For readers of this blog over the past two years, it is no secret that many of us who are former SDAs hold to a Reformed view of salvation. We believe that God is totally sovereign and that salvation is the sole work of God.
But, how should we then live? How should we interact with other Christians who don’t believe the same way we do?
This article certainly made me think. I believe I have been guilty of some of what this article talks about.
Here is a short excerpt from the beginning of the article linked above:
I” believe in the sovereignty of God, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Solas of the Reformation, I believe that grace precedes faith in regeneration. Theologically, I am Reformed. Sociologically, I am simply a Christian – or at least I want to be. The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians. That’s when, functionally, we relocate ourselves outside the gospel and inside Galatianism.
The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.
Here’s the conclusion:
My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, certainly interesting. I have to agree with the article even though I haven’t always been as gracious as I could have been to those who disagree with me. Sometimes, in our theological debates, we can forget about the big picture.
Remember Samuel Clemen’s story about the riverboat pirate/evangelist? To get people to attend his meetings he put up notices “No women or children allowed.” Then he quipped “Boy, if that don’t fetch ‘em, I don’t know Arkansas!”
Still true today. Just tell folks that your gospel is a bit exclusive, and that they’re not saved UNLESS . . . then just fill in the blank with whatever you want--Sabbath keeping, tithing, whatever you want from them. Just be sure to never quite give them assurance, or the donations will drop, or worse! The preacher in Mark Twain’s story left town just ahead of the lynch mob!
Seriously though, I think it’s only after the Lord has really truly made us free that we can reach out in compassion to those in bondage. It’s a deep and abiding appreciation for all he has done for us--and our utter unworthiness--that makes all the difference.
After reading the entire article, my assessment is that it has a positive concern unfortunately expressed in a way that can be misleading.
Comparing circumcision with reformed distinctive doctrines brings to surface the wrong way in which these doctrines can function as a separating wall between believers, isolating the reformed group from the rest of believers, inflating an elitist mindset. All of these things are potentially dangerous as any blessing can be a fuel to the fire of pride, in this particular case, spiritual pride. This is true also of any other kind of blessings which God bestows on his people, the history of Israel attests many cases in which people used God’s blessings for boasting, even boasting about your God being the true God (Romans 2:17) against the false gods of other nations.
At the same time the reference to circumcision is a weak point, because the reformed distinctive doctrines are necessary to preserve the truth of the gospel. As the history of protestantism testifies, departure from those distinctive doctrines opened the door to modifications of the gospel. Even if the essence of the gospel can and is preserved by those who are not of reformed convictions, they are not able to defend the message of the gospel properly.
For example, the message of the gospel affirms the eternal security of the believer, the full assurance of salvation. because Jesus died in the believer’s place, God’s justice was satisfied; because Jesus perfectly bore the curse of the law, the full condemnation of the law deserved by the believer, because Jesus suffered the full penalty, there is no condemnation, no penalty for the believer. According to the principle of double jeopardy, God cannot punish the believers for sins which Christ was punished. God will not inflict double punishment for sin, once in Christ and second in the believer.
This understanding of the cross is technically known as the penal substitutionary view, which in these days is attacked by those who look at the cross as having nothing to do with God’s wrath and his active punishment of sin. One of the objections to the penal substitutionary view sounds like this
It is impossible for Christ to die in man’s place and suffer God’s wrath, because not all men are saved, There will be many who will suffer God’s wrath themselves, but how can this happen if Christ suffered the punishment for their sins also? Is not God unjust in inflicting double punishment? Is he not involved in double jeopardy?
The reformed answer to this objection is simple: In Christ God punished only the sins of the elect, not the sins of all people on this planet. Those who are not elected will suffer the punishment for their sins, Christ had not bore the curse of law for their sins. This is known as limited atonement, the “L” from the famous TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the saints --- all distinctive doctrines of the reformed faith)
But those who don’t stick to the Limited Atonement view have no consistent answer to this objection. If they insist that Jesus died for all people, according to the principle of double jeopardy, God will save everybody. Nobody will be punished because God cannot request twice the payment of sin. The logical and consistent answer is universalism, universal atonement (the opposite of limited atonement) leading toward universalism.
