Evolution of Soteriology (Part 3): A Tale of Two Graces

Irresistible, Particular Grace vs. Resistible, Universal Grace

Over the past two weeks, we’ve been laying the groundwork for today’s important theological conversation: the Tale of Two Graces. This discussion, in my view, is important because the version of the grace we believe shapes how we see God, salvation, and even each other. 

Disclaimer:

As we explore Calvinist, Arminian, and later Wesleyan perspectives on Grace, it is important to note that people from each camp genuinely believe that they have carefully studied Scripture and been led by the Holy Spirit. And that may be true for them. But since believers across these traditions say the same, we must be careful not to assume that “being led by the Spirit” automatically proves our view right and others wrong. The Spirit’s guidance is real, but so is the need for grace, humility, and a willingness to keep learning from one another. 

Having said that, I want us to jump into Evolution of Soteriology Part 3: A Tale of Two Graces: Irresistible, Particular Grace vs. Resistible, Universal Grace. 

Before we talk theology, it helps to know the world these ideas came from. Calvin and Arminius lived in different moments of history, and that shaped how they understood grace.

Historical Context:

John Calvin lived in the mid-1500s when Europe was in crisis. The Protestant Reformation was breaking up the Catholic Church’s control. There were religious wars, political chaos, and a lot of fear, especially about salvation. People weren’t sure who to trust anymore, and feudal systems were collapsing, and a new middle class was rising. In all this uncertainty, people were desperate for clarity and order.

Calvin’s theology met that need by teaching that God is sovereign and is in full control. One can be sure of God’s salvation apart from the Church or personal piety. This brought peace and structure to a world that felt unstable.

Now jump ahead 50 years to Jacobus Arminius. He lived in the late 1500s and early 1600s, when Calvinism had become dominant, especially in the Netherlands. But it had also become rigid. In some places, it wasn’t just theology; it was a political identity. To be a loyal Dutch citizen meant embracing Calvinist ideas like predestination, which made some people uneasy. People wondered if only a chosen few receive saving grace, what hope is there for the rest? During this time, the Dutch Republic was embracing political, intellectual, and religious freedom. People wanted choice, not just in government, but in faith. 

Arminius’s theology reflected that spirit. Arminius was trained in Calvinism himself under Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza. He initially accepted Calvinism but began to question it, not to rebel, but because of what he saw in Scripture and in people’s lives. While Calvin’s message emphasized God’s control, Arminius emphasized God’s love and fairness. He proposed universal Grace and free will. 

So, these two men weren’t just debating ideas; they were answering the questions of their times. Calvin spoke to a world that needed certainty. Arminius spoke to a world that needed freedom. And both were trying to make sense of grace, Scripture, and God’s role in salvation.

Total Depravity vs. Free Will: Can We Choose God, or Must He Choose Us First?

Let’s start with a question that is right at the heart of the matter: 

• What is the true condition of the human will after the fall? 
• Are we still capable of reaching out to God on our own, or has sin wounded us so deeply that we can’t even desire salvation unless God moves first?

In Calvinist theology, the answer is clear. The human condition, they say, is not just spiritually weak; it is spiritually dead. The doctrine of Total Depravity teaches that sin hasn’t just touched our actions, it has corrupted our minds, our wills, our emotions, and our affections. There’s an important nuance here that’s easy to miss. Many of us tend to think that we become depraved because we sin, that our sinful actions gradually corrupt us. But Calvinism turns that idea around. It teaches that we sin because we are already depraved, that our nature is broken from the start, and our sinful choices simply reveal what’s already true about the human heart. In this state of depravity, no one can truly seek God or believe in Him unless God Himself first breathes life into them. 

As Jesus puts it in 

John 6:44: No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” 

Paul echoes this in 

1 Corinthians 2:14: The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

So, from a Calvinist lens, even faith is something that God gives to us. First, God regenerates us, then we believe. The key thing to remember is that Faith, in this view, is evidence that God has already chosen and revived the heart.

But this leads to a deeply unsettling question, one that Jacobus Arminius couldn’t ignore. 

• If saving grace is only given to a select few, and the rest are left in spiritual darkness, how can anyone be blamed for not responding to a call they were never enabled to hear?

