works. MacArthur will essentially use the same line of argument as any good Catholic theologian uses, or that the scribes and Pharisees used against Jesus and the apostles. So nothing has really changed. This issue of faith and works has always been an issue of controversy from the beginning of time. About 90% of all conservative evangelicals still believe today that salvation is by faith + works, or as MacArthur says, a "faith THAT works", which is just a clever way of saying the same thing.
The fact is, ALL true FG'ers are a "shrinking cell of theological extremists." That rings a bell...haven't I heard that somewhere before?? :D
Hey Michele, I haven't really given much thought to LS lately...I think you're starting to get me all worked up! I better go ride my bike or take a jog! :D
Another important turning point for me in the LS debate was in thinking through the meaning and implications of Christ's substitutionary atonement as the sole basis for our justification before God. It occurred to me that it is precisely because we are unable to meet all the demands of His "Lordship" through obedience (either before OR after we are born again) that we can only come to Him as Saviour. All the demands that Jesus COULD have justly demanded of us as Lord have been taken care of on the cross. His Lordship only becomes an issue in our sanctification and discipleship. But even then, the certificate of debt consisting of decrees which are against us and hostile to us have forever been nailed to the cross. After all, that's the "Good News" of why eternal life is a free gift of His love received by faith alone isn't it? Once I figured out that the word "believe" didn't mean what the LS teachers said it meant it was pretty much settled for me. Understanding that the Reformed doctrine of perseverance was not biblical helped me too. I guess you could say that there were lot's of pieces that had to come together for me before I knew LS was a distortion of the Gospel.
See Michele, you really have got my wheels turning again...but not my bike wheels! :D
"My husband also believes that John 15, 1 John and James are tests of salvation, but sometimes when I recite aloud to him a verse, such as lately, "Abraham was justified when..." he will agree with the limited teaching of what James is saying. This is all supported by additional insights such as those coming from this session by Hodges."
It doesn't surprise me that your husband understands those passages that way because so much of the commentary tradition interprets them that way. Even many in FG circles still continue to perpetuate these interpretations. That's one of the things I was referring to when I said that quite a few FG teachers still carry some theological baggage they've picked up from the Reformed tradition . Zane was one of the few who saw that understanding those passages that way are inconsistent with FG theology. Many FG teachers continue teaching those passages that way and don't even realize they are conceding the entire debate to LS. Zanes' writings were extremely important to me in that regard, but he took some heat because of it as I mentioned because it didn't fit in with the mainstream of the interpretive tradition.
And Lou, that's exactly why no advocate of Lordship Salvation will ever take you seriously in this debate. In this I am in full agreement with them because I don't take you seriously as a advocate of the FG position either. You are one of the one's I was talking about, I just didn't want to mention you by name...but since you jumped in and brought it up..well...
If anyone wants to know how seriously John MacArthur and his men take Lou, here it is: http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/01/lou-and-lordship-part-3/
Thanks for joining us Lou. :D
Lou,
I honestly don't understand how someone who has conceded the entire debate to LS the way you have can still honestly consider himself an advocate of FG theology. John MacArthur and his men say you are in agreement with them because you ARE, whether you realize it or not. If you are sincerely against LS you have a lot of work to do on your theology because as it stands now you only help them bolster their case.
Hi Gary,
You said,
"It doesn't surprise me that your husband understands those passages that way because so much of the commentary tradition interprets them that way."
I'm not surprised by it either and like most believers I come across I take it in stride. But is it not Calvinism and insufficient hermeneutics which has caused that?
You said,
"Even many in FG circles still continue to perpetuate these interpretations. That's one of the things I was referring to when I said that quite a few FG teachers still carry some theological baggage they've picked up from the Reformed tradition . Zane was one of the few who saw that understanding those passages that way are inconsistent with FG theology."
Was Zane a 0-point Calvinist? Because I have heard how some FG theologians say that they are 0-point.
