Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 4)
March 22nd, 2007
. . . and why every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts.
(By Phil Johnson)
Part IV: One more recommendation, and an explanation of why this issue is important to me
Here’s a recommendation for your iPod: If you are someone who is resistant to Calvinism, or you don’t feel you fully understand enough about it, and you want a single, simple overview of the substance and the history of Calvinism, I gave a message to our college students almost two years ago titled “The Story of Calvinism,” where I did my best to cover all that ground in one shot. It’s on the internet with the rest of my sermons, and you can download it for free. The web address is swordandtrowel.org, and look for the title “The Story of Calvinism.”
In that message, I explained that I have not always been a Calvinist. I grew up in a family that had been Wesleyan Methodists for generations — and even after I became a Christian, it was several years before I finally came to the point where I could affirm the biblical doctrine of election without trying to explain it away.
One of the things that first got me thinking seriously about the sovereignty of God was an incident in a college Sunday School class, in a Southern Baptist Church, in Durant, OK, where I had a Sunday school teacher who hated Calvinism with a passion and wasted no opportunity to make an argument against the sovereignty of God. And his continual emphasis on the subject got me thinking about it a lot.
Then one Sunday, while this guy was taking prayer requests, a girl in the class raised her hand and asked, “Should we really be praying for our lost relatives? It seems like it’s a wasted effort to pray to God for their salvation if He can’t do any more than He has already done to save them.”
I vividly remember the look on the face of this Sunday School teacher. This was clearly a question that had never occurred to him. So he thought about it for a moment, and you could see the wheels in his head turning while he tried to think of a good reason to pray for the salvation of the lost. And finally, he said, “Well, yeah, I guess you’re right.” From that Sunday on, he never accepted any more prayer requests for people’s lost loved-ones.
That just didn’t seem quite right to me. I had just done a Bible study in Romans 10:1, where Paul says, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.” Not only that, I began to wonder why we should pray about anything in the realm of human relationships if God never intrudes on the sanctity of human free will. You know: Why should I pray for God to move my English teacher to look favorably on my work when she graded my paper if she is ultimately sovereign over her own heart? Those were questions I couldn’t answer, and I really struggled with questions like that.
But the more I studied the Bible, the more it seemed to challenge my ideas about free will and the sovereignty of God. One by one over a period of more than 10 years, the doctrines of election, and God’s sovereignty, and the total depravity of sinners became more and more clear to me from Scripture.
Every time one of my arguments against Calvinist doctrines would fall, and I would embrace some doctrine that I was desperately trying to argue against, it never felt like I was undergoing any major paradigm shift. It was more like I was resolving a nagging conflict in my mind. Because I kept discovering that the major ideas underlying the doctrines of grace were truths that I had always affirmed: God is sovereign, Christ died for me, God loved me before I loved Him, He sought me and drew me and initiated my reconciliation while I was still His enemy. Those were truths I believed even when I was a rank Arminian. Embracing Calvinism was natural — and inevitable — because all I was doing was ridding my mind of wrong ideas and faulty assumptions about human free will and other notions like that, which are not even taught in the Bible — so that I could wholeheartedly affirm what I really believed anyway: That God is God, and He does all His good pleasure, and no one can make Him do otherwise, and He is in control and in charge no matter how much noise evildoers try to make. And not only is He in charge, He is working all things out for my good and His glory.
(This series will resume on Monday.)
Note: As mentioned in our previous post, here is a link to the full version of Curt Daniel’s syllabus, in Word format. This is one you will want to download.
And legion are the Arminians who also believed in the sovereignty of God. They believed that God by His sovereignty gave man a free choice but only by the Holy Spirit.
I respect and love the reformed brotherhood, but some of us Arminians still hold the sovereignty of God and the salvation process as sacred.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/11/glory-of-god-in-my-choice-it-has-often.html
And yet Calvinists such as Spurgeon, Packer, Grudem and Mr. Johnson do affirm the biblical witness of “human responsibility.” They reconcile this with God’s “monergistic” sovereignty buy using terms like “antinomy” (apparent contradiction) or “apparently parallel” (though not understandable). It often seems, though, when the actual implications of human responsibility come up, the notion is quickly moved to the attic, like a crazy Aunt, and not mentioned again.
