So, I had an interesting debate today with a potential adjunct professor. Knowing that he was of the Calvinist tradition, I probed a bit. I asked him first if he embraced 5-Point Calvinism. As he looked a bit baffled and confused (assumingly because he didn’t know what “5-Point” Calvinism was), I clarified by beginning to list the five points of T-U-L-I-P.
He quickly said, “No, no, no. I don’t believe in that.”
“So you don’t believe that the atoning work of Jesus on the cross is limited to those he predestined to the saved?,” I asked.
“No, no. Absolutely not.”
Not being sure if he completely understood the implications of what I was asking, I probed a bit further.
“Okay, well, do you believe in eternal security?”
“Oh, yes!” he said. “It’s only biblical!”
In response to this, I referred to a few passages in the Bible that implied otherwise (specifically, Revelation 2:5 and others). I went on to point out that the Bible does teach that there is such a thing as apostasy, where one who once had “saving faith” could abandon that faith. After all, there are not shotgun weddings in heaven.
Naturally, as a good Calvinist, he responded that what I call “falling away” he would categorized as “never having been saved”.
This typical answer really bothers me.
How, on the one hand, can a certain theological orientation tell people that once they believe in Jesus that their salvation is secure for eternity. Then, on the other hand, if that person falls into sin, tell them that they were never saved in the first place.
Is it just me or does this seem incredibly manipulative and theologically self-serving?
“If you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior today, your salvation is secure forever! In addition to this, his Holy Spirit will witness to your spirit that your His! However….if there comes a time where you neglect his presence in your life and choose a different route, and you fall under the domination of sin sometime in the future, it means that you never really were saved.”
The unsoundness of such a thing does not at all seem consistent with a just, honest, and holy God.
Hence, one of the reasons I’m not a Calvinist.
For more on this topic cf. http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Calvinist/dp/0830832491/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383847525&sr=8-1&keywords=why+I%27m+not+a+calvinist
I try not to pick camps, but need to ask one thing.
You wrote,
“How, on the one hand, can a certain theological orientation tell people that once they believe in Jesus that their salvation is secure for eternity. Then, on the other hand, if that person falls into sin, tell them that they were never saved in the first place.
Is it just me or does this seem incredibly manipulative and theologically self-serving?”
My question:
How on the one hand, can a certain theological orientation tell people that they are a completely new creation, then when they fall away, that they are again the old creation. If God turns a chicken into a cow, can the cow later on decide to be a chicken again. Or does God turn the cow into a chicken again?
Both camps arrive at the same point, The person does not have Jesus. So why waste time arguing about how he got there?
Your question: Both camps arrive at the same point, The [sic] person does not have Jesus. So why waste time arguing about how he got there?
First, I would refrain against the assumption that it’s a “waste of time arguing” before arriving conclusively at an answer to the the answer. That is, the proposition that “it’s wasteful” assumes that your argument is correct. This is unsound logic. It’s only conclusively a “waste” once the evidence has been dealt with extensively.
Second, the argument is not ONLY about the end, it’s also about the means for getting there. For Wesleyans, sanctification is a necessary part of God’s salvific work in the life of the believer. For the Calvinist, it is not. As Paul says, should I go on sinning so that grace may abound all the more? By no means!. Paul is making the same argument that it is not all about the end, the means matter. If it were all about the end, why didn’t Jesus come and be finished with the whole deal already? Because the means for arriving at the end matter.
Third, the Calvinist position completely nullifies the role of human free will in salvation, which is counter-scriptural. Like I always say, there are no shotgun weddings in heaven.
Fourth, does probing the depths of God via his plan for salvation truly merit being “wasteful”? The more I know of Him and the more I know Him, the better off all of His creation is. To argue that “it’s a waste of time discussing God’s plan for salvation and how it operates” is to deem Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom a “waste of time”. Why embrace ignorance? How can any endeavor to better know God be “wasteful”? God honors those who seek him via an inquisitive heart.
Fifth, the precision of the contours of salvation help us defend against heresy (just as Paul does in his epistles to the churches). If the means and details didn’t matter, then we would have no means for defending the faith against heresy. “Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) believe that such a person doesn’t have Jesus either, so why waste time arguing?”
Sixth, I argue that a person on the receiving end of the Calvinist explanation of salvation above could feel manipulated and lied to. I believe, as Jesus did, that we, as followers of Christ, should avoid such a perception by accurately teaching truth and dividing the Word of God.
I’d like to go for seven to make it complete, but time is up.
I thought of 7. It’s not always the same end. Calvinists do often argue that a person doesn’t show fruit of Jesus indwelling in this life, that they could still be glorified and go to Heaven. So the end IS NOT the same (always) – sometimes it is the same, but sometimes it isn’t. Hence the argument of eternal security.
Also, I think it does matter whether or not we’re manipulative towards new believers (or anyone, for that matter). I don’t think the Church should ever be manipulative. Thus, the means matters.
Great question. I would agree entirely. However, I would add that the person doesn’t “change back” to be “unredeemed” after the process of salvation is COMPLETE at glorification. I do not believe that salvation is complete at justification (as Calvinists do). I believe that salvation includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. Once the salvation process is complete, it’s complete. I believe that the faith of the believe is required for the completion of the process.