Simply Irresistible

According to Calvinism, God's choice is irrevocable.  If you are chosen, no one can say you are not.  No matter what you do or who you seem to be, God's choice is solid, as real as a mountain, as just as immovable.  Even more.

And this is true even if you yourself don't choose it.  God chooses you, you do not necessarily choose Him.  God is the actor, we are the recipient. And if we try to refuse God, it doesn't matter.  God's choice is from the beginning of the world, and He will hunt you down like the Hound of Heaven He is.  This is known as irresistible grace.  God is going to bless you, if you are chosen, like it or not.  After all, He's bigger than we are.

It is true, Scripturally, that it is God who is the actor and that He is the initiator/seducer in our romance with Him.  Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." and more specifically, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.". (John 6:44, 37)  

The proof texts for God's choice being irresistible are these: 

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (John 10:27-29)

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED." But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."  (Rom 8:29-39)

The Romans 8 passage has it all: God's choice, God's grace, and the fact that no one can take that choice away.

However, in both passages, the point is not that no one can resist what God chooses, like it or not, but that no one can claim that God's choice is null and void.  The context in Romans 8 is one of persecution.  Religious zealots may claim that some-- namely Gentiles-- are not chosen of God, and that they deserve to be punished and shamed because of their claim to be of God.  However, Paul is saying that no one can take God's choice away.  The choice is indicated by the Spirit of God (as said earlier in the chapter) and no one can claim otherwise, and punishment or shame will not take that away.

But can one chose to reject God's call?  That is certainly shown in Scripture:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." (Revelation 3:15-21)

This passage is the letter to the church of Laodicea.  They are of the church, and so believers, but Jesus claims that they are on the verge of being "spit out" because of their shame.  Jesus begs them to open the door to him, and those who "overcome" their own sin will be in the kingdom of God.  But those who do not chose this way will be rejected.  It's all about choice.

In Hebrews there's a more interesting passage: 

In the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.  (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Not only can one who, by all accounts, has been saved fall away, but they cannot come back!  

In general, given the focus of repentance as being a presupposition to living a life in the kingdom, I'd say that God's choice is essential, but so is our own.  God's choice and our choice works together to bring God's people together into one nation.

Limited Understanding

We move from one of the most biblically substantiated points of Calvinism to the least.

Limited atonement is the idea that salvation is not for all people, but only for those whom God has chosen.  This makes sense with the logic of Cavinism.  If all salvation is based on God's sovereignty,  and it is effected by God's choice, then it is only logical that not all have the opportunity of salvation, but only those who are chosen originally.

But this idea is opposed by the biblical text.  The second most quoted Bible passage in the world (the Lord' Prayer is first) clearly teach this: "For God so loved THE WORLD that He gave his only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16, in case you didn't know).

Titus 2:11 says that God's grace and salvation is for all humanity.

Romans 5:18 says that all men are condemned, but that all men could be justified.

There are many passages like these, which confirm that while all humanity will not be saved, yet all humanity at least has the opportunity for salvation.  Jesus didn't die for a few select people, but for all humanity.  This is how Jesus is a new Adam, creating a doorway for all humanity to participate in a new life.

So how could formal Calvinism get something so wrong?  Especially because Calvin was so biblically oriented?  Because the logic of theology is so easy to be misled.

God is famously quoted as saying, "My ways are not your ways, nor are my thoughts your thoughts."  This doesn't mean that God's plans for humanity can't be tracked or considered by human beings.  Rather, it means that we have to rely carefully on God in order to understand God's thoughts.  The problem with theology comes when we are considering our own thoughts about God instead of God's thoughts about His plans.

Frankly, we know nothing about God.  We don't know God's plans.  We don't know how God works.  God's work is logical and it makes sense, but we have to allow God to tell us how He works and stop trying to figure it out ourselves.

Sure, it's fun to try to understand God's thoughts.  Cool speculation is fine.  But the reality of God is only to be supported by the word of God only.  The rest of it is in the realm of fiction.  The Real of reality is based only on what God says, not on our speculations.

