Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism: Who Really Believes God is Sovereign?

Presbyterian Christian and best selling author, R. C. Sproul, writes in perhaps the best popular work on Election from a decidedly Calvinist perspective available today, these words: "without Sovereignty, God cannot be God.  If we reject Sovereignty, then we must embrace atheism.  This is the problem we all face.  We must hold tightly to God's Sovereignty" (p. 27)  >>>

Speaking from a non-Calvinist perspective, I do not know how a more agreeable statement could be made.  I, too, believe it non-negotiable to fully embrace God's Sovereignty. 

Even more, classic Arminianism in general never questioned whether God was Sovereign, and that, beginning with James Arminius himself.  Renowned Arminian theologian, Roger Olson, writes: 

"Arminius affirmed a very strong doctrine of God's providential sovereignty.  For him, God is the cause of everything but evil, which he only permits.  And anything that happens, including evil, must be permitted by God; it cannot happen if God does not allow it.  God has the ability to stop anything from happening, but to preserve human liberty he permits sin and evil without approving them.  Arminius said of God's providence:  'It preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things, and that nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance.' (p.120).

It's fascinating to me to hear, in the face of such direct evidence, preposterous assertions that non-Calvinists do not embrace the Biblical teaching of a Sovereign God.  Edwin Palmer, past executive secretary of the NIV Bible and general editor of the NIV Study Bible, wrote in his little volume, The Five Points of Calvinism, these incredible words:  "...the Arminian denies the sovereignty of God" (p.85).  Incidentally, he also writes:  "And the Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish." (ibid).  Thus, while my Calvinist brothers would accept Palmer's assessment of Arminianism, I am not so sure many of them would accept his brash concession for Calvinists.

In the end, at least as I understand the issue, between Calvinism and non-Calvinism's perspective on God's Sovereignty, the difference between them stands significantly less than a knat's behind.  Historic Calvinism and classical Arminianism both rightly embrace the Biblical  notion of God's Sovereignty.  R. C. Sproul's dictum describes the non-Calvinist's understanding of Divine Sovereignty's significance:  "If God is not Sovereign, then God is not God." (p.26).  Differences do remain in precisely how God teases His Sovereignty out in space-time history.  But that is the subject of another post.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Luke]

Peter,
I believe that this is the crux of the issue. I have been reading a book, though not by a Calvinist, and it has been pointed out time and time again that what Arminius has been accused of is no where close to what he stated to believe. Thanks for the post. I am looking forward to the future exchanges when you do seek common ground on what it means for God to be sovereign.

Luke

[davidinflorida]

Good one Peter,

I know that God is sovereign. I also know that I am not a Calvinist.

I stand on these statements based on Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" declares the Lord AND 2 Tim 1:9 God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life - not because of anything we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.

I believe the great divide between Arminianism and Calvinism is the misunderstanding of time. God`s time.

Still, in the big picture, what does it matter ?

[Mary]

I was just visiting another blog which is full of this idea that if you don't believe in the Calvinist definition of Sovereignty then you cannot believe in a Sovereign God at all.

I agree with David that a great misunderstanding between Calvinist and nonCalvinist is a misunderstanding of God's time.

This is a good place I think to point out that I don't accept the label Arminian because the Calvinist have made it into something it is not historically. To most Calvinist it seems that Arminian is simply a lower form of Christian (and according to some we're not even Christian at all) who doesn't believe in the Calvinist definitions of phrases like Total Depravity, Sovereignty of God, and Doctrine of Election, than you must not accept the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity, God's Sovereignty or Doctrine of Election Many (not all, HI Grosey!) Calvinist believe they own all labels and definitions of all Biblical doctrines.

[Richard Coords]

The way in which some Calvinists beleive that God is soverign is by determining whatsoever comes to pass. Here is a quote from John Calvin:

Calvin writes: “When he uses the term permission, he means that the will of God is the supreme and primary CAUSE of everything, because nothing happens without his order of permission.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, p.75, emphasis mine)

Calvin writes: “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the CAUSE of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is NOT the author of evil.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169, emphasis mine)

Imagine if we turned to John 1:29, and imagined John the Baptist stating, "Behold, the Lamb of God who CAUSED the sin of the world."

My favorite book concerning this matter is Robert Picirilli in "Grace, Faith, Free Will." His form of Arminianism is "Reformation Arminianism," and repeatedly cites Arminius, just as Peter has in this post.

How is God sovereign? Answer: He gets the last word. (Philippians 1:10-11) Every knee shall bow. Not some knees, but every knee. But it doesn't stop there. God is in complete control. Turn if you will to 1st Corinthians 10:13, which states: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” How does God know what you are able to handle, if He is not absolutely omniscient? God knows all of the what-ifs, or as Picirilli puts it: God knows every CONTINGECY. It is "BY" this omniscience that a supreme, omnipotent, sovereign God determines the BOUNDARIES of your temptations. That is a God who is absolutely, 100% IN CONTROL at all times, though NOT CONTROLLING every choice that you make. He gives the freedom of choice, while determining your options, and their associated consequences, for good and for bad. That is exactly the kind of God that we see outlined at Jeremiah 18:1-13, and which is rarely a passage on "God the Potter" that you will ever hear quoted by a Calvinist, when discussing Romans 9.

