Friday, August 8, 2008

Like It Or Not, God Gets To Be God

The very nature of truth prevents opposite positions from both being right at the same time, and when Scripture is either ignored or denied, those who do so are unquestionably in the wrong. It is possible to lack biblical understanding. But it is dangerous, when confronted with the Scriptures, to say, “I don’t believe that.”

And that is true in the controversy over what is commonly called “Calvinism” and “Arminianism.” It is important to remember that the five points of Calvinism (“TULIP”) did not originate with Calvin but with his followers in response to the heresy called “Arminianism.” The real issue is not Calvinism, as such, since Calvin was just a man. The real issue is what the Bible actually teaches. After all, Paul was not a Calvinist, but Calvin was a “Paulist.” “Calvinism” is merely a name we have given to an organized statement of truth.

Calvinists believe God is God. I often remind my Sunday school class and my high school Bible classes that God gets to be God, whether we like it or not. Arminians believe God is a wimp. “Poor God. He’s up there trying to save everybody, and we won’t let Him.” Arminianism caters to the ego of man and makes man feel powerful and in control. The fact that it is unbiblical is irrelevant.

The doctrines of grace, as they are frequently (and more accurately) called, cannot be comprehended by unbelievers, nor can they be understood by baby Christians, since these doctrines are part of the “meat” of the Word, not the “sincere milk of the Word.”

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. (I Peter 2:2)

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Hebrews 5:11-12)

Following are the common stated objections by Arminians to these key doctrines:

Total Depravity – They very clearly believe in partial depravity. But on the issue of the total depravity of man, they reject the view that “man is incapable of moral action and that God is ultimately responsible for human sin.” Three points:

It is interesting that there is a tendency to refer to man as a “free moral agent” and to habitually put the word “free” before the word “will,” even though the Bible never does so. Adam and Eve are the only humans ever to have been described as having a free choice to become sinners or not. Now that all humans have a sin nature, a nature that is fallen and totally depraved, our will is in bondage to sin and Satan. It is not free. Man’s alleged “free will” is much like the will of the fly in the car. It may move around and even cause some problems, but ultimately the fly will end up exactly where the car goes.

The Bible is clear that man is dead in sin. He is not merely sick or wounded – he is dead. A dead man cannot respond to an invitation to be brought to life. Jesus did not go out and give an invitation to “whosoever will,” hoping that Lazarus might respond, because He knew Lazarus would never respond. Lazarus was dead and totally unable to respond. He simply brought Lazarus back to life. Clearly, it is biblically true that “man is incapable of moral action.”

The idea that God is responsible for sin is a “straw man” argument. It is true that all things, including the fall, were part of the decrees of God. Not being God, I do not and cannot fully understand that, but He does, and I trust God to be God. However, there is no way to claim God is responsible for sin. “…God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man…” (James 1:13). Claiming that Calvinists blame God for sin is one of the Arminian arguments against Calvinism, but it is based on very flawed human logic and reasoning, not on the Word of God.

Unconditional Election – They reject that God “arbitrarily chooses individuals to be damned before they were born.” This is another ineffectual “straw man” argument. They either forget or deny that all men are already condemned.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18).

Only the intervention of the electing grace of God can prevent any human being from gladly jumping into the pit of hell. It is our nature to go that way. God does not have to “choose” people to go to hell. We would all go there if He did not choose us to salvation, because if our fallen nature could make a “choice,” it would always make the wrong one. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 tells us quite clearly that “…God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation…” Regardless of all attempts to make those words mean something other than what they mean, it is quite obvious that they mean “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.”

The Arminian definition of election is, “God elects man to respond freely.” That is absurd and unbiblical. It reduces God to a poor, pathetic, helpless, frustrated little old man and elevates humanity to the position of ultimately being in charge. It is an ego trip for man, and it is an evil heresy that attacks the very nature of God. Remember, God gets to be God, whether we like it or not.

They often misuse 2 Peter 3:9 as proof that it is God’s will for everyone to be saved. This verse, along with Revelation 3:20, are likely among the most abused passages in all of Scripture. If it is God’s sovereign will for everyone to be saved, then everyone will be saved. God’s will is going to be done, no matter what man does. The “all” of 2 Peter 3:9 is obviously the limited “all,” meaning “all of a particular group.” It does not say that God is longsuffering toward the entire world. It says He is longsuffering “toward us” – the believers, His own, or dare we say it – “the elect.” Arminians try very hard to wrest that Scripture from its context and make it say the opposite of what it really says, but such an attempt is an exercise in futility.

2 Peter 3 goes on tell us that while some Scriptures may be hard to understand, there are serious consequences to misusing those Scriptures:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (2 Peter 3:15-17)

The idea of a “secret will.” or “permissive will,” or anything short of God’s perfect will is just more confusing and unbiblical argumentation. God has revealed His will very clearly in the Scriptures. The problem is that neither the natural man nor the carnal man has any interest in knowing God’s will. They much prefer their own rebellion and fallen human will rather than the revealed will of God.

Limited Atonement – This is the one that most scares people for some reason. However, the truth of the matter is that everyone (yes, even Arminians) limits the atonement in one way or another. The Calvinist limits the atonement in its application. In other words, the atonement is only effectively applied to the elect. On the other hand, Arminians limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement by saying that many of those whose salvation the death of Christ was designed to secure will be able to overrule the will of God and end up being eternally lost. This teaching imagines God, rather than man, to be powerless and unable.

Arminians use John 3:16 in an attempt to sabotage this doctrine, but John 3:16 does not in any way refute the rest of Scripture. The Arminian places a great deal of hope in the word “whosoever.” So many times the argument is made that the very existence of the word “whosoever” somehow negates all of Scripture and empowers men to overrule God. That is foolishness, at best. I once asked a Sunday school class the meaning of “whosoever,” and one man immediately responded, “Everybody!” That is not the meaning of the word. It simply means “anyone who.” It is very biblical to say, “Anyone who believes will be saved.” It is not biblical to say, “All men have a free choice, and God wants all humans to accept Him, but He is a gentlemen and won’t force anyone to do anything.” Such nonsense is the beginning of heresy. John 3:16 does not address why one believes and another does not. That is found elsewhere. Scripture does not contradict Scripture, but Scripture does complement Scripture.

Irresistible Grace – In Acts 7, Stephen is standing up to the leaders of the nation of Israel, God’s earthly people, for their rebellion against Him, both in his time and in Old Testament times. This has nothing to do with God’s grace in drawing the sinner to Himself. Think about Saul of Tarsus. He got saved before he knew what hit him. The Lord did not issue an open invitation and ask Saul to make a “decision.” This is likewise true for Abram. God just spoke to him and told him what to do. There was no invitation to the world, only the call of Abram. Think about Pharaoh – God hardened his heart to bring about His will. God gets to be God, whether we like it or not.

Perseverance of the Saints – It seems odd that those who would object to the first four points are so eager to embrace the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. It is true that, whom God saves, He saves to the uttermost; He gives them “eternal life.” But I have to wonder why they so readily accept the Scriptures that teach this doctrine they love and so eagerly reject the Scriptures that teach the doctrines they hate.

Written by Ron Livesay,
Administrator, Baptist Christian School, Hemet, CA.
Pastor Ron Livesay is my long-time friend and co-worker. He has been a Christian School Administrator for 27 years. Other articles written by Ron that are posted on this site are The Debate Is Over and Do We Really Believe The Bible?

No comments: