Dr Greg Boyd on Romans 9 and leaving Calvinism

Below is the video of Dr Greg Boyd's excellent sermon on Romans 9. The downloads for this sermon are available on the Woodland Hills Church website here.

He begins addressing Romans 9 at around 5:56 of the video, and at about 15:45 he shares his own testimony of how he left Calvinism.

Also see Dr Boyd's blog post: "How do you Respond to Romans 9?".

For more testimonies:

There are a number of testimonies from other former Calvinists I have come across and shared on this blog.  Here are the links to some those posts:

• Dr Clark Pinnock;
• Pastor Derwin Gray;
• Writer Ben Irwin;
• And of course, from my first post:
• Dr Scot McKnight, “Calvinism: My History 1”, Part Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven;
• Dr Leighton Flowers, “The five points that led me out of Calvinism”;
• Pastor Keith Coward, “Calvinist Pastor Turns from Calvinism to Arminianism after 20 Years as a Calvinist and Intensive Study”;
• Writer Zach Hoag, “Breaking Wesleyanabaptist: A Story of (Resistible) Grace”; and
• Pastor Austin Fischer, in his interview with Shane Blackshear and in his book, Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed: Black Holes, Love, and a Journey In and Out of Calvinism (or Google Preview).

Related Posts:

• Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd Explain the Corporate View of Election;
• NT Wright on Predestination, Election and Romans 9;
• Questions to ask as you approach Romans 9.

Clark H Pinnock, "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology"

Here is an excerpt and then some shorter quotations from Clark H Pinnock, "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology", The Grace of God, the Will of Man, Clark H Pinnock ed.,  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, (1989), 15-30. You can read the full chapter online here. (HT: TC Moore ):

[...] 

I held onto this view until about 1970, when one of the links in the chain of the tight Calvinian logic broke. It had to do with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, likely the weakest link in Calvinian logic, scripturally speaking. I was teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School at the time and attending to the doctrine particularly in the book of Hebrews. If in fact believers enjoy the kind of absolute security Calvinism had taught me they do, I found I could not make very good sense of the vigorous exhortations to persevere (e.g., 3:12) or the awesome warnings not to fall away from Christ (e.g., 10:26), which the book addresses to Christians. It began to dawn on me that my security in God was linked to my faith-union with Christ and that God is teaching us here the extreme importance of maintaining and not forsaking this relationship. The exhortations and the warnings could only signify that continuing in the grace of God was something that depended at least in part on the human partner. And once I saw that, the logic of Calvinism was broken in principle, and it was only a matter of time before the larger implications of its breaking would dawn on me. The thread was pulled, and the garment must begin to unravel, as indeed it did.   

What had dawned on me was what I had known experientially all along in my walk with the Lord, that there is a profound mutuality in our dealings with God. What happens between us is not simply the product of a set of divine decrees that, written on an everlasting and unchangeable scroll, determine all that takes place in the world. I began to doubt the existence of an all-determining fatalistic blueprint for history and to think of God's having made us significantly free creatures able to accept or reject his purposes for us (Luke 7:30). Even the good news of the grace of God will not benefit us, as Hebrews says, unless "mixed with faith in the hearers." (Heb. 4:2) For the first time I realized theologically that the dimension of reciprocity and conditionality had to be brought into the picture of God's relations with us in creation and redemption and that, once it is brought in, the theological landscape would have to change significantly. The determinist model cannot survive once a person starts down this road, as scripturally I came to see I must.    

[...]   

Driven by Scripture itself as I reflected on it, and not out of rationalist motives as some might unkindly suggest, I found myself having to push ahead and do more rethinking in several other areas of doctrine adjacent to this one in the years that followed during the 1970s. Just as one cannot change the pitch of a single string on the violin without adjusting the others, so one cannot introduce a major new insight into a coherent system like Calvinian theology without having to reconsider many other issues. Let me explain five of the doctrinal moves that logic required and I believed Scripture permitted me to make during this period.   

1. The first and the best discovery I made was that there was no "horrible decree" at all. Calvin had used this expression in connection with his belief that God in his sovereign good pleasure had predestined some people to be eternally lost for no fault of theirs (Institutes, 3.23). Calvin was compelled to say that because, if one thinks that God determines all that happens in the world (his Augustinian premise) and not all are to be saved in the end (as he believed the Bible taught), there was no way around it. Calvin's logic was impeccable as usual: God wills whatever happens, so if there are to be lost people, God must have willed it. It was as logically necessary as it was morally intolerable.   

