The Language of Salvation

The nature of salvation, how it is accomplished, and the roles played in it are hotly debated. Scriptures are scoured and finely examined to try and produce a verdict, some conclusion that we can all agree on and that fully explains everything.

Why does it matter? Well, what you believe about salvation effects what you believe about God and His relationship with man, and your conclusions will (or at least, should) determine your entire worldview and the way you live your life. The implications are enormous.

Ultimately, I am of the opinion that we will never fully understand every aspect of salvation and how it works until we reach heaven. How does God change a black and sinful heart of stone into one of flesh? How does God's sovereignty work together with man's will? We don't know how. We just know that it does, and that it works, because we see and feel the effects.

However, there are some basic truths that we can infer about salvation just by looking at the words, examples, metaphors, and analogies that the Bible uses to describe the salvation process. And, not surprisingly, they favor a Reformed view of Salvation. Take a look:

Adopted: Romans 8:15, 8:23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5.
Who does the work in the process of adoption? The adopted, or he adopters? We don't adopt God, He adopts us. God is the one who works salvation, and thus He deserves the glory.

Bought/Purchased: Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23; Revelation 5:9.
What role does an item play in being purchased? Christ purchased us with His blood. What part did we play in that? None.

Inherited: Acts 20:32, 26:18; Ephesians 1:11, 1:14, 1:18, 5:5, Colossians 1:12, 3:24; Hebrews 9:15; 1 Peter 1:4.
The Kingdom of heaven is referred to as our inheritance. An inheritance is something that is given to you whether you want it or not, and is not something you earn. It is bequeathed to you, typically by your parents. In the same way, our heavenly Father who has adopted us, has prepared an inheritance for us.

Made Alive/Raised: 1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 2:1, 2:5-6; Colossians 2:12-13, 3:1.
What can a dead man do to raise himself up? What choice can he make to be raised up? And can He resist being made alive? No, he can do nothing, for He is dead. Who raises Him up? Who does the work? God, of course. Look at the raising of Lazarus or the raising of Jairus' daughter. Jesus says "Come forth" and "Arise" (respectively) and the corpses, made alive, obey. They don't sit and say "You know, it's my choice, I'll make it when I'm good and ready." They come. A dead man cannot choose to be made alive, a dead man cannot make himself alive or play any active part in doing so, and a dead man cannot resist being made alive. It's the same when God goes to make us spiritually alive in Him.

Born: John 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:18.
A baby does not give birth to itself, nor does his birth hinge upon his decision to be born or not. The same is true of our new birth in Christ.

The list goes on. The scripture is bursting with examples like these. The words used in the Bible to describe the salvation process and man's relationship with God constantly affirm the Five Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism: specifically, that salvation is of God, and not of man.

"The only thing of our very own which we contribute to our salvation is the sin which makes it necessary." --William Temple

Calvinists Hate Babies?

I can't believe this meme even exists.

Ahhh, now that I've graduated, I have more time to spend blogging. This means that all of my blogs (which have gotten a little stale) will enjoy constant updates from now on.

One thing that I've read recently about blogging (and writing in general) is that if you don't know what to write about, find something that you're passionate about, that you get worked up over, and write about that.  So before I jump back into the numerous blog series I've left hanging (this and this), that's what I'll be doing. Posting about things that, for lack of a better expression, get my blood up.

Most will probably have to do with objections to Calvinism. I usually don't get emotional or worked up about most arguments, but some of the "arguments" against Calvinism are just so outrageous (like Irresistible Grace being "spiritual Rape"), that I think you'll understand my position.

So today I'd like to dive into one of the more emotionally-charged claims that is often leveled at the proponents of the Doctrines of Grace.

Here it is: "Calvinists believe that babies go to hell" Just hearing it makes me angry. However, I'll do my best not to let my emotions take control. Speaking of emotions, this argument is what's called an emotional attack, which, if you didn't know, is a fallacy (a mistake in logic or thinking).
The argument fails to disprove any one of the five points of Calvinism, but rather, it serves to discredit Calvinism and those who hold to it. Instead of using scripture to try to show us that Calvinism is unbibical, it uses our emotions to turn us against Calvinism.  Doesn't sound very Christ-like, does it?

