Home - Pastor Tim's Noodlings Pastor Tim's "noodlings" are reflections that may include such things as afterthoughts from Sunday's message, items for prayer, anecdotes or other musings. 

January 21, 2010

Calvinism and Arminianism

 

I have been absolutely delighted to hear from many people regarding the question of Calvinism and Arminianism. In this “noodle” I will attempt to clarify some issues of definition and further establish my own position.  Please know that good and thoughtful Christians who are equally committed to considering the Bible as their divine and inerrant source of knowledge disagree on many matters of interpretation.  After all, there are a wide variety of Christian denominations (Catholic, Lutheran, Methodists, Evangelical Free, etc.) for a reason: we don’t all agree on every point of interpretation.

 

As I mentioned on Sunday, how we DESCRIBE what God is doing will tend to differ greatly one from another, based on our interpretations.  However, the PRESCRIPTION  should always remain that same: “If we confess with our lips that Jesus as our Lord and Savior and believe in our hearts that He was raised from the dead, we will be saved.”  Now, I want to suggest that even though our prescription should always be the same (and that is not always the case…trust me), even our description of how God reveals His activity has a huge impact on how we live, and where we find our greatest comfort.

 

To the matter at hand.  The main differences between Calvinism and Arminianism ultimately revolves around issues of soteriology, which is a fancy word for questions of salvation.  Arminianists interpret the Bible to say that humans must make the first move toward God, that is, they must exercise faith in God on their own "free" will before God will regenerate them (make them born again). 

 

Calvinists interpret the Bible to say that humans cannot even express belief in God until, and only after God Himself has first regenerated them (caused them to be born-again). These interpreters would suggest that God elects or predestines some to choose Him.

 

An Arminianist states that they owe their election to their faith, and Calvinists say they owe their faith to their election.  You may need to read that a few times to see the differences. It’s a seemingly small difference, but it has huge ramifications for a person’s theology.

 

On matters of salvation, I align myself with those who have come to be known as Calvinists.  However, strictly speaking, I am not a Calvinist because I do not share the Calvinist views on infant baptism or the millennium.  I am a “baptistic Calvinist” such as Charles Spurgeon and John Piper, to name just two.

 

Those of us who hold God sovereign over even our choice of Him still interpret the Bible as saying that humans are responsible.  This is the great mystery...how could God elect some to life, and yet consider all humans responsible?  No one has satisfactorily answered that question.  It's the "rub" of a Calvinist interpretation.

 

However, the Arminian perspective also has a “rub” and that is this: By accepting that humans must choose God before He chooses them, they reduce (in my view) the most basic biblical meaning of “election” and/or “predestination” that suggests that God is the one who initiates and guarantees a person’s salvation. 

 

In the end, a Calvinist interpretation suffers in not knowing exactly how to account for a human being’s responsibility in the process, but it best preserves God’s role over the whole process by allowing the biblical terms election and predestination to be interpreted most naturally. The great theological advantage to the Calvinist description of God’s work is that we can be sure that our salvation has been secured through God’s efforts and not reliant at all on our own.  This should give believers great comfort in knowing that their faith is secure and therefore cannot be lost.

 

As you read through your Bibles, I would encourage you to examine key texts for yourselves.  Personally, I am most influenced by a handful of texts such as Ephesians 1:11; Romans 8:28-30 and John 6:65, but it is the entirety of God’s word that must be evaluated. 

January 4, 2010
"Food for Thought"

In keeping with Sunday's sermon regarding the importance of longing for the pure spiritual milk that matures us unto salvation, I suggest that we all carry our Bibles to church with greater frequency. I would like to slowly ween us off of relying on the power point passages too much and instead move us into feeling and knowing our Bibles better by turning to passages as needed.

 

If you are considering purchasing a new Bible, may I humbly recommend the ESV study Bible, it's the best on the market. It is, however, large and expensive.  I use the ESV version when preaching, so even if you don't want to spend the money on the study Bible, an ESV version will be useful in church. Of course, whatever version you bring in will be useful and will enhance your facility with your own Bible.



February 4, 2009
This past Sunday I mentioned the importance of the Aaronic blessing for the ancient Israelite community as prescribed by God in Numbers 6:24-26.  Did you know that you do not have to be a priest, or a pastor, to offer a blessing?  As followers of Jesus we are the people of God (1 Pet 2:10) and able to bless in the name of Jesus.  Parents, and fathers in particular, you cannot underestimate the powerful impression you can leave on your children by regularly blessing them.  Through your blessings, they will catch a glimpse of their heavenly father who is the source of all blessings. 

January 7th, 2009
First, this past Sunday a few people took me aside after the sermon and politely ribbed me concerning my use of the word "complexify" in the sermon. Well, I am rather pleased to inform my good friends that Mr. Webster and I are on the same page  At the same time, one will not find either "noodle" or "noodlings" used the same way that I do, which serves as a particularly grievous thorn in my side One out of two isn't bad!

Second, in future sermons I will have much more to say about the EFCA's Statement of Faith.  Many of its changes are absolutely superb, much-needed improvements and deserve both our gratitude and support.  At the same time, two of the changes made are somewhat suspect in my view, one of which I alluded to this past Sunday. Let me assure you, however, that the EFCA's revised Statement of Faith is doctrinally sound, and on balance it is quite worthy of our allegiance.