One of my dear friends in this world is a woman who is like a sister, even though she is not physically my sister. We were having lunch together sometime in 2001 or such, and the conversation went to a book she was reading by R.C. Sproul, a minister, author, and scholar. R.C. Sproul advocates what is popularly called the "Calvinist" position which involves a doctrine which advocates God being in complete control of the eternal destiny of people, since that is a role of being "sovereign." So concerning soteriology, he teaches "double predestination," which claims that God determined, even before creating the heavens and the earth, the eternal fate of each individual human being. Thus He elected some people to be saved and have the destiny of heaven, whereas He elected some people to not be saved and have the destiny of h-ll. I completely disagree with this doctrine.
When it comes to soteriology, I do not fit strictly in the Calvinist or Arminian camp. I agree with the Calvinist points of penal substitution and eternal security! And I agree with the Arminian point that salvation is available for everyone, and that people have free will in accepting or rejecting Christ! {My 5/28/13 blog entry on I Peter 3:18-22 examines this.}
So there at lunch with my dear friend, I quickly brought the conversation to the topic of predestination. I was adamant in my unique argument that the Biblical context for predestination concerns sanctification, not justification, and that people have "free will," namely they have the option of choosing the mercy and grace offered by Christ. Likewise people have the option to also dismiss that gift.
Indeed people are marred and on a path to spiritual death due to "original sin," yet even though God had Adam and Eve depart from the Garden of Eden, which caused a separation between God and people, God has not abandoned people, rather He keeps reaching out to all people, offering the Gospel. And people, created in the image of God, though sinners, are still capable of receiving or rejecting Him.
I was real focused and intense in the conversation on the subject with my dear sister-in-Christ. A brilliant woman with a law degree from UVA, we debated, in a loving manner. After we concluded that topic, I noticed that all of the people who were sitting in the close quarters of the booths and tables around us in the restaurant had cleared out. No one was near us! They probably were not expecting such a theological discussion within earshot during their lunch hour that day, and they headed back to the office early. There were probably some surprised bosses that day in Broomfield.
Yet it was not until I started studying at Colorado Christian University that I learned how much strife there has been in Christian history between "Calvinists," "Arminians," and thirdly, folks like me who do not fit completely into either of those theological camps.
(I add I recall reading a commentary by a very popular 20th century Bible teacher who said that both Calvinists and Arminians were correct. Regarding this fourth position, I can hear Leonard Nimoy say: "That is illogical, Captain.")
The primary battle ground of this controversy is Christian universities and seminaries, and I have been told by more than one person that there are Christian colleges where some professors prohibit dialog on this subject. Instead, a student must simply go with the conviction of the professor. That is not the case at CCU where I am a student, since all students are allowed to professionally state their convictions, though some professors give more such opportunities than others. (And I add this statement at a later time: At CCU there was more of a "TULIP Calvinist" influence for a number of years after a new president presided at the university.)
And all churches with their various positions on atonement impact the members of their specific congregations.
May we allow Jesus to speak to us on this critical subject. Considering R.C. Sproul's doctrinal basis for "double predestination," which is God's sovereignty, we can better understand that reality by viewing the action of Jesus which has rung out for the past two thousand years: "Jesus wept" (John 11:35 NIV). That is the ultimate illustration of the fact that God chose to sacrifice some sovereignty.
A scholarly book, which was a textbook for my "Evangelical Theology" class at CCU, which presents both sides of various debates, states concerning the "Calvinist" view: "The absolute sovereignty of God is implied in the very concept of God. If anything can thwart God's will, then that thing is more powerful than God" (1). However, God chose to sacrifice within His sovereignty. Yet He is still all powerful, because such a sacrifice was His will! Also, the sacrifice did not change His nature.
This sacrifice is shown by the fact that Jesus cried after His friend Lazarus had died. Jesus had the power to keep His friend from dying. And we find out as we continue on with the story that Jesus had the power to resurrect His friend. Yet Jesus allowed Lazarus to die, not because He wanted to show off His resurrecting power, which is what many people think He was doing. Rather Jesus sacrificed sovereignty so we can continue to know that even when terrible things happen in this world, even when people die, there is hope from Jesus, who is Sovereign in His kingdom. Jesus had complete sovereignty in the universe when He created it! Yet He has allowed others to have power in this world. Jesus even said, "...My kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36 NIV). Yet I add that we know from Revelation that one day Jesus is going to return to earth and regain His complete sovereignty!!
If Jesus had never relinquished any control, He would never need to cry! In fact, how many psychologists would diagnose Jesus, who was fully human and also fully God, as having a psychological problem if He was completely in control of every detail in the universe, and yet He cried over the death of a friend.
John Calvin, who was correct regarding the penal substitution nature of the atonement, was tragically wrong as he limited that atonement. His conviction that Jesus' atonement was limited goes against the clear teaching of Scripture, teachings such as: "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God..." (I Peter 3:18 NIV). Calvin's tragic doctrine of limited atonement falsifies the fact that Jesus loves everyone, and that He died on a cross to offer salvation to anyone.
Now a person must still receive the gift, and the manner is by faith in Jesus. The Reformation principle of salvation being "by grace through faith alone" is correct. Yet there has never been a human being who was deprived by God of the opportunity to be saved, because Jesus loves everyone. "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9 NIV). He leaves the decision to us; that is His ultimate will.
So I will conclude this piece by applying my convictions. Please know, whoever you happen to be, that Jesus died for you, the substitution atonement for any wrongs you have ever done, the results of which would have been spiritual death, because Jesus loves you!
Hunter
(1) Gregory Boyd & Paul Eddy, Across the Spectrum:
Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 38.