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

Peter,

I like your take on classical Arminianism. I don't often see a fair perspective on Arminianism in the blogosphere. Roger Olson is one of my professors and he did a great deal toward de-bunking all the myths about Arminianism I had been fed as an undergrad. His book is a must-read for anyone interested in these issues.

As a self-professed classical Arminian, I am asked regularly by Calvinists: So, you don't believe God is sovereign? My answer is always the same: Of course I believe God is sovereign. The question is, how do you define sovereign?

Thanks again, Peter.

Grace and peace,

Emily

[peter]

Luke,

Thanks. An incipient--not to mention ongoing--difficulty in understanding at least some of the issues flying between Calvinists & NonCalvinists stems from not engaging the most relevant sources.

Biased as it may be, I find it most typical that, from my conversations with many of my Calvinist brothers, Arminian theologians themselves are rarely consulted first-hand. Rather, too much, I feel, critiques of Arminiansim from exclusively Calvinist theologians suffice for basic interaction with NonCalvinist works.

To the reception of a blank stare in return, I often cite Arminius' words that he personally could endorse with his signature virtually the entirety of John Calvin's writings. James Arminius very well may have been a better Calvinist than many modern day Calvinists!

Grace, Luke. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

David,

Thanks for the input. Though I have not, to my disadvantage obviously, given much thought to the "time" perspective, I think you and Mary bring up some good points worth pondering.

Concerning the "big picture," I think you are correct in one sense--precisely how we view God's Sovereignty does not, in the end, disqualify us from His Community. On the other hand, I'd have to say that not being able yet to understand His Sovereignty cannot become a party line to avoid hard, excruciating reflection on understanding Sovereignty better.

Mary,

My, Mary: you surely ate your theo-wheaties for breakfast :^) I agree that sometimes the challenge is--especially in the continued dialog with Calvinists & NonCalvinists--who gets to define the terms. Biased again, I must note, I have found that my partners in theo-Crime seek many times to load up the discussion with terms defined by them. Especially of note are precisely those terms you've rehearsed: Total Depravity, Atonement, Sovereignty, etc.

Faith to live well. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Richard,

As always, you bring lively discussion to the floor. I too am indebted to Robert Picirilli in "Grace, Faith, Free Will" as well as his systemaic theology book. Surely a strength of his is engaging the Biblical text, not to mention his mastery of Greek.

The standard line against Arminianism being philosophical but not Biblical falls flat on its face with Picirilli.

Grace, Richard. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Emily,

Thanks for your take on Professor Olson. Have you read the Interview I did with him? I have three posts containing it.

I especially enjoyed reviewing his book. I believe he indeed debunked many myths about classical Arminianism.

One thing especially notable I gleaned from Dr. Olson is "Reformed" is an umbrella term for a movement not only of Calvinists but of NonCalvinists as well. That is, Arminians are definitively just as "Reformed" as are Calvinists.

Faith, Emily, to you and yours. With that, I am...

Peter

[Emily Hunter McGowin]

Peter,

Thank you for directing me to your interview. I had not seen it before. It was very good and I'm grateful you published it online.

I was very pleased to discover the wideness of the "Reformed" umbrella as well. I had often bristled at the derision with which Reformed Calvinists informed me that I was outside the Reformed tradition--as if that meant my certain demise. :)

I have a well-educated friend who described himself as Reformed for a long time. I avoided the Calvinist-Arminian issue for quite a while, concerned that the discussion would cause unnecessary friction. Only recently did I discover that he's a Reformed Arminian. Imagine my surprise. Frankly, in what sometimes seems to be an interminable sea of evangelical Calvinists, I was pitifully ecstatic to find an educated, pious, Jesus-loving Arminian.

Thanks again, Peter.

Grace and peace,

Emily

[Keith Schooley]

Hi, Emily. It's nice to see someone else who isn't afraid of the term "Arminian."

Mary, call yourself whatever you want, but just remember that all terms don't receive their final definition from the types of Calvinists you're writing about. Besides, if you're not One Of Them, they'll label you as an Arminian anyway.

Richard, you are exactly right about the "potter's clay" in Jeremiah 18:1-13. As a matter of fact, in my own study of Romans 9 (shameless plug: http://schooleyfiles.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-perspective-and-romans-9-potter.html), I found that *every* time that image is used in the OT, it *always* has the meaning you discussed. The OT passages in which this type of potter-clay illustration is used *all* refer to people who are under judgment for their own false worship and disregard of God and His Law, and either imply or specifically offer restoration to those who repent. I've never seen Calvinists trace back the origins of the pastiche of OT quotes that Paul uses in Romans 9. Of course, I've been told that this is an "incorrect hermeneutical principle." ;-)

Also I love the quote from Calvin, “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the CAUSE of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is NOT the author of evil.” That is the central contradiction of the Calvinist position that Arminians can't swallow. We don't want to take God's glory for saving us, as is asserted. Leaving space for free will of subordinate creations (humans, angels) also leaves space for the introduction of evil into the universe without it being ordained by God.

Peter, with all deference to Dr. Olson (and what I wrote above regarding the definitions of terms), I think that "Reformed" has become so identified with Calvinistic theology that it really is misleading to call Arminianism a "Reformed" theological position. A "Reformation" position, yes.

The real crux of the issue is, does God have to be a micro-manager in order to be sovereign? Does it not as well (or better) demonstrate sovereignty for God to be in control of the overall outcome, despite the existence of subordinate causes, many of whom are hostile to His will?

