So, here’s a video that explains it all:
Help Me on Calvinism from Fred Lybrand on Vimeo.
So, here’s a copy of DORT (Dordt; from the Synod of Dordrecht): http://fredlybrand.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/canons-of-dort.pdf
Again, I need your agreements and disagreements and why…this project could turn out big!
Thanks,
Fred Lybrand
P.S. OBVIOUSLY…LOOK THROUGH THE COMMENTS BELOW AND ADD YOU OWN!
P.P.S. Please put an AGREE or a DISAGREE at the very top of your post…as it will make our reading easier.
Well, let me say at the outset that some of you (many) will not agree with my point here. If you’d like, please read my article about Calvinism (so called) to understand why I think of myself as a 1.5 Arminian (Click Here for the Article).
I’ve run into a number of folks who say they are 0.0 Calvinists and not Arminians either. I really have not been able to decipher that notion, so if you can explain it, please pitch in! Frankly, you don’t have to like the label (or even wear it for that matter), but it doesn’t change the fact that each of the ‘5 points’ are simply either / or…and everyone believes something about some of them. Either people are depraved or not, God has an effective call or He doesn’t, one can resist God’s call or he can’t, etc.
But here is where I’m stumped. There is an argument for a ‘corporate election’, but most folks have abandoned the weakness of that argument; so all that is left is that (a) God choose freely apart from our choices, or (b) God chose based on our actions. This second view is where I get lost. Good friends of mine believe that God knew which individulals would chose Him, so He chose each of them…a case of mutual love and choosing.
Here’s my problem—if it is a mutual choice, then why does the Bible use the word elect / chosen? We can all spend time in our language tools, but it doesn’t seem to matter. Here’s an example:
30.86 ἐκλέγομαιa; αἱρέομαιa; λαμβάνωe: to make a choice of one or more possible alternatives—‘to choose, to select, to prefer.’
ἐκλέγομαιa: ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου οὓς ἐξελέξατο ‘he gave instructions by the power of the Holy Spirit to the men whom he had chosen as his apostles’ Ac 1:2; οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ; ‘has not God chosen the poor in this world?’ Jas 2:5.
αἱρέομαιa: τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω ‘I do not know which I should prefer’ Php 1:22; μᾶλλον ἑλόμενος συγκακουχεῖσθαι τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ πρόσκαιρον ἔχειν ἁμαρτίας ἀπόλαυσιν ‘he chose to suffer with God’s people rather than enjoy sin for a little while’ He 11:25.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., 360 (New York: United Bible societies, 1996).
The word just means ‘to choose’ and that’s all it means; context informs everything else. So, God chooses His own…but why is this a problem for the second view (we both choose each other / He foreknows that we will choose Him so He chooses us)?
Well, in my way of thinking, ‘elect’ (choose) is a really silly word to use unless it means He chose us apart from our actions or choosing. Honestly, if God calls everyone and only some choose to accept the calling (meaning they choose Him too)…then how is that being chosen? It isn’t a choice for God at all because He actually called everyone but only some chose. If this is the case than ‘chosen’ is not the word to use…He didn’t chose us we chose Him.
Let me say that again. If ‘foreknowledge’ is the reason He chose someone, then it isn’t a choice, He had to choose that person BECAUSE that person chose Him. This debate has been hashed out ad-nauseum over the centuries, but in my slow mind it just seems obvious now.
Unless God chose His own apart from any action (deserving) on their part, then the wrong word is used…it is not a choice.
I still hold to the mystery of it all…I certainly understand that I came to believe without Him simply regenerating me spiritually. Yet, I also believe He clearly looked down though time and decided, “Fred, you’ll be mine.” I don’t get the mystery of it, but I also don’t want to argue with the gift-giver! What kindness…and as I ponder, I wouldn’t have chosen Him without this kindess (I’m just not that noble apart from His grace).
So, what do you think? Can we really say we are chosen / elect if we believe He chose us because we chose Him?
