Dr Adrian Bury's blog

Christian theology, basic teachings, apologetics

Dare I mention predestination?

In this article, I should just like to contribute a few thoughts to an old theological dispute. First of all, a little historical background. ¹

Calvinism

            John Calvin wrote the first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1535 (at the age of 27). It proved to be the most influential work of the Protestant Reformation.

            The Swiss city of Geneva, under Calvin’s influence as pastor and reformer, became a refuge for fugitives fleeing from persecution, and a training-school in which missionaries and reformers might be equipped and sent forth for heroic service. It was truly the nerve-centre of the Reformation.

            From Geneva, the reform movement spread to many other places, e.g. Switzerland, southern Germany and Scotland. The English Puritans were Calvinists, as were many Anglicans during that period. Calvinism was also the predominant faith among the French and Dutch Protestants. 

Arminianism

            Jacobus Arminius was born in Holland in 1560. He studied in Geneva, where he was greatly influenced by Beza. It was Beza who developed the doctrine of predestination a step further than Calvin, in what is known as the supralapsarian view (God first decreed who would be saved and who would be damned, and then permitted the fall as a means by which the decree could be carried out).

            In 1588, Arminius entered a pastorate in Amsterdam, and later became professor of theology in Leyden. Arminius was given the task of defending the supralapsarian position. As he studied the problem, Arminius came to doubt the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination. This led to a controversy between Arminius and Gomarus, which resulted in a schism affecting the whole church of Holland. 

The Remonstrants

            After Arminius’ death, in 1610 his followers set forth their views in five articles called the Arminian Articles of Remonstrance (reproof).

            The contents are as follows:

1. God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God’s foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel).
2. Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
3. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
4. All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
5. Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.  

The Synod of Dort 

            The Synod of Dort was convened to resolve the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. It lasted from November 1618 to May 1619. The Remonstrants were given no opportunity to present their views, but were simply condemned for heresy. 

The Canon of Dort (“The five points of Calvinism”)

            Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants:

1. Fallen man is totally unable to save himself (Total Depravity)
2. God’s electing purpose is not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional Election)
3. Christ’s atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for the elect (Limited Atonement)
4. The gift of faith, sovereignly given by God’s Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the elect (Irresistible Grace)
5. Those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of the saints)

This canon became one of the doctrinal bases of the Dutch Reformed Church. 200 Remonstrant pastors were deprived of their positions and 80 were banished from the country for refusing to subscribe to the Canon of Dort.

The evangelical tenets of Arminianism reappear in the teachings of John Wesley and the Methodists, with their emphasis on the moral responsibility of man, the need for a new birth, and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. 

Summary

ISSUE	CALVINISM	ARMINIANISM
Original Sin	total depravity and guilt inherited from Adam	tendency to sin inherited from Adam
Human Will	in bondage to sin	free to respond to the gospel
Grace of God	common grace given to all; saving grace given to the elect	enabling grace given to all; saving grace given to those who believe
Predestination	rooted in God’s decree	rooted in God’s foreknowledge
Regeneration	monergistic	synergistic
Extent of the Atonement	intended only for the elect	intended for all
Application of the Atonement	by the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God	by the power of the Holy Spirit in response to the decision of the sinner
Order of Salvation	election, predestination, union with Christ, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification, glorification	calling, faith, repentance, regeneration, justification, perseverance, glorification
Perseverance	perseverance of all the elect by God’s grace	perseverance dependent upon obedience

The sovereignty of God

            Calvinists like to stress the sovereignty of God. The Bible certainly teaches that God is king (e.g. Ps. 16: 16), but according to Calvinist arguments, this means that God must be the direct cause of everything that happens, or otherwise He would not be absolute sovereign. This does not necessarily follow, as I will indicate in due course.

            Although no analogy or illustration is perfect, the picture of the “sovereign” I get from Calvinism is something like the following: There is a city which has an absolute ruler. There are many houses in the city with people in them, and all the doors and windows have been locked, so that no-one can get out (total depravity). The king then issues a decree, that on a certain day, all the people have to come out of their doors and stand in the street (repent and turn to God!). He then arbitrarily picks a few houses (unconditional election), unlocks the doors, goes inside and forcibly drags the people out into the street (irresistible grace) and locks the doors behind them so that no-one can get back inside (perseverance of the saints). There are now people both in the street and inside the houses, and no-one is able to change position. The king then offers infinite rewards to those in the street, and infinite torture and punishment to those in the houses (last judgement). This type of king to me would be a capricious tyrant who may be an absolute sovereign, with total power, but he is neither loving nor just. This question is, is this apparent contradiction an “inscrutable mystery,” or is it just a wrong concept? 

The attributes of God

            Theology deals with the attributes of God, and divides them into essential and moral characteristics. Essential attributes include omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, whereas moral attributes are those like love, holiness, righteousness, equity.

            The Bible teaches that God is sovereign. I believe that this means He is absolute king, monarch, He makes all the plans, and fulfils His purposes, and no-one has the right to tell Him to do things differently. However, I believe that although at times God may voluntarily restrict the unlimited use of his essential attributes in order to fulfil His purposes, He will not compromise His morality. This can be illustrated as follows.

It has been claimed as significant by Calvinists that God is able to keep someone from falling. This statement is true, but the question is, is it really meaningful? If God is omnipotent, He is able to keep me from falling, but He is also able to drop me from a great height. He is able to squeeze the universe into the size of a tennis ball at three o’clock tomorrow afternoon, but the question is, will He? I would say that because He is loving, kind, long-suffering, faithful, truthful (about what He has revealed in His word) and just, He will choose not to destroy the universe tomorrow.

An obvious case where God restricted Himself is in the incarnation. Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity. The Bible says this about him, “being in very nature God, He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross!” (Phil 2: 6-7).

            The exact meaning of this “emptying” (or kenosis in theological terminology) is a disputed area, but the generally accepted, conservative Evangelical view is that Jesus voluntarily gave up the right to exercise His divine attributes independently of the Father’s will. He said He did not know the date of His own return, so presumably He did not use His omniscience. He could have escaped the cross by His own power, but chose not to, because it was the Father’s will, and because this was necessary for God’s purposes to be fulfilled.

However, as Jesus was the perfect revelation of God, He never acted in a way that was immoral, unjust, unloving, or sinful in any way. For instance, He could maybe have made more disciples and been more popular, if He had made the conditions a bit easier, and not condemned the abuses of the religious leadership so strongly, but that would not have been righteous. If we try to fulfil our purposes by taking a short cut, which may involve questionable practices, that is called, “the end justifies the means,” and I can hardly imagine the God revealed in the Bible doing anything like that.

            The reason I have laboured this point somewhat, is that one problem I see with Calvinism, is that this order is reversed. God’s omnipotence and sovereignty are stressed at the expense of His morality, and this is the wrong way round. A question which arises, in terms of God’s morality is: if God really has made man without free will, and He is able to draw men to Himself by irresistible grace, then is He not unloving and unjust if He does not draw everyone?

 God’s purposes

            Thinking about God’s purposes, it seems loving relationships are important to God. If we consider who God is, then we even see this as a part of His essential being.

            Each member of the Trinity loves and honours the others. We see this revealed particularly in the New Testament. For instance in John’s gospel we see that the Father loves the Son and gives all things into His hands (Jn. 3: 35). The Father bears witness to the Son, e.g. at His baptism and at the transfiguration (Mat. 3: 17; 17: 5). The Son loves the Father, and submits to His will, only doing what He sees the Father doing (Jn. 5: 19). His will was also to glorify the Father. When the Spirit comes, He will bear witness to the Son, and glorify Him. (Jn. 14: 26; 16: 12-15). Each one seems to prefer to love, honour and bear witness to the others rather than to himself.

            Although it is acknowledged that God does not “need” anyone other than Himself, and can even be a loving, giving being within Himself, just maybe part of His purpose in creation was to have creatures who would reflect this same sort of ethos.

Maybe God wanted creatures who He could love and cherish and look after, and give things to, and who would return the love that He gave them. He wanted to extend this relationship of mutual love and honour to other creatures.

            But this love and mutual respect has to be by the free will of each party for it to be really satisfying, because if a robot or a puppet with no choice loves God, it is rather empty. So He made the sovereign choice to form creatures with free will, who could then make their own choice to turn to Him and love Him. I do not think this would “impair” God’s sovereignty in any way, if this were the greatest good and the highest purpose. It did, however, involve taking the “risk” that the creatures would turn away and seek their own good and honour and not that of the Creator.

            This is what happened, of course, first Satan turned from glorifying God and looked at his own beauty, and turned many angels in rebellion. Then He tempted the human pair, and they sinned, thus breaking their relationship with God (see Gen 3: 8-10). And now the creatures start looking at each other, though not to honour each other, but to pass the buck, lay the blame. Don’t ask me, it was the wife. Don’t blame me, it was the serpent.

            God has since sought those who want to walk with Him, and He is constantly approaching man to get Him to relate to Him. For instance, Enoch walked with God (Gen 5: 21-24). Abraham was called God’s friend (2 Chron. 20: 7). Moses spoke with God face to face (Ex 33: 9-11).

 God’s methods

             On His part, God has done everything possible so that man would love Him. In certain prophetic passages, we can perceive God’s sadness and disappointment with regard to Israel, e.g. Is. 5: 1-4; 65: 1-3; Ez. 17: 1-8; 23: 1 ff.; Hos. 11. Basically, God did everything possible for Israel, sought her out, set her free, gave her a country and a peaceful existence, but she was not interested.

            Now, under the new covenant, God has done even more for the church. We accept that God is sovereign, and the plan of salvation is His idea. Man was lost in sin, with no hope of having a relationship with God, so He sent His son to die for sin. This was God’s initiative, not man’s, but because of it, the way to relate directly to God is open. The Holy Spirit is sent to help us walk with God day by day. God has paid the price for both these gifts, and offers them to man freely, just to accept, it does not cost anything. He could not possibly have done any more.

And people are still not interested in having a relationship with God. Many people like the idea of getting to heaven (or at least, not going to hell), but they don’t want to have a relationship with God, because that is too much trouble; the conditions (repentance, acceptance of the gospel, abandoning a sinful lifestyle, giving up self-centredness, living to serve God and others) require too radical a change.

            What is God thinking, asking me to give my life to Him? To obey Him and serve others? Does He not know I have my own plans? Doesn’t He know I’m busy? So you have the same sort of buck passing, blaming others and cop-outs as started in the garden of Eden.

            I’m sure we have all heard things like this from unbelievers: I don’t have time to attend meetings; you have to give up too many things; God has never done anything for me; God let my cat die; priests behave badly; moderation in all things, don’t take it too seriously, that’s not normal; why do little babies suffer; what about the heathen; Christians are weird (well…).

            Then there are those who call themselves Christians, who do not want to take the trouble to develop a relationship with God either, so: I am a Christian, I got baptised didn’t I; I go to church, and pay my tithe – that’s enough; I don’t read the Bible, it’s the Pope’s job to understand it, and tell me what it means; I don’t pray, it’s the pastor’s job to pray for me if I have a problem; I don’t witness, that’s the evangelist’s job; I don’t go to church, someone upset me; you don’t have to judge prophecy, because God’s prophet is always right, “Touch  not the Lord’s anointed!”; or – you don’t have to judge prophecy, all that ceased at the end of the first century.

            The essence of the Christian life is that we love God and love one another, but often sophisticated, complex, highly structured theological systems are used to support why it is in order to be disobedient to God. We don’t love one another, but we are the best Christians, because: we address God as Jehovah, His correct name; we have communion on the first Sunday of every month; we don’t wear jewellery; we keep the Sabbath and don’t eat pork; we baptise in the name of Jesus and speak in tongues; we worship using a holy style of music…

            It still always sounds best, when people blame God for their faults. Satan made me sin, and God didn’t stop him.

            Calvinist teaching can be a good source of excuses. If I am not saved, it is because I am not one of the elect; salvation is by faith, so I can stay in bed the rest of my life and God is obliged to take me to heaven; don’t expect me to be a missionary, God, you’re sovereign, do it yourself.

 Back to the concept of sovereignty

            Thinking further about God’s sovereignty, let us compare this with the idea of a human king. If there is an absolute monarch over a realm, then he makes the laws, he issues orders and expects to be obeyed. If the orders are kept, then he may give rewards, and if they are not, he can ordain punishment. On the other hand, the king does not give orders, and then run around pushing people out of the way, and carrying them out himself, just to make sure the job gets done properly. Nor does he stand behind some people making them do what he says, and yet prevent others from doing so.

It is perfectly in line with the concept of “sovereignty” for a king to delegate authority, and then not to interfere in how things are done, but to provide help if it is requested. I believe that the Bible teaches us that this is what God, as sovereign, has done.

             After God had made the earth, he gave it to man to look after (Gen 1: 27-28). Of course, man has made a few mistakes along the way.

             In this present age, God has provided man with the gospel, the way of salvation. He has delegated the job of spreading the gospel to the church (Mat 28: 18-20). Some of the parables indicate that God expects the church to get on with this work while Jesus is absent (in the body, that is), e.g. in Mat 25. Besides giving us the mandate (authority, commission) to do this work, God has also given us all the help (power) we need to do the job, by sending the Holy Spirit (Acts 1: 8). He has also told us all about it in His word, of course.

            So God has given man everything he needs to be saved, and to build the church, the body of Christ, including drawing him by the Spirit and “enabling” him to believe, but He still leaves the final decision to man, as to whether he wants to link in with the purposes of God, or not. God’s sovereignty will finally be made manifest at the Last Judgement, but until then, His long suffering and patience are to lead us to repentance (2 Peter 3: 8-9).

            So I believe in the sovereignty of God, but I see it as I have described it above. I think the Calvinist view, that God would not be sovereign if He did not determine everything that happens, is a distortion.

 Finally getting to predestination

            Let us consider certain verses that deal with election and predestination, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, and are called according to He purposes: For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called He also justified; those He justified He also glorified.” (Rom. 8: 28-30).

            “You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last.” (Jn. 15: 16).

“In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of His glory. And you were all included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.” (Eph. 1: 11-13. “… just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to made her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (5: 25-27).

“To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontos, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by His blood.” (1 Peter 1: 1-2). “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (2: 9-10).

            To start with, these and other verses dealing with election and predestination do not state that individuals have been chosen to go to heaven or to hell, but rather that God has chosen to have a people which would fulfil a particular plan. Under the old covenant, the nation of Israel was chosen by God to be His people, who would live according to His ways, and demonstrate to the world what the character of God was like. They were to be a holy nation for Him (see e.g. Deut 7: 6). The subsequent history of Israel is a clear demonstration of the fact that the majority in the nation were disobedient, and did not fulfil their calling from God. God gave them the law, sent them prophets to turn them back to Him, disciplined them in many ways, but they very rarely listened. This does not fit in with the idea of “irresistible grace.” (See Acts 7: 51-53).

            According to the above passages, under the new covenant, God has called a people, the church, who will obey Jesus’ teaching, produce much fruit, and be holy and blameless, for the praise of His glory. The church, the body of Christ, is predestined to fulfil this purpose. In order for individuals to take part in these plans, they must accept the gospel, and thus become part of the body of Christ, and then endure to the end whilst allowing God to work in, and through their lives.

            Although this view, known as the “corporate” theory of election, differs somewhat from classical Arminianism as well as Calvinism, it appears to conform most closely to an understanding of the character of God, and to the teaching of the Bible.

 Footnotes 

1. Information obtained from Grace Valley Christian Center Homepage:

http://www.dcn.davies.ca.us/~gvcc/homepage.html

 Sources

 Jones, Steve, Calvinism critiqued by a former Calvinist, Online

http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/calvinism.htm

Moore, Bob, Calvinism – ten little caveats, Online

http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/ten.htm

Hill, Bob, Predestination and free will, Online

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/predestination/Predestination%20book.htm

Calvinism and Arminianism, articles, Online

http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/

Calvinism and Arminianism compared, Online  

http://www.reformedreader.org/c&a.htm

Election and predestination – corporate, Online  

http://www.theknowledgeofhisword.org/page4.html

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.