[chadwick]

“My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isaiah 46:10.)

“God would have all men to be saved, but, compelled with the stubborn malice of some, he changeth his purpose, and will have them to perish . . .” (James Arminius)

I'm stickin' with the Word of God. :)

[Richard Coords]

And what is God's pleasure?

Turn if you will to 1st Corinthians 1:21, which states: "God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."

If God does not change His purpose, due to unrepentant man, explain Matthew 23:37, where Jesus specifically states that His plan was "often" to gather Israel together like a hen gathers its chicks, but they unwilling. If anyone knows about God "changing His plans," its Jonah. Jonah declared what God would do, and God meant it, and God would have destroyed them in 40 days, like He said, had they not repented. Later they fell, as per the book of Naham, but the point remains that God punishment, and blessings, are conditional, which is even more clearly seen at Jeremiah 18:1-13 where God says that if a wicked nation repents, He will relent concerning the planned calamity He set for it, or if a righteous nation turns from its righteousness, He will think better and not to bless it. (See Jer. 18:1-13)

The problem of the Calvinist is not that he sticks to the word of God, but rather that he "embellishes" upon the word of God, to force it to say what it does not.

[Richard Coords]

Keith,

I look forward to reviewing your article. Thanks.

[Timotheos]

From one gnat "cheek" to another...

Isn't it tellingly funny that the blog topic most likely to generate comments (here and elsewhere) is the ongoing faceoff between misrepresented advocates of these supposedly antithetical theologies...and isn't it ironicly funny that many posters on your fine blog, Peter, are sounding more and more like those against whom they so roundly, and with such refined indignation, animadvert? It's nearly enough to confirm one's cynicism...;^)

Glad that grace abounds,

Timotheos

[SelahV]

Timotheos: animadvert?
No sense in being cynical. Cynicism builds walls with cement.

PETER: can one ever discuss God's Sovereignty without bringing Calvin and Arminius into the conversation?
I remember back in the summer of 2006, before I began reading blogs, I use to discuss God's Sovereignty. I've always believed in His Sovereignty. But I sure didn't know anything about Calvin and Arminius.

I've been enjoying my discussions on my Question & Answer blog regarding sovereignty.
Folks seem to feel comfortable chatting about it, rather than debating it point for point. Not that theological debate is purposeless, no. Just conversationally, the topic breeds debate instead of discussion when people see their view as the "right" view. No matter which view one holds. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Thanks for the lively interaction. Timotheos is surely correct in that, as did he, the children come out to play when the present game is announced. I remain unsure though that we've rolled in the dirt quite as much as his good humor suggests. In fact, I think we all deserve a sucker--not the first one's been poked in the eye with HERETIC! (crossing my fingers:^|

As most know who's been following this site since inception, I am fascinated with the present waxing of Calvinism in my own Southern Baptist Convention. The challenging concern gnawing continually at Baptists--and all Christians for that matter--about how to be a 21st Century Church is met, by some in our Convention, with the curious solution of becoming a 19th Century Calvinist Christian. Personally, I find that worth talking about. Of course, *talking* is much preferred to *yelling* as our SelahV has rightly cautioned.

Alas, though I cannot play anymore with you guys presently. I must head for the beach where my love awaits me. She is building castles momentarily without me--the rest of the week on the Georgia Coast. Ah...

Grace enough and more to spare. With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. I'm watching the rest of the day. So continue as you have done--play fairly.

[Keith Schooley]

Timotheos,

It's only fair to note that since I am not Southern Baptist (or any kind of Baptist), I generally have no reason to comment on posts dealing more specifically with Baptist life and history.

I found this blog doing a search on "Arminianism" (luckily, Peter was doing his interview with Roger Olson then, or I'd never have found it--I wouldn't have searched for "nonCalvinism"). It was the only site I've found on the internet that favorably discusses a view of soteriology similar to my own, except for a couple of ugly, mean-spirited, semi-biblically-literate ones. (I'd be happy to find more counterexamples.) And so of course that's what draws my attention.

But I'm also wearying of the discussion, mainly because no one seems to be interested in the question except for the already-convinced. I note the irony: I'm also in that category, although I'm willing to examine arguments I haven't seen before. Our brother's recent pronouncement (ex cathedra) of my exegesis as simply "incorrect" doesn't count.

[Timotheos]

SelahV - great word, that animadvert, don't you think? It's unfamiliarity hopefully might keep one from running past its meaning without some sober reflection - unless one is too distracted actually "animadverting" to consider its unseemly nature and effects.

Keith - of course, you are excepted from my little observation about topic interest. Shoot, I have Baptist backgrounds myself and have all I can do to muster any interest in staying abreast of the good ship SBC.

Blog commentors on these admittedly weighty soteriological issues seem to have more axes to grind than a sesquicentennial meeting of the Paul Bunyan Lumberjack Guild. Of course, axes are generally ineffective at sustaining life, whether the life of a tree or of a fruitful discussion/debate.

But I know from experience that it is exceedingly difficult to lay one's ax down, as we are accustomed to either view it as a necessary appendage, or to fail completely in even recognizing we have taken it up. Regardless, axes make devilishly difficult any true dialogue, much less true understanding.

But then again, maybe that's the "beauty" of blogs - the ends and the means can be completely disassociated from each other, or...maybe the ends and the means are really one and the same. Who knows?

