Think Wink.

Today in my quiet time before work, I read Titus 3:9 which says, “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” I was reminded of a class I had last fall, Systematic Theology with Dr. Warren.

In that class I remember one particular day in which we discussed God’s sovereignty. Dr. Warren divided the class in half (the division was along the center aisle that divided the desks and each side was neatly filled, amazing). On his left, my right, was the group that he assigned to find as many passages in the Bible that supported the doctrine of predestination. The other side, his right and my left, were to find passages that supported the doctrine of free will. My group filled up their side of the board with references in Scripture that supported the doctrine of predestination (but I must note that I was one of three Calvinists in the room and the only one in my group). Not all texts cited were to eternal salvation. Jesus’ death was said to be predestined in Acts 4:27-28. But the evidence was overwhelmingly in the predestination side of the board.

This post is not about the fact that my side had more texts, especially since no one on my side really cared that there were so many texts. They were taught to believe Calvinism is wrong and that the Bible doesn’t teach it. They just weren’t going to budge. But one person on the other side, Bob (I don’t know his real name) wrote either Titus 3:9 to say that this discussion on Calvinism was irrelevant, “unprofitable and worthless.” Thus we really should avoid it all together (sort of like the ‘pan-millennia lists’, “It will all pan out in the end so I don’t worry about it“).

But my question is is that really a good way to deal with Calvinism vs. Arminianism (sorry Norm Geisler, there really isn’t a middle ground or moderate Calvinism, that’s just trying to Calvinism cake and Arminian pie)? I don’t think this debate is something that we can just put under the Titus 3:9 category. Let us just look at some of the issues at stake in this debate.

In the acronym TULIP there are certain issues that have a massive impact on how we develop our theology. First there is Total depravity. What a person decides on this issue determines in large part their entire biblical anthropology and how they understand man. Does he or does he not have the ability to live a life that is free of sin and is able to respond to the gospel? That is huge in how one approaches evangelism and many pastoral duties.

We can look at Limited atonement or definite atonement or particular redemption. For whom did Christ die? Did Christ’s death theoretically accomplish salvation or did actually accomplish redemption? These are massive questions that define what one believes about the death of Jesus and helps, to a significant degree, to determine their Christology.

Or we can also look at Irresistible grace or effectual calling/grace. Can God at some point make his grace irresistible to the sinner or can it always be resisted. Can God overcome a rebellious human heart? Does salvation take God’s miraculous work to open the eyes of the sinner to have faith or can he believe on his own? There are so many issues involved that shapes our views of God and the Holy Spirit and the will of man. Our evangelism is in part determined about we believe about God’s grace and how a person comes to saving faith in Christ.

We can also look at Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) and eternal security (ugh, that can be such a nasty word). Can a person who has come to saving faith loose their salvation? If so, how does that work? If, not how does that work? Sanctification and glorification hangs in the balance here on this issue!

Indeed I would go so far as to say that how we understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ is defined in large part by our stance in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. Our entire soteriology is determined by it.

But not only that, how we define God’s sovereignty and mans freedom is in the balance as well. And this is more critical than most people realize. How a person understands predestination and foreknowing is critical. Not only because of texts like Romans 8:29-30 or Romans 9 or Ephesians 1:4-6 or Ephesians 1:11-12 or Ephesians 2:1-10. But this also impacts how we understand what the early church understood about Christ’s death and the role God played in it. Acts 4:27-28 says that God’s hand and plan had predestined Christ’s death exactly the way it happened. Acts 2 says that it was according to God’s foreknowledge that Christ died? How involved was God in the death of Jesus? The farther you remove God, the less it is God offering up to himself a sacrifice that he deems acceptable for all eternity for those who believe!

Now I don’t know why Bob did what he did. But to put this conversation under Titus 3:9 to avoid it is or to say it is secondary is to not understand the true importance of the debate. That is a bad argument against Calvinism and not a valid objection.

Related posts:

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

My Comfort in Romans 9

Luke 10:21-22 and Joy