But this is not the only answer. Maybe Jesus death, was not penal. Jesus had not truly suffered the penal sanctions for the sins. This was Charles Finney’s refutation of Universalism. He said in a debate with a Universalist
I then appointed to lecture on the Universalist’s argument founded on the Gospel. I delivered two lectures upon the atonement. In these I think I fully succeeded in showing that the atonement did not consist in the literal payment of the debt of sinners, in the sense which the Universalist maintained; that it simply rendered the salvation of all men possible, and did not of itself lay God under obligation to save anybody; that it was not true that Christ suffered just what those for whom He died deserved to suffer; that no such thing as that was taught in the Bible, and no such thing was true; that, on the contrary, Christ died simply to remove an insurmountable obstacle out of the way of God’s forgiving sinners, so as to render it possible for Him to proclaim a universal amnesty, inviting all men to repent, to believe in Christ, and to accept salvation; that instead of having satisfied retributive justice, and borne just what sinners deserve, Christ had only satisfied public justice, by honoring the law, both in His obedience and death, thus rendering it safe for God to pardon sin, to pardon the sins of any man and of all men who would repent and believe in Him. I maintained that Christ, in His atonement, merely did that which was necessary as a condition of the forgiveness of sin; and not that which canceled sin, in the sense of literally paying the indebtedness of sinners.
In conclusion, even if distinctive reformed points like Limited Atonement are not essential for believing in the gospel, they are essential in defending the gospel. I hope the difference between circumcision and reformed distinctive doctrines is evident at this point.
Stan, thanks for sharing the link to this article. I agree that it is thought-provoking, although I believe it has weaknesses that Gabriel described above. I wholeheartedly agree with the author’s assessment that we should seek to be Christians first and foremost, despite whatever distinctive tradition we are coming from. But at the same time, we can’t follow the author’s line of reasoning too far because he creates a dichotomy between “Christ alone” and doctrine. This is a popular argument that seeks to gloss over any settled theological positions in favor of simply being a Christian. When we go down this road we need to be careful, because in just a few steps we are headlong into doctrine. We can say we are “mere Christians” who believe in a simple, even primitive form of Christianity, but we also must be clear on who Jesus is and what his work on this earth entailed. The minute we attempt to answer these questions, we are doing theology and the stage is set for someone to be offended.
When exclusive truth claims are made, resistance is sure to follow. Non-Christians bristle when a Christian claims that Jesus is the only way to the Father, but in a similar way, some Christians will object when another Christian points out that nobody can come to the Father except those whom he draws (John 6:44). Getting back to the article, the author seems to be saying that those who stand on these “Reformed” biblical truths need to lighten up and coexist peacefully with other Christians who deny them.
The Bible is full of difficult teachings that don’t automatically appeal to unbelievers or even to professing Christians. We should not shy away from struggling with, accepting, and finally proclaiming these truths in favor of a “simple” Christianity that doesn’t ruffle anyone’s feathers. But at the same time, Reformed Christians believe that God is completely sovereign and as such, he doesn’t need our defense. In the name of “defending the truth”, our flesh often gets in the way, much to our discredit. We should be humbled by God’s sovereignty and further humbled that he has chosen to reveal himself to us in Christ, his Word, and the doctrine contained therein.
I agree with many of your points, but I don’t see how the author in anyway is abandoning the importance of Reformed theology.
I think he is talking about the importance of being winsome ambassadors among other Christians so that we can be even more effective in proclaiming the great truths of the doctrines of grace. Michael Horton makes exactly the same points that Ray Ortlund did in his book “Putting Amazing back into grace”. The doctrines of grace should not be used to be “ungraceful” to other Christians.
From Michael Horton Page 56 of his book: “ A doctrine like election is discussed and every phrase is rigorously checked for doctrinal accuracy. Insults are then hurled at those who are ‘too blind’ to see the truth as clearly. A doctrine calculated to produce humility instead creates pride; a ruby is squandered, the people impoverished, because the object was to win an argument.” Horton goes on to say that other Christians want to reduce theology to “let’s just all love Jesus” and forget about doctrine. This too is wrong.
If Reformed theology makes us feel superior to to other Christians, then we must watch out.
I am more convinced than ever that the Reformed view of salvation is correct. However, there was an eight year period of time, when I stubbornly resisted these truths. But after a lot of study and listening to the attractive presentation of reformed theolgy on the white horse inn radio show, I became fully convinced. But, I also ran across a lot of arrogant sounding Calvinists during that time.
I have a big problem reconciling logically how the Arminian position is not somehow another gospel. If man has anything at all to do with his salvation, then I am not sure one can call this salvation by grace. Yet, I know I was saved during the time that I was resisting the truth of the Reformed view of salvation. And I know there are many Christians who are indeed saved despite the errors of their theological views.
I wouldn’t be on this forum if I didn’t believe the great truths of the Reformation were worth defending.
BobJ,
It is good to see you on here, and I appreciate very much your input.
Another equally serious error is to understand the great truths of the Reformation, yet soft pedal and not talk about them for fear of offending.
There are some publishers and editors of Christian magazines who know the great truths of the Reformation with regard to God’s sovereignty, yet in these publications, they allow articles to be printed that affirm the semi-pelagian view. In some cases, they wilfully print articles that gloss over these truths and even deny these truths by implying that man is ultimately responsible for his salvation.