Arminius came to believe through scriptural study that God is both just and loving. And so, Arminius introduced the idea of prevenient grace, which we can find evidence for in the scriptures. What is this prevenient grace, and what does it do? Prevenient grace is defined as grace that goes before saving grace. Its function is to awaken each person and restore just enough spiritual awareness, just enough freedom, for someone to respond to God’s calling. It reopens the possibility of choice. God is still the initiator of salvation, but now, human freedom is part of the process, not as the cause of grace, but as the response to it. This is what we call free will. 

Arminius based this on scriptures, for example. 

Titus 2:11: For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Revelation 3:20: Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with Me.

Joshua 24:15: Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve… But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.

So we’re left with two pictures. One says that we are spiritually lifeless, unable even to want God unless He first regenerates us. The other says we are wounded but not abandoned, given grace to return home, but still needing to take the first step. One sees faith as a sign that you’ve been chosen. The other sees it as a response to a Savior who calls all.

This idea of free will vs total depravity isn’t new. If you remember the famous debate between the English monk Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo, Pelagius argued that humans are born morally neutral and have the free will to choose good or evil. In response, Augustine introduced the idea of total depravity, that our will is so corrupted by sin that we cannot choose God without His grace. So, in many ways, this is an old debate, but here, it’s taken up again with far more nuance and structure.

Unconditional vs. Conditional Election: Is God’s Choice Rooted in His Will or Our Response?

Now that we’ve considered total depravity vs free will, we’re faced with a deeper and more unsettling question: 

• If God chooses who will be saved, is His decision based entirely on His own will, without considering anything we believe, want, or do?

Calvinism answers that with a firm and unwavering conviction that God chooses whom He will save, and He does so unconditionally. This belief is known as an Unconditional Election. In other words, God’s decision to save someone isn’t based on anything He sees in that person. It’s not because of their faith, their goodness, their repentance, or their potential. His choice is rooted entirely in His own sovereign will. 

As Paul writes in 

Romans 9:15: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

Take for example

Ephesians 1:4, 5: For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love, He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will.” 

That phrase “in accordance with His pleasure and will” is central to the Calvinist perspective. God’s decision is His alone. It is mysterious. It is sovereign. And to the Calvinist, that’s not unfair, it’s a profound comfort. Because if the election is based on us, on our faith, our works, our performance, then salvation is on shaky ground. But if it’s based solely on God’s unwavering will, then it rests on a foundation that can’t be moved. In this view, God’s character is understood primarily in terms of His sovereignty, His absolute authority, and freedom to act according to His will. 

But again, Arminius steps in with a challenge. He asks: 

• If God has already decided who will be saved and who won’t, before they’ve done anything good or bad, then where is justice? Where is love? And most of all, what does that say about the character of God?

Arminius offered a different perspective, one that still honors God’s sovereignty but understands election as conditional. In this view, God doesn’t choose people based on their good deeds or merit, but based on the fact that He knows ahead of time who will freely respond to His grace. It’s not that faith earns salvation; rather, God, who sees the end from the beginning, knows who will say “yes” to His invitation. And based on that foreseen response, He chooses them.

Romans 8:29: For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

1 Peter 1:1,2: To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

It’s like a parent who knows their child so well they can often predict what they’ll do, but still gives them the freedom to choose.

For Arminians, this view is called Conditional Election, and it helps protect both God’s love and His justice. 

Limited vs. General Atonement: For Whom Did Jesus Die?

At the very center of the Christian faith is the cross. We all agree that Jesus died to save sinners. But here’s the question that draws a sharp line between Calvinism and Arminianism: 

Did Jesus die for everyone, or only for the elect?

In Calvinist theology, Limited Atonement means that when Jesus died, He didn’t die for everyone; He died specifically for those God had already chosen to save. His death didn’t just make salvation possible; it actually guaranteed salvation for that group, called the elect.

From this view, if Christ died for you, your salvation is guaranteed. His atonement didn’t merely open the door; it carried you through it. 

Let’s look at

John 10:14, 15: I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me… and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Now Calvinists argue that based on this verse, Jesus didn’t die for everyone, but only for the sheep, meaning those whom the Father has given Him.

They also point to 

John 6:37 – 39: All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away… And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me.” 

Calvinists take comfort in this verse. Based on this, if Jesus died for you, your salvation is secure. It cannot fail. His death is powerful, complete, and effective for the chosen.

But Arminians raise a deeply human, and deeply biblical, question in response: 

• If Jesus only died for the elect, then what about everyone else? Did Christ not die for them? Did He not love them? If His atonement is limited only to a few, how do we make sense of passages that speak of salvation being offered to all?

