I suppose if you have been reading this series you will probably gather by now that I am not a Calvinist. In fact over the years i have earned several nicknames -- Sir_Edward -- of the order of the Anti-Calvinists, Calvinist Basher, Calvinists Bane, etc. etc. I gladly accept them all. Most of them were given to by Calvinists in the form of name calling but I have made them badges of honor. The question is why I am so against this doctrine. I have given many of the Scriptural problems I have with this doctrine in this series, but I will admit it is much more personal than that.
1. The Image It Creates of God is Diabolical: In Calvinism we have a God who predestines people to hell and does so without cause. God is not only unjust in Calvinism, he is also one mean SOB. The problem of God in relation to evil is difficult enough when talking about hell but now we have a God who wilfully throws people into it and offers them no chance of redemption. I find this not only Biblically unsatisfactory but what image of God is this where we can say God is a loving God who is 'not willing that any should perish.' This doctrine makes such an idea a fantasy.
2. It is a System That Leads to Hermeneutical Slavery: Once a person accepts this system it forever dominates their thinking. Kind of like the 'dark side'. ;-) Even if you present a verse that directly contradicts a tenet of Calvinist thought they will find a way around it to come with a way to save it. See common interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4.
3. The Image of Man It Creates is as Puppet Not Person. In the end each person has no real value. In fact Calvinism creates a group of people who are valuable to God and others who are not. You cannot say a person is valuable to God if first he predestines them to hell and then sends them there without any choice or interaction on their part. The elect on the other hand are extremely valuable to God for some reason but no reason you can put your finger on.
4. It's Fruits: a) Fatalism -- people just give up to the fate of God's justice. There is ultimate way to preach personal responsibility when everything you are is because God made you do it and be it. This get difficult to explain how God is good when he is responsible for people for being the evil they are -- Hitler comes to mind. b) Murder -- I know of at least three stories where people believed they were elect to damnation and then killed themselves because of it. c) False security of salvation -- With the ultimate fruits of POTS and OSAS it is not surprising the one thing I here every so often is -- 'I prayed at the altar so now I am saved -- NO MATTER WHAT I DO.' Calvinists say these people are taught poorly, but the truth is they are just arriving at destinations that are logical conclusions.
Yep, for these reasons and all the Biblical ones I cannot embrace Calvinism. In fact I think the doctrine is very bad indeed.
Finis
Showing posts with label OSAS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OSAS. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 6 -- P -- Perserverance of the Saints or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.
Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is a doctrine I would probably like to believe in except for one thing -- There is at least one entire book of the Bible against it -- Hebrews.
POTS basically states that those who God gives his grace to through U, L and I will automatically Persevere and will not be lost no matter what. The saint automatically perseveres even if he lives a sinful lifestyle or really has no relationship with God. Come to Think of it I remember Romans 6 has something to say about that as well.
POTS combined with Irresistible Grace leads to one of the most devilish doctrines of all time -- Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If grace can not be resisted and the saints cannot lose their salvation then it seems the most logical conclusion. I know there are some branches of Baptist and Reformed Thinking that discard I and P for a form of freewill defense but honestly I think Calvin is right: If T.U.L. is true than I and P are inevitable. But then again, I think Calvin was completely bonkers about the whole thing.
Getting Back to Hebrews and POTS. Two Problems 1) The entire book of Hebrews is written to Jews who have come out of Judaism for the sole purpose of convincing them to stay in Christianity and not turn back to Judaism because the New Covenant with Christ is better than the Old. If there is no real danger of losing ones salvation as POTS claims, then why would the writer of Hebrews be worried about this happening in the first place? 2) Hebrews 6:4-6 -- For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Now this is odd isn't it -- if it is not possible to lose ones salvation then why talk this way?
Now I know that those who hold to POTS and OSAS say that this paragraph does not describe a person who is saved, but then that also has problems 1) If they are not really saved, then what exactly are they falling away from? It is hard to fall from something you never had to begin with. 2) If this verse were written about anything else but falling away and we saw this verse: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, What would we say it describes then? If this does not describe salvation,what then does it describe?
Suppose it read instead:For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be deceived (change for example purposes only).
