For some time now I’ve been considering this topic from different angles. What makes this topic so special to me is that fact that, the more honestly and deeply I look into it, the more I am unable to pack it up in a basket with a pretty ribbon and say, “Here is exactly what I believe and why I believe it.” Did God choose some to be saved, and others to be eternally damned, based solely on his own criteria unknown and unaffected by us? Or has he offered the free gift of salvation to all who freely choose to follow Him? Did God choose us, or did we choose God? Which came first? The chicken, or the egg?
I’ll just admit it: It doesn’t seem, to me, that the Armenian or Calvinist positions on salvation are satisfactory. If these positions err, it not for lack of a thorough investigation on their part, but possibly more because of our need to have things explained fully. This sounds odd coming from me, because I consider myself someone who likes things concerning faith to make sense. The way I see it, both Calvinism and Armenianism contain conclusions about salvation that follow logically if their premise is correct. Both views hing on a single foundational premise:
Armenianism: Man has free will to accept or reject salvation. God offers salvation to all who freely choose Him.
Calvinism: Man is totally depraved, and cannot freely choose God. God predestines who will and will not be saved.
Having read quite a bit lately on the views of either side, I cannot really take issue with the various points on either side, if their premise is true.
I can see how the Calvinist believes in the perseverance of the saints (“eternal security,” or “once saved, always saved”), because it follows logically from the premise that we can do nothing to obtain salvation. As a friend once said, the five points of Calvinism either stand or fall together. I tend to agree that they all fit together. We will never choose God because we are totally depraved. Because we are totally depraved, God chooses us “unconditionally,” not based on any merit within us. When God chooses us, the only way we (who are totally depraved) would follow Him would be if His grace was irresistible. If His grace is irresistible, then all He chooses will definitely be saved. Since not all will be saved, He has not chosen everyone, so God’s atonement was limited to those whom He chose. So, we are depraved and can do nothing to obtain salvation. God’s grace is irresistable, so we can do nothing against it if He chooses us. Because of this, those who are chosen by God are “in.” There’s no “out” for those whom God has chosen. Their salvation has been chosen by God and is irresistible to man, so “once saved, always saved.”
To be honest, I see all of this in scripture and have no problem with it.
The Armenian will also assert that man can do nothing towards his salvation, but they will say that making a choice to follow God is not a “work.” God has given the gift of salvation to all who will accept, and all man has to do is freely “accept” this gift. They will equate it to a man receiving a gift. The receiver does not boast in his ability to receive a gift, or considering himself better than others for receiving a gift. He boasts in the one who gave the gift. If man has this free will to accept God’s salvation, then God’s salvation is conditional, and the condition is whether or not man chooses to accept His gift. Christ’s atonement is not limited; it is available to all who will receive it. God’s grace is not irresistible; indeed, man resists God’s grace daily by not choosing to follow Him. Because man has free will, he can freely choose to walk away from God after believing. I mean this very specifically: If the Armenian view is accurate, free will doesn’t stop being free once someone gets truly saved. According to their view, after someone is fully and truly saved, they can freely choose to walk away and not be saved later (this is important, because most I speak with who hold an Armenian view of salvation still believe you cannot loose your salvation. To this, I’d say you cannot have your cake and eat it to. If one follows the Armenian theology through and through, it will not lead to a believe in eternal security. You’d need to go over to the Calvinist side for that).
Again, being honest, I seem to be able to find all this in scripture. I have no problem with it. My current position, merely as an observer from the side line, is that both of views are correct according to scripture, and this is precisely the problem I am having with trying to drill down my exact position. They cannot logically both be correct any more than saying the chicken AND the egg came first. And yet I see scriptures that seem to support both views.
In our efforts and needs to explain things fully, it seems that people end up deciding which way they want to go. They will be Calvinist or Armenian. But what about all those verses that seem to imply the other side is correct? The re-interpret them to fit their theology. I know I’ve spoken a lot about scripture here, and have provided no references. But here is an example:
Acts 16:29-31. A jailer asks Paul and Silas what he can “do” to be saved. They say to believe, and he will be saved. A Calvinist will look at this and assume that God already choose the jailer. Why? Because a man is fully incapable of coming to God, and would not even be concerned with what he could do to be saved unless God had already started that work in his heart. So the fact that he even asks this question shows that God already chose him. My response? If this is true, Paul and Silas wouldn’t say, “Believe, and you will be saved.” They would say, “Rejoice! God has chosen you. You are already one of us.”
Ephesians 1:4: Paul writes that God chose us in Christ before the foundations of the world. Before anything was made, before we had “done” anything, before we could “choose” anything, God chose us. The Armenian might talk about God being outside of time, about Him being all knowing of past, present and future, and knowing who will and will not choose Him one day. They will explain away God’s predestination with the idea that it is still based in our decision to choose Him. My response? Quite honestly, if this is true, it sounds like God is playing word games here, trying to get credit for something He hasn’t done. He is saying He chose me before I was even born, but it’s actually only because He knew that I would choose Him.
I am aware that talking this way might give the impression that I am indecisive. In the contrary, I am more and more decidedly a proponent of neither view separately, but of both views together. Let me clarify: I would not say I am a proponent of every point of both views. I would say I am a proponent of both premises. An example would be that I feel like scripture indicates that one who is truly saved can one day be not truly saved. I believe scripture indicates that God’s grace is resistible. Yet I also believe that God chose those who are saved before they could do any choosing for themselves, and truly so, not in some covert attempt by God to take credit for something He didn’t do.
I am aware that this makes no sense, but I am unaware of a way to solve it honestly without having to reinterpret scriptures in a way that would make me feel dishonest to the text. The only way I can make sense of things is to look at passages like Acts 16:29-31 and accept that we have a choice to make, and look at passages like Ephesians 1:4 and accept that it all begins with God. God is sovereign, and man is free. And I have no clue how this works.
I once heard someone try to explain how predestination works from an Armenian perspective. The example he gave actually didn’t prove anything or answer any questions, but I think it painted a fair picture of what is ACTUALLY going on. He said to imagine you enter a hall with many doors. You can choose any door you like. As soon as you make your choice, you enter a room. Looking back, there is a sign over the door on the inside, saying, “Welcome, _____(name). I’ve been expecting you.”
0 Comments.