But let's deal with the claim.  Do Calvinists believe that babies go to hell? The answer is that some do, some don't, and some aren't sure!  If you listen to John MacArthur's (a well-known Calvinist) sermon series on the "Campaign for Immorality" (which deals with Homosexuality and Abortion) we see that he believes that babies go to heaven if they die. However, there are Calvinists that do believe that babies go to hell when they die. But then there are also Calvinists, like Stephen Gambill, who believe that we can't know for sure where a baby's soul goes when it dies. Then there are some Calvinists who believe that some babies go to hell and others go to heaven.

What should this tell us?  It tells us, first of all, that NOT all Calvinists believe babies go to hell, and thus that the argument is false, but it also reveals another fallacy in the argument. The fallacy of composition, or the "Part-to-whole" fallacy, which basically goes "Some Calvinists believe babies go to hell, therefore, all Calvinists believe babies go to hell." Another mistake in logic, and not the last. Moving on...

I don't know how many times I've heard the claim "Calvinist X believes in weird doctrine X!" but the main problem with that claim is the main problem with this one. The question that needs to be asked dealing with this claim is this: "Does weird doctrine X flow from Calvinism, or somewhere else?"

Let me give an example. R.C. Sproul is a Calvinist, but he's also a Presbyterian. As we know, Presbyterians believe in infant baptism, and so does R.C. Sproul. Now I'm  Baptist, and disagree with Dr. Sproul on the issue of infant baptism.  So I could look at R.C. Sproul and say "Hey, R.C. is a Calvinist, and he believes in infant baptism! Calvinists must believe in infant baptism!" and now all my baptist friends and I are backing away from Calvinism. But let's ask that question: "Does R.C. Sproul's believe in Infant baptism flow from his belief in Calvinism?" the answer is no, it flows from the fact that he's a Presbyterian.

So when we hear that "X Calvinist believes that babies go to hell" what question should we ask? "Does X Calvinist's belief that babies go to hell flow from his belief in the Doctrines of Grace?" The answer will most likely be "No," and upon closer examination, we would probably find that such a belief comes from somewhere else in X Calvinist's worldview.

So we've looked over the three major logical problems with this argument. First, it's an emotional attack, and does nothing to disprove Calvinism. Second, it's a faulty generalization/blanket statement, saying that ALL Calvinists agree on something which they clearly don't; and thirdly, it assumes that just because a Calvinist believes babies go to hell means that the believe that because they're a Calvinist (when the belief very well could come from somewhere else).

"Okay, so not all Calvinists believe babies go to hell. But what if they're just being logically inconsistent? What if Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell, but those people are just ignoring it?"

Now we're getting somewhere! The argument has changed from "Calvinists believe babies go to hell" to "Calvinism teaches that babies go to hell." Most of the fallacious content has been removed, but the argument still has problems. Let's take it head on.

Nowhere in the five points of Calvinism (the Doctrines of Grace) will you find anything about babies going to hell. The fact is, Calvinism doesn't specifically say where babies go when they die. That's why we have Calvinists who do not agree on the whole issue. Only when Calvinism is combined with other outside beliefs do we get a verdict on where babies go when they die.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's say that Calvinism does teach that babies go to hell when they die. Now, let me ask a seemingly heartless question: What's wrong with babies going to hell when they die? I know! I sound like such a bad guy, don't I? But let's answer the question. What's wrong with babies going to hell when they die?

"Isn't it obvious?" we cry. "Babies are so helpless and cute and fragile and innocent, a loving God would never let them go to hell!"

But where's the logic? More importantly, where's the scripture? All I see is emotions. Now I probably sound really heartless.

The truth is, bad things happen. Things that we don't want to happen.Things that we have a hard time believing a loving God would allow. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters kill millions of people.  Serial killers, murderers, and evil dictators kill millions more.  Does God intervene? Not always. He allows us to suffer the curse of sin we've brought upon ourselves by disobedience to Him.  Why would God let babies go to hell, you ask?  For the same reason He lets anything bad happen: our sin. The real question we should ask is, why shouldn't God send everyone--not just babies--to hell, because of sin?

If you've read this far, I highly admire you. You've most likely read through some stuff you disagree with, and you probably don't have a very good opinion of me right now. Which is why I think it's high time that I shared my stance on this issue.