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[William Marshall]

Bro. Pete,

I have been reading your blog for a while and thought I might try commenting. If I am reading it right, I see your original post as trying to correct those Calvinists who accuse Arminians (or nonCalvinists) of not believing in God's sovereignty. As a Calvinist, I admit that I have used that accusation before. Yet, it seems that my Arminian, nonCalvinist, brothers accuse me of not believing in man's responsibility (because of my belief about 'free will'). Thus, it seems that the Calvinist accuses the nonCalvinist of not believing in God's sovereignty, while the nonCalvinist accuses the Calvinist of not believing in man's responsibility. Is that fair for both sides?

Thus, could a Calvinist say to a nonCalvinist brother: "I believe your understanding of God's Sovereignty is not biblical." And could a nonCalvinist say to a Calvinist: "I belive your understanding of man's will is not biblical." And the discussion move on from there (hopefully both considering the relevant passages concerning God's sovereignty and man's will).

Just trying to understand how we can have better conversations on these important theological issues.

PS Bro. Pete, tell your wife and family I said hello. Hope you guys had a good vacation.

[Sung]

William, that is exactly what goes on. (By the way, I'm an Arminian).

Unfortunately, when people try to debate this issue, a type of "zealotry" takes over. One side will often hate to be bogged down by the details of the other's theology, and quickly be offended by how the other is mistreating the nuances of their own.

In the end, it all boils down to critical exegesis. I found that this is the best way to deal with the issue because it cuts out the opportunity for man-devised rhetoric and appeals to emotion. Such as: "Are you saying that you're powerful than God?" (this is one I got a while back from a Calvinist while debating the issue).

[peter]

William,

What an awesome surprise, my brother in Christ. I am humbled to no end that you even have read my ramblings much less chosen to leave a fingerprint.

I also note our Lord has immensely blessed your early commitment to serve Him in Kingdom labor. Never a moment, seeing you grow up for a few years in small-town Tennessee, did a doubt enter my mind.

And, perceptive you are, my brother. Too often, Calvinists and NonCalvinists alike chase their tails like giddy little puppies when speaking of God's Sovereignty & human free-will.

In addition, as a NonCalvinist, I have at times, I must confess, fallen for the temptation to question my Calvinist brother's belief in human free-will. However, I am becoming much more adept at making the proper distinction between "denial of" on the one hand and "relationship to" on the other.

By that I mean most of my Calvinist acquaintances believe in human free-will to be sure. Thus, I must, if at all possible, take them at their word. That is, I do not charge them with "denial of" human free-will.

Yet, given my understanding of God's Sovereignty from their perspective, I may legitimately proceed inquiring from them the "relationship to" question. How is their adherence to human free-will teased out in its "relationship to" their adherence to God's Sovereignty?

This is the very human stuff birthed out in philosophy of religion classes on university campuses to be sure. Thus, there is merit in suggesting we dump the pursuit of such and focus on Prophetic, Apostolic revelation similarly to our Sung's worthy --not to mention, very appropriate--challenge to target exclusively exegetical matters in dealing with these kinds of questions. My response to that is, if only we could.

For the fact remains that exegetical exercises themselves are very much, human stuff, if you will. No one of us, in our fallen yet redeemed mind, can, without much application, consider and offset our own controlling biases upon entering the exegetical sweatshop. This goes for Calvinists and NonCalvinists alike. Bias is after all, colorblind; it stands as no respecter of persons.

I definitely agree, William, in your call of "how we can have better conversations on these important theological issues." My own goal, whether or not I ever attain it, agrees precisely with you concern.

Grace, William. And the fam says "hey!."

With that, I am...

Peter

[William Marshall]

Bro. Pete,

It does seem that a better question for us to ponder is 'What is the relationship between God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility (will) according to Scripture' rather than the overly simplified, 'Do you believe in God's sovereignty' (from the Calvinist to the nonCalvinist) or 'Do you believe in man's free will' (from the nonCalvinist to the Calvinist). Both claim to believe in both. They differ in how they see the relationship between the two (which does invlove the biblical definition of the two). Anyway, thanks for responding, interesting stuff!!

[SelahV]

Pete: God is sovereign and I am responsible to His sovereignty and accountable to His sovereignty. Whether I understand sovereignty as others do is not as important as understanding what God wants me to do, am I warped in this simple assumption?
selahV

[Ron]

Open theists believe that God is sovereign too! We all believe that God is sovereign huh! They say that he simply self limits his sovereignty (how that can be we know not). And after moving this rock so big god can't move it, he allows man's freedom first place and then tries to round up his "chosen" and "predestined" bride huh? That's exactly what you advocate, only in a milder form. Is God sovereign in all things or not? If you can't swallow that God can be in charge or the cause of all things yet not be responsible for evil, how do you read the Psalms and Job and Revelation. How do you read passages about God controling the "stormy winds fulfilling his word?" (ps. 148) The bible says that God is in charge of everything, ALL THINGS, and he's not the author of evil. Just believe it and give him the Glory for it. That's what Calvinism is.

[peter]

Ron,

Thanks for dropping by. And you are correct: those who embrace Open Theism also argue for God's sovereignty. But I do not understand the relevance here.

To my knowledge, I have no Open Theist commenters. Nor do I know a SB who would embrace an Open Theist view of God's sovereignty.