Of course I had always known how morally loathsome the doctrine of double predestination is and how contradictory it is to the universal biblical texts, but I had not known previously how to avoid it. But now with the insight of reciprocity in hand, which had just surfaced for me in rethinking the doctrine of perseverance, it became possible for me to accept the scriptural teaching of the universal salvific will of God and not feel duty-bound to deny it as before. I was now in a position to rejoice in the truth that God's will is for all to be saved (I Tim. 2:4), and that God's grace has appeared for the salvation of all people (Titus 2:11).   

[...]

On election (bold mine):

One possibility that presented itself was to think of election as being based on the foreknowledge of God (Rom. 8:29; I Peter 1:2). This was the standard Arminian position--one favored by early Greek fathers--and it would deviate least from the Calvinian idea of the selection of a certain number of specific individuals from before the creation of the world to be saved. [...] I found myself attracted to a second possibility--that election is a corporate category and not oriented to the choice of individuals for salvation. I knew that everyone admitted this to be the case in the Old Testament where the election of Israel is one of a people to be God's servant in a special way. Was it possible that the New Testament texts too could be interpreted along these same lines? Upon reflection I decided that they could indeed be read corporately, election then speaking of a class of people rather than specific individuals. God has chosen a people for his Son, and we are joined and belong to the elect body by faith in Christ (Eph. 1:3-24).   

Viewed in this way, election, far from arbitrarily excluding anybody, encompasses them all potentially. As a corporate symbol, election is no longer a dark mystery, but a joyous cause of praise and thanksgiving. Not only so but this model has the distinct advantage of construing election as a divine decision and not the pale notion of God's ratifying our choices as in the standard Arminian interpretation. If election is understood as a corporate category, then it would be God's unconditional decision and be potentially universal as regards all individuals. All are invited to become part of the elect people by personal faith.

On predestination:

Previously I had to swallow hard and accept the Calvinian antinomy that required me to believe both that God determines all things and that creaturely freedom is real. I made a valiant effort to believe this seeming contradiction on the strength of biblical infallibility, being assured that the Bible actually taught it. So I was relieved to discover that the Bible does not actually teach such an incoherence, and this particular paradox was a result of Calvinian logic, not scriptural dictates. Having created human beings with relative autonomy alongside himself, God voluntarily limits his power to enable them to exist and to share in the divine creativity. God invites humans to share in deciding what the future will be. God does not take it all onto his own shoulders. Does this compromise God's power? No, surely not, for to create such a world in fact requires a divine power of a kind higher than merely coercive. 

[...]  

Obviously what is happening here is a paradigm shift in my biblical hermeneutics. I am in the process of learning to read the Bible from a new point of view, one that I believe is more truly evangelical and less rationalistic. Looking at it from the vantage point of God's universal salvific will and of significant human freedom, I find that many new verses leap up from the page, while many old familiar ones take on new meaning. In the past I would slip into my reading of the Bible dark assumptions about the nature of God's decrees and intentions. What a relief to be done with them!

On human inability:

In any case, what became decisive for me was the simple fact that Scripture appeals to people as those who are able and responsible to answer to God (however we explain it) and not as those incapable of doing so, as Calvinian logic would suggest. The gospel addresses them as free and responsible agents, and I must suppose it does so because that is what they are.

On the atonement:

[...] Christ's death on behalf of the race evidently did not automatically secure for anyone an actual reconciled relationship with God, but made it possible for people to enter into such a relationship by faith. Gospel invitations in the New Testament alone make this clear. It caused me to look again first at the theory of Anselm and later of Hugo Grotius, both of whom encourage us to view the atonement as an act of judicial demonstration rather than a strict or quantitative substitution as such. Paul's word in Romans 3:25-26 then became more important for me where the apostle himself declares that the cross was a demonstration of the righteousness of God, proving God's holiness even in the merciful justification of sinners.

The full chapter is online here.

Further Reading:

Books:

• $2.99 until September 1: Perspectives on Election, with Clark Pinnock presenting the Corporate view.
  
  

• Clark H Pinnock, ed., The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Google Preview, or Find in a Library);
• Clark Pinnock & John Wagner, eds., Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation (Google Preview, or Find in a Library; and also check for the original, Grace Unlimited) -- here is a Comment from Roger Olson, one of the contributors.

Related Posts:

• What’s contributing to the increase in “x-Calvinists” and some testimonies;
• Where Did All These Arminians Come From?;
• Another testimony from a former Calvinist: Ben Irwin, "The day the tulip died".

Another testimony from a former Calvinist: Ben Irwin, "The day the tulip died"

I came across another testimony; this one from Ben Irwin (author of the children's book, The Story of King Jesus) who described his journey in a 9-part series at his blog a few years ago.  Part 1 is here, and there is a link to the next part at the bottom of each post.  (Ben has also posted on Corporate Election, and included the same video I shared in my previous post).

Here is an excerpt from Part 6 (link):

I spent a little over three years in a neo-Reformed church. And it nearly killed my faith.

[...]

At one point, our pastor spent two years preaching through the book of Luke. Almost every sermon, it seemed, boiled down to the same point: Only a few have been chosen for salvation, even among those ostensibly following Jesus, so watch out. Which creates a problem. If only a few have been chosen, if even a great many who appear to be following Christ are excluded, and if predestination is a “high mystery,” then how can you ever be sure you’re among the elect?

This question tormented me. Every flaw, every sin, every imperfection became further proof that I couldn’t possibly be one of the elect. And the worst part is, if you’re not part of the elect, there’s nothing you can do about it. Your fate has already been sealed by God.

(The irony, which only dawned on me later, is that Luke’s gospel is one of the worst places to argue for such a narrow view of election. Luke is easily the most inclusive of the four gospels. Again and again, he shows how those thought to be excluded from God’s favor — Gentiles, women, people with stigmatizing infirmities — were actually welcome at his table. According to Luke, Jesus swung the doors wide open, much to the chagrin of the religious establishment.)

When I was introduced to the Calvinist view of predestination in the mid-1990s, my first instinct was to wonder how I could ever be sure I was part of the elect. Seven years later, I found myself wondering the same thing all over again.

Even more problematic, I had come to believe that love was one of God’s “soft” attributes (compared to the biggies like holiness, sovereignty, immutability, etc.). It wasn’t a huge leap from that to wondering whether God was truly loving at all.

After all, if God’s chief concern is for his own glory (as Piper claims) and holiness is his supreme attribute (as my church taught), then love is at best a secondary concern for God. On top of that, if you’re not among the elect, it makes no sense to conceive of God loving you at all. “I love you, but before you were born, I decided you would spend eternity in agonizing torment.” Seriously?

The more all this weighed on me, the more I began to hate going to church (which made being on the worship team a bit complicated). I was also growing troubled by the theological arrogance I saw in myself and others. Besides, what did I have to be arrogant about if I wasn’t even part of the elect?

All I knew was that I had to choose between a loving God and a deterministic God (or no God at all). I realize most Calvinists feel this is a false choice, but it’s the one I had to make. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s a false choice at all, because love and determinism are fundamentally irreconcilable.

The good news is that my wife was wrestling with some of the same concerns. Luckily for me, while I was still kicking them around in my head (which wasn’t doing either of us any good), she spoke up. And so we talked . . . and decided we had to leave.

Related Posts:

• Dr Greg Boyd on Romans 9 and leaving Calvinism;
• On Assurance of Salvation and Calvin's “Evanescent Grace”;
• Where Did All These Arminians Come From?.

What’s contributing to the increase in “x-Calvinists” and some testimonies

What’s contributing to the increase in “x-Calvinists”?

We have seen a number of testimonies recently of Christians abandoning Calvinism.  The latest that I have seen is from Leighton Flowers, adjunct Professor of Theology at Dallas Baptist University, who shared his testimony on his website www.soteriology101.com.  William Birch, who blogs at I, Jacob Arminius, has noted, “The more stories like this we are reading over the last two years is indicative of a trend: the historical ebb and flow of Calvinism is ebbing.”  

A few bloggers have suggested reasons which I believe help to explain this shift and which resonate with my own story.  Here are two:

1. Calvinism is not as deep and robust a theology as its leaders portray...

Of course, the main reason there are more x-Calvinists is because there are more Calvinists.  While this might seem obvious, hear me out. This comment from Internet Monk, though in another context, stood out to me:

[Reformed theology] is often a first step away from generic evangelicalism, especially for more analytical types. It was for me when I left Bible college and at times during my seminary career and throughout periods of my ministry. Michael Spencer also embraced a form of calvinism for a time until he came to see its limitations...

(Link)

This was certainly true for me: Calvinism was a good first step into a deeper study of theology, but I know now that it was only a step.  When I first embraced Calvinism, the impression I had was that Calvinism was the end of the road, or the top of the theological mountain. Eventually, however, I was forced to confront its implications, particularly for the character of God.  As more Christians study their Bibles through a Calvinistic lens, I expect that more will also be convicted of the inconsistency between Calvinism and the God of the Bible, just as I was.

When I began reading the testimonies of Arminians, I was surprised at how many are former Calvinists (including Arminius, himself).  If you are beginning to see Calvinism’s limitations, I want to encourage you to keep climbing.  (I hope to compile a recommended reading list in a later post, but for now I would recommend A.W. Tozer, especially The Pursuit of God, Knowledge of the Holy, and That Incredible Christian, and be sure to check out the resources available from SEA and Baptist Centre for Theology and Ministry).

2. Young Calvinists are growing up...

A second reason, also true of my own story, was suggested in a post by Roger Olson:

It’s pretty easy for a young, unmarried or not-yet-parent Young, Restless, Reformed person to embrace double predestination, but when he has a child and gazes on it as his own beloved son or daughter he [begins] to change (or should if his love is real and deep). Could this beloved child be predestined by God our Father to eternal torture in hell? Sure, some very iron clad Calvinists will not let that sway them, but many will. (Link)

I left Calvinism soon after the birth of my second child.  The question facing every Calvinist parent, if they will allow themselves to face it, is “Does God desire my child to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), or does He desire their destruction for His glory?” (at least if you hold to a Piper/Edwards view of Calvinism).

A. W. Tozer wrote, “If our faith is to have a firm foundation we must be convinced beyond any possible doubt that God is altogether worthy of our trust” (Link).  The Calvinist depiction of God with a “secret will” which often contradicts His Word[1] is a far stretch from “the humble, other-oriented, self-sacrificial God revealed in Jesus Christ”[2].  (In his sermon on Romans 9, Greg Boyd discusses this same objection in his own journey away from Calvinism, Link).

Here are some of the testimonies which have especially stood out to me since I left Calvinism:

• Leighton Flowers, The five points that led me out of Calvinism;
• Former PCA pastor Keith Coward, Calvinist Pastor Turns from Calvinism to Arminianism after 20 Years as a Calvinist and Intensive Study;
• Scot McKnight, Calvinism: My History 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7; and see his comments on Keith Coward’s story, here;
• Zach Hoag, Breaking Wesleyanabaptist: A Story of (Resistible) Grace;
• Arminius: see William Birch’s sketch of Arminius (and his own testimony) here;
• X-Calvinist Corner includes a number of testimonies;
• And of course, take a look at Austin Fischer’s testimony in his book, Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed: Black Holes, Love, and a Journey In and Out of Calvinism.

Also check out:

• Zack Hunt, Dear John (An Open Letter To John Calvin)

Endnotes:

[1] I think especially of passages like Ezekiel 18:32: can God take "no pleasure" in that which brings Him the most glory?  Or put another way, can God take "no pleasure" in that which He decreed/ordained, and rendered certain because it brings Him the most glory?

[2] This is a quote from Greg Boyd’s endorsement of Austin Fischer’s book.

* On the second reason, also take a look at: William Birch, A Love Greater Than That of God Himself.

** John Piper, a prominent Calvinist leader, has addressed this regarding his own children (Link):

But I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for his sons. And, though I think I would give my life for their salvation, if they should be lost to me, I would not rail against the Almighty. He is God. I am but a man. The potter has absolute rights over the clay. Mine is to bow before his unimpeachable character and believe that the Judge of all the earth has ever and always will do right.

Notice how painful this is to his conscience: in Piper's view, at the end of the day if his sons are not believers it is not because they have rejected the Gospel, but rather it is because God has rejected them.

Related Posts: 

• "Zach Hoag, Jesus shows me that God is a Father I can trust" (Feb 8, 2015)
• “Where Did All These Arminians Come From?” (Feb 27, 2015)