I’m not saying that there aren’t challenges in thinking this sort of thing through, but really, how can anyone argue it was God’s choice if it was dependent (contingent) on our choosing? I’ve heard speakers use the notion of human love and marriage. My wife chose me and I chose her…so it goes. Well, the English means to select out of various alternatives. So, I guess you could say I ‘selected’ my wife out of the choices…and…I guess you could say I ‘chose her’ because she was the only one who would have me; but, that really isn’t the nature of a choice. We really don’t talk that way. We fell in love, we decided together, etc. She is my bride and my wife, but she isn’t my chosen one (unless I have the authority to pick whomever I want…like a king perhaps). She could be my chosen one if our parents arranged the marriage, but these contort the point don’t they?
Next, consider the use of the word from the angle of those abandoned to their own destiny apart from God. If believers are ‘the chosen’ then unbelievers are the ‘unchosen’—there is no other way to go. So why did God not chose them? Option #2 above says it is because they did not ‘choose’ Him. So really, God chose everyone, but some rejected. Again, the word elect / choose is NOT the right word. He didn’t choose, He just got rejected.
Finally, pretend God really did ‘choose’ individuals apart from anything in the individual (just His own free volition). What word would you have wanted Him to use to convey that idea. How could God have said it so it was CLEAR that He chose them apart from any reason other than His own will. I’m pretty confident He would use the word CHOSE / ELECT.
I’m really wanting to get the argument, but honestly my friends, you wouldn’t let anyone get away with shape-shifting language in another discussion on another topic. Why do it here? Why can’t ‘elect’ just mean elect?
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
CLICK FOR A .PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE
Can I be a Calvinist
and be
Free Grace?
-Dr. Fred R. Lybrand
Honestly, I get this question a lot. Most Arminians aren’t in our conversations among Free Grace advocates because of their conviction that one can lose his eternal life. Calvinists do affirm the security of the believer, so we are in the same basic conversation. In my book Back to Faith I take Calvinism to task, but only a bit. The confusion around Perseverance (is it that we persevere in works, persevere in faith, or that God perseveres in keeping us safely His children forever?) is the big issue I think some forms of Calvinism fumble over. On the other hand, there is a great debt of gratitude owed to Calvin and the Reformers in my own understanding and tradition. Am I Free Grace and a Calvinist?
What Makes one a Calvinist?
What really makes one a ‘Calvinist’? I don’t think we’ve done a fair job defining this among ourselves, and as a result we have some of our number at times condemning all things Calvin. Most of the time we say being a Calvinist is all about the ‘5 Points’. In particular the notion is almost ubiquitous that if you believe in one point, then you must believe in all five points because it is a ‘system’—so the argument goes. I don’t believe it is a system, nor do I believe that one must accept all five points (even logically)…I’ll prove it in a minute. Indeed, if I had to be labeled, I’d request that you consider me a 1.5 Arminian!
The following chart is from the Moody Handbook of Theology (p. 490). It involves a little more than the 5 Points, but gets the issue in focus.
CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM CONTRASTED
| Doctrine Arminianism Calvinism | ||
|
Depravity |
As a result of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted nature. Prevenient grace has removed the guilt and condemnation of Adam’s sin. |
As a result of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in sin; he is unable to save himself. Because he is dead in sin, God must initiate salvation. |
|
Imputation of Sin |
God did not impute to the entire human race through Adam’s sin, but all people inherit a corrupt nature as a result of Adam’s fall. |
Through Adam’s transgression, sin was imputed—passed to the entire race so that all people are born in sin. |
|
Election |
God elected those whom He knew would believe of their own free will. Election is conditional, based on man’s response in faith. |
God unconditionally, from eternity past, elected some to be saved. Election is not based on man’s future response. |
|
Atonement of Christ |
Christ died for the entire human race, making all mankind saveable. His death is effective only in those who believe. |
God determined that Christ would die for all those whom God elected. Since Christ did not die for everyone but only for those who were elected to be saved, His death is completely successful. |
|
Grace |
Through prevenient or preparatory grace, which is given to all people, man is able to cooperate with God and respond to Him in salvation. Prevenient grace reverses the effects of Adam’s sin. |
Common grace is extended to all mankind but is insufficient to save anyone. Through irresistible grace God drew to Himself those whom He had elected, making them willing to respond. |
|
Will of Man |
Prevenient grace is given to all people and is exercised on the entire person, giving man a free will. |
Depravity extends to all of man, including his will. Without irresistible grace man’s will remains bound, unable to respond to God on its own ability. |
|
Perseverance |
Believers may turn from grace and lose their salvation. |
Believers will persevere in the faith. Believers are secure in their salvation; none will be lost. |
|
Sovereignty of God |
God limits His control in accordance with man’s freedom and response. His decrees are related to His foreknowledge of what man’s response will be. |
God’s sovereignty is absolute and unconditional. He has determined all things according to the good pleasure of His will. His foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information. |
There is a good bit of discussion out there about the ‘perseverance point’—whether it is about persevering in good works, persevering in faith (as the Moody Handbook claims), or God persevering in keeping one saved (preservation of the saints). How many of us have read the Canons of Dort of late? I have read the Canons of Dort over and over recently, and I can tell you that:
I know this all sounds a little stuffy and theological, but George Bernard Shaw weighs in here for us:
The Bible is what matters not any particular theological system. Theological systems are great when they match the Word because they help us make sense, remember, and expand what we observe. But, why is Dort the definition of Calvinism? Personally, I think it just turns out to be a rhetorical stronghold.