This is what Arminians call General Atonement. According to this belief, Jesus died for everyone, even though not everyone will accept Him. His death is enough to save all people, but it only takes effect for those who choose to believe. 

They turn to 

1 John 2:2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

For Arminians, the message of Scripture is clear: the cross was wide enough to include every human soul. One of their key verses is

John 3:16: For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The word “whoever” is crucial here.

Irresistible vs. Resistible Grace: Can You Say No to God’s Call?

At this point in the discussion, we’ve seen how Calvinists and Arminians understand the human condition, God’s choice, and the scope of the cross. But that leads to another key question: 

• When God reaches out to save someone, can that person resist Him? Or is God’s grace so powerful that it always gets the result He wants?

Calvinism answers this with what’s called Irresistible Grace. The idea here is that when God decides to save someone, nothing can stand in His way, not even the person’s own resistance. God doesn’t force anyone to come to Him, but He changes the heart so completely that the person will want to come. In this view, grace doesn’t just invite, it transforms. What begins as a call from the outside becomes a deep, inner work of the Holy Spirit that leads a person to freely, but inevitably, say yes to Christ.

Calvinists often turn to this verse where Jesus says,  

John 6:37:All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

They also turn to what Paul says in 

Romans 8:28-30: And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

To the Calvinist, this is incredibly comforting: God’s grace is not passive; it’s powerful and effective. It accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do.

But Arminians pause here and ask a different kind of question:

• If grace can’t be resisted, is it really love? 
• Can a relationship be genuine if one side cannot say no? 

For Arminians, God’s grace is just as powerful and just as necessary, but it always respects the person’s freedom to respond. This view is known as Resistible Grace.

In this view, God’s Spirit reaches out to all people, calling them, convicting them, inviting them to salvation, but not overriding their will. God is persuasive, not coercive. He knocks, but He doesn’t kick the door down. 

Arminians often point to 

Acts 7:51: You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

According to Arminians, this verse is the clear proof that God’s grace can be rejected.

Another key verse is 

Matthew 23:37: How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

Here, Jesus expresses a genuine desire to save, but also recognizes that people can resist. For Arminians, this shows that God allows real choice, and that choice makes love meaningful.

So, in essence, both views believe that salvation begins with God and that we need His grace to be saved. The difference is whether that grace is always accepted or can be resisted.

Perseverance of the Saints vs. Falling from Grace: Is Once Saved, Always Saved?

After walking through the questions of who can be saved, who Christ died for, and how grace works, we now arrive at one final, and deeply personal question: Once someone is saved, can they ever lose their salvation?

Calvinism answers that question with a confident no. The doctrine is called Perseverance of the Saints, and it teaches that those whom God has truly saved will never ultimately fall away. If God has chosen you, redeemed you, and transformed your heart, then He will carry you through to the end. This doesn’t mean believers never struggle, sin, or doubt, but it does mean that they will never fully walk away from God, because God’s grace will hold them fast.

Calvinists often turn to 

John 10:25-30: Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”.

They also look to 

Philippians 1:6: He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

To the Calvinist, salvation is not just a moment; it’s a process God guarantees from beginning to end. True believers will persevere, not because of their strength, but because of God’s.

But Arminians raise a caution here. 

• If God gives us the freedom to respond to grace, doesn’t He also allow us the freedom to walk away from it? 

Just as love cannot be forced at the start of the journey, it cannot be forced in the end. Arminians believe that a true believer can fall from grace, not by accident, not easily, but through a willful and persistent rejection of the faith they once embraced.

They point to passages like 

Hebrews 6:4–6: It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Or 

2 Peter 2:20,21: If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

To the Arminian, these are not warnings to hypothetical people. They are real dangers for real believers. And the warnings are there because falling away is truly possible. But they also emphasize that God’s grace is always ready to restore, even those who wander.

Both views affirm that God is faithful, and both take sin seriously. But the difference is this: Is salvation something we can walk away from, or something we’re held in no matter what? And how we answer that will affect how we view ourselves, others, and the role of grace in the long journey of faith. Now, these differing theological views on Grace changed societies in both Europe and America for the better. 

So let’s get into definitions. 

