Theology 201 #3: Pick the Brighter Tulip (Part A)

 “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Pro. 27:17).

Years ago I remember sitting with my wife visiting with another couple. In the middle of our conversation, the other couple began to have an argument with one another. I felt like we were in front row seats to the Jerry Springer show and started to wonder whether that was our cue to leave or dial 911.

Prior to this, a close family member of ours warned us that this was typical of them and apparently was how they showed love for one another. And the crazy thing was, the longer we were with them, the more I realized that this was true. In other words, this couple had a rather unusual way of showing love to one another. I mention this because the topic we are embarking on may feel similar.

The topic is the old Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. I recognize that for many those words are completely foreign. So in short, as one writer explained, “Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in the matter of salvation. Both systems can be summarized with five points” known as TULIP. Below is a brief comparison between these two views.

	Calvinism Foundation laid by Augustine	Arminianism Foundation laid by Arminius
T	Total Depravity: mankind is so affected by the negative consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden that we are enslaved to sin to the point that we can only choose evil, and are completely incapable of doing anything to save ourselves. Taken to the extreme, mankind has no freewill.	Tremendous Value: people cannot be held accountable for others’ sins but for their own (Is. 59:2; Ezek. 18:20, etc.). Yes, the totality of mankind are sinners lacking the ability to rescue themselves. But no one is so depraved that they cannot freely say “Yes” to Jesus’ gracious offer (John 3:16).
U	Unconditional Election: since we are deprived, God by His eternal decree has chosen or elected who will be saved and who will be damned.	Unfathomable Love: mankind is so esteemed and loved by God that He willingly went to the cross to die for the sins that mankind freely chose to commit. Then He gave mankind freewill to be able to choose to receive God’s love or reject it, for love without choice is not love at all.
L	Limited Atonement: Jesus’s blood shed to forgive sinners is limited to those whom He chose, called the elect.	Limitless Opportunity: Jesus died for all people. Thus, whoever chooses to receive it by grace through faith can.
I	Irresistible Grace: those whom God chose are unable to resist His eternal decree and will eventually be saved.	Irrefutable Goodness: God desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9). But many refuse to accept His offer of salvation.
P	Perseverance of the Saints: since God has decreed who the elect will be, and they cannot resist His choosing of them, they are unconditionally and eternally secure. This is frequently known as “Once saved always saved.”	Promises to the Saints: everyone who remains in Christ has promises of eternal security. The evidence of one’s trust in Christ for their salvation can be observed in tangible ways, granting them assurance of their salvation.

I am going to let Jerry Walls explain the heart of this matter as he does so in simple terms. “The real issue between Calvinism and Arminianism is God’s character. It is not Biblical authority; both sides agree with that. It is not whether God is completely sovereign, because both views agree with that. The real issue is whether God truly loves all the world, and does what He can to promote the well-being of all the children He has created.  

Something else that must be understood is what both sides are talking about when they speak of freedom. The first concept is this, libertarian freedom. This means that a free action is one that is not determined by prior causes and conditions. Free actions are chosen for reasons, and reasons explain actions but they do not determine them. So the essence of who we are in our freedom is in our rationality: our ability to think, reflect, evaluate, and then freely decide. This is the Arminian view.

Now against the libertarian view is the compatibilist view. In this view a person is free so long as the action is not coerced, so long as the he does what he wants to do. Even if he is determined. Now, the point is this, you do what you want to do, but you are caused to have the desires that you have. You have been caused to want what you want. You can’t want anything else. You can’t desire anything else. You’ve been caused to have those wants and desires. But you still do what you want to do because you can’t do otherwise. If a Calvinist is consistent with their view, they must hold to a compatibilist view. And the reason that they must hold to a compatibilist view is because they believe that all things are determined. Thus, to a Calvinist, they believe that God is both the author of evil and that He created many people for the sole purpose of going to hell without any possibility of ever being saved.

John Piper, who is a consistent Calvinist described years ago how he would go into the bedroom of his two sons, pray for them, and hope that they would one day join him in Christian service. But after stating this, he concluded the article with these words, “But I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for His sons. And though I think I would give my life for their salvation, if they should be lost to me, I would not rail against the Almighty, He is God. I am but a man. The Potter has absolute rights over the clay. Mine is to bow before His unimpeachable character, and believe that the Judge of all the earth has always and will ever do right.” However, this represents a profound misunderstanding of God.

Is the God who is most clearly revealed in Jesus a God who would pass over some of His fallen children, and leave them in their sins even though He could save them with their freedom intact? Is the character of Jesus most glorified, shown forth in its most beautiful light by the claim that God withholds His grace from some of His children and chooses to glorify Himself in their eternal damnation? Does that match what Jesus says in Luke 15:7? He says that there is rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents. Jesus is like a shepherd who has the 99 but is not content with only those. So He goes out searching high and low for that one lost sheep. He doesn’t say, “Pass over that one. Leave that one alone to wander in the wilderness lost.” No, He doesn’t leave the one, for He goes out searching for them.

Consider what Jesus says in Matthew 23:37. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” Now, can you imagine Jesus saying this if the only thing that prevented Him from gathering the chicks under His wings was His own choice to withhold from them the grace with which they would have gladly come under His wings? (Jerry Walls, "The Great Debate: Predestination vs. Free Will”)

The answer to these questions is absolutely not! The Bible clearly teaches that God does not desire for any to perish; yet many freely chose to reject God’s gracious and loving offer to save them. Therefore, over the next few months, I’d like to help us to see God’s greater sovereignty and His greater love for all mankind as we consider some of the mysteries of His Word.

In His service,

       Matt