Here are a few facts to consider:
What is a Calvinist? In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter Elwell), Calvinism is defined by the three tenants of
The EDT article goes on to admit the variation and development of theological thought in Calvinism. It is clearly the Reformed faith, but Covenant-Reformed like Covenant-Calvinism, is a branch or variation of Calvinism. In our day, a few popular leaders have taken the rhetorical road of claiming that they alone are the true Calvinists…and…if you ain’t a 5 Pointer, you ain’t a real Calvinist (B.B. Warfield would call non-5 pointers ‘bad’ Calvinists; others would call them ‘inconsistent’ Calvinists).
So why all the fuss? The reason is pretty simple— Free Grace folks have gotten immersed in the frayed rhetoric. The concern is that we can inadvertently come across as ‘banishing’ those who belong with us. The fears we have are not based on the real nature of things. Yes, you can be a Calvinist and be a Free Grace advocate (I think I’m one)! As to being a semi-Arminian or 5-Point-Covenant-Reformed person and being Free Grace, well that’s a different article. If you are a Hyper-Calvinist or a Hyper-Arminian, then you won’t want to join with us.
It is the Covenant of the FGA that guides our membership. Quite frankly (as Dr. Zuck wrote me) it is a very well-crafted statement of our basic view. There is nothing in it that excludes a person who has Calvinistic convictions.
How to Kill the Argument
I’d like to finally kill the argument — ‘if you buy one point you must buy all 5’ — that seems to be accepted as a given in many circles. I could walk through the logic of it and display why the nature of the atonement and eternal security are not necessarily what follows from the other points; but I can do something better. I can show you how almost no Free Grace person really believes that the 5 Points of Calvinism lead to the misunderstanding of Lordship Salvation. That is actually the real issue. I’ll lay it out in a sequence:
Said differently, I know lots of Free Grace folks who believe in Unlimited Atonement AND who believe in eternal security. They are, in effect, 1 Point Arminians (at least). The claimed logical connection is bogus. All systems are ‘logical’—but there are additional aspects to logic, such as the issue of whether or not a premise is true or whether the chain of logic really follows.
Of course you can be a Calvinist and be Free Grace, but certain kinds of Calvinists are definitely not Free grace. Of course you can be basically Arminian and be Free Grace (but you must reject the idea of ‘losing your salvation’).
Our views and our systems are always struggling—we are trying to answer the most questions while raising the fewest problems. To be Free Grace, the issue isn’t about our theological systems as much as it is THE GOSPEL. Some systems make keeping the gospel clear an easy thing, while others make it quite a challenge.
Here is the basic FGA Covenant…which isn’t about Calvin or Arminius, but rather it is about the word of grace:
As members of the Evangelical Tradition, we affirm the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the inspired Word of God and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Furthermore, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory. As members of this tradition, we are concerned about the clear understanding, presentation, and advancement of the Gospel of God’s Free Grace.
We affirm the following:
In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant to work together graciously and enthusiastically to advance this Gospel of Grace, and to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance.
