Past Few Years - Part 3 - Predestination cont'd

Here's what I meant, picking up from last time. I don't mean that everyone acknowledging Christ claims the label of Calvinist (obviously this is not true). There are reservations I have with taking the label as well, since it seems awfully focused on John Calvin, rather than on Jesus and the Scriptures. But my point is that every true Christian believes that God is sovereign over all, that it's Jesus and his power that saves us and it's not ourselves or our abilities that do so. Truly, this is the heart of what it means to be a Christian, to be humbled and ask for forgiveness of sins from God. However, it is my contention that Arminian theology does not hold to this, even though some claim it as their own that truly are Christians. A quote from Spurgeon, which is him caricaturing a prayer of an Arminian, illustrates this better than I can say:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.'" (taken from a sermon entitled Free Will--A Slave)

The underlying problem with the Arminian system (meaning that ultimately it is the choice of a fallen human to believe in Christ and be saved) is that in the end the Arminian believer must boast in himself for his salvation, rather than in Christ. The reason is that Armianism (as opposed to Calvinism) espouses a system of doctrine teaching that all humans are given the same amount of grace to believe (termed prevenient grace by John Wesley), and some choose to accept it to their salvation and some choose to reject it to their damnation. This inescapably makes the work of Jesus on the cross merely a powerful suggestion (if we can say it has power at all), rather than a great work of redemption. Now I will fully admit that few Arminians would claim that their salvation was of their own doing, but if questioned logically they are left with no other possible path to take. All Christians, when squeezed in the press of rational consistency, must reveal the pulp of Calvinism. The Christian heart is inevitably Calvinist, since our hope is not in our own abilities, but in the sovereign power of God. (I know some may take great issue with this, so I reiterate here the secondary importance of this doctrine in being a Christian, though as I have noted I believe Calvinists and Arminians would all agree on the main point of God's sovereignty here, despite the stark difference in label and professed doctrinal loyalty.)

Many of my friends that I met in college would hold to the teachings of John Wesley (inevitable since this was at the Wesley Foundation of the United Methodist Church) and those of Jacobus Arminius by association, since Wesley was an adherent to this system of theology. Also, for the person I was closest to in college (no names mentioned), this was a large source of our conflict and eventual falling out, so I am quite familiar with the sentiment of the debate's other side.

I am also familiar because I have often taken the Arminian side, and have switched between the two a few times, whether for emotional reasons or for what I perceived as biblical ones. I was raised in the free will side of the Baptist church and given pretty much the standard Arminian stance: Jesus died for all sin and we just have to accept it to be saved, or: God chose everyone, we just have to choose him back. When I was confronted with the concept of Calvinism, I wrestled for a good while with it, and eventually aligned with it. Upon interacting with others in debate over this, I was forced to evaluate harsher the claims of the predestination clan, and was convinced for a time that it was not biblical. This turning back was due mostly to the influence of these few things (listed with how they were corrected afterwards):

• The audio teaching of Dennis McCallum (from Xenos Church in Columbus, Ohio) on Romans 9. McCallum, whose teaching was invaluable to me in much of my understanding of the Gospel in college, interpreted this passage to mean that the Jews were chosen, as it were, to be the vessel by which all the nations of the Earth would be blessed, and not chosen in the sense that they received forgiveness of sin and salvation. This was very intruiging to me and convinced me for a time, but it simply did not hold up in the context of Romans (though this is what he claimed), and especially by the verses that follow which speak very clearly of salvation (10:1). The purpose of this text is to point out that Israel does not believe and has rejected its Messiah, and that God has now opened wide the door of his blessing and salvation for Gentiles. Indeed, Christ the Messiah is the very blessing which the witness of Abraham and Israel pointed to. This is the promise spoken in the old days of a blessing to the nations--Jesus.
  
  
• Appeals to emotion and personal reasoning. This is the argument used most of the time by those that despise predestination. Admittedly, it simply doesn't seem right when we think that God predestines some for salvation and leaves the rest to their own devices. It also seems to violate the principle we call "free will." While I do agree with the notion of the free will of man, I also think that the majority's conception of it is critically erroneous. I believe that we have a choice to obey God or not, and the decisions we make everyday can be made either way. But I also believe that man's "free" will (which is a bestowal on us from God's perfect creation) has been indeterminably bent towards sin. We are forever free to sin and to will our own defiance from God. We are not free, however, to turn our hearts to the Lord on our own power, since we are endowed with the curse of Adam from birth. We can do the right thing from time to time, but we can never please God with the filthy rags of our righteous deeds (Isa. 64:6). We need the impartation of God's Spirit to us, a regenerated heart to be able to willfully love him, and a new nature to turn from sin and obey Jesus. And it's only by God's free action to give us these gifts and enable us to have faith in him again. In other words, our wills are in bondage, as Luther would say. Think of it this way: Adam's initial standing with God was perfect because God made it to be that way. Adam chose to sin against God by a free action. But Adam could not right the wrong he did through any amount of "free" action unless God came looking for him and granted him forgiveness (which he did), eventually by providing the ultimate sacrifice in Christ. The restoration of their relationship was made only by God in dying for the sin Adam committed, since it is by definition a divine act to forgive and redeem.
  
  
• My Methodist surroundings. I was surrounded by Methodists, 99.9% of which were Arminians. This isn't meant to be denigration since I have so much to owe to the environment I was placed in at Texas A&M, but merely an account of its truth. The environment you find yourself in is a big influence on the beliefs you lean towards. If you took a Methodist and put them in the opposite situation (perhaps in a PCA Church), I would bet that they would struggle with predestination also. Seeing people you love have different beliefs, and the character and integrity you see them draw from those beliefs is a strong witness to their veracity. Some of the strongest and most devout people I know are Methodists. I love my Methodist friends and I am indebted to the fellowship I have had with them (heck, my wife grew up Methodist), but I just simply disagree with a significant chunk of the doctrine. I just don't see it in the Bible. Much of this disagreement has nothing to do with predestination mind you, but is more along the lines of church practice. A lot of it has to do with the view of women in ministry (more on this later), as well as some of its practical stances on Scripture, homosexuality, etc. On the whole though, I see them as brothers and I would never separate myself from fellowship with them unless a bigger issue arose.
  
  

In the midst of struggling so much with all of this and leaning one way or the other, I discovered a preacher that would shape me the most in my life and my understanding of Christian truth. Not by a long shot does this only apply to predestination, but to a large degree its truth was solidified in my heart through the preaching of Mark Driscoll. Odd as it may seem, since he's been known by some sketchy identities (the Cussing Pastor, for one, as labeled by Donald Miller in Blue Like Jazz), but I was moved by his passion for the Scripture and for the Reformed faith, while maintaining his real personality. As he would say, he's a "boxer-wearing Calvinist (not briefs)." In some ways I feel like I've been swept up in the new wave of Calvinism among younger people, which is weird to say. Something about it appeals to white guys in their 20s. I'm not sure what. I think a lot of it has something to do with the whole emerging thing, with the younger generation wanting something new and different from Christianity and the church than the older traditional approach. Like any division, people go to the left (Emergent) and to the right (Calvinism), though I think the orthodox thrust of it is somewhere in the middle. Driscoll's theological push is for the church and its members to view themselves as missionaries in the culture, much like an overseas missionary would in a different nation. The goal is the same: to win people to Christ and disciple them. This is the historical view of the church. The Emergent side would claim something similar, to love people where they are and in the culture they inhabit, but they simply reject the foundation of historical Christian truth and seek to forge new territory.

But this is getting far off topic, so I will end this post here and continue later...