You could bet then people would be saying that those who are saved cannot be deceived. But because it talks about falling away from these things; it cannot be salvation because to the POTS Believer salvation cannot be flalen away from. It would directly contradict his doctrine. This is probably one of the greatest cases of eisegesis (reading what we want to be in Scripture) in the modern/port modern world today. This is what happens when a doctrine trumps a plain reading of Scripture.
Nope. Don't See POTS or OSAS as true. If fact I have rejected the whole thing and next week I am going to tell you why.
Next: Stepping on TULIPs -- Why I reject Calvinism.
POTS basically states that those who God gives his grace to through U, L and I will automatically Persevere and will not be lost no matter what. The saint automatically perseveres even if he lives a sinful lifestyle or really has no relationship with God. Come to Think of it I remember Romans 6 has something to say about that as well.
POTS combined with Irresistible Grace leads to one of the most devilish doctrines of all time -- Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If grace can not be resisted and the saints cannot lose their salvation then it seems the most logical conclusion. I know there are some branches of Baptist and Reformed Thinking that discard I and P for a form of freewill defense but honestly I think Calvin is right: If T.U.L. is true than I and P are inevitable. But then again, I think Calvin was completely bonkers about the whole thing.
Getting Back to Hebrews and POTS. Two Problems 1) The entire book of Hebrews is written to Jews who have come out of Judaism for the sole purpose of convincing them to stay in Christianity and not turn back to Judaism because the New Covenant with Christ is better than the Old. If there is no real danger of losing ones salvation as POTS claims, then why would the writer of Hebrews be worried about this happening in the first place? 2) Hebrews 6:4-6 -- For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Now this is odd isn't it -- if it is not possible to lose ones salvation then why talk this way?
Now I know that those who hold to POTS and OSAS say that this paragraph does not describe a person who is saved, but then that also has problems 1) If they are not really saved, then what exactly are they falling away from? It is hard to fall from something you never had to begin with. 2) If this verse were written about anything else but falling away and we saw this verse: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, What would we say it describes then? If this does not describe salvation,what then does it describe?
Suppose it read instead:For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be deceived (change for example purposes only).
You could bet then people would be saying that those who are saved cannot be deceived. But because it talks about falling away from these things; it cannot be salvation because to the POTS Believer salvation cannot be flalen away from. It would directly contradict his doctrine. This is probably one of the greatest cases of eisegesis (reading what we want to be in Scripture) in the modern/port modern world today. This is what happens when a doctrine trumps a plain reading of Scripture.
Nope. Don't See POTS or OSAS as true. If fact I have rejected the whole thing and next week I am going to tell you why.
Next: Stepping on TULIPs -- Why I reject Calvinism.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 5 -- I -- Irresistable Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist
Oh boy, Whenever I write on this topic I get 'fan' mail. One major problem is that not all Calvinist go this far, but to be blunt if T,U and L are true then I is inevitable. You can dance around it but in the end God's grace is irresistible if election is unconditional. If God has elected you to salvation you are forced to accept his grace.
The doctrine of irresistible grace states basically this: that once God has decided to give his grace to you (See unconditional election) you cannot resist it and you will become saved. Like it or not.
Between this and P -- Perseverance Of The Saints (which I will deal with next week) you get the basis for Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But more on that next week.
My largest problem with this is the image it creates of God that is highly unbiblical.
1) God only presents his grace to the elect. I find a universality in the Scripture of who gets loved by God -- Everyone. If every person is loved by God then why would he only make grace irresistible to those who he has made elect.
2) Faith coming exclusively from God. God only gives faith that saves to those he chooses. The fact remains that when our faith is talked about, it is always given the possessive to us. The Bible never describes faith as God's through us, but ours -- 'your faith' is always the idea. "Your faith has made you whole." etc., etc.
3) Throughout the Old Testament God's people are repeatedly described by God as being rebellious, but what difference would it make if God's grace is irresistible? None. Here we have God going on and on through the prophets calling his people back to him if such a call was irresistible in the first place. God does not work this way in the whole counsel of God.
To further my point, I would like to use an analogy that is common is Scripture. Marriage. The image of marriage is often used of God and his people. Now if this doctrine is true this is how covenant works with God. God proposes the covenant of marriage to you. You not only must say yes but you cannot help but say yes. You have been drugged by god so that you cannot help but say yes. Once you have said yes, God forces himself upon you in relationship and intimacy with him. This would be like me proposing marriage to my wife and then telling her she cannot help but say yes. In fact I am going to answer for her and say yes by taking over her mind and will to make her. Once we are married, I take her home with me and she must do what ever I will. She cannot refuse me for I keep her drugged so she never can resist anything I want to do. There is no love here in such a relationship -- constant spiritual rape is more like it.
