Both of the "isms" are divisive. Satan smiles! We Christians fell into his trap set way back in the 1500s, and all of us are still entangled in it. Most Christians are not even aware of their doctrinal persuasion. Most merely adhere to their doctrinal teaching without question, and when it is questioned, anger ensues.
If you are a Baptist, it is likely that you are both Calvinistic and Arminian. Without knowing why, you reject some Arminian Doctrine and some Calvinistic Doctrine. I don't think that works. They are too different! However, I do believe that God can use one method for one Christian and another method for other Christians. That lets God out of the Calvinistic and Arminian boxes.
This commentary is not on those doctrines. I have written on that before. I will not repeat my earlier commentary but condense the doctrines down to views about free will and election. The latter is that in the beginning of time, God elected some to be saved. Of course, that means that most others, by default, were elected or chosen to be damned. I believe that may be the outcome but not God's will.
Arminianism, on the other hand, is based on choices: that we all have the free will to choose God or not. Because Calvinism depends on grace alone (sola gratia), that means people cannot influence their destiny by what they do. On the other hand, election rewards them without regard to their actions or beliefs. (Grace is irresistible by any means). Practicing Calvinism in its entirety is called hyper-Calvinism. An example of that from the 1750 era North Carolina Baptist Churches follows:
Because General Baptists: "were professed Arminians that the Particular Baptists believed the members of their churches unregenerate , and magnified the looseness of the discipline. Their churches (the General Baptists) were full of the unconverted who had been attracted by the proclamation that any son of Adam may become a Christian and an heir of salvation who will come to Jesus and accept him as a personal Saviour: of course on such an invitation all the world would become Christian, for everybody desires to escape the wrath to come." (History of North Carolina Baptists Vol. 1, Paschal, George Washington; page 33.)Because General Baptists believe that salvation is possible for all, and Particular Baptists that for only the "elect", it followed that General Baptists took into membership unconverted sinners. Their view was that General Baptists Churches were havens in which sinners were accepted as Christians even though God had elected them to be damned. Again, that is hyper-Calvinism. You can see where it led: the church should not go out into the world because if it was God's chosen, sinners would come to the Church.
As such, Particular Baptists were not missionaries. Those who were became Missionary Baptists. They clung to some Calvinism but rejected hyper-Calvinism. Most modern-day Baptist churches are missionary-minded. Hyper-Calvinists failed their job assignment as they did not go unto the world and preach the gospel as commanded. Hyper-Calvinism died a slow death. By 1800 there were few Particular Baptist Churches in North Carolina - the hotbed of Baptists.
Regular Baptists were not missionary minded. They were mostly of the Particular persuasion. General Baptists believe that salvation is for anyone who calls on the name of Jesus, and that since their reward was not predestined, Christians could fall away. That falling-away is that salvation is conditional; that faith is not a one-time event - it is a lifetime responsibility. That places the onus somewhat on the Christians, and Calvinists see that as heretical to sola gratia.
General Baptists are Arminian. They believe that mankind plays a part in their own salvation, but credit it to God's calling. All that sinners need to do is respond.
Calvinists interpret that response as "works", and that General Baptists attempt to save themselves. On the other hand, Generals believe that faith is from God, and all that Christians need do is realize that. That too is sola gratia but Particulars don't understand it that way.
Generals believe that God provides the faith for regeneration (born again), but that Christians will exercise that faith, not to obtain salvation but in gratitude for it. Thus Calvinists are not big, in general, on sanctification - the setting apart from the world in righteousness. They see Arminian attempts at obedience as being righteous of the self or sinners trying to save themselves (self-righteousness).
General Baptists in North Carolina, at one time, were the predominant faith. Northern Particular Baptists proselytized the General Baptist preachers who in turn proselytized the flocks. Because General Baptist Church people listened to hyper-Calvinists, their denomination nearly died out. Hyper-Calvinism is heretical because it kills the Church!
They accused Generals of allowing sinners into heaven. On the other hand, their doctrine kept sinners away from salvation. Not only that, but who decided the elect? It seems that it was they who allowed sinners to become part of the Church by what Bonnhoeffer called "cheap grace". In my mind, cheap grace is the expectation of being elected without regard to the agony of Christ's payment for salvation. Generally speaking, and it is debatable, Arminians tend to live more Christlike because value is placed on God's will which is form the Ten Commandments and the Greatest Commandment.
Calvinists see commands as totally non-essential. For salvation they are, but for gratitude (loving God) they are the evidence of a regenerated person. Hyper-Calvinists wrongly see Generals as "loose in discipline" whereas Generals see Particulars as totally lax in discipline.
I believe that hyper-Calvinism - close adherence to Calvinism - is heresy, and that John Calvin was heretical. Most Baptists reject election and predestination and are more Arminian. Many reject total depravity because that notion rejects free will. Most Baptists, then, are free-will Baptists and are more Arminian. However, most Baptists cling to the idea of preservation of the saints called "eternal security".
Eternal security means just that. Once anyone is born again, that person no longer needs to worry about sin in his or her life. They are already saved. Arminians see that as ungracious and without gratitude, and that disobedience is a demonstration of the condition of the heart: it's not the sin which damns (reprobation) but the unwillingness to submit to God's authority. Many one-point Calvinists do submit but the doctrine remains that they need not!
Eternal security fosters the notion and that people are saved when they are born again. That is not the Doctrine of Christ. They are born-again, and are safe in that God protects them from evil. However, their choice is to put on the whole armor of God or not! In other words, choice and free will are not only pre-requisites for regeneration but for salvation.
Arminians believe that free will continues after regeneration. On the other hand, the doctrine of eternal security seems to eliminate free will at regeneration: people can no longer choose death. I submit that they still have free will at any time and can reject salvation. (Becoming "unsaved" is an impossibility because the word is itself is meaningless!) Thus, Christians are not saved until they die; at that time they are saved from eternal death. Until that time they are safe, and those who are certain that they shall be saved, have the assurance of salvation.
They are certain that on the day of wrath, they shall be saved. That is great faith! We all have that but also still have our human wills. We exercise our wills every time we decide to sin or not! People can reject God at anytime. Satan tried to get faithful Job to do that, and Job could have! God allowed Job to be tested for God cannot be! In other words, God kept Job safe but Job chose eternal life over comfort and temporal security. Job's pleasure was that tribulation end, but his hope was that God would end it!
Eternal security, then, is an extension of election. Just as sinners can't resist God to be Christians, with that doctrine, they cannot resist God's salvation. In other words, Christians will receive the reward even of they reject it! You see, Calvinism has five points. They all are inter-dependent. By accepting even one, people, unknown to them, seem to be accepting them all. That is how the Serpent worked and still does. Mankind is deceived!
Now I will let God out of my Herrin box: God does as He pleases, not as we want Him to do. I submit that Paul was elected and was converted by irresistible grace; he experienced that! On the other hand, Paul's regeneration was not the norm: he was blinded so that he could see. Were you? Paul was a special case. On the other hand, Jesus fished for the other apostles and most weren't fully persuaded until Jesus died. Persuasion is the outcome of an individual's thoughts.
King Agrippa was "almost persuaded" by Paul. Agrippa needed to do something to be saved. He needed to be convinced. Agrippa had to make a decision then accept it. He rejected salvation although he could have chosen it. Calvinists would say that he was not one of the elect. Arminians would say that he made the worst decision of his life: he chose death!
Judas accepted Jesus as Savior, then before Jesus died, Judas rejected him. He made a choice just as Agrippa did. They both exercised their free will. Since mankind was made in the image of God, by grace he gave people wills just as He had! They are to use their wills for God. Their use is for one principle decision: Will I trust God or not? That is recognition of God's will, His authority, His power, and His own sacrifice. Paul was convinced by a sign (blindness). For most of mankind, it is by reason. We are to consider ourselves and reject our own feeble attempts and depend on God. Agrippa didn't want to do that, although it seems that he believed he should!
Judas once believed enough to follow Christ, but when Satan tempted him, he chose a new master. Judas rejected Jesus. Anyone can still make that decision until they die. That choice is "conditional security". It allows us to be more than automatons but follow Jesus by choice. God could have created automatons, but He wanted his creatures wills to correspond to His will. Eternal security makes Christian less like God, not more so; we are not automatons who only move because God causes us to move. Our every thought and action is done in freedom. If we were automatically "saved" at regeneration, then we would still be in bondage, not to the Law but being forced into liberty from the Law.
People get angry when the argument of security is involved. My wish is that my notion of truth be considered. I have considered the opposing opinion for years and tested both by scripture. Sometimes both factions use the same scripture to support their belief! I only want the truth. For years, others have tried to convince me of their truth, but I can only believe what the Lord has me to believe. Don't be angry with me, and I won't be with you. Hatred and anger is what Satan wants. We both can steer away from the Deceiver.
No comments:
Post a Comment