Michele
Hi Gary,
You said,
"It occurred to me that it is precisely because we are unable to meet all the demands of His "Lordship" through obedience (either before OR after we are born again) that we can only come to Him as Saviour. All the demands that Jesus COULD have justly demanded of us as Lord have been taken care of on the cross. ... Understanding that the Reformed doctrine of perseverance was not biblical helped me too. I guess you could say that there were lot's of pieces that had to come together for me before I knew LS was a distortion of the Gospel."
Praise the LORD!! :D Gary it says for persons who trust in Him in this way, that they are "blessed" (rom 4:6)!
This may sound strange but I think at the time I found FG I was half-way on that journey you've had, understanding justification by grace but not yet the sanctification. I remember taking the microphone a few months after "the light going on," saying to our pastor elect in front of my church body, to introduce a question I was about to ask, "I need non-Calvinism almost as much as I need God Himself."
But that's just because I am immature and have no experience with a consistent set of rules of interpretation, I assume.
Thanks for sharing that. Testimony helps to show me how amazing God's truths really are.
Michele,
"Was Zane a 0-point Calvinist? Because I have heard how some FG theologians say that they are 0-point."
Yes, I'm sure Zane was a "0-point Calvinist." I heard Charlie Bing use that term and I assume he was kind of joking because a 0-pt Calvinist is a contradiction in terms isn't it? If someone rejects all 5 points of the TULIP they wouldn't be a "Calvinist" at all in the classical sense. Of course, as you've heard Alvin say many times, there are many "flavors" of Calvinism so it can be a slippery term. I know I'm a 0-pointer! :D
"But is it not Calvinism and insufficient hermeneutics which has caused that?
That's a great question...I'm gonna have to chew on that one some. Actually, that's something I have thought about a lot and I have some ideas about it, but it's a complicated issue and I have lots of questions about it myself. I was discussing that with my pastor recently, but we didn't have time to get into it as much as i would have liked. I don't think all the blame can be placed on Calvinism because many of the interpretive traditions of the Catholic church were carried over by the early Reformers. I still have a lot to learn about all that. I bet Dr R would be a great person to discuss something like that with. If you ever get the chance ask him and tell me what he says! :)
"I need non-Calvinism almost as much as I need God Himself." That's funny! But hey, I hear you. I've had similar thoughts myself. In a sense, to need non-Calvinism IS to need God Himself. The god of Calvinism is a cold and fearful thing. The God of scripture is SOOO much better isn't He?
:D
Hi Gary,
Sorry that I disappeared - life'n'all. Can I bug you to read two more thoughts?
FG is so important because now it is exciting to read the Word of God! So often conversation in Sunday school has participants meditating on passages for their "instruction" to judge the supposed saved state of other professors in Christ. :( Now, "salvation" passages are speaking to me for the sake of my own conformation to Christ. They are meant for my own personal application, today and every day. Talk about a shift in church culture! The purity of the church would further the spread of the gospel.
You said,
"Yes, I'm sure Zane was a "0-point Calvinist.""
I wonder why FG people still call themselves "1 and a decimal" or whatever their point-sum, Calvinist or Arminian. Out of a desire to obtain dialogue I'd refrain to boast that I am "0-point." "0-point" might make too aggressive an impression.
Impressions matter little but the Word matters most. If I were to attempt to be the hegemone in my realm for the sake of the truth, I might refer to myself as a "1-pointer" or two or so, because there are facets of biblical truth (misused nonetheless) in Calvinism. I'd use those points to establish familiarity and strike commonality in a dialogue.
If FG people have agreement with the tenants of TULIP then I agree it is a "slippery slope." In my case I'd rather call it more like a black hole; it consumes thoughts and for little profit. I've heard other testimony about that being the case. Though some people seem to get along just dandy as abiding believers and yet consider themselves Calvinist. It is odd.
You said,
"Many FG teachers continue teaching those passages that way and don't even realize they are conceding the entire debate to LS. Zanes' writings were extremely important to me in that regard, but he took some heat because of it as I mentioned because it didn't fit in with the mainstream of the interpretive tradition."
As I said in an above comment, I'm interested in making FG as approachable as possible to those on the outside, because we are a "shrinking cell of theological extremists" as you say, though that language has meant nothing to me thus far.
Have you any thoughts on how to soften zeal and yet not work for only a partial delivery?