Which is one reason I think the more accurate view comes from Arminian theology, which doesn’t have trouble dealing with the evangelical synergism of the biblical witness.
” .. became more and more clear to me from Scripture.”
Amen. Very encouraging series.
My favorite verses that hit me right between the spiritual eyes when God’s sovereign election by grace began to shape my heart were, and still are: “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved US, even when WE were dead in trespasses, made US alive [or quickened: I like that word for some reason] together with Christ (by grace YOU have been saved)”. Eph. 2:4-5
Thanks Phil for the fine teachings, and for sharing your testimony.
This is a great series Phil, and although the anecdote about the Sunday School class should make us weep for these doctrines, it truly illustrates that many if not most genuine, biblicaly-faithful Christians are ‘calvinists’ intuitively, they just don’t like to admit it.
Grace and Peace
Rick, my dear brother, not all Calvinists are reformed. Just because someone holds to the 5 points doesn’t make them reformed, Dr MacArthur for example isn’t what you would call in the reformed church…the OPC is one example of a reformed church.
[...] Phil Johnson (http://www.sfpulpit.com) continues his series on why he is a Calvinist, and why every Christian is a Calvinist of sort with part three and part four. Need some help with your Greek on that difficult passage in Hebrews 6? He posts some observations on Hebrews 6:4-6 from the GNT over at his newest blog (http://knowgreek.blogspot.com). Finally, he posts a fresh look on the Bereans of Acts 17:11 over at his other blog (http://teampyro.blogspot.com). He sure is busy!! [...]
The great difficulty of arminian theology is that it ultimately leads to man centered doctrines, instead of belief in a transcendant, Holy and Almighty God who alone is the Great King and arbiter of all events. Too often the traditions of men cloud our thinking and as a result the Word of God becomes secondary to our daily lives.
To be a Calvinist, is to honor the scriptures by thinking biblically.
Cordially, Brian.
Henry(Rick),
I read through the post you linked from your blog. Having heard the remainder of this series as Phil presented it at Shepherd’s Conference, I will be interested in how you respond to Phil’s assertion that in your heart of hearts, you affirm what has become known as Calvinism.
Hello,
Rick said:
“They believed that God by His sovereignty gave man a free choice but only by the Holy Spirit”
The problem with this is that Scripture does not support this tradition. The presupposition of free will has to be added to what the scriptures say to make this work.
Plus, it totally ignores human nature described in the Bible, it says by our nature we reject GOD and do not want to come to HIM, because we can’t.
It’s clear from scripture that GOD’s relationship with humans before regeneration is monergistic, which changes after regeneration, and then it becomes synergistic. No were in scripture does it show that GOD is synergistic with the unregenerate.
Strange how the discussion of Calvin and the use of his name seem to eclipse the name of Christ.
Wish we could speak as Paul who told the Corinthians in 1Co 2:2 “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
The Scriptures speak clearly of the doctrines of Grace. Let’s focus on the Scriptures and these truths will emerge.
The division caused by this issue was perhaps why Calvin wanted to be buried in an unmarked grave…or so I have heard.
Grace and Peace,
Gabor
If a Calvinist and an Arminian can be orthodox and a true follower of the Lord Jesus than it is somewhat moot. Was Wesley a Christian who served the Lord Christ? The problem from the Arminian perspective is that many Calvinists seem to look down on any non-Calvinist doctines. They come very close to holding their particular election view as an idol.
You may be correct about election but many committed followers of Jesus disagree with your assertion and in that glorious mystery which is held in the Godhead no one holds the corner on that truth. Both orthodox Calvinists and orthodox Arminians believe in preaching the gospel to everyone, both believe that the number that will be saved has already been deteermined in God’s foreknowledge, and both ORTHODOX camps shun and rebuke the compromised versions of the gospel that is bandied about today.