God save us from normalizing our speculations.

The Best Democracy: Unconditional Election

When I was in Bible school there was a fellow student of mine who was a serious Calvinist, a five-point dogmatician.  One day he went out to pass out some tracts, got into a conversation with an unbeliever who rejected his ideas of Christianity, and possibly his attitude.  He came back, dismissing the whole argument by saying, "It doesn't matter.  He simply wasn't chosen."  I neglected to point out my friend's arrogance, putting his attempt of evangelism in the place of God's choice.

Of the five points of Calvinism, I think that this is the one that is most "secure" biblically.  This is the basic idea that every individual who is "saved" is chosen from before the foundations of the world, and this by the sovereign choice of God, without any act of a person being taken into account in that choosing.

Here are some passages about God's choice:

We should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (2Thessalonians 2:13)


Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen  according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.
 (1Peter 1:1-2)

He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. (Ephesians 1:4)

There are a number besides, but we get the idea.

Then there are a couple passages about how God's choice doesn't have anything to do with our actions:


 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.  For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
 (Ephesians 2:8-10)


There was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."  What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."  So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
 (Romans 9:10-18)

So there are a number of passages that speak of God choosing his people.  And we have a couple Pauline passages that seem to indicate that God chooses according to His own standard, and no one can gainsay Him for his choice.

When we add this Calvinist foundation to Total Depravity (spoken of in the previous post), it logically adds to the idea that God's plan of salvation is pretty arbitrary.  Everyone is equally evil and God just picks some folks, by who-knows-what standard.  This doesn't of course mean that God's standard IS arbitrary, but simply that we don't know it.  Strict Calvinists, then, spend their time determining what the indication is that one is saved, rather than spending an overt amount of effort in getting people saved.

However, I have a couple caveats to the Calvinist interpretation of these passages:

First of all, these passages probably do not speak of individuals, but of nations or peoples.  Jesus didn't come to die for me or for you.  He came to die to create the nation of the Kingdom of God.  And it is the plan of salvation, the love of Jesus, and the acceptance of Jesus' people that is determined before the foundation of the world.  We have no indication in Scripture that God spent time before the foundation of the world saying, "Hmmm, Mary will be born in 1999, she's history.  Josh will be born on the same day, yeah, he's in."  Instead, before the foundation of the world God established a plan, which included Jesus and the kingdom of God, but not necessarily specifically each individual who gets in that kingdom.  Look at these passages:

The King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 25:34)

Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24)

Here we know that the kingdom was prepared for the inheritors of the kingdom from before the foundation of the world.  Also we have indication that the Father loved Jesus before the foundation of the world, but it sounds as if Jesus is asking a favor to allow certain people in.  If they were already chosen, it seems pointless to ask.

When Paul brings up the point of Jacob and Esau, he is not speaking of individuals, but of nations.  This makes sense within Paul's general arguments about the nation of Israel and the nation of Jesus.  Paul is not saying that God is arbitrary, but that God's mercy extends to all and excludes none.  It may look like God is rejecting Israel for not (his point in chapter 9), but it is only to show mercy on them in the long run (his point in chapter 11).

The main problem I have with the use of Calvinism is that it is often used to speak of God's judgment, not God's mercy.  We all want to know who God is excluding.  But that's not really up to us to know, is it?  If God wants to save some Muslims and Buddhists and agnostics and even some Mennonites, that's up to Him.  Jesus makes that same point in the parable of the day-workers (Matthew 20:1-16).  If God wants to be generous and allow in the kingdom some people that we think don't deserve to go in, that's none of our business is it?

If we take the idea of unconditional election to recognize that there will be many people who will be pleasantly surprised to be included (Matt. 25:37ff), then all is good, isn't it?  God's choice truly is a surprise-- but it will more frequently be a surprise at His mercy instead of his judgment.

The 'T' in TULIP: Depravity

John Perry of Stanford University recently said, "Original sin is the most factual contribution of Christianity."  While this may or may not be true, certainly the idea of original sin is a concept that has caught the imagination of most Protestant believers.  The basic idea is that every person is born with evil already in their genetic code.  Some have more serious sins they are bound to do, but all have corruption in their bones.

