Mark,
Thanks for the contribution. I think we agree that eternal security (at least the man-ward side of it) is fundamentally trust. The rest of your comments, however, suggest that you didn’t get the gist of what I’m trying to communicate about Calvinism. Indeed, you’ve essentially voiced a position that is mainstream Calvinism, and a position that I have challenged.
Let me argue why I believe this. The phrase “true believer” is codeword in Calvinism that reflects their view of election where God, not man, sovereignly chooses who is saved and who is not. Those chosen are regenerated at some point in their lives and are granted the gift of faith whereupon they believe. (Note the order of salvation (ordo salutis): regeneration first, then faith. Calvinists believe the reverse order is impossible. (We can argue the merits of this in another forum.) From this start, Calvinists begin construction of their theology. Since they are regenerated, they now have a new heart that loves God and desires to follow and obey him. Note your words, “…the true believer naturally displays God’s essence…” To be clear, I fundamentally reject this notion.
That you didn’t pick up on it in my original post tells me that I was incomplete in arguing my case. After re-reading it I think I see where I should elaborate. In the 8th paragraph of my original post I pointed out the Calvinist view of James 2:14-26. What I didn’t point out was that this was wrong. Indeed, this is perhaps the most misunderstood pericope in all the Bible.
The position you’ve taken is consistent with a relatively recent BibSac paper (BSac 159:633 (Jan 02) p.63) titled “Faith and Works in James and Paul,“ authored by C. Ryan Jenkins. He argues 4 views and concludes the 4th view is correct which says that “James sought to show that a person who possesses faith in Christ will be justified (i.e., vindicated as a true Christian) by his or her works, and that a mere claim to a profession of faith that is not vindicated or evidenced by works is not characteristic of genuine conversion.”
Essentially, Jenkins and other Calvinists see those whom James is describing as failing to demonstrate their faith with works as pseudo believers (mere professors of faith) whose lack of works prove that they do not have a genuine faith. This is where the problem lies. Is there such a category of Christians? Your response above suggests that you are squarely in their camp.
I’m now going to argue that James does not hold such a view. (I should have done this in my original blog entry.) In fact, throughout the entire epistle, I believe that James is addressing a single category of individuals, namely regenerate Christians who have not matured to the point where they can demonstrate the values and works expected of the mature believer.
First, it is important to observe what these “believers” are doing that has drawn James’ criticism. These “believers” are quick to show anger (Jas 1:19-20), are indulging in filthiness and overflow of wickedness (1:21), not doers of the word being in self deceit and forgetful (1:22-24); not bridling their tongue, but deceiving their own heart (1:26); holding their faith in partiality and judging with evil thoughts (2:1-4); dishonoring the poor man (2:6); desiring pleasure (4:1); boasting and lying against the truth (3:13); lusting, murdering and coveting (4:2); praying for the wrong thing (for self pleasure) (4:3); commiting adultery and being friends of the world (4:4); speaking evil of each other and the law (4:11); knowing to do good but not doing it (4:17); living on the earth in pleasure and luxury (5:5); condemning and murdering the just (5:6); and swearing oaths (5:12).
Mixed in this vituperation, James is, on the positive side, telling them to: count it joy when trials come (1:2); be patient (1:4); ask wisdom of God (1:5); ask in faith without doubting (1:6); be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath (1:19); lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness (1:21); be doers of the word (1:22); not be partial (2:1-7); love your neighbor (2:8); speak as those who will be judged by the law of liberty (2:12); show by good conduct that their works are done in the meekness of wisdom. (3:13). Notice the force of 4:1-5. This is clearly addressing believers and at the same time showing that believers can seriously misbehave. He’s telling the very ones who “do not have” because they “do not ask” that they are adulterers and adulteresses, and are friends of the world. (This clearly shows these adulterers are believers.)
To drive home the point that believers (not pseudo believers) are his audience, and that they are doing horrible things, he tells them to submit to God, resist the devil, draw near to God, cleanse their hands, purify their hearts, stop being double minded, lament and mourn, and humble themselves before God. Would you tell an unbeliever to do these things or direct him/her to the gospel? If they are truly unbelievers, exhortation to improve their behavior is a bad strategy.