I suppose you could mean, however, that since Open Theists, Calvinists, NonCalvinists and Arminians all embrace God's sovereignty that the discussion spawned here is moot. Is this what you mean, Ron?

In addition, you write, Ron: "They [Open Theists] say that he simply self limits his sovereignty (how that can be we know not)."

Though admittedly I must be cautious here since I know very little of Open Theists' belief system, a few comments may be worth posting.

First, Ron, to suggest as do you that Open Theists "simply" believe God "self-limits his sovereignty" is itself "simply" reductionistic to the core. Theirs is a highly sophisticated, developing theological system concerning which the greatest minds of current Evangelical scholarship is engaged.

Moreover, many Evangelical theologians who unequivocally reject Open Theism also embrace the idea that God, upon sovereignly deciding to create alternate being--that is, the cosmos, including humans made in His image--de facto "self-limited" Himself in the process.

Third, you appear to chide how it can possibly be that a Sovereign could be "self-limited" by your parenthetical statement. You write: "(how that can be we know not)." However, your axe swings both directions.

For someone, Ron, upon your insistence that God is in absolute charge of everything--and I assume everything literally means *everything* including my choice to sin, not to mention Lucifer & Adam's choice to sin--but that He is *not* author of the choice, could swing your axe right back "(how that can be we know not)."

From my perspective, Ron, unfortunately it's dismissive views similar to the one penned by you that lends the very least hope for better understanding between Calvinists and NonCalvinists.

For all, we need oceans of grace to endure. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

SelahV,

Greetings. And thanks for your question.

Oh, I suppose one could argue it could if it smacked a "human labor for Divine love" exchange. Nor do I sense that in your query, SelahV.

As strongly as I possibly can, I know not how any view could be "warped"--short of the above exception--which attaches itself to pleasing our Lord.

Grace, SelahV. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter and others: Why the big deal? You are not going to change my or any Calvinist's mind, I'm not going to change your mind, so why try and discredit? I have never written a post discrediting Arminianism. I never will. Not because I don't disagree, but because in the end it really doesn't matter. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. In fact my mother and father are Arminian and have always been, yet we get together and love each other as family. So why the need to misrepresent Calvinism?

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Always glad to see your name pop up now and then, Debbie. As for you comment, of interest to me is that not one commenter so far in this thread has charged my post with either discrediting or misrepresenting Calvinism. Indeed, I would be absolutely stunned if someone could show misrepresentation.

Similarly with Ron, Debbie, your approach to this question lends, if possible, even less hope for genuine dialog and authentic understanding between Calvinists and NonCalvinists--at least, that unhappily is my perspective about your view.

You may be better served, my sister, to continue following your own dictum that since "in the end it really doesn't matter," there is little you will have to say about it.

Grace, Debbie. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: You know I do read you. :)

My point is this and I do believe it could open dialog, it should open dialog as I am asking a sincere question. It's hard to charge misrepresentation in your post as all you have done is quote, but I would be happy to point out a few things that if not out and out misrepresentation are implied. I am speaking of the comments as well which is why I addressed you and other posters.

It should be open to dialog. Calvinism is not just about one doctrine. It's not just about Sovereignty. It is a myriad of other doctrine, one of which is God's Sovereignty. You cannot just pull our Total Depravity or God's Sovereignty alone and have a case against Calvinism.

I am not one to try and "convert" to my way of believing, The point is this. Could you work side by side with a Calvinist in missions, are Calvinists Southern Baptists in your opinion? Whether you understand Calvinism or agree really doesn't matter.

[SL1M]

Peter - Although amidst some of your posts and some of the "misguided comments" by others that follow your posts, I appreciate your efforts to prove your non-Calvinist view as opposed to an anti-Calvinist view. I love to dialog about things such as these on an even playing field, but many simply will not have it.

However, could I take one exception to your post please?

You quote Palmer, "...the Arminian denies the sovereignty of God" (p.85).

Then you say, "Incidentally, he also writes: 'And the Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish.'"

You conclude with this, "Thus, while my Calvinist brothers would accept Palmer's assessment of Arminianism, I am not so sure many of them would accept his brash concession for Calvinists."

May I say that Palmer is right on in both cases...in my view, of course.

I think a case can be made for the Arminian (even simply the non / anti-Calvinist) and his denial of the sovereignty of God in at least some regard. You know all the classical arguments here, so I will leave it at that.

However, my reason for commenting is this. For the Calvinists, I must admit that this actual "plan of salvation" God has orchestrated is "illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish" to our feeble minds...isn't it?

Really, if I were God, I would save (choose) everybody. I wouldn't give anyone justice, and I would throw mercy around like it was...well...like it was worthless. You see, without justice we don't mercy. If we did, it would be worthless.

Why He offers me mercy, I don't know. It certainly isn't because of me or something I have done. You see, even as a Christian, I spit in His face and claw at His law...daily!

I hope you see my point. Sincerely I do.

I am reminded of what Spurgeon said. I paraphrase slightly as I am not quoting him, but he said something like, "I am thankful that God chose me before the foundation of the world. For if He had waited until after I was born, He would never had chosen me."

Is it unfair to say the Arminian believes that God did wait for him, and in fact God chose him based on what he did?

Again, my goal is not to be unfair, but to me that is an accurate statement of the Arminian position (and perhaps even that of the non / anti-Calvinist).