:)
Hi Michele. Wow, you can ask some hard questions! Really, you've made some thoughtful observations and raised some good questions here. I've been working on a response for a about an hour now, but you've got me thinking and I need more time. There's nothing I hate thinking or talking about more than Calvinism though! "In my case I'd rather call it more like a black hole; it consumes thoughts and for little profit." My feelings EXACTLY!! :D
I think the approach you try to take as you've expressed it here is very wise and it shows you genuinely care for people.
I've saved what I wrote earlier but I might want to make some changes. I'll get back with you tomorrow.
You said: "Can I bug you to read two more thoughts?" Hey, you don't bug me at all--I enjoy reading your thoughts! The "black hole" has me laughing! I've got to remember that one! :D
Yeah Lou, Dr R has always had a great sense of humor. That's one thing I've always loved about him. I also admire the courage of this great man in taking a stand for the truth. When are you going to have the courage and integrity to admit that deep down you really believe in Lordship Salvation and that's the true reason for your hatred and propaganda against the GES-- or anyone else who takes a strong and theologically consistent stand against it?? You are just a little "softer" in your LS than John MacArthur, isn't that correct? Anyone interested in why I say this can find out by reading Nathan Busenitz' (John MacArthur's managing editor) 5- part critique of Lou's book IDOTG. Note this statement by Nathan here: http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/30/lou-and-lordship-part-1/
"After reading his book, I am convinced that Lou Martuneac is, in actuality, a proponent of Lordship Salvation.
There, I said it.
I know, I know… this is probably not what most of you expected to read. Most of all, I’m guessing Lou is probably choking, yelling, or laughing hysterically right now. (Maybe all three.) Sorry for the shock, Lou.
But it’s true… after reading his book, I’m convinced. And over the next few days I will attempt to demonstrate, from his book, why I believe Lou Martuneac holds the lordship view. Or at least why his arguments leave his readers with no logical or biblical alternative other than the lordship position." And this: "I am not saying, of course, that Lou is actively or openly promoting what he considers to be the lordship salvation view. I am saying, rather, that Lou’s description of repentance is strikingly similar to the lordship description of repentance; and though he tries to distance his definition of repentance from the lordship model, he is not ultimately able to do so in a way that is either theologically or logically tenable. If his views on repentance are taken to their logical (and biblical) ends, they necessarily result in a lordship understanding of what repentance is."
Note especially what Nathan says: "... his arguments leave his readers with no logical or biblical alternative other than the lordship position." Exactly!!! Anyone looking for biblical and theologically consistent answers to Lordship Salvation will not find it in Lou's book. Just the opposite--they will only be left in bondage and more vulnerable than ever to the deception of LS.
This the true "tragedy" of what Lou and his comrades in Duluth are doing to the Free Grace movement.
Thank you Lou. :-(
Anyone interested can find the full 5-parts of Nathan's articles here on John MacArthur's blog: http://www.sfpulpit.com/?s=lou+and+lordship+%28part+1%29
Just to clarify what I said:
"... or anyone else who takes a strong and theologically consistent stand against it??" i.e. "against" Lordship Salvation
Hi Gary,
You said,
There's nothing I hate thinking or talking about more than Calvinism though! "In my case I'd rather call it more like a black hole; it consumes thoughts and for little profit." My feelings EXACTLY!! :D
Sorry :( I thought some more too, and realized that this has to also include your idea on whether it is unsaved or saved believers who adhere to Calvinism... or perhaps that's not quite right.
Hi Michele,
What are you sorry about? You haven't said anything that bothers me.
You said: "Sorry :( I thought some more too, and realized that this has to also include your idea on whether it is unsaved or saved believers who adhere to Calvinism... or perhaps that's not quite right."