Now, let’s ask a very simple question. If James really believed these were pseudo or only professing (not genuine) believers, what should be his tack? What is the message of the Bible to the unbeliever? Is it the list of works that James has listed in these 5 chapters or is it the gospel? If James really believed these were unbelievers, he would present the gospel to them? How many times does he do that in this book? Not even once! The book of James is about works, and works are an issue to the believer, not the unbeliever. The issue of a true believer vs. a false believer is a construct developed by Calvinists to fend off criticism about the odios behavior patterns they see in their ranks. There is nothing evangelistic about the book of James. It is clearly written only to believers challenging them to correct their bad behavior. Evangelism is the answer to unbelief, not exhortation to works. If James' audience is lacking genuine faith, they are unbelievers without question. If this is the case, then James is preaching a works salvation to an unbelieving audience. QED.
To sum up, how does all this relate back to your original point that "true believers will naturally display God's essence." If good works are a natural outcome of the "true believer," then James must be addressing unbelievers since they are doing everything but good works. That they are not unbelievers is easily concluded from the fact that if James believed they were unbelievers, he would have an entirely different message for them, viz. the gospel. Since the gospel is not mentioned even once I think we can be assured that James believes his audience is regenerated, and the notion of a "professing" or "false" believer is an oxymoron. Conversely, the phrase "true believer" is redundant.
Over to you.
Ray
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Introduction and Motivation
Before embarking on the details of why Calvinism (all five points) is not Biblically sound, I will briefly address my motive in publishing this blog. In a word, it is personal assurance of salvation. Under Calvinism, assurance appears to be logically impossible. This can be argued from their view of unconditional election and the necessary faith and works that they claim must follow if their election is genuine. More will be said about this shortly.
First, however, I would like to make note of the fact that the Bible actually states directly that believers are to know they have eternal life. The Apostle John says so directly in 1 Jn 5:13: “These things I wrote to you in order that you may know that you have eternal life; to you who believe in the name of the Son of God.” This is my translation because I believe that the original word order is significant. John has written these things that they may know they have eternal life. He then adds the phrase “to you who believe in the name of the Son of God” as though he wants to make sure they know he’s talking to them. One could imagine John standing before a group and making the first statement, and then shouting emphatically that he’s speaking to those who are listening.
The issue of assurance is vitally important to the genuine Christian. Not only does it incline one to want to honor the one who has provided this remarkable gift, but I would add that it is the only foundation upon which good works (those that are called gold, silver, and precious stones in 1 Cor 3:12) can be based. Calvinists seem quick to judge believers whose lives don’t exhibit the lifestyle expected of a Christian and are quick to claim that failing believers are simply false believers (professing believers who have never been regenerated). (See the writings of John MacArthur for example.) However, it is more likely that under-performing believers are simply lacking maturity and have yet to develop the Christian values that would motivate them to higher levels of service. The impact upon young believers accused of being unbelievers can be devastating. Interestingly, the tack taken by some of the more critical Calvinists may actually achieve the opposite goal that they intend. Their criticisms can induce doubt and uncertainty, which, in turn, can lead to more failure, and, sadly, more criticism. Unfortunately, there is a worse outcome than driving young believers away from the Church. Calvinists, because of their flawed understanding of total depravity, unconditional election and a deduced ordo salutis (order of salvation, i.e., regeneration first, then faith) actually present a false gospel to the unbeliever. For the Calvinist, faith is not an adequate response to the Gospel despite the remarkably clear declarations in the Gospel of John that eternal life is received by faith alone. Since the “believer” was regenerated first, the Calvinist sees the only adequate response to the Gospel as faith plus repentance (turning from sin – their definition), and submission to the Lordship of Christ. To them, this is a logical deduction since regeneration has given the new believer a new heart that seeks, loves and wants to obey God. Furthermore, Calvinists see the balance of the Christian life as reflecting this new heart with good works and perseverance to the end. Anything less is a sure indication of a false profession of faith. It is difficult to imagine how a new believer can come to find assurance in a message such as this, if, indeed, they can be saved by it in the first place, since it is not the Gospel.
I suspect that in the final analysis these overly critical Calvinists will be shown that they are actually the root cause of the very problem they are condemning, i.e., under-performance. When they mock the free grace of God as “easy believism” and call it “cheap grace,” they are actually undermining the very foundation that enables a young believer to grow to maturity and find real assurance in the person of Jesus Christ. It is likely that they, not the ones they are accusing, are the ones to whom Christ will say in Matt 7:23, “I never knew you.”
So how can one argue that Calvinists cannot logically have assurance of salvation? The logic is actually very straight forward. At bottom, Calvinistic Soteriology points to election as the only determinant in salvation. Humans have no choice in their salvation. It is 100% God’s choosing as to who will be saved and who will be lost. The question then becomes, how do I know if I’m among the elect? To answer the question, Calvinists must retreat to evidence of conversion (faith & regeneration) and evidence of perseverance. They are forced to look inward and assess their decisions, feelings, and attitudes. When they believed, did they resolve to give up all their sin (all of it, not just some of it)? Did they give their life to Christ and fully submit to His Lordship? Does their life exhibit the “changed life” all good Calvinists expect? Does this new faith have works or is it a dead, unproductive, and unprofitable faith? John MacArthur, a popular and vocal Calvinist, lists eleven tests a believer must apply that, if passed, will bring assurance to the believer. All eleven are highly subjective.
After such an inward assessment, Calvinists must conclude (to be assured of their salvation) that they have indeed believed, given up their sin, given their life to Christ, fully submitted to His Lordship, and have taken up their cross and are following Him. Ultimately, their views force their confidence and trust, and therefore, their assurance, to depend on the outcome of this assessment. And therein, lies the crux of this argument. If a man's basis of assurance has any link to himself, his works, and his performance as a Christian, he will never find assurance.
On the other hand, if one's assurance if focused away from himself, and turned toward the Lord Jesus Christ who cannot fail, then assurance is possible. From this perspective, the meaning of the phrase, "faith in Christ," takes on a very important meaning. It is nothing less than a total reliance upon the faithfulness of Christ and the expectation that He will keep his promise to save the one who believes. In the mind of the believer, believing is a matter of personal consciousness. A person knows when he has believed something because believing is an act of volition where one willfully chooses to accept a proposition as true. If there is to be any assurance of one's salvation, it must lie upon something (or someone) that cannot fail, and that can only occur if it’s based on the God of the Universe, Jesus Christ. Looking to Christ who is able and has promised to save us is the only basis of assurance for the Christian.
Another factor that plays into the inability of the Calvinist to find assurance of salvation is their interpretation of such passages as James 2:14-26. According to the Calvinist, there is a “kind of faith” that is not saving, that leaves a “professing” believer (not genuine and not saved) without eternal life. James 2:14 says, “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” Logically, then, the Calvinist cannot be assured that he has saving faith unless that faith is accompanied by works. James affirms in 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” For the Calvinist, if one’s faith eventually produces works, then that person has evidence that he is among the elect. If, however, that person’s faith never produces works or a minimum level of works, that would be strong evidence of non-election or reprobation. Of course, the question looms, “At what point are there enough works so that one can be assured he is among the elect? The Bible never declares such a threshold. It would appear, then, that for the Calvinist, assurance of salvation, if it comes at all, would be late in life when a consistent pattern of good works has been established. Even then, nagging doubts have been reported among famous Calvinists upon their deathbed, including Calvin.
Because the Calvinist’s assurance is logically tied to his works, and his works (presence or absence) can be future events, it is logically impossible for that person to be assured of his eternal destiny. How can he be assured of his future performance? If John MacArthur’s eleven tests are typical of the way Calvinist seek assurance, then it is likely that few will find it.
Calvinists frequently cite Matt 7:21-23 to prove their case about professing believers who do not fully obey the Lord and are ultimately rejected. What Calvinists fail to realize is that this passage is actually an indictment of Calvinism itself (and other works based systems), and virtually proves the fact that works cannot be a basis for assurance. Notice that this passage shows clearly the case where “professing” believers trust they have sufficient works, but are rejected. This passage reads, 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 7:22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 7:23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’”
To sum up, I have offered these introductory comments to address the direction of this blog and its motivation. I am submitting that all five points of Calvinism are wrong and Biblically unsound. I will offer substantial analysis to support it in the weeks and months to come. Those who oppose my views are encouraged to present counter arguments so that a constructive exchange can occur and errors on either side can be exposed. (I am open to correction. Are you?) I will begin in the days to come with a thorough look at Total Depravity and try to show that the Calvinist’s view on Total Depravity is a construction based on Reformed tradition, logical deduction (not induction), and eisegesis.
