The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Circular Thinking and Subsequent Confusion

At present, as in the past, I have been exploring reformed doctrine and, as in the past, I end up in such a quandary over issues that I just back away from the whole thing. What I thought I clearly understood as vital to faith gets very muddied in what appears to be a misconstruing of words taken out of context. I honestly get so confused that I shut down and am overcome by a near despair. I am not even sure I can effectively enunciate what specific doctrines I'm talking about, but I do know I tend to get snagged on some of the five key components of Calvinism that differentiate it from Arminianism (and I never would have called myself an Arminian before).

In the past, I could content myself with the seeming paradox or mystery of God's ways - ie. evangelism and God's sovereignty - but it seems that I have to have everything straight in my mind before becoming truly "reformed".

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/broke.gif" alt="" />

Can you be a little more specific as to what you are confused about? Perhaps we can help you out with it.

Give examples.

Tom

I'll try....

Reconciling God's call to evangelize with the Calivinistic doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election. I'm reading J. I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God and thought it was helping to clarify, but when I read the compare and contrast chart of the two models of Arminianism and Calvinism here, I get confused again.

A discussion led by Michael Horton on besetting sins and eternal salvation in which random pastors were asked about their position on this. What the pastors said seemed scriptural and yet their words were picked apart in order to reveal their "Arminian" positions.

Sometimes, it just seems that the root of what a professing Christian truly believes is not really discovered but rather a person's theology is discounted because of the use of some buzzword that hits a nerve with the reformed "inquisitor" (for lack of a better word). I think I have even read where a person's salvation is brought into question based on the answers given regarding certain doctrinal positions.

Perhaps it's just the number of years I have neglected systematic study of God's Word as well as the many I've spent in a nondenominational evangelical church. Even so, there was a period of time there that the Word was being taught in a consise manner, but it's been some time.... I want to understand and grow in Christ, but I get so confused that sometimes I nearly feel sick.

Sounds a bit drama laden, doesn't it?

Someone else might want to give you a more specific answer concerning Packer's book and the contrasting charts. However, I still am not sure what exactly you are confused about.
Many Arminians claim that if Calvinism is true, then hyper-Calvinists are correct on insisting that evangelism is not needed.
Is this what you are confused about?

If so, personally I can not understand what the whole confusion is about, because God uses means to bring the elect to Christ. That means just happens to be the proclamation of the Gospel; Scripture is crystal clear about this.

I haven't listened to Dr. Horton's discussion, but having heard a lot of sermons by pastors who claim to be neutral in the Arminian and Calvinist debate. I think they say a lot of things that are very Arminian. They say things like, "Christ died for everyone". "God loves everyone, but we are not robots, God is a gentleman".
I don't judge their salvation, but I think it is a serious matter.
Speaking of Dr. Horton, he was on The Bible Answer Man radio show and when the host asked him if he believed Arminians were true Christians. Horton basically said that he believed there are many Arminians that are true Christians, but he also believes that if in their heart of hearts, they actually believe the Arminian Gospel, then they are still dead in their sin, because they believe in a false Gospel.
I agree with him on that point.

George Whitefield wrote a letter to his friend John Wesley, about his concern about Wesley’s Arminian Gospel. Whitefield laid it on the line about his concern in this area. However, he made it clear that he believed that Wesley was a true Christian.
If I remember correctly a link was given to that letter on the Highway quite some time ago. Perhaps someone might want to repost that link, as I haven’t got time to find it at the moment.

Hopefully I said something that helps.

Tom

Hello, M Azingrace!

It was helpful to see your examples in response to Tom's request; I have just a moment to respond with a few quick thoughts.

But first, if you don't mind, since it well help people know what to respond to, a request for a little more clarification. When you stated

does "here" refer to this site (this is how I read it) or the Packer book? Perhaps you could point us to an example or two of what seems confusing.

I have been a long-time listener to the White Horse Inn, so it seems clear that you are referring to the most current (6/22/08) broadcast. I have heard the program twice, so I might be able to provide a bit of perspective.

I do not recall the WHI hosts "pick[ing] apart" the interviewed pastors' words "in order to reveral their Arminian positions"; if they mentioned the word I missed it and would be happy to know where in the program it was used. Their point, which they did state quite bluntly, was to demonstrate that it is not uncommon for contemporary evangelical pastors to employ a categorization of sin which not only does not account for all of the biblical data--specifically Romans 4 and Romans 7, both foundational passages--but also is indistinguishable from Rome's teaching at a point where Rome has strayed furthest from the Gospel.

A main thesis of the WHI is that contemporary American evangelism is largely severed from its Gospel roots. While the hosts would certainly want to see Arminian teaching "rooted out", I think they are much more concerned about rampant Pelagianism and Gnosticism. An analogy may help: a person may indeed be in danger of suffering and eventually dying from long-untreated diabetes, but diet modification, exercise and insulin injections will not be ordered right away if he is brought into the ER with a severed artery in his neck.

