Tulips and Daisies

In my Systematic Theology class today, the topic was predestination. The professor began by explaining the Calvinist perspective, using the TULIP acrostic. He then joked that while the Calvinists have their TULIPS, the Arminians have their daisies. Then he gave the punchline: "Each petal alternates, 'He loves me,' 'He loves me not,' 'He loves me,' 'He loves me not.' The class laughed.

Maybe I should lighten up a little, but I didn't find it very funny. It seems to me that it is the Calvinist, not the Arminian, who is in a situation where he or she must ask, "Does He love me? Or does He not?" Arminians believe that God loves everyone and that Christ died for all. Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that it pleased God, prior to any human action, to create some people for the purpose of experiencing eternal joy (the elect) and some people for the purpose of experiencing eternal suffering (the reprobate). Therefore, for the Calvinist it is logically possible that he or she is reprobate ('He loves me not'), but this possibility does not exist for the Arminian. The Arminian doesn't have to guess. He or she knows: God loves me.

So the joke doesn't work. What I suspect my professor intended by the joke, however, was not that the Arminian has reason to doubt God's love, but rather reason to doubt his or her salvation. Since the Arminian believes that human will has a part to play in whether or not the grace of God is received, supposedly this leaves the Arminian in a state where assurance of salvation is impossible.

However, even if my professor had delivered the punchline as "He saved me...he saved me not...," I would still find the joke unfair. The truth is that both the Calvinist and the Arminian have logical reasons for doubting their salvation. The Calvinist may doubt that he or she is actually one of the elect, and the Arminian may doubt that he or she has actually chosen to receive God's grace. The truth is that so long as one does not believe that Christ's work on the cross is both universal and irresistible, then there is always a logical reason to wonder: "He saved me? He saved me not?" Arminians believe the former but not the latter. Calvinists do not believe the former but do the latter. Consequently, both have logical reasons to doubt.

Calvinists often like to appeal to the P in their acrostic - perseverance of the saints - as grounds for an assurance of salvation which Arminians supposedly lack. The doctrine of perseverance of the saints states that anyone who is truly one of the elect will persevere in their faith until the day they die. The problem with this assertion is that the doctrine of perseverance of the saints does not claim that everyone who currently believes (or *thinks* they believe) in Christ will persevere until the end. Rather, the doctrine of perseverance says that anyone who is truly elect will persevere until the end. Therefore, this doctrine may be of some assurance to a person who is still professing faith on his or her deathbed, but for those of us who are still alive and well, physically speaking, it doesn't provide any assurance because it has nothing to say about whether we ourselves are elect; only that the elect endure to the end.

The truth is that neither Calvinism or Arminianism in themselves can provide an individual with assurance of salvation, and the former can't even provide assurance that God actually loves you. The flower joke from class upset me because it both misrepresented Arminianism and ignored the similar problems raised by Calvinism.

This leaves us with the question: is it possible for a person to have assurance of salvation? I think it is possible, both for Calvinists and Arminians. But I do not think this assurance is a purely cognitive, rational thing. I think it has to do with the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, something that we experience through communion with him - spirit to spirit. I'm not saying we have to feel saved in order to actually be saved, but I am saying that the experience of feeling assured cannot rest on purely rational grounds. But that is an issue that deserves fuller attention in another post.

Two Mysteries: One Way of Viewing the Calvinism v. Arminianism Debate

I think a lot about the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. For the uninitiated, Calvinism and Arminianism are paradigms for interpreting the Biblical Scriptures. There is a lot of overlap between them in terms of what they affirm and what they deny, but the reason they are typically viewed in opposition to one another is because of their differing views over the issue of predestination.

Both paradigms affirm that Heaven and Hell are realities, but disagree over the role of human decision in determining who goes where. Calvinists believe the Bible teaches that God has chosen who will go to Heaven and who will not prior to the creation of the world. Some people have been chosen for salvation, others for condemnation. Those who have been chosen for salvation will manifest their chosen-ness by coming to faith in Christ at some point in their lives, whereas those who have been chosen for destruction will never come to faith. Arminians, on the other hand, believe that God has chosen to make it possible for all people to come to faith. People, then, have some actual power of choice to say "yes" or "no" to the love, grace, and revelation that God offers (whether this is precisely what classical Arminianism argues I can't say for sure, but it is what most people who call themselves Arminian today actually believe).

Danger: Attempt at Deep Thought Below

Yesterday in church the sermon was on Micah 6:8 - "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Act justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. That's what God wants. Not burnt offerings, rivers of oil, and sacrificed firstborns (verse 7). Thank goodness.

But wait a minute - how are we supposed to act justly and love mercy at the same time? Aren't those things at odds with each other? Mercy is, by definition, what we receive when we are spared the consequences of what we deserve. Justice, in contrast, is what we receive when we do get what we deserve. Therefore, if we are to receive or grant mercy, justice must be abandoned. If we are to receive or grant justice, mercy must be abandoned. And yet God requires that we do both. How is this supposed to work?

If Calvinism is True, Was I Predestined Not to Like It?

Recently, a friend of mine was telling me about an experience he had on a summer missions trip with a ministry for college students. As was standard procedure for the ministry, students were sent out in pairs to start conversations with people and to share the Gospel. During one of these excursions, my friend happened to be paired with a student who was very passionate about Reformed theology. After the two shared an overview of the Gospel with a man who decided not to embrace it, the Reformed student said to my friend, “I don't know how you can have peace right now if you don't believe in the sovereignty of God. I have peace because I know God is in control of that man's salvation, not me. If God wants him to get saved, he'll get saved.”

If I had heard a statement like that several years ago, I might have nodded my head and smiled in passive (albeit halfhearted) agreement, but I just can't do that anymore. At the risk of being divisive, I'm going to come out of the closet and admit it: I don't like Reformed theology. 

Of course, I should be careful to define what I mean. I actually agree with the vast majority of Reformed theology. It's just the parts that get the most press that I don't like.