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I do believe that there are some saved believers who adhere to Calvinism. I have one very close friend who would consider himself a 5-pt Calvinist and I'm convinced he is born again. If no one could be saved until they had all their systematic theology straight then none of us would be saved. Another friend ( my best friend from high school) went to Dallas Theological Seminary and now has a PhD in theology from the the University of Aberdeen. Even though he has drifted into Calvinism over the years I have no doubt that he is saved even though we see things differently theologically. I believe there are born again believers scattered across probably all denonimational lines. If there has ever been a time when a person has "seen the light"--understood and believed the Gospel-- then they are born again and eternally secure even if they are taught or drift into theological error. There is not one person on this earth who has a complete or perfect understanding of scripture--not one! My friend with the PhD told me recently that after all these years he has now gone back to square one and a more inductive method of bible study because he has become very unsettled and disillusioned with much of the theology he learned while studying for his PhD. So when it comes to theology, we are all a work in progress and will be until end.
Maybe I've completely missed the point of what you said. Let me know if I have.
Hi Gary,
That was what I was wondering. I have the feeling that almost all Calvinists are saved even if they have drifted into a good deal of error, like most Christians who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ and have believed... just like you said, theology comes (hopefully) afterward.
I drift into error. Gee, that's my testimony isn't it. I need fellowship with believers and the Word of God to hear the way I should hear.
Calvinists are right about a few things. My husband asks if I will acknowledge that Calvinism was written to defend the solas. Neither of us have any deep understanding of either history or theology but that doesn't mean we don't have strong feelings about how we view God. I think that acknowledging truth where we find it, no matter where it is located, is helpful to cut straight to the chase with growing up and on with our understandings....
You were going to say something more I hope.
:D
Hi Michele,
You said: "I wonder why FG people still call themselves "1 and a decimal" or whatever their point-sum, Calvinist or Arminian. Out of a desire to obtain dialogue I'd refrain to boast that I am "0-point." "0-point" might make too aggressive an impression. "
Yeah, I used to have a pastor who called himself a 3 1/2 pt Calvinists. I've run into everything from 0-5. I think sometimes people think they believe certain points in the TULIP because they don't fully understand them and they think that the only alternative is full-blown Arminianism. For example, quite a few FG people might affirm the P (Perseverance of the Saints). They think that the P is about eternal security so they "agree." What many of them don't understand is that while the P does affirm eternal security, that's not really what it's about. The main point of P is NOT about eternal security, but that all "true believers" will persevere in faith and good works until the end of life--it is guaranteed or inevitable for every true born again believer. If a professing believer fails to persevere or dies in a state of unrepentance or unconfessed sin then it "proves" he was never truly saved to start with. The Reformed doctrine of P is based on the false interpretation of James ("faith without works is dead"), 1 Jn and various other passages of scripture. The P is one of the fundamental premises of LS theology and most Christians are so heavily indoctrinated with this idea that they just assume it's true because that's what they always been taught.
The T (Total depravity or Total inability) is another point that many people accept. Even though there is some truth to T, it doesn't follow that the standard or "classical" view of the doctrine in Calvinism is fully biblical. The T basically means that man is totally and constitutionally incapable of responding to God or believing the Gospel. Again, most people think that the only alternative to believing this point is Arminianism, so not wanting to be an "Arminian" (which they associate with the denial of eternal security) they affirm the T by default. This then naturally leads to the Reformed doctrine of regeneration preceding faith-a man must be regenerated BEFORE he can even believe in Christ. Of course, the T also naturally leads us to the U (Unconditional election or "the horrible decree of God") and double predestination.
A man can only be saved (regenerated) because God chose him--human will, choice, or responsibility have no part any where in God's dealings with man. Again, since many people don't want to deny God's sovereignty (and be an "Arminian"), they will affirm this doctrine as well, not realizing that there are other alternative views that affirm BOTH God's sovereignty AND human free will (such as the "Middle Knowledge" view that Zane believed).
I know you probably already know all this, but the main point I'm trying to make is many people "believe" things they don't really understand very well and they don't know any alternatives to believing the 5-points (or some of the 5-points) except for being an Arminian. Back to your question. I think many good FG people continue to affirm at least some points of the TULIP because the Reformed tradition of interpretation has had such a pervasive influence on the church since the Reformation. Most people just assume that since it's "Reformed" (= not Catholic or Arminian etc) that it must be the "inspired truth." Lot's of people feel that way about the theology of the early church "Fathers". They think that since they lived closer in time to the apostles that their teaching carries more weight. It sounds reasonable, but the truth is that there was a dramatic departure from the teaching of the apostles almost immediately. B F Torrance has written an excellent book showing that an understanding of God's grace and the gospel was lost almost immediately after the apostles died.