I love the topic, but I must also say I agree with Debbie. I am glad to be on the winning side with you and every other Christian. Praise be to the One who saves those who don't deserve it. No matter what you have done or might do.

SL1M

[peter]

Debbie,

I suggest you go back and read your first comment carefully, sis. Your comment seemed clear that we both are trying to "discredit" Calvinism and possess a "need to misrepresent" Calvinism. When asked about that, you slam it in reverse and suggest it's only "implied."

Either of those descriptions, were they true, Debbie, would establish both me and this site as a sham. My desire is to dialog. But if my *real* motive is to discredit and misrepresent, no genuine dialog could ever be possible.

Nor, Debbie, is anyone of which I am aware in this present discussion ignorant of the many possibilities of engagement. Sovereignty is one of those possibilities. Would you rather the post be about ten or twelve possibilities instead of one? If so, would you also share your strategy of securing an in depth conversation with such diverse subject matter in view?

The odd thing is, my sister in Christ, your strange duo of questions at the end of your comment: "Could you work side by side with a Calvinist in missions, are Calvinists Southern Baptists in your opinion?" Did it occur to you, Debbie, that the purpose of this post was to bring together two differing opinions rather than divide?

It is, after all, an affirmation that both Calvinism and NonCalvinism *embrace* God's Sovereignty, rather than deny it. Interestingly, the only one's disputing that are Calvinists. Perhaps the answers you seek may gush forward from their spring.

As for my personal view whether Calvinists are Southern Baptists or whether I could work beside a Calvinist missionary, Debbie, I stand surprised you even ask.

I hope you Lord's Day is an awesome sanctuary. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Dear SL1M,

Thank you for your participation. I very much appreciate new commenters who grace our discussion. Also, Debbie has an agreeable colleague on this thread which stands gratifying.

You write, my SL1M: "However, my reason for commenting is this. For the Calvinists, I must admit that this actual "plan of salvation" God has orchestrated is "illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish" to our feeble minds...isn't it?"

I simply point out, my Brother, that while you may wholeheartedly embrace such pertaining to the Gospel message itself, Palmer's statement was not about the Gospel message. Rather his admission about being "illogical" and etc. was in direct response to the relationship between God's Sovereignty and human free will (The Five Points of Calvinism, p.85). Thus, the context from which I spoke conforms more to Palmer's words than does your application, SL1M--at least to me.

I find it noteworthy that the great *Arminian* theist, C.S. Lewis, said somewhere something similar to your sentiments like "one thing that makes the Gospel credible indeed is that nobody would have ever thought it up." I like that.

You further write, SL1M, that "Is it unfair to say the Arminian believes that God did wait for him, and in fact God chose him based on what he did?" From my perspective, it stands most unfair, unless you can find an Arminian who believes that one is saved on the basis of works--"God chose him based on what he did." If you could point me to a credible evangelical Arminian theologian who believes in a salvation by works message, SL1M, I'd be most happy to state I unapologetically reject his/her theology at that juncture.

We have in common, SL1M, your desire "to dialog about things such as these on an even playing field." And I too agree that "many simply will not have it." One of the main reasons I began this site a year or so ago was to offer a voice for millions of Southern Baptists who do not embrace Calvinism proper nor desire their Church to "reform" back to the 19thC "Founders" grid. For them, while reformation is not bad per se, they'd rather continually reform to NT ideals rather than anything in between.

Indeed whether or not I have achieved "an even playing field" in some small way, it is my express goal to encourage such. Many NonCalvinists and self-identifying Arminians have found at SBCTomorrow an atmosphere more acceptable to hearing their views. For that I am thankful.

May our Lord grant you power in your ministry, SL1M. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Before I answer your question Peter(which I will) you skipped right over a question I asked. Is a Calvinist considered Southern Baptist in your opinion? Is there not diversity among the Southern Baptists and if your answer is yes to both then why persue this line of discussion? What does it matter? That is my point first and foremost, even more than the misrepresenting.

[Debbie Kaufman]

BTW, my computer is down for the count right now and I am accessing my daughter's computer so if I don't answer your questions right away, I will as soon as I can.

[Debbie Kaufman]

I am going to answer your question, in fact I did in an above post but will clarify. In order to properly understand the Calvinist view of God's Sovereignty, one has to understand total depravity etc. Yep. TULIP. Why? Because where we seem to end in God's Sovereignty is at election and the salvation process itself. Being a former Arminian, in fact Independent Fundamentalist I do know both views very well. In fact, RC Sproul is a former Arminian who also understands both views well. You cannot just take one piece of the Calvinist puzzle and build an argument against it, all are as one piece and not seperate. It's like reading the middle of the letter only without any of the other parts of the letter and trying to get a cohesive message out of it. Just ain't gonna happen. That Peter is misrepresentation.

[Debbie Kaufman]

BTW Peter: Just judging by the comments, yep judging :) and some of your former posts, it is hard for me to believe that it's bring two sides together, but if that is your intent and I am wrong, I am willing to be shown this and apologize for misjudgment. After all the mailing going on in Florida, it's also easy and understandable for me to be suspicious. I would not agree with Palmer or the NIV or anything but scripture. I don't know many Calvinists that would as you claim, BTW my Bible of choice is the ESV.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

I tell you what, Debbie: if you feel, after reading this post and former ones similar, that you possess the evidence to convince you that I misrepresent Calvinism, I think you should just continue believing as you so wish.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: If you truly wish to bring both sides together, which can be done, I go to a church where both co-exist rather nicely, then you could begin by possibly explaining both views accurately and then incurring dialog from there. As it stands, it is difficult for me to believe that you think both sides could co-exist in leadership or on the mission field which right now is my biggest concern.