Finally, the main target of the WHI's "inquisition" is pastors who have been charged with preaching Christ and Him crucified but who fail in significant way to do so. This is an example of a Scripture with which I am sure you agree:

There should be no confusion on this matter IF you are understanding the issues involved. What usually brings about confusion is when one, either latently or consciously, begins with the presuppositional error that man has a "free will".

Okay, let me make this VERY simple.

1) The Bible teaches the doctrine of "Total Depravity"; man is TOTALLY UNABLE to even desire God, Christ, holiness, salvation, etc. in his natural fallen state. See here: The Presbyterian Doctrine of Total Depravity, Total Depravity - Boettner, Total Depravity - Girod

2) The Bible teaches that God is "Sovereign" in both authority and power. He has decreed all things for His own glory including the redemption of an elect group (remnant) of Adam's fallen. This predestination includes ALL that is necessary, from beginning to end, to secure their salvation in Christ.

3) Although sinners are totally incapable of responding to the Gospel of Christ in and of themselves, the Holy Spirit works regeneration in the elect at God's appointed time thus enabling them to comprehend their need of Christ and to believe upon Him infallibly. So, the greatest motivation to evangelism is that God has a definite number of sinners set apart who will assuredly come to Christ when the Gospel is brought to them. It is not important to the evangelist who these elect are nor if the timing is right. All that is necessary is that one fulfill that responsibility which God has entrusted; the preaching of the Gospel to all men everywhere. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I'm not sure where the "confusion" is for you here? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> It seems that what Horton effectively accomplished is to show that there were/are some men who profess to hold to "Eternal Security", but when examined further, it was shown that they did NOT hold to that doctrine but rather held to the idea that a believer could in fact loose salvation.

What I have found over the years is that what a person says they believe is far different than what they really believe. The awful truth is this: IF a person TRULY believes in the Pelagian/semi-Pelagian/Arminian doctrine they espouse, then one must doubt their salvation since any of the above are contrary to the biblical teaching that salvation is ALL of grace and not of works. ALL of the above are "synergistic" systems, i.e., they teach a salvation that is a combination of grace+works, despite their protests that they believe in salvation by grace alone. For more, see my little article here: Do You REALLY Believe that Salvation is by Grace Alone?.

In His grace,

I am not sure whether I understand you correctly but it seems to me that your problem is that why should we evangelize if there is something like unconditional election. Tom said that God uses means to bring the elect to Christ and I think it is just that. Take for example the case of Lydia in Acts 16:11 - 15. God has wonderfully lead Paul to Philippi to preach the Gospel there. And there were a group of women there. We read that "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul". And also in Romans 10:14 we read:"But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?".

Then there is also Acts 18:9,10: "And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, "Do not be afraid but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people."

I would say that it is clear that God sends preachers so that the elect will hear the Gospel and He will open their hearts to the Gospel message. See also the The Canons of Dordt Articles 8 - 15 of the Third and Fourth Head of the Doctrine.

Johan

Thank you for each of your replies. I plan to come back to your posted sources to read and give thought to each. I wish I could say I'm less confused, but I honestly cannot at this point. Perhaps it is the result of sitting too long in the shadows of modern evangelicalism, but I hate to use that as a scapegoat for my lack of understanding. I hope to persevere, however, in order to come to some sort of reconciliation of ideas.

I have had some time to go back over each of your kind replies, but will attempt to specifically address Pilgrim's here:


Yes, I would agree. I think this is one area in which I struggle. In times long past, I had "reconciled" my struggle by assigning my lack of understanding to my finite mind that is incapable of always wrapping itself around the vastness of God's mind. Is it permissible, in reformed churches, to give ascent to this without fully understanding how it all fits?



Check


Check


Check



When I listened to the answers of the pastors interviewed, I heard them simply say that the person who continues to sin without remorse might want to examine his/her original claim to being in Christ. I understand that we Christians tend to put certain sins on a kind of mental continuum from "naughty" to "nearly unforgivable", and I think I heard Horton implying this, but aside from that flaw in thought, I did not hear the pastors say one's salvation could be "lost" if truly saved.


Check. Many of us aren't even sure of what it is we believe as the teaching of sound biblical doctrine is no longer the focus in much of the modern church.


Now, in all honesty, I had to look these words up (thank you, Wikipedia), but now that I've had a mini-refresher course on the concepts, I would agree that these schools of thought are a threat to the church.

I guess what I'm trying to say - and I hope my thoughts aren't misconstrued in this format - is that I want to learn about and understand orthodox, reformed doctrine. But, for me, that requires questions and answers that take me back to scripture in its entirety - not proof texts. Now, that would be a long and arduous proposition I realize, and certainly not easily done in the format of an internet forum. One main question I have, however, is that, should I join a reformed church, will I be continually caught up in examining someone else's faith rather than working out my own in fear and trembling? I hope my comments are not considered to be factious or of a challenging nature - I just truly want to understand.

Thank you,

Perhaps you might benefit from reading some Reformed Systematics then.
GH Kersten's Reformed Dogmatics is a good one.

One of the strengths of a systematic is to make one consistent in their beliefs across the board. It gives the whole counsel of God.

Tom

Thank you, Tom. I will look into this.