The idea of total depravity is not just that sin exists in the soul of every person, but that every action that every person does is founded in base motives.  This means that even a good action is done with evil motivation.  In other words, a person who saves an infant from drowning may be doing it simply from the glory he or she might get from doing it and a mother sacrifices for her child because it is her progeny, her future existence on earth.

What the Bible actually says is that every person sins.  It doesn't actually describe how this is so.  It could be completely environmental-- that the fact we are raised in a sinful society that keeps sin going.  It could be because of how we are raised.  It could be that sinning is at first an accident that we find works. Personally, I lean toward the idea that our society connects with genetic factors which encourage us to act in evil ways, even when our thinking is right.  Have you ever seen someone speak all the right words about helping and hope and love but still do things that harm others?  This self-deception has to be learned, I think.

The total depravity concept is that we are born with self-deception.  It is in every person's basic nature.  This also means that no person can tell the truth.  For if we are all self-deceived, how can we possibly tell the truth to another?  How can we even tell any truth from a lie?  

Total depravity seems like an unnecessarily negative viewpoint of human nature.  Sure, all humans are sinful.  We all screw up and we all hurt others on purpose on occasion.  A few of us make a habit of it.  But is the main characteristic of humanity sin and evil?  Isn't it an equal part of humanity that we want to see our motives as good?  Are we such complete failures as a species?  Isn't it possible for us to improve?  It says in Scripture about humanity, "They can do anything they set their hands to" Genesis 6.  I agree that our track record is spotty at best, and that as a group we only can respond in the most Neanderthalian of ways.  But we intend to do good.  We may not know what the good is, but we try.  That's not total depravity.  Total stupidity, maybe.

BTW, The Human Centipede is shown simply because it was the most depraved movie I could think of. 

Calvinism: The Great Antichrist?

Some people see Calvinism as a problem.  Certainly it has led, in the past, to a lot of unbiblical thinking.  Just as people have used Catholicism, Darwinism and even Jesus himself to promote their hateful, bigoted ideas, so they have done with Calvinism. Calvinism isn't about a certain kind of economy, nor is it about plain clothes or stoicism.  Rather it is a certain view of God's sovereignty and the implications of such thought.  It is closely aligned with Augustinian thinking.  Calvin himself was a lawyer who specialized in prosecuting heretics and a biblical scholar. Calvinism may have escaped from his strict biblical grasp, but it closely resembles his thinking. 

The foundation of Calvinism as a theology is the idea that God is under complete control of all that happens in the universe: past, present and future.  There is nothing that happens outside of God's power and direction.  This does not mean that all is in accordance with God's desire.  Certainly God does not desire sin, but God is ultimately in change of every atomic particle and the direction of even the smallest movement.  This leads to a number of conclusions that we will discuss later.

The alternative that is often discussed is Arminism, named after Jacob Arminius a Dutch theologian who lived soon after Calvin and opposed Calvin's ideology on a biblical ground.  The most famous proponant of Arminism was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and the theological grandfather of the Nazarenes, American revivalists, the Pentecostals and the Charismatics.  The Arminian position emphasizes human responsibility along with God's sovereignty.

For the most part, however, I wonder about the questions that both Calvinism and Arminism ponder. Their answers go back and forth and they both seem to be focusing on their presuppositions instead of the Bible.  In the end, I wonder about whether they are asking the wrong questions.  Are they focusing on the subjects focused on in the Bible, or are they speculating on the unknowable?  What does this have to do with loving God, loving your neighbor, doing kindness and walking humbly with one's God.  In fact, the discussion seems to have little to do with humility whatsoever. Instead, pronouncements come from the minds of those discussing as if they had come from the Mount. 

Of course, I will be sharing my opinions about the main topics here the next week or so, but I think we need to remember-- these are opinions.  You are welcome to disagree with them.  We can approach theology differently, as long as we are serving God with all our heart and we are loving all humanity and meeting the needs of the poor.  All else goes by the wayside.