I have a specific example of a publication in mind that I am thinking of bringing up on this forum, but before I do, I want to write these people and clarify their position more.
I really felt that I made my final break from Adventism when I fully understood the gospel as outlined by the major five points of Reformation theology.
Stan, you mentioned once the peace the Lord gave you as you embraced reform theology. Your comment changed the course of my study, and I’m deeply grateful.
Arminianism is the default worldview of almost all new Christians, and that’s not an easy thing to change. I had to stop going to any SDA services because so much of the philosophy and rhetoric in the sermons and lesson studies and prayers ( help us to . . . ) is at odds with the gospel. We’re not submitting to God, we’re negotiating--bargaining: You’ve done your part, now help us do ours.
For several years my brother has talked to me a lot the points in that article. I crave the relief that would allow me to go among other Christians uncritically, but after having lived without assurance or peace for so long, it’s not easy to refrain from addressing the same issues in others when I honestly don’t think they understand (or are just ignoring) the problems. I think Arminians are ones who suffer so much spiritually as death approches and they finally realize the foundation is flawed. I’ve seen this first-hand, and it is awful.
So what does love do? I’d honestly like to just relax and let the chips fall where they may, shake the dust off my sandals, and move on. But I’m not very good at it. It’s so hard to help another person without seeming to be judgmental. I keep hoping the day will come when I could relax a bit more on this, but I’m not there yet. But I am coming to a resigned attitude that only God can fix some things, and that without Him we can do nothing.
Imagine the challenge of editing articles written by people who are recently coming out of arminian backgrounds. I’d have a tough time of it, because I have significant blind spots. My hat is off to anyone with the courage to try, though mistakes be made.
I’m of the opinion that a genuine desire to emulate Christ will automatically produce a winsome witness for Him. Should we legitimately concern ourselves that the Truth of the gospel will always be offensive for some? Ultimately, whether offense is taken or not, the salvation of the believer or the non-believer is not in our sinful hands. Thank God! Now, regarding all things, but especially the selection of the elect; does anyone doubt the absolute sovereignty of the Father? If Christ can acknowledge it, so also must we!
John 6:44 (NIV) “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
If a Christian is winsome in presentation of the scripture and in manner of behavior; it is not by his doing but is the good work of the Holy Spirit within him. It is this same Third Person of the Trinity upon which the conversion and eternal hope of the unbeliever solely depends.
In another thread, Greg said it much better than I will here: Reformed Christians, non-reformed Christians, and non-believers alike, should realize that the point of the Reformation was not to recreate the church; but to return the church to its Pauline origins. When interacting with a non-believer, a reformed Christian should never allow pride and/or arrogance to enter into the arena of evangelism; for to do so, at least for that moment, he has abandoned Christ and is impeding the work of the Holy Spirit.
Greg,
I have not forgotten that I owe you a report on my interaction with my beloved brother…
I agree with many of your points, but I don’t see how the author in anyway is abandoning the importance of Reformed theology.
Here is how:
My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.”
By associating the reformed distinctive positions with the issues which were present in the Galatian churches, he’s implicitly suggesting that we should keep our dear and peculiar belief for themselves. As Paul expected Jewish converts to refrain from trying to persuade Gentiles regarding circumcision, it is implicitly suggested that we should refrain from trying to persuade non-reformed Christians toward reformed doctrines.
He’s quick to recommend us to move among the other Christians learning from them, but nowhere is he suggesting that they should learn from us. Regarding the emotional tilt, here is the problem: as far as I’m keeping my mouth shut regarding my reformed doctrines, all is OK. But if it happens that I speak my mind out, or I’m sharing the doctrines of grace with others, I’m instantly becoming divisive, unloving, and I’m in the position to meet was is flesh in my brothers. Even if my heart is toward fellowshipping with them, I don’t feel at home in their churches because in order to maintain good relations I’m obliged to keep my mouth shut regarding the doctrines of grace. It is not a wise move to remain in a place where there are hostile sentiments toward reformed theology and those who sustain it.
the bottom line: is this a one way street or a two way street? I’m afraid that the first is the case, and unfortunately the doctrines of grace are downplayed for the sake of fellowship with other believers. No matter how carefully the doctrines of grace are presented, they are not welcomed by non-reformed people, and as far as human nature is what it is, fellowship with non-reformed can be maintained at the cost of evading the discussion of the doctrines of grace.
I wholeheartedly agree with Gabriel’s assessment on this topic. It is a common Arminian argument to say that Calvinists should simply keep quiet about their views while they themselves boldly promote their semi-Pelagianist ideas. It is akin to saying: “It is OK for Calvinists to be seen, but certainly not to be heard.” For me and countless others, Calvinism provides a better theology for a greater doxology. It is the very best news possible. Unfortunately, in some former Adventist circles, the doctrines of grace are as greatly despised as they are in Seventh-day Adventism.