If I were a man believing as I do with a strong Calvinist bend and a preacher would you allow me to preach in your pulpit? I can honestly tell you that in this hypothetical scenario I would allow you access to my pulpit with no hesitation. What about you? The answer to that question determine the sincerity of your statement of bringing both sides together.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Whether or not you think I am sincere in what I do is, for the most part, up to you. I possess no necessity to demonstrate it. I wish for you grace.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

You just did.

[AJR]

Debbie,

And your point is? Maybe this is news to you, but Peter doesn't answer to you.

Peter is one of the most patient bloggers I have ever read. He has a kind and gentle spirit that I appreciate so much. He has helped me and many others with his fair and balanced writings on NonCalvinism and Calvinism. He obviously isn't a man pleaser, which is refreshing in the blogger world.

God bless you, Debbie.

[volfan007]

peter,

hang in there, bro. the rest of us out here see you as a sincere, genuine man of God. thanks for all the help you've given me.

david

[Mary]

Hey Volfan, where are all these Calvinist who are here attacking Peter about not being sincere when the commentors at the Founder's blog are going on and on and on about whether it's even possible for someone to reject Calvinism and still be saved?

You know one of the above commenters brought up a question something like "Would Peter a nonCalvinist be allowed to preach in their a Calvinist/reformed church?" Well I can name at least three SBC Calvinist churches right now where the only thing a nonCalvinist is qualified to do is bring a crockpot full of spaghetti for Sunday lunch.

[Mary]

Peter, if I may I'd like to share something with you all. My husband has quite the pedigree. On both sides of his family there is a history of successful church plants. He's been in church from the cradle as were his parents before him. Some fifty odd years ago his paternal grandparents held a Bible study in their living room. That little Bible Study lead to the founding of a successful (by man's standards I suppose) church that still stands to this day. Twenty years ago his grandfather was on the pulpit search committee that brought in the current pastor. He was not a Calvinist when he was called. Somewhere along the way he "fell in love" with the Doctrines of Grace. The church by this time was a thriving SBC church benefitting from an incredible housing boom in the area. Gradually, many of the founding members have passed on, moved away or have been ousted out of positions of authority. The church which was thriving began to decline as the pastor began to promote his "calvinist agenda" according to many of the older church members. Many didn't realize what he was doing as they tend to be rather sneaky in promoting their doctrine. He insisted that everyone sign doctrinal statements agreeing with his five point calvinism. Those who refused lost their membership. People who were there at the founding of this church were told because they did not agree with TULIP that they were not worthy to be members of this church they had spent fifty years working in and supporting financially. So this church that was begun in the living room of my husband's grandparents house would not accept my husband and me as members. This church would not accept as members my in-laws who have served some forty odd years in SBC churches on every committee you could name, in VBS, on mission trips, as organist, pianist, deacon. Name any position in an SBC church and my in-laws have done it, but this church founded by this man's parents would decline these people as members because they reject five point calvinism. So to anyone reading this who thinks I've got a few issues with Calvinist I say DUUHHH! My real life experience is that Calvinist do not want to coexist peacefully and play nicely in the sand box together. The Calvinist in the churches in my area want to take over. The Founders avowed purpose is to "restore the Doctrines of Grace" to reform SBC churhces. They do not want to play nicely they want us to get out their way so they can take over the seminaries and eventually the SBC. I've seen it and I've personally been abused by Calvinist. Thank you Peter for providing an atmosphere more acceptable to (our) views." It's a shame that there are those who feel we don't even deserve this one safe place to come and vent the frustation of all the misrepresentations and caricutures that go on all over the internet of our views.

[Byroniac]

Mary:

I'm want to be as gentle and kind in saying this as I can.

First of all, there is no question about it: this man did wrong to you and your family, apparently, from what I understand from your words. There is no excuse for that, and I do not defend such, or have any desire to do so. I myself have dishonored Christ and disgraced our faith by being guilty of the same attitudes and similar actions on Internet discussion forums years prior to this as a young, immature Calvinist (and more importantly, immature Christian). Believe me, I realize now that actions like these produce genuine hurt that is not easily healed or soon forgotten. Please understand me when I tell you that you are not less in Christ's eyes simply for not being a Calvinist, if you are truly a daughter in the Lord (and only you and God together really know that).

Having said that, I believe you must forgive this man and forgive all those who have wronged you. You probably can't do it yourself (I sure couldn't!) so please pray and ask for Christ's help in this regard. Don't let this fester into a cancer of bitterness that rots the soul. Because, it surely will. Everyone who is a Calvinist does not desire to harm you. In fact, I believe that most Calvinists truly wish for your good, even if no theological agreement can be reached on doctrinal views.