I don't know if any of this addresses your question or not, but let me know what you think or if I missed your point. :D
Hi Michele and Gary,
I just want to affirm the importance of the conversation you are having. I only have two points, really.
First, I participate on a blog started by some PhD candidates at Aberdeen and I really understand about Gary's friend who went back to square one and a more inductive method of bible study because he has become very unsettled and disillusioned.
After following 200+ threads on Theology Forum, I can probably count on one hand the number of times that anyone (besides myself) has made any substantive mention of Scripture to support a theological point.
One of the guys I know fairly well, and he and his friends are simply very pessimistic that inductive study can achieve any consistent results among sincere theologians because of all the varied interpretations that result from a presumably "uniform" inductive approach. I am not at all this pessimistic, as I have run into many "ordinary" people like you, Michele, who do "get it" as long as they don't keep their hand in the "theological cookie jar."
The second point is related to TULIP Calvinism and my experiences at Denver Seminary. We have both Reformed/Calvinistic and Arminian faculty members; the one FGer I know of (besides me) keeps a very low profile (he teaches Spiritual Formation). About every other time I talk to students, somehow the conversation indirectly gets back to some aspect of Calvinism. All the kids on the M Div track have to do a doctrinal paper to graduate. Basically, it boils down to an exercise in choosing between Calvinism and Arminianism, leaving many of them personally very frustrated on the free will issue, as Gary has intimated.
To avoid a conflict of conscience, some of them therefore gravitate to one of two places: They either embrace some version of Open Theism or they call themselves "Cal-minians" to try to "split the difference." The problem here with "Cal-minians" is (to me) obvious: All five points of Calvin are logically connected. As Gary has pointed out, if you start with an accurate understanding of what they mean by "T", the other three points must follow logically, and there is really no free will in any meaningful sense. That's why I totally agree with Gary that people who claim only some of the points are really being logically inconsistent. One might think that the "I" would honor "grace," but it really doesn't, because irresistible grace is not the same thing FGers talk about which is freely received (Rom 5:17) and not "forced" on "pre-chosen" individuals.
At the other extreme, while Arminianism purports to "honor" free will by denying the first four points (as classically understood), it also misconstrues the Biblical concept of grace in the promises of God and ends up enabling people to "opt out" of the salvation they already have, thus ironically preserving the "P." So, whenever the conversation gets around to this point, I draw a line between Calvinism and Arminianism and show them how a "Cal-minian" position anywhere on the line between the two extremes is not even logically supportable. Once you grant any of the first four points of TULIP, they all stand or fall together. But FG isn't even on the line, so it doesn't make sense to talk about how many "points" we hold, and I lay out a totally different set of presuppositions about human depravity and free will that resonate with Biblical descriptions of God's revelatory interaction with his created beings.
As I reflect further on how the FG position plays out theologically, I am more and more convinced of the truth of "Promise theology." There is so much more to Creation and Redemption from the "Promise" perspective than just "populating heaven." FGers can no longer afford to avoid the implications of free will beyond the initial step of salvation.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for that comment Jim. You've given me some good food for thought here. You obviously know your stuff and have some great insight on this issue.
It's good to see you on the blogs and I consider you a dear brother in the Lord. Like you, I'm also interested in the "Promise theology", though I don't agree with everything in Kaiser's book.
If you don't mind, I might shoot you an e-mail sometime regarding some more personal issues between us. You're a gracious man and I've missed you. :-)
Gary
By the way, I don't mean to put Kaiser down because I think he's made a significant contribution with his "Promise theology"--but I have noticed a few inconsistencies with FG theology, e.g. his understanding of James (faith without works is dead) etc.
But hey, none of us are perfect right? :D
Jim,
You said: "One of the guys I know fairly well, and he and his friends are simply very pessimistic that inductive study can achieve any consistent results among sincere theologians because of all the varied interpretations that result from a presumably "uniform" inductive approach."