As an added point, John Nelson Darby, the ‘father’ of dispensational theology was a proponent of many Calvanistic beliefs…
Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, “Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles” on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said:
“For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby]
Millard J. Erickson in his Christian Theology (Volume II, p. 835), as he analyzes the extent of the Atonement, weighs in on the reality of Calvinism subject to modification (or moderation)—
The view that we are adopting here should not be construed as Arminianism. It is rather the most moderate form of Calvinism or; as some would term it, a modification of Calvinism.
Let’s keep perspective and united with all who affirm faith alone in Christ alone according to our FGA Covenant as a reflection of God’s Word. Can you be a Calvinist and be Free Grace? Of course, but labels often complicate the conversation. Yet, denying one’s clear Arminian or Calvinistic bent tends to confuse things all the more; no matter our wish, much of the conversation has been had for eons and we remain in the flow of it.
Pick your label or deny your label; but do you affirm faith alone in Christ alone—communicating this alone? Then join us in the good fight.
Grace and Truth,
Fred Lybrand
Former FGA President (2008/2009)
CLICK FOR A .PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE
[tweetmeme source=”fredlybrand” only_single=false]
First, allow me to share my own empathy for John Piper and the struggles he alludes to (see: http://bit.ly/aTDmGg) as he takes a leave of absence from the ministry (altogether, including writing).
Having just recently retired from the pastorate, I know the strain on the soul and the family. I suppose I should add a lecture on how abusive most churches are of the pastor’s time, life, and energies…perhaps another day.
In the meantime, I want to offer a possibility for our own lives. Last year I released a book called Back to Faith, which explores and analyzes the mistaken assumptions about works proving faith. John Piper’s writings were my example; in fact, an entire chapter was dedicated to him alone. I also must add here (and you’ll see it if you get a copy of Back to Faith) that I affirm John Piper’s accuracy on the gospel…he clearly affirms faith alone in Christ alone. On the other hand, he has an incongruity in play.
In the straightest of terms, John Piper believes that we can look at our works (or those of other people) and conclude something about our faith in Christ for our destiny.
If that is true…then fine…except, what if your works don’t match up? In Piper’s thinking it should call your salvation into question. Now, that seem quite despair-growing. So, here is John Piper (in a classy and self-effacing way) looking at his faltering works and feeling grieved. The grief, however, is much more than sadness…if Piper is true to his theology, he can’t really be sure about his eternal salvation. Wouldn’t you need a leave of absence if you were haunted about your eternal destiny, and served as a pastor in a church? It would be easy to misunderstand me here and think I’m psycho-analyzing John Piper; I am not at all. I am saying, however, that one piece of his theology really does exactly match the nature of his open admissions and struggles over the past year or two.
Here are a few quotes of his from What Jesus Demands from the World [I discuss this in Back to Faith].
Sometimes I am asked whether my understanding
of Jesus implies that divorce is the unforgivable sin.
The answer is no. Jesus said that his blood will be
the basis for the forgiveness of all sins…
From these wonderful promises we learn
that forgiveness of sins is available on the basis of
the shed blood of Jesus. Forgiveness is available
for all sins, without exception. Forgiveness is
received freely through trusting Jesus to forgive our
sins. (What Jesus Demands from the World, 68)
So clearly Piper gets the importance of looking at the shed blood of Christ, which is awesome.
The only unforgivable sin is the sin that we refuse
to confess and forsake. We commit unforgivable
sin when we cleave to a sin so long and so
tenaciously that we can no longer confess it as sin
and turn from it. (What Jesus Demands from the World, 69)
Now, we are seeing a misstep here. The tendency with this incongruent piece of theology (works prove saving faith), all we can do is see our sin as unforgivable if it keeps showing up (even on occasion)…and if unforgivable, then you remain unforgiven. Piper knows it’s a problem because he addresses it on occasion. The issue will always come back to whether we are looking at Jesus or looking at our works.