It is basically a major misunderstanding of Calvinism that creates this adverse reaction. It is important to remember that people generally oppose what they don’t understand. However, I am greatly excited about the current resurgence of Calvinism--notably among the young in America. Young people are increasingly tired of being merely entertained in churches. They are hungry for the salvational truths of Scripture. Truly, our sovereign God is busily performing rescue missions that never fail. To God alone belongs all the glory!
Lest we become unduly impatient with our non-Reformed friends, I well remember when Sylvia and I first joined a small group in an Arminian-based church. We were studying Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Of course, the very first chapter brought us face-to-face with predestination. We very vocally expressed to our host that “predestination” should not even be discussed. So, accordingly, the whole group never mentioned that scary word nor disagreed with us. We all simply marched around it.
In retrospect, it was not our animosity toward Calvinism that fueled this comment. Rather, it was our absolute ignorance of the Pauline epistles and the doctrines of grace. Collectively, our thoughts reflected more than 100 years of anti-Calvinism drilled into us while devout Adventists. With all these factors against us, it is nothing less than a miracle that we ever saw the importance and relevance of the doctrines of grace. Therefore, based on my personal experience, I am now more patient with those who claim to oppose Calvinism for any reason.
Lest we become unduly impatient with our non-Reformed friends, I well remember when Sylvia and I first joined a small group in an Arminian-based church. We were studying Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Of course, the very first chapter brought us face-to-face with predestination. We very vocally expressed to our host that “predestination” should not even be discussed. So, accordingly, the whole group never mentioned that scary word nor disagreed with us. We all simply marched around it.
In retrospect, it was not our animosity toward Calvinism that fueled this comment. Rather, it was our absolute ignorance of the Pauline epistles and the doctrines of grace. Collectively, our thoughts reflected more than 100 years of anti-Calvinism drilled into us while devout Adventists. With all these factors against us, it is nothing less than a miracle that we ever saw the importance and relevance of the doctrines of grace. Therefore, based on my personal experience, I am now more patient with those who claim to oppose Calvinism for any reason.
Dennis Fischer
Thanks Dennis for this statement. As I have said many times, it took me eight years after becoming saved to finally see the light. It probably wouldn’t have taken as long had I had access to excellent websites such as http://www.monergism.com and the white horse inn radio show http://www.whitehorseinn.org.
I also wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Gabriel’s statement.
I may have been perceived as softening my position, but such is not the case. I just interpreted the sense of the article in question a little differently.
I agree Dennis that we need to be patient with those who differ on their position, but it it is one thing to honestly differ in opinion, and quite another thing to know what the truth is, and not PROCLAIM! it, if you get my drift!
How right you are about Arminian churches who literally forbid anyone from mentioning the “dirty word” Calvinism. A glaring example of this is my former church “Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa” where the senior pastor actively forbids anyone of his ministers preaching Calvinism. He even went so far to to deny a Calvary Chapel missionary in a foreign country a plane ticket home, because it was discovered that he became a convert to Calvinism while in the mission field.
This is why it is correct to say that most Arminian churches don’t welcome Calvinists in their fellowship.
In fact the Southern Baptists are at each others throat over this issue. We have all seen the hostile letters SDAs write to former SDA magazines literally condemning the publishers to hell. We consider this evidence of the cultic mentality in Adventism.
However the letters that Arminians write to Calvinists are identical in hostility. In many cases families are broken apart over this issue. Children who leave their Arminian churches and go to Calvinist churches are actually shunned in THE SAME WAY that we see SDAs treat their families in a hostile fahion when folks leave SDA and go to other churches.
There is an internet community of Calvinists, who are in most cases hypercalvinists, who are very mean in their internet postings and very condemnatory of our Arminian brothers and sisters. This phenomena is demonstrated on Phil Johnson’s website where he links to “dirty calvinism” websites.
However, in our PCA congregation, while Calvinism is boldly proclaimed from the pulpit week after week, there is no hostility to those who don’t quite accept the Calvinist position.
In fact the Southern Baptists are at each others throat over this issue. We have all seen the hostile letters SDAs write to former SDA magazines literally condemning the publishers to hell. We consider this evidence of the cultic mentality in Adventism.
Hi Stan,
Do you know more about what happens in the baptist church? I’m interested, since where I’m located the baptist church looks the best option.
There are good Reformed Baptist churches. One example is the one pastored by Ken Jones, one of the panelists on the White Horse Inn, who is the pastor of Union Baptist Church.
I was referring to the fighting in the Southern Baptist chuch over the Calvinism Arminian debate and what it is doing to families and churches.
Not all Baptist churches are the same. Look for Baptist churches who are Reformed in their belief system.