What's my stance? Do babies go to heaven or hell when they die? My answer is that I do not know. The truth is, I love babies. A lot. I want to have as many babies as I can when I'm married, and when I can't have any more, I'll try to adopt some. I really wish my family could have another baby around the house right now, because I love babies so much.

Obviously, my emotions lie with babies. But my emotions don't decide truth. Scripture, on the other hand, does. And what do I see when I look at scripture?
I see verses which tell us that all of mankind, which include babies, is sinful (Romans 3:23). I see verses that tell us we are sinners from birth (Psalm 51:5). I see verses that tell us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Putting two and two together will get me four. However, there are other verses such as Matthew 18:3 which make it seem like babies are innocent. There's also 2 Samuel 12:21-23, which suggests that David's dead son by Bathsheba went to heaven.
So in my opinion, it could go one way or another. My emotions tell me that babies who die do not go to heaven, but I think there is insufficient scripture to prove or disprove such a belief. 

In conclusion: Do babies go to heaven when they die, or to hell? Do some go to hell and some to heaven? The Bible doesn't clearly say so. And since the five points of Calvinism are built upon the Bible, they don't say so either. Therefore, we would be wrong to say that "Calvinism teaches that all babies who die go to hell," or to claim that all Calvinists cling to such a notion.

What I believe: What is Unconditional Election?

 

You may have noticed that I'm taking forever to make these "What I believe" posts, and that when they do come out, they're super huge.  I have found a solution to both problems!  Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I didn't come up with this before.

Okay, so you know how I divide each post into five parts?  Well, I'll be dividing each of those individual points into individual posts.  This will not only make posts more frequent and easier to swallow, but it will also make it easier for me to do justice to each point.

So right now we're on the topic of Unconditional Election, the second of the five points of Calvinism outlined in the acronym 'TULIP.'  We'll be looking at:

1. What Unconditional Election means (and doesn't mean)
2. Where the idea of Unconditional Election comes from
3. How Unconditional Election applies to us
4. Common arguments against Unconditional Election (refuted!)

Today we'll be introducing the topic with the first point:

What is Unconditional Election?  What does it mean?

What I Believe: Total Depravity

So this is the first post in the new series "What I Believe," where we will be going over some of the key doctrines of Calvinism and Creationism.  We're starting off by diving into Calvinism, and today's post is on Total Depravity: the letter "T" in the acronym "TULIP," and the first of the five points of Calvinism.

First of all, I would like to point out that I am not an expert.  I don't claim to have any special theological knowledge, and I certainly don't have any credentials.  I'm just a normal guy who's done some research and read some stuff.  Also, this is not an exhaustive study.  There's a ton more information surrounding the subject than what I give in this post.  All that to say: I can't do justice to the subject.  Look into this yourself, do some of your own research, and be a Berean.  Don't just take my word for it on the subject.

With that said, let's get on with the post.  So here's what we're going to do.  We're going to look into:

1. What Total Depravity means
2. Where the idea of Total Depravity comes from
3. How Total Depravity applies to us.
4. Common arguments against Total Depravity (refuted!)

Let's get started!

Announcing a New Series: What I Believe

I am happy to announce that I'll being doing a series of posts about what I believe.  This will be fun!  The main purpose of the series will be to help you guys know where I stand, but it will also serve to indirectly finish the "Statement of Faith" page (which, as you can see, is still not finished).  It will also kind of help me, because there are a few issues that I myself am not completely cleared up on as to what exactly I believe.  So hopefully, it will be a beneficial experience for everyone.  The purpose of this post is to introduce the series and give you an idea of what to expect.

Obviously, I can't go into every little detail about every single thing that I believe, so I'm going to have to whittle things down to a few (hundred) major issues.  I'm pretty sure you know what a Christian is already, so I'm mainly going to be focusing on Calvinism and Creationism.

So here's how it's gonna go down. We'll start off by diving into Calvinism, by going over TULIP and the Five Solas.  Each post will be divided into four points:

1. What the Sola/point means
2. Where it comes from
3. How it applies to us
4. Common arguments against it (refuted!)

I'm really looking forward to this.  It should be fun!  I'm thinking we'll do TULIP first, and then the Five Solas after that.

I can't wait to get started!  Expect the first post in the series soon.  We'll be looking at the doctrine of Total Depravity; the "T" in TULIP, the first of the five points of Calvinism.  Stay tuned!