Here’s a full statement from Back to Faith (Piper is in bold),
In fairness to Piper, he would completely deny the
incongruence, though he seems to realize others are concerned
about it
Some readers will see this stress on the necessity of
a change in obedience to Christ as ‘justification by
works.’ But that would be a misinterpretation of
what I am saying. That is why I wrote chapter 4
and put it near the front of this book,
“Brothers, Live and Preach Justification by Faith.” Obedience
is the evidence of faith that alone unites us to Christ
who is our justifying righteousness. Nothing I have
said here contradicts that truth.
Making the claim that one is misinterpreted is different from being
misinterpreted. It does not seem to have dawned on Piper that he
really may be communicating something scarily similar to
“justification by works” when he claims “obedience is the
evidence of faith…” It seems his theme is that one can tell true
faith (salvation) in an individual because of obedience, but Piper
again displays his incongruity,
It does imply that one can be called a ‘brother’ on
the basis of appearances but in the end prove not to
be a brother because of failing to persevere in the
end. (Back to Faith, 219)
I wouldn’t label John Piper’s theology as evil or bad, but it does have a harmful incongruency that haunts all Hyper-Calvinists (not all Calvinists).
If your works prove you have faith,
and your works are inconsistent or weak,
then…you MAY NOT (probably don’t) have faith.
I don’t know the intricacies of John Piper’s life and issues. I’ll pray for his leave of absence. I do know that if I look at my works, I lose assurance…and…when I look at Christ alone I am greatly assured. What else can you do with something so wonderfully clear?
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1–2) ESV
Fred Lybrand
P.S. Yes, I sent John a copy of Back to Faith (which he graciously had acknowledged to me).
Listen to a more detailed explanation of some of these matters at: https://www.backtofaith.com/LISTEN.html
[tweetmeme source=”fredlybrand” only_single=false]
What a big issue!
The Gospel, is it (?) —
Faith + Nothing
Faith + Works
Faith (that Works) + Nothing
The reason this is a big deal is that it (a) Will affect how we explain / offer the gospel to others; and, (b) Undermine our assurance as believers in Jesus Christ.
If you tell folks they must add works to their faith, then please know you do not believe in faith alone. This has been the mainstay and understanding of Bible believing Christians since the Reformation, however, the debate has has raged since then about what to do with works. Normally there is an incongruence in operation where it sounds like ‘faith alone’ at time, and like ‘faith + works’ at other times.
I think it is simple, but largely unrecognized:
Works have nothing to do with our salvation, but much to do with our sanctification (spiritual growth). Normally in the discussions those who disagree start throwing out labels such as “antinomianism”. Antinomianism has been used as throughout history as an inflammatory charge. The funny thing is that it has been used by Roman Catholics against the Reformers, by the Reformers against Evangelicals, and even Arminians against Evangelicals.
If you don’t know all these groups and terms don’t worry about it. Antinomianism simply means ‘against law’ and nothing more. So, any group which is against your group’s ‘law’ is antinomian to you. I really am fond of A.W. Tozer (who did not believe in the eternal security of Christians), but he misses it here:
In other words, Tozer offers that it is WRONG to say, ‘We are saved by faith alone; works have no place.” but that is exactly what Romans 4, Romans 11:6,29, and Ephesians 2:8&9) says (please read them yourself). Yet, simply put, if you look at your works rather than Christ, then you will doubt because your works will always be flawed. Looking at Christ alone (l00k = believe here), will always lead to assurance because of His promise (see John 3:16, 5:24).
So what do we do with being called ‘antinomian’ in the debate? Well I’ve suggested one solution as promoting our belief in Lordship Sanctification; however, there is another option. We can simply be against antinomianism, and pass it along as belonging to the the universalists (the ones who believe everyone is accepted by God with out regard to faith or works) where it belongs!
Another option is to explain what we really believe. I offer a fresh term called Necranomian. Necranomian means one is ‘dead to the law’ (see Romans 7 and 2 Corinthians 3) not ‘aganst’ the law.
I’ve explained this more completely in an appendix of Back to Faith (go get a copy).
In the meantime, it really is Faith Alone in Christ Alone. Please don’t drift. The truth is that our growth relates to works, but our acceptence and forgivenss comes through simple faith in Jesus Christ.
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
P.S. Here’s the Appendix on Antinomianism from Back To Faith (c) Fred R. Lybrand : Is This Antinomianism?