Paula and others pay attention here.
I think salvation works more on the line of what engagement and marriage is supposed to be like: When I asked my wife to marry me I waited for her response. I CHOSE Her but she had to say 'yes'. Her saying 'yes' is nothing she did to earn my love, it is simply an acceptance of my offer and gift. Once yes was said did that mean my wife suddenly lost her will and she had nothing to say about how she and i walked in relationship? I think not. Such covenant relationships require give and take on both sides. If she goes out and fools around and no longer want to be married to me -- divorce takes place the covenant is broken.
In the same way God chose me and offered me his salvation but I still had to say yes. To say yes I must believe in Christ's resurrection and confess His Lordship over my life. (Romans 10:9-10) Was I doing 'a work' by doing this? No, all I did was accept an offered gift. Once done, I have said yes, but that does not mean the covenant does not have to be maintained. If I ever stop believing in the resurrection of Christ or, by my life, no longer confess the Lordship of Christ -- the covenant is broken. Conditions exist in this covenant and they are to be maintained or the covenant is gone. Read Deuteronomy for an example of this idea between God and his people.
Next: P - Perseverance of the Saint or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.
The doctrine of irresistible grace states basically this: that once God has decided to give his grace to you (See unconditional election) you cannot resist it and you will become saved. Like it or not.
Between this and P -- Perseverance Of The Saints (which I will deal with next week) you get the basis for Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But more on that next week.
My largest problem with this is the image it creates of God that is highly unbiblical.
1) God only presents his grace to the elect. I find a universality in the Scripture of who gets loved by God -- Everyone. If every person is loved by God then why would he only make grace irresistible to those who he has made elect.
2) Faith coming exclusively from God. God only gives faith that saves to those he chooses. The fact remains that when our faith is talked about, it is always given the possessive to us. The Bible never describes faith as God's through us, but ours -- 'your faith' is always the idea. "Your faith has made you whole." etc., etc.
3) Throughout the Old Testament God's people are repeatedly described by God as being rebellious, but what difference would it make if God's grace is irresistible? None. Here we have God going on and on through the prophets calling his people back to him if such a call was irresistible in the first place. God does not work this way in the whole counsel of God.
To further my point, I would like to use an analogy that is common is Scripture. Marriage. The image of marriage is often used of God and his people. Now if this doctrine is true this is how covenant works with God. God proposes the covenant of marriage to you. You not only must say yes but you cannot help but say yes. You have been drugged by god so that you cannot help but say yes. Once you have said yes, God forces himself upon you in relationship and intimacy with him. This would be like me proposing marriage to my wife and then telling her she cannot help but say yes. In fact I am going to answer for her and say yes by taking over her mind and will to make her. Once we are married, I take her home with me and she must do what ever I will. She cannot refuse me for I keep her drugged so she never can resist anything I want to do. There is no love here in such a relationship -- constant spiritual rape is more like it.
Paula and others pay attention here.
I think salvation works more on the line of what engagement and marriage is supposed to be like: When I asked my wife to marry me I waited for her response. I CHOSE Her but she had to say 'yes'. Her saying 'yes' is nothing she did to earn my love, it is simply an acceptance of my offer and gift. Once yes was said did that mean my wife suddenly lost her will and she had nothing to say about how she and i walked in relationship? I think not. Such covenant relationships require give and take on both sides. If she goes out and fools around and no longer want to be married to me -- divorce takes place the covenant is broken.
In the same way God chose me and offered me his salvation but I still had to say yes. To say yes I must believe in Christ's resurrection and confess His Lordship over my life. (Romans 10:9-10) Was I doing 'a work' by doing this? No, all I did was accept an offered gift. Once done, I have said yes, but that does not mean the covenant does not have to be maintained. If I ever stop believing in the resurrection of Christ or, by my life, no longer confess the Lordship of Christ -- the covenant is broken. Conditions exist in this covenant and they are to be maintained or the covenant is gone. Read Deuteronomy for an example of this idea between God and his people.
Next: P - Perseverance of the Saint or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)