My discussion of the motivation of this blog, the assurance of salvation, has argued that assurance is not logically possible under Calvinism because it is ultimately linked to a foundation of human works and spiritual performance. This is contrasted with the Biblical view of assurance where it is forcefully and emphatically declared that the believer is to know objectively that he has eternal life because it rests in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
More to follow.
Before embarking on the details of why Calvinism (all five points) is not Biblically sound, I will briefly address my motive in publishing this blog. In a word, it is personal assurance of salvation. Under Calvinism, assurance appears to be logically impossible. This can be argued from their view of unconditional election and the necessary faith and works that they claim must follow if their election is genuine. More will be said about this shortly.
First, however, I would like to make note of the fact that the Bible actually states directly that believers are to know they have eternal life. The Apostle John says so directly in 1 Jn 5:13: “These things I wrote to you in order that you may know that you have eternal life; to you who believe in the name of the Son of God.” This is my translation because I believe that the original word order is significant. John has written these things that they may know they have eternal life. He then adds the phrase “to you who believe in the name of the Son of God” as though he wants to make sure they know he’s talking to them. One could imagine John standing before a group and making the first statement, and then shouting emphatically that he’s speaking to those who are listening.
The issue of assurance is vitally important to the genuine Christian. Not only does it incline one to want to honor the one who has provided this remarkable gift, but I would add that it is the only foundation upon which good works (those that are called gold, silver, and precious stones in 1 Cor 3:12) can be based. Calvinists seem quick to judge believers whose lives don’t exhibit the lifestyle expected of a Christian and are quick to claim that failing believers are simply false believers (professing believers who have never been regenerated). (See the writings of John MacArthur for example.) However, it is more likely that under-performing believers are simply lacking maturity and have yet to develop the Christian values that would motivate them to higher levels of service. The impact upon young believers accused of being unbelievers can be devastating. Interestingly, the tack taken by some of the more critical Calvinists may actually achieve the opposite goal that they intend. Their criticisms can induce doubt and uncertainty, which, in turn, can lead to more failure, and, sadly, more criticism. Unfortunately, there is a worse outcome than driving young believers away from the Church. Calvinists, because of their flawed understanding of total depravity, unconditional election and a deduced ordo salutis (order of salvation, i.e., regeneration first, then faith) actually present a false gospel to the unbeliever. For the Calvinist, faith is not an adequate response to the Gospel despite the remarkably clear declarations in the Gospel of John that eternal life is received by faith alone. Since the “believer” was regenerated first, the Calvinist sees the only adequate response to the Gospel as faith plus repentance (turning from sin – their definition), and submission to the Lordship of Christ. To them, this is a logical deduction since regeneration has given the new believer a new heart that seeks, loves and wants to obey God. Furthermore, Calvinists see the balance of the Christian life as reflecting this new heart with good works and perseverance to the end. Anything less is a sure indication of a false profession of faith. It is difficult to imagine how a new believer can come to find assurance in a message such as this, if, indeed, they can be saved by it in the first place, since it is not the Gospel.
I suspect that in the final analysis these overly critical Calvinists will be shown that they are actually the root cause of the very problem they are condemning, i.e., under-performance. When they mock the free grace of God as “easy believism” and call it “cheap grace,” they are actually undermining the very foundation that enables a young believer to grow to maturity and find real assurance in the person of Jesus Christ. It is likely that they, not the ones they are accusing, are the ones to whom Christ will say in Matt 7:23, “I never knew you.”