Many of us Arminians agree wholeheartedly in rebuking and breaking fellowship with the Purpose/Seeker/Energent anti-christ movements. But please, do not minimize our committment to Scripture by asserting that everyone is a Calivinist at heart. That smacks of selfserving pride which poisons even the truth.
The Arminian Brother thinks Calvinists maken an idol of the doctrine of Particular Redemption. It seems to me that many Arminians are in danger of making an idol of man’s “free will,” a doctrine that has little support in Scripture. Like Phil Johnson, I was raised among Christians who were more Arminian than Calvinist, and it was a long and difficult struggle for me to understand the Biblical teaching on unconditional election. But now, it is clear. I now see that I formerly held to only partial truth. The rest was hidden from my view. Now, I see the other half, and it makes the whole so much clearer, and more glorious!
I agree with you, many Arminians do make an idol of free will. And it leads to manipulative presentations of the gospel. Some of us see the flaws in our own camps.
This is a great series and discussion. I too identify with Phil. I am a preachers son and it turns out that I was really 90% Calvinistic to begin with. I started to study Calvinism (I think I like the word reformed better) after reading Ashamed of the Gospel by Dr. MacArthur.
Reading that book led me to start reading Spurgeon. I wish that I had started reading Spurgeon earlier in my life. Once I understood where he stood on the Doctrines of Grace I started reading more.
The one point where I really had problems was limited atonement. Then I read Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace by J M Boice. I really enjoyed that book. It is short and sweet and it answered my questions. Phil, I’m with you, I don’t care for “TULIP”. I really think it hurts the cause more that it helps.
Since God has to give us Faith to believe how can we choose God? We only love God because he first loved us!!!
Phil I got your sermon on Calvinism and I also downloaded the Word doc too (reading it now).
I really enjoy my iPod!!!
David Smithey
I came across this website article that makes it clear that interpretation is only one way ~ God’s ~ and it matters that the Word of God is not approached with preconceived notions.
http://www.godsonlygospel.com/Not%20Willing%20That%20Any%20Should%20Perish2.htm
Will post a disclaimer ~ I’ve not located the author’s doctrinal statement of belief. Anyone know of this individual?
Are you an elder, Mrs. Burrows? If not, what Biblical standard gives you the right as a woman to reprove elders? It is clear in Scripture that in matters of doctrine and interpretation God speaks through elders (men). You cannot ignore the sections of Scripture you want while strongly championing those you choose.
Mr. Frueh,
Are you sure that you are interpreting things here according to scripture, or according to your pre-conceived ideas about authority? Can a woman not give a man directions if he’s lost? Can a wife not lovingly and submissively voice an objection to a husband’s decision? Or are his decisions the absolute and final word? Can a man not look to his wife, whom he has lovingly and sacrificially lived with, for some insight and perhaps more objective analysis to the situation? Or are the hierarchical structures absolutely absolute? In which case, I wonder if your boss/board knows how little you want to be consulted/included in decisions …
I personally did not sense a reproof in Mrs. Burrows answer, but only a reminder of things we all should already know. She also gave an external link – i.e. “directions” – to something for further study. She also admitted she did not know the author’s doctrinal statement and submitted her post to another’s evaluation of it.
Unless you are saying that a woman can have no inclusion in theological discussion, I believe you have over-reacted. Of course, if that is the position of this board, then they should ask for someone’s sex when they sign up and refuse entry to any female. If you allow women to sign in, then you are tacitly allowing participation.
But, of course, I could be wrong. Could you be?
After reading about Calvinism and Armenianism I wonder why any Chrisitan needs to identify with either one ? Why not just be a Chrisitan , a disciple of Jesus and believe and teach the whole will of God. Yes there is elction , the chosen , adoption but there is also the individual response to the gospel of believe,repent , confess and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. It is whosoever will. There is both free will and election. I for one will not be considered an advocate of Calvin or anyone else. Let me follow Christ.
