While I
studied at seminary, I befriended a French student. Soon, I realized he did not
have much respect for his compatriot, John Calvin. Instead, he sided with the Dutchman
Jacob Arminius. It seemed like an interesting reversal: As Dutchman, I agreed
with the French Calvin, while the French classmate admired the Dutch Arminius.
At the
centre of the issue is the topic of “predestination”. Who decides who will be
saved, God or human?
The point
we should agree on, is this: Ultimately, God condemns those who (continue to)
live in sin, refuse to seek God and to follow Christ. In other words, those who
will be condemned by God have only themselves to blame; God is not capricious
in his judgment.
Having noted
that, however, we find that the Bible teaches us that nobody can be saved by
his own righteousness or by his attempts to keep the law of God. The law can
only condemn us; it exposes our sin and inability to please God by our personal
(attempts to) holiness. In fact, if we insist that we can be saved by our own
goodness, we fail to respect God’s holiness, our own sinfulness, the need for
Christ’s sacrifice, and the depth of God’s amazing grace.
Even if we
agree on this, there remains the issue of “Who decides?”
Now, this
is the hang-up:
· If -in the final analysis- our
salvation hinges on our choice (whether or not to embrace Christ), how then can
this have been decided in God’s will? Surely, if I have a real freedom of
choice, then God cannot have decided beforehand what my choice would be!? Could
it be that God has partially relinquished his sovereign rule to make room for
our personal decisions?
· On the other hand, if it is written
in God’s unfailing plan that I am elected to glory, how then could I add to
this by my faith and repentance or subtract from it by my unbelief and sinful
living? Surely, if God has decided my outcome, then I cannot be held
responsible, for there would be no freedom (of choice) left for me! What, then,
can we do to be saved except to wait and hope that God would personally confirm
to us his merciful election?
We can find
Bible passages to show us that we do have freedom to choose and responsibility
to choose for God. There are also passages that teach us that God is sovereign
in everything. He makes the final decisions, and there is nothing that happens outside
his will.
As we have
seen, there are quite a few apparent contradictions (or areas of tension) in
the biblical teaching. In our simple laws of western logic, we cannot
rationally maintain two notions that seem to contradict each other. It is the
view of Reformed theology that -also in this issue- we must respect both
biblical teachings, keeping both truths, God’s sovereignty and human
responsibility, in balance.
The gravest
problems come about when we continue either single-track mindset. If one
continues to insist on free will, as Arminianism does, one comes to Open
Theism, where God is no longer in control of world history, and where even God
cannot be sure if -at the end of time- His Kingdom can and will be restored.
On the
other hand, if we use only God’s Sovereignty as starting point, we end up with
Hyper-Calvinism, where faith is only a gift, and thus no real obligation.
Then, the Gospel is only Good news for a few lucky ones without grace for most unbelievers.
Church-goers can only wait and hope for God’s special revelation that they are
indeed among the elect, or all church members are seen as recipients of God’s irresistible
grace.
How can the
secular mind accept the co-existence of two, so clearly contradictory ideas?
First, I
would suggest, it might be good to explore this dilemma from a non-western
perspective. It seems, that in eastern thinking and philosophy it is quite
common and acceptable to hold opposite truths in tension.
Second, it
might be good to realize that even secular scientists have been forced to
accept the idea that -even in the physical world such incomprehensible tension
of truths may exist.[1]
Finally,
for those who -by the Spirit’s work- have come to accept the biblical authority
and truth, it is normal that we accept things to be true, even if we cannot
completely comprehend these things. As I have suggested earlier, we must humbly
consider the possibility that the spiritual reality and the nature of God is
beyond our comprehension. If we let God be God, we must accept the possibility
that our mind-frame is too small to fathom the multi-dimensional reality that
exists beyond our natural reality and finite mental capabilities.
In the
final analysis, if there can be only one ultimate cause for our salvation, I
would hope that this would be the prerogative of a merciful God, not dependent
on fallen people, who live in bondage to sin and Satan.
Interestingly,
George Whitefield, the Spirit-filled preacher, who used to draw enormous crowds
in Britain and America, came to a dispute on this issue with the Wesley
brothers. It was Whitefield, who held the Calvinist position, and he
increasingly recognized his own sinfulness in the presence of a holy God. On the
other hand, the Wesley brothers seemed to think that it was possible for the
converted, with the Spirit’s help, to attain near-perfect holiness. Despite
these radical differences, which resulted in a break, they continued to respect
each other as sincere Christian brothers in the faith.
[1] What is light? We used to define
light in terms of non-material radiation. Yet, there is also the approach that
light is a stream of photons. In fact, there is evidence that both are true.
Still, it is impossible in scientific reasoning to keep both concepts together.
Stephen
Hawking argued, as physicist, that everything happens as the direct result of a
number of pre-existing causes. Yet, if everything is theoretically predictable
from the situation preceding it, this would imply that everything that happens
is predestined in the past. Hawking realized that this notion could be destructive
for human flourishing, so he argued that we should go on living as if we have
real choices to make and real responsibility for those choices.
Both
examples suggest that there is an inherent complexity in reality, which we
-with modern, western logic- cannot really accept, much less comprehend how
two, contradictory ideas both could be true.
No comments:
Post a Comment