Yes, you have been wronged. I am truly sorry to hear it. But realize that the sin of foolish pride does not disqualify the theological system itself, as it neither requires nor endorses such as part of its foundational system. I still believe it to be the most accurate and biblically faithful theological system I know of in existence in harmonizing all the Scriptural witness of God's revelation on these matters. I believe the system is entirely true, and is imperfect only in the sense that such imperfection due to our limited wisdom and intellect is required by the fact of our humanity. There are beautiful and deep truths in the Scriptures, and I believe they are expressed most eloquently by the Calvinistic creeds. That does not mean I'm right, by any stretch of the imagination, but I can tell you that I honestly believe that I am and that I can (and do!) affirm these same truths wholeheartedly and without any guilt of conscience. I believe any true Calvinist (but really, any true Christian actually) is responsible to be faithful to God alone as supreme, and to His Word, whether or not men reject him or her for it, or whether they are subjected to scornful and shameful treatment or not. We (all Christians!) belong to Christ.

And the solitary way of perseverance is by the grace and truth of Christ.

God Bless you,
Byroniac

[Timotheos]

Mary,

One of the unfortunate realities of internet blogs is that they present a very sore temptation for posters and commentors to regularly and roundly abuse the wisdom of Proverbs 18, particularly verses 8, 13, 17 and 21. My impression of those you are castigating as theological hooligans might suffer less if they had the opportunity to speak for themselves - which of course, they do not.

Everything you have stated - repeatedly, if not a little bitterly - may be completely true. Most who read your posts will never know, and so will be saddled with an offense - your offense - against men they have never met. Your words will be tasty morsels to many. I think that is - to say the least - unfortunate, as it tends to overthrow the warnings and instructions of the previously mentioned verses (and undoubtedly many more).

I wish you never had to see the things that have happened to the church you love so much. Perhaps God may be able yet to work some good in it all. That is His promise - if we respond as those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose. Our Father is much more able to handle our venting. Men suffer the less for directing it to Him, and you and I will answer for less if the wisdom of Proverbs guards our lips.

I know this may sound harsh or perhaps nosey, but such is not my motive. The men you describe, if you have done so without any misunderstanding or prejudice, are deficient in character, not theology. It would be erroneous to broadbrush a theology based upon fault of character and Christian grace, would it not? You would undoubtedly decry such an attempt against your own theological persuasions.

I wish you grace and longsuffering in your present trial,

Timotheos

[volfan007]

mary,

sadly, i have seen what you're describing take place over and over again in churches around my area, and in some other places far off that my friends have told me about. i hear you.

david

[peter]

AJR & David,

My deepest thanks for your encouragement. And I stand grateful that, even if in a small way, this site has helped someone in their journey...

Debbie,

I continue to wish for you--but a bit selfishly for myself no less--the most in grace from our Lord...

Byronaic,

Your pastoral heart--whether or not you serve in such a role--bleeds through.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Mary,

I hear you heart. And know the circumstances you recite are not unique. It does take place, perhaps far less than many NonCalvinists would insist. However, I stand confident that similar scenarios happen far more frequently than many of our Calvinist brothers and sisters care to concede.

What makes this doubly difficult, at least as I've read your heart-felt concerns, is that this is not a "past" event but rather a continuing one. This makes for the horrid, roller-coaster scenario of torn emotions each and every day. I think somewhere it was MLK who said similarly "I can forgive a man who steals my pencil. But I cannot reconcile with him till he gives it back."

I pray, Mary, our Lord gives you and your's an addendum of mercy and grace.

Timotheos,

I trust your day well, my brother. Know you're a great balance to feeble attempts here to understand the sometimes murky waters of both Calvinism and NonCalvinism.

And, further know that, I shall never forget you were my very first, real-live commenter on SBCTomorrow. Do you recall our discussion? A lively challenge for me you were!

That assumed, I hope, my Timotheos, my present comment does not--at least for you--taint our illustrious history together;^)

I am a little numb as to precisely why you would engage our Mary in the fashion you did. Being a Pastor, I'm more than confident that it was not because you lacked either skill or heart. To the contrary, I assume both are readily available in super-sized portions for you to employ. What then?

I read her, frankly, as a geniune bleeding heart...one who's been hurt, hurting and sees others she loves hurting. And that over a situation involving a much too jealous Calvinist--albeit not friendly to Calvinism's stated goal to "reform" Churches--yet a situation involving Calvinism nonetheless.

From my reading of the verses you recited to her for reflection, they deal with not only gossip but also for folk not to accept personal testimony until all witnesses are heard.

And while I would never contend with Scripture, surely it may be questioned whether such passages are the most appropriately applicable, given the circumstances Mary shared. For surely, she cannot be charged as a "whisperer"--a gossip. Precisely about whom was she gossiping?

Nor in my view is it applicable to wait for the "other side" to speak to the situation.

Interestingly, someone should immediately notify Dr. Ascol who, on his present post, quotes from a note written by *an unnamed person* who received a call from *an unnamed person* who--I am not making this up!--received a call from *an unnamed person* that so and so was taking place.

Perhaps, Timotheos, if you get a spare moment, you can place the Scripture passages on that thread as well. But hurry! Already the conspiracy fire burns brightly there that Calvinists are systematically being squeezed out of the SBC. Coincidentally, BP has the annual Founders' Conference front and center presently with three--THREE!--profile posts about it, surely pulling a blush from conspiracy theorists.

All that to say, Timotheos, from my perspecive anyway, you stand at your best when you engage the intracies of our common faith--not to mention ever a challenge to meet your obviously, well-read engagement. On the other hand, you may be weakest when you preach at those who hurt. Sorta like Mary.

Grace, Timotheos. With that, I am...

Peter