Opportunities For Fellowship Amidst Contrasting Views

When someone asks me, "Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?" I usually try to talk with them a little bit before trying to answer them. The question is usually designed to place one into a spiritually ordered box. My problem with this subject has always been the same one, namely that what folks tend to be concentrating on is whether or not one believes in the doctrine of Eternal Security. I have some insights, but I can't understand precisely why this is such a large issue for so many believers.

The "TULIP" is an acronym for the five points of Calvinism. The five points are these:
T-Total depravity of man
U-Unconditional Election
L-Limited Atonement
I- Irresistible Grace
P-Perseverance of the Saints

I have heard the arguments. The truly Calvinist Eternal Security camp believes that those who don't hold to their view are A: probably false converts and B: teaching heresy. This is a non-essential doctrine, so how is it heresy?

Folks who lean toward a more Arminian interpretation in the area of Eternal Security tend to think that while it is not a heresy, it can be a dangerous doctrine. They view Eternal Security as a seductive false doctrine which can produce equally false converts. They see folks being made false promises that only make their eternal state worse. They see those with hearts that are not truly repentant being told, "Say this simple prayer, and you will be eternally secure. Once you have called upon the name of the Lord you will be saved, and there is no way you will ever lose your salvation."

I understand I think, why both sides believe the way they do. They each have verses that they hold to, which they feel support their beliefs. My take on this is that I am not strictly an Arminianist or a Calvinist. I will try to explain by reviewing the different points.

The concept of Total Depravity says that all of mankind is affected by the fall. Mankind is dead in his sins and the enemy of God through wicked works. Man is unable to save himself. Okay. So far so good. I agree with this. The Apostle James tells us, "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." 2:9

Calvinists often hearken back to the days of Noah, where Genesis tells us in chapter 6 that the wicked state of mankind at that time was such that, (except for the eight occupants of the Ark) the intent of everyone's heart were only evil continually. This means that men's hearts were so corrupted that they were constantly thinking evil thoughts and wanting to do only what was evil in God's eyes. They were so far corrupted that God destroyed the world with a flood at that point, leaving only righteous Noah and his family alive. I do not believe that this is where mankind is at today. Genesis is a good place to go to, but you have to go to the beginning of "The Beginning." God created man believing in Him. Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world. They had a believing relationship with God and they were not dead in their sins, until they fell. It was only after that happened that mankind needed to be restored to God.

Let me say this; I believe that unsaved folks are dead in their sin and that they need to be restored to God through His Son and the work He did on the Cross. I believe that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. I believe that what the Apostle James said is absolutely true. I also believe that unsaved men and women are capable of doing "good" things. I use the quote marks because even though they may do a good work with the best of intentions, it still comes from a corrupted source. One cannot work one's way into heaven.

Unconditional Election is a concept that goes something like this; "Since man is dead in his sin, and so evil, he is unable to initiate a response to God's goodness. Because that is true (to the Calvinist) God, in eternity past, elected certain people to salvation. Those people were predestined to be saved, and that predestination and election are unconditional, and a response of any kind from man to God has nothing to do with anything.

I could not disagree with this more. It is the goodness of God which leads men to repentance. That is a man or woman's heart responding to who God is. People's come face to face with their own sin, and they come to know that God is so holy that the righteousness of even the "nicest" person looks exceedingly sinful next to His infinite righteousness, goodness and holiness. They respond to God's goodness by repenting of their sins and choosing to return to God. They do this because God gave mankind free will. The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. This means that men can fear the awesomeness of the Lord in His sovereignty and learn of His goodness, but a beginning does not mean a righteous conclusion.

Limited Atonement is a doctrine that I find simply unbiblical. It is the concept that says that God decided that only certain people would or should be saved through His unconditional election, and that therefore Jesus should die on the Cross for the elect alone. Limited atonement couples itself with unconditional election and says that all that all the people that Jesus died for, and those same whom God elected will be saved. The trouble is, 1st John 2:2 states; "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." The word in the Greek for "world" is "kosmos" means the earth's inhabitants in a moral sense. That's pretty clear isn't it?

Irresistible Grace to the Calvinist is also in concert with both the doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement. It puts forth the notion that those people whom God elected and that Jesus died for are irresistibly drawn to God's grace. In other words, God makes man willing.

Ignoring the concepts of unconditional election and limited atonement, and looking at irresistible grace by itself might get me closer to the concept, but I still believe that the whole of Scripture points to the fact that man has a free will and can choose to reject God, even having realized that He is good. A true Calvinist would say that to believe man could resist God's grace is to diminish the power and sovereignty of God. How? How does the choice man makes under the free will God gave him diminish God? This is just a silly concept. God is not diminished. He cannot be diminished by what any of fallen creation does. He cannot be diminished by their rejection.

Perseverance of the Saints says that the same ones whom God elected unconditionally and for whom Christ died alone, and those same whom God drew irresistibly to Himself will never be lost. They are absolutely eternally secure. Some would point to the Apostle Paul as a man whose example proves this concept, because the Lord stated plainly that is was hard for Paul to, "kick against the goads." However, God chose to knock a stubborn man off of his high horse and blind him for His own reasons. We can see the fruits of the relationship that followed, but Paul had a good friend and fellow worker in Christ named Demas who abandoned him in his ministry.

This is probably a case where a true Calvinist would simply say that Demas was never saved to begin with. I just do not think that we can look into a person's heart and say that. In cases of church discipline though, we are to judge a person's actions and act accordingly with those who are unrepentant. I would say that Demas' actions speak for themselves.

This debate between Calvinism and Arminianism will go on. I do not think what I say about it will change too many minds, if any. The change I hope to contribute to is how people treat folks from the two different camps. I believe that since these are not essential doctrines, (and they aren't) that one should not hold them up to his brother and say, "I can't fellowship with you." We are supposed to be known as Christians by our love for one another.

Both of these viewpoints fall far short of being able to adequately articulate the connection between the sovereignty of God and mankind's free will. This is solely because now, in this sojourn, we can only understand in part, and it is simply not possible for us as the limited beings we are to fully comprehend a concept designed by an infinitely wise God.

My Aunt Mary, a spiritual mentor to me, once ignored a question I asked her about things prophetic and told me that she would rather talk about things that we agreed upon. I don't know what made her think that we might not agree, but I trusted and respected her judgement. I won't forget that wise counsel, and when I sense that I am moving into an area of discussion with someone who is adamant about a nonessential doctrine, I will take the same course that My aunt did. Why would I want to risk damaging our fellowship over something that doesn't really matter in regards to whether we are saved or not?