Open Debate

If you found something at Kingdom Come that you want to debate at length, you can do it here.

Pastor Rod

Calvinism and Choice

The Calvinist system defines “choice,” “freedom” and “will” in such a way that it is impossible for anyone to cite a passage from the Bible that a Calvinist cannot interpret to fit his framework.

This framework is based on what I consider some philosophical sleight of hand. Here is a passage from Jonathan Edwards:

The plain and obvious meaning of the words freedom and liberty, in common speech, is power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases. Or in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting, in any respect, as he ‘wills.’ And the contrary to liberty, whatever name we call that by, is a person’s being hindered or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise (Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, sec. 5).

The first sentence sounds reasonable enough. Freedom means the power to do as one pleases. But Edwards means something very different from what a non-Calvinist thinks he is saying. Edwards means that a person is “free” to do what his “will” determines that he do. The “will,” in Edward’s view is entirely determined. But as long as a person acts according to his “will,” he is “free.”

This does not mean that a person is free to choose between several different options. This does not mean that a person has the power to determine what his will is.

Edwards explains this:

What has been said may be sufficient to show what is meant by liberty, according to the common notions of mankind, and in the usual and primary acceptation of the word: but the word, as used by Arminians, Pelagians, and others, who oppose the Calvinists, has an entirely different signification. These several things belong to their notion of liberty. That it consists in self-determining power in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has over itself, and its own acts, whereby it determines its own volition’s; so as not to be dependent in its determinations on any cause without itself, nor determined by any thing prior to its own acts (Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, sec. 5).

If one accepts these definitions that Edwards uses and the relationship of choice and will that he affirms, then any Bible passage calling for a choice can be accommodated quite nicely in the Calvinist system. (There are only a few minor exceptions.)

In other words, it is a waste of time to try to convince a Calvinist that the Bible teaches that humans have choice. They say, “Of course they do.” They mean something very different, however, than what the non-Calvinist means. They mean that a person is free to choose his greatest desire as determined by his will. This is always a single thing.

The non-Calvinist might protest that this is not fair. “How can people be responsible for their choices when they can only choose one thing? This sounds like a Soviet election.”

The Calvinist responds that a person chooses what he wants to choose; therefore, he is responsible.

The non-Calvinist again protests, “But those who receive God’s grace do not choose it freely. They are forced to make that choice by God.”

The Calvinist smiles and shakes his head as if talking to a small child, “God doesn’t force anyone against his will. God changes the person’s will so that he chooses faith in Christ willingly.”

The non-Calvinist becomes frustrated and accuses the Calvinist of ignoring the plain teaching of the Bible. The Calvinist simply replies, “If you want to prove that Calvinism is not biblical, then you should at least do your research and know what you are talking about.”

Once this fortress of “choice,” “freedom” and “will” has been erected, it is impregnable. Once you grant Calvinism its definitions and philosophical framework, it can withstand any attack on the issue of free will.

The non-Calvinist “feels” that Calvinism is not right. But he doesn’t seem to be able to make any headway in establishing a case against it. This is because the battle is over before it begins. It’s a little bit like playing a game with a die:

Calvinist: “Wanna play a game?”
Non-Calvinist: “Sure, what is it?”
C: “It’s called Everyone Has an Equal Chance”
N: “OK, that sounds like a fair game. How do you play.”
C: “You roll a die, and number that comes up determines who wins.”
N: “Are the numbers divided equally?”
C: “Of course, they are divided into the even numbers and the odd numbers.”
N: “That’s equal. One, three and five are odd. Two, four and six are even.”
C: “OK, here’s how it works. If I roll an odd number, I win.”
N: “What happens if I roll an odd number?”
C: “If you roll an odd number, then I also win.”
N: “OK, I think I see how this works. The odd numbers belong to you, and the even numbers belong to me, right?”
C: “That’s right. If I roll an even number you lose.”
N: “Wait a minute. What happens if I roll an even number?”
C: “Then you also lose.”
N: “This doesn’t seem right.”
C: “But you already agreed that it was fair because the numbers were divided evenly.”
N: “But I can’t win.”
C: “Who said anything about that?”

This is the game you play if you try to prove libertarian free will by citing Bible verses. Unless you renegotiate the rules of the game, you cannot win.

Set Theory

This is from Tim Keller:

In mathematics, there are two different ways to define a 'set'. One is a 'bounded set'. A point is in the set if it is related properly to (i.e. if it is inside) the boundary. Another is the 'centered set'. A point is in the set if it is related properly to (i.e. if it is in alignment with or moving toward) the center of the set. Organizations that are 'bounded sets' put great emphasis on the lines of demarcation 'around the circle' – at all points. 1) A person cannot work with or be part of the organization in any meaningful sense without the rite of initiation and the adoption of extensive standards which set the person apart. 2) Differences between members and the outside world are emphasized. 3) Membership is defined in terms of common beliefs and policies and folkways that are pretty extensive. Organizations that are centered-sets put more emphasis on central goals and commitments. 1) A person can work with the organization as long as it shares basic goals and is willing to work for them. 2) Differences between members and the outside world are not emphasized. 3) Membership is defined in terms of active participation toward common tasks and goals.

Traditional churches were 'bounded sets'. It used to be very clear to what belonging to a church meant…. Many traditional and conservative evangelical churches are extremely 'bounded set' in their mentality.

Liberal, mainline churches have almost completely abandoned membership standards and firm boundaries of any kind in an effort to be more 'inclusive.' But in general this has not worked. If a community is not going to be primarily defined by its boundary (we are united in being different from the 'Other'), then it must be united by some common cause or goal (i.e. a centered-set mentality.) A liberal church that is not united by any common belief in God or salvation can only seek to rally around very nebulous goals such as doing charitable deeds in the community. As 'centered-sets' most liberal churches fail.

Another version of the 'centered-set' is the heavily seeker-driven churches spawned by the Willow Creek movement. Many of these experimental works have been so loath to talk about boundaries at all (and often they reject the very idea of membership) that it difficult to see how the church is becoming a radical kingdom counter-culture. Some seeker churches are rightly criticized as buying into American popular and consumer culture, not challenging materialistic, individualistic life-styles, etc. No need to go into all that here. The point is that a church must somehow express both the bounded-set concept and the centered-set concept in its life and structure.

Psalm 106:45

For their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he relented [repented].

2 Samuel 24:16

When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord was grieved [repented] because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the Lord was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

Hebrews 13:1-10

1 Keep on loving each other as brothers. 2 Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. 3 Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”
6 So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” 7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.

Numbers 26:20-22

The descendants of Judah by their clans were: through Shelah, the Shelanite clan; through Perez, the Perezite clan; through Zerah, the Zerahite clan. The descendants of Perez were: through Hezron, the Hezronite clan; through Hamul, the Hamulite clan. These were the clans of Judah; those numbered were 76,500 (NIV).

The lie that “holiness” is about deprivation

This is one of the biggest lies of Satan. He used this in the Garden of Eden. He convinced Adam and Eve that God was holding back on them and keeping the forbidden fruit from them because it was so desirable. Holiness is not in its essence about saying “no” to things. It is about saying “yes” to life and to God.

Sure every “yes” includes a “no” or two. But holiness is about being more aware of God’s presence in our lives. It is about finding more satisfaction and fulfillment in our lives. It is about becoming the person God created us to be.

The lie that “holiness” is dull and boring

God’s desire is to fulfill the deepest longings of our hearts. Really. Jesus said that he came to give us life that was full and bursting at the seams. The only reason we experience holiness as dull and boring is because we never really commit ourselves to it. We’re dipping our toes in at the shallow end of the pool and wondering what’s so great about swimming. God wants us to jump in the deep end and enjoy the exhilaration and freedom of the water of life.

The lie that we have to give in to temptation so that we can resist temptation

This is another of Satan’s most successful lies. “No human can resist temptation for too long. So it’s best to give in from time to time to take off the pressure.” Giving in doesn’t make it easier to resist temptation. It makes it harder. The longer a person resists any particular temptation the less strength that particular temptation has for him or her.

The lie that forgiveness is cheap

Unfortunately, many who get caught up the revels of Mardi Gras show up the next day in church for Ash Wednesday. They assume that God will forgive them because “that’s his job.” They assume that forgiveness is a simple matter of God deciding not to hold our sins against us. Forgiveness is free for us, but it is costly for God.