If anyone is interested in reading about some of the concerns held by those who reject Calvinistic theology, please visit this series of articles by Pastor George Zeller.
http://middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/dangerso.htm
LM
Ray,
Are you saying there’s no room for disagreement or discussion? What about 2 Tim 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, …
2 Tim 3:16 NKJV
So then what happens when some so embraces the free will tradition or any other one that that matter, that they alter the gospel and or elevate mans choice over GOD’S sovereignty?
Have you ever corrected someone before?
Are you saying lets just get along and put aside our differences no matter how erroneous they are?
“So then what happens when some so embraces the free will tradition or any other one that that matter, that they alter the gospel and or elevate mans choice over GOD’S sovereignty?”
Or what happens when some so embrace the reformed tradition that they alter the gospel by removing the free will of man and his responsibility given by the sovereign God?
Mrs. Burrows walks a very fine line on her blog and in other comment sections by standing in the elder role. I am saying that the interpretation of theological issues is given to men and specifically ordained elders.
Women may ask questions and give their perspective, but they may not rebuke other elders on their postion. A woman who espouses a reformed position may not engage and reprove a free will elder. I believe the Bible is clear.
You have misrepresented what I said. Participation is encouraged, but teaching doctrine to men is beyond their role. The blogasphere is full of well meaning and Christ loving women who have overstepped their Biblical role. I humbly offer a post on the subject.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/11/elder-blogs-some-blogs-are-devotional.html
Last night I watched a program about Calvin on a Christian TV station. In it was mentioned that Calvin had promoted laws protecting women from abusive husbands…invoking penalities, and making Geneva “A woman’s paradise”. This was the first significant thing I personally have understood about Calvin’s influence; this subject seems to me to be largely ignored or downplayed in the churches our family has attended. Surely the Lord’s Church should address this matter, which affects women in this country every day.
Now today, on this site, there is a disagreement about the role a woman had in simply posting a website some might find interesting. I haven’t checked out the website, but would like to share my “perspective” on this:
If those of the Calvinist persuasion can not stand a different opinion expressed by anybody, it looks to me like the arguements saying Calvinists are intolerant and tyranical may have a grain of truth in them.
It doesn’t look to me that there is any “rebuking” going on by Mrs Burrows. She may just be contributing her $.02 worth to the discussion.
Holy Scripture is very clear on the role (and treatment) of women in the church. It would be best to adhere to that, without any additives, or “private interpretations”.
Thanks for the document link.
MDM
1. Henry (Rick) Frueh:
I saw no “rebuke” in Mrs. Burrows’ comment. If your reprimand has to do with something she posted in another forum, your comment should be made in the forum where the offense occurred. For the record, however, it should be noted that there was nothing remotely inappropriate about her comment here.
2. Ray B.
Paul said, “Be ye followers of me” (1 Corinthians 4:16); and “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).
I’m happy to follow anyone who is following Christ.
Notice also that Paul rebuked those who said, “I am of Christ” right along with the other sectarians (1 Corinthians 1:12). Slapping Jesus’ name on sloppy doctrine won’t help the person who is apathetic about theology.
I’m not saying that’s you. But I would remind all readers that this series of articles isn’t about what label a person wears; its about the substance of the doctrine under discussion.
“So then what happens when some so embraces the free will tradition or any other one for that matter, that they alter the gospel and or elevate mans choice over GOD’S sovereignty?”
Or what happens when some so embrace the reformed tradition that they alter the gospel by removing the free will of man and his responsibility given by the sovereign God?”
So then we appear to be at an impasse, so what next?
We take it to the scriptures to see which view stands the litmus test. If we are honest with ourselves we will see that the Scriptures prove the Doctrines of Grace to be accurate, which cannot be said for the Free Will tradition. What the scriptures say is all that matters, not your feelings or your sensibilities.
Henry (Rick) Frueh, your concern is noted and the care is appreciated.
Troy and Phil ,
No , I am not saying we just all get along and compromise . Sunday night I preached about how we must contend for the faith after preaching on Sunday morning about how wrong the film about the family tomb of Jesus is and nothing but conjecture and how it collides with the truth of scripture. All I am saying is why worry about being identified with Calvin or his teaching. Just teach biblical truth.