I think my friend went through a long period of time when he experienced exactly the same pessimism you've mentioned- and I've experienced it myself. It seems that now it's just plain spiritual hunger that is driving him back to the scriptures and the inductive method. God has taken him through some personal trials to drive him back to Word. Seems as though I've read about God doing that sort of thing somewhere in scripture haven't I? " Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
Gary,
You are more than gracious and, of course, welcome to e-mail me any time you want.
Regarding Kaiser, you are absolutely on target. I had exactly the same intuitive response to his approach to James. He is remarkably inconsistent and simply defaulted to a tired old Reformed explanation of the high-profile verses rather than doing the hard work with the text. As an aging OT specialist, he probably just has to draw the line somewhere in his handling of the NT, even when it really conflicts radically with what I would consider the most logical implications of Promise theology in James 2.
Love your intuition.
I love this post... and the comments of your noble visitors. I do sometimes miss blogging... and Michele, I miss you! and Gary and Jim... etc and all the reasonable discussion that sometimes takes place.
I am getting inspired to get back to it. :)
Hi Gary,
I thought this was really interesting,
"Again, most people think that the only alternative to believing this point is Arminianism, so not wanting to be an "Arminian" (which they associate with the denial of eternal security) they affirm the T by default."
Wow. That is exactly what I can see happening. Most everyone who discusses Calvinism describes their reasoning just like that. When I said the word "non-Calvinism" to my pastor, he immediately jumped into the ground of the epic debate lying between Calvinism and Arminianism. I don't know if most people are aware there is another option (that seems safe or likely for how they really know scripture).
You said,
"I think many good FG people continue to affirm at least some points of the TULIP because the Reformed tradition of interpretation has had such a pervasive influence on the church since the Reformation."
Yes... This is where learning more about history would do me at least a lot of good. The cool thing is, maybe, just like Luther who kept reading one thing in the Word and seeing another thing said at church, there are plenty of people making observations from scripture that run countercurrent to popular thought. Thanks for describing that. I invited people from facebook to read this post specifically because of your simple and kind explanations of what it means to think like a FG person.
Blessings brother,
Michele
Hi Jim,
I'm glad you've left a comment. :D
You said,
"After following 200+ threads on Theology Forum, I can probably count on one hand the number of times that anyone (besides myself) has made any substantive mention of Scripture to support a theological point."
That's disgusting, I thought when I read this comment yesterday.
Then... I realized that this thread of comments on this post has done (I have done) exactly the same thing. Hypocrite! (Doh!)
You said,
"One of the guys I know fairly well, and he and his friends are simply very pessimistic that inductive study can achieve any consistent results among sincere theologians because of all the varied interpretations that result from a presumably "uniform" inductive approach. I am not at all this pessimistic, as I have run into many "ordinary" people like you, Michele, who do "get it" as long as they don't keep their hand in the "theological cookie jar.""
Yes but being anti-education causes its own set of problems. I may do a future post soon on that.
You said,
"Basically, it boils down to an exercise in choosing between Calvinism and Arminianism, leaving many of them personally very frustrated on the free will issue, as Gary has intimated."
That's very interesting and I'm glad you've shared that multiplied observation.
You said,
"But FG isn't even on the line, so it doesn't make sense to talk about how many "points" we hold, and I lay out a totally different set of presuppositions about human depravity and free will that resonate with Biblical descriptions of God's revelatory interaction with his created beings."
That's probably the best way to do it. Unless they're defensive. ;)
You said,
"I am more and more convinced of the truth of "Promise theology." There is so much more to Creation and Redemption from the "Promise" perspective than just "populating heaven." FGers can no longer afford to avoid the implications of free will beyond the initial step of salvation."
Promise-theology is something I have no knowledge about. I also found that last statement very intriguing, what you meant by "implications."
Thanks for leaving that comment!
Michele
Rose,
It's very honoring to have you leave a comment. Yes these visitors are noble (which is an attribute we are commanded to meditate on in Philippians)!
Glad to read you always
Michele
Post a Comment