So how can one argue that Calvinists cannot logically have assurance of salvation? The logic is actually very straight forward. At bottom, Calvinistic Soteriology points to election as the only determinant in salvation. Humans have no choice in their salvation. It is 100% God’s choosing as to who will be saved and who will be lost. The question then becomes, how do I know if I’m among the elect? To answer the question, Calvinists must retreat to evidence of conversion (faith & regeneration) and evidence of perseverance. They are forced to look inward and assess their decisions, feelings, and attitudes. When they believed, did they resolve to give up all their sin (all of it, not just some of it)? Did they give their life to Christ and fully submit to His Lordship? Does their life exhibit the “changed life” all good Calvinists expect? Does this new faith have works or is it a dead, unproductive, and unprofitable faith? John MacArthur, a popular and vocal Calvinist, lists eleven tests a believer must apply that, if passed, will bring assurance to the believer. All eleven are highly subjective.
After such an inward assessment, Calvinists must conclude (to be assured of their salvation) that they have indeed believed, given up their sin, given their life to Christ, fully submitted to His Lordship, and have taken up their cross and are following Him. Ultimately, their views force their confidence and trust, and therefore, their assurance, to depend on the outcome of this assessment. And therein, lies the crux of this argument. If a man's basis of assurance has any link to himself, his works, and his performance as a Christian, he will never find assurance.
On the other hand, if one's assurance if focused away from himself, and turned toward the Lord Jesus Christ who cannot fail, then assurance is possible. From this perspective, the meaning of the phrase, "faith in Christ," takes on a very important meaning. It is nothing less than a total reliance upon the faithfulness of Christ and the expectation that He will keep his promise to save the one who believes. In the mind of the believer, believing is a matter of personal consciousness. A person knows when he has believed something because believing is an act of volition where one willfully chooses to accept a proposition as true. If there is to be any assurance of one's salvation, it must lie upon something (or someone) that cannot fail, and that can only occur if it’s based on the God of the Universe, Jesus Christ. Looking to Christ who is able and has promised to save us is the only basis of assurance for the Christian.
Another factor that plays into the inability of the Calvinist to find assurance of salvation is their interpretation of such passages as James 2:14-26. According to the Calvinist, there is a “kind of faith” that is not saving, that leaves a “professing” believer (not genuine and not saved) without eternal life. James 2:14 says, “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” Logically, then, the Calvinist cannot be assured that he has saving faith unless that faith is accompanied by works. James affirms in 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” For the Calvinist, if one’s faith eventually produces works, then that person has evidence that he is among the elect. If, however, that person’s faith never produces works or a minimum level of works, that would be strong evidence of non-election or reprobation. Of course, the question looms, “At what point are there enough works so that one can be assured he is among the elect? The Bible never declares such a threshold. It would appear, then, that for the Calvinist, assurance of salvation, if it comes at all, would be late in life when a consistent pattern of good works has been established. Even then, nagging doubts have been reported among famous Calvinists upon their deathbed, including Calvin.
Because the Calvinist’s assurance is logically tied to his works, and his works (presence or absence) can be future events, it is logically impossible for that person to be assured of his eternal destiny. How can he be assured of his future performance? If John MacArthur’s eleven tests are typical of the way Calvinist seek assurance, then it is likely that few will find it.
Calvinists frequently cite Matt 7:21-23 to prove their case about professing believers who do not fully obey the Lord and are ultimately rejected. What Calvinists fail to realize is that this passage is actually an indictment of Calvinism itself (and other works based systems), and virtually proves the fact that works cannot be a basis for assurance. Notice that this passage shows clearly the case where “professing” believers trust they have sufficient works, but are rejected. This passage reads, 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 7:22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 7:23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’”
To sum up, I have offered these introductory comments to address the direction of this blog and its motivation. I am submitting that all five points of Calvinism are wrong and Biblically unsound. I will offer substantial analysis to support it in the weeks and months to come. Those who oppose my views are encouraged to present counter arguments so that a constructive exchange can occur and errors on either side can be exposed. (I am open to correction. Are you?) I will begin in the days to come with a thorough look at Total Depravity and try to show that the Calvinist’s view on Total Depravity is a construction based on Reformed tradition, logical deduction (not induction), and eisegesis.
My discussion of the motivation of this blog, the assurance of salvation, has argued that assurance is not logically possible under Calvinism because it is ultimately linked to a foundation of human works and spiritual performance. This is contrasted with the Biblical view of assurance where it is forcefully and emphatically declared that the believer is to know objectively that he has eternal life because it rests in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
More to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