To be fair the terms Calvinism and Arminianism are just descriptive terms to generally identify a person’s theology especially concerning free will. It helps when sharing with each other.
Mrs. Burrows, I sincerely appreciate your reply. I have visited your blog and to be fair most of what you post is edifying to all. Your comment here represents a Christlike spirit, and perhaps as was suggested I overreacted.
I apologize.
Rick
Hi Rick, concern is understood in view of the link you shared and knowing it is more the norm that gentlemen leaders of flocks post here(this place is a tremendous blessing to me). Your gracious apology is accepted; my apology to you and others for my lack of clarity that led to intent misunderstanding. I will be more careful.
We likely can agree there is simplicity and sufficiency and unity in Christ that begins with what God says and means. Isn’t that what matters most? I trust the Lord will work out the details concerning doctrinal disagreement? God is good.
Have a lovely evening.
[...] In that message, I explained that I have not always been a Calvinist. I grew up in a family that had been Wesleyan Methodists for generations — and even after I became a Christian, it was several years before I finally came to the point where I could affirm the biblical doctrine of election without trying to explain it away. Continue Reading » [...]
[...] Phil did a seminar at this year’s Shepherds’ Conference that has turned into a blog series titled, “Why I Am a Calvinist.” This particular post has links to a one message mp3 he preached on “The Story of Calvinism” and a 600+ page Word document on Calvinism that is near the top of his recommended reading list. [...]
And there are Calvinists who are now Arminian so the direction of change does not necessarily prove Biblical enlightenment. What is of concern to many of us is that some Calvinists actually contend that the Wesleyan gospel is a false gospel.
And I can see the reasoning and Biblical support for unconditional election although I still disagree, I can see the reasoning for total depravity, and I can understand the reasoning behind the perserverance of the saints.
But the limited atonement teaching is the most tortured of all Calvinistic teachings and it must depend upon the redefinition of obvious Biblical words (world, all, etc.) and Calvin came up with that basically because he felt it was congruent with the rest of his view of election.
And when the Calvinistic community uses phrases like “the teachings of grace” implying that Arminians do not teach grace is, well, somewhat condescending. No?
A good dialogue though, thank you for letting an Wesleyan contribute.
[...] A brilliant question the non-Reformed have to ask themselves: why do I pray for the lost? [...]
This is heavy meat.
[...] I think basically I have a problem with the doctrine of Election, however, I think neither side is really that on, and more importantly it seems like a waste of a great deal of time and energy. It seems infinitely more important in what we should do as believer, rather than endlessly discussing how we got here. I suppose questions about telling others about what G-d has done for you, or praying for the salvation of others come into question however I don’t see an answer through this. First of all, in the series that started this discussion, the author, Phil Johnson speaks about his early days as a believer and as one that was an Arminian at that. He goes on: One of the things that first got me thinking seriously about the sovereignty of God was an incident in a college Sunday School class, in a Southern Baptist Church, in Durant, OK, where I had a Sunday school teacher who hated Calvinism with a passion and wasted no opportunity to make an argument against the sovereignty of God. And his continual emphasis on the subject got me thinking about it a lot. Then one Sunday, while this guy was taking prayer requests, a girl in the class raised her hand and asked, “Should we really be praying for our lost relatives? It seems like it’s a wasted effort to pray to God for their salvation if He can’t do any more than He has already done to save them.” [...]
Phil says human free will is a “wrong idea” and “faulty assumption” not taught in the Bible. Really? Maybe he should go back and read Deut. 30:10 – “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” Can it get any more clear? Or how about 2 Peter 3:9 – “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” While God does have foreknowledge of who will and will not respond to the gift of grace, He does not violate man’s free will. Even ancient Judaism embraced man’s free will toward God. Predestination is an arrogant doctrine, a lie from the pit of hell. Who would want to serve a God who created a being to be condemned to hell without any opporunity of escape? That is not a God of mercy. That is not the God I know.