According to Calvinism, Grace is God’s unstoppable power to save. God gives it to certain people called the elect, not because of anything they’ve done, but simply because He chooses to. This grace changes their hearts so they will believe, and it guarantees they will stay with Him to the end. It cannot be resisted or lost.

According to Arminianism, Grace is God’s loving offer to all people. It gives everyone the real ability to respond to Him, but it doesn’t force anyone. People can accept or reject it, and even those who believe can later walk away. Grace is always sincere, but it requires a willing response.

Social Impact of Calvinism and Arminianism

The Calvinist view of grace taught that if God truly saved someone, He would make sure they stayed faithful, not by their own strength, but because He wouldn’t let them go. Some feared this might lead to laziness or carelessness, but instead, it often created the opposite effect. Since people couldn’t know for sure if they were chosen, many looked for signs of salvation in their lives. This led to a strong sense of responsibility and a focus on discipline, honesty, and hard work, not to earn salvation, but to show the fruits of a changed life.

Calvin also taught that everyday work, whether farming or business, could honor God. Over time, this shaped a culture that valued integrity, frugality, and purpose-driven work. Sociologist Max Weber later called this the Protestant work ethic, pointing out how Calvinism influenced not just faith but also how people thought about success and responsibility. That said, in some communities, these beliefs led to less compassion for the poor or struggling, as people assumed their condition meant they weren’t chosen by God.

Arminianism, on the other hand, taught that grace is offered to all, and each person must freely choose to accept it. This gave people a strong sense of personal responsibility, not just to believe, but to live out that belief. Since anyone could respond to God’s grace, everyone was seen as valuable and capable of change. This led to real-world action: education, prison reform, healthcare, and global missions. Influenced by John Wesley, many Arminian Christians believed faith should transform society, not just individuals.

But Arminianism had its challenges, too. Sometimes people misunderstood it as needing to “stay saved” through constant effort. This could create guilt, fear, or legalism. In other cases, evangelism became overly emotional or focused too much on human choice rather than God’s timing. These distortions didn’t reflect true Arminian theology, but they show how even a grace-filled message can be twisted if the focus shifts too much onto us.

Next week, we’ll explore how John Wesley took this conversation further. He introduced a powerful way to think about grace in three parts: prevenient grace, which wakes up the heart; justifying grace, which brings forgiveness; and sanctifying grace, which transforms us to be more like Christ. For Wesley, grace wasn’t just about being saved from sin, but about being saved for a life of love, growth, and holiness. 

Here are some questions to think about:

• Which is more comforting: knowing God guarantees your salvation, or knowing the invitation is open to everyone, including you?
• If God chooses who will be saved, is it still meaningful to say He loves everyone?
• Does your view of grace shape how you see people who reject God, or struggle in their faith?

Donald: Maybe I often have to listen to what you’re actually saying and then apply it to something that I can get my head around in order to understand it more thoroughly. Maybe it’s not valid, but I think there’s reason for consideration.

Calvinism is like an adopted child. Parents who want another child select a child. It’s not that they can’t have a child or don’t have a child. It’s that they are going to choose a child who is not naturally born to them. That would be Calvinism. Arminianism is like second parents, where the child is naturally born to someone else but says, These people I really do admire. Maybe it’s proximity—I’m going to take these people on. So the child, if you will, chooses the parents.

Then there’s natural birth. I am made, these are my parents, no question about it. There’s no choice in the matter. However, some children don’t stay close to their parents. They walk away. In my case, I haven’t walked away from my 99-year-old mother, but I do have kind of second parents. Maybe it’s because they’re younger. So there could be a combination between a natural birth and choosing second parents, or even, if my parents died, that analogy might work. Because of proximity, I choose second parents.

In the first case, I think that’s probably the most interesting to look at—the idea of being selected or being overlooked, even like adopting an animal: No, no, no, yes, no, yes, no, maybe—let’s see how they behave. That helps me process what you shared with us this morning. God selecting us is a pretty scary way of thinking. God knows the end from the beginning, so he’s really not selecting us—he just knows how it will work out, if that’s really what you’re saying. Those are some thoughts to add to the conversation.

C-J: Regarding surrogate parents, young parents might be great as young parents—let’s play, let’s have fun, let’s go visit these people. But when you get to be a teenager, they’re wondering, What happened to my child? I don’t even like this person. I don’t even know this person. Those kids will find a surrogate family to help them through that part of growing up. These people listen to me. They don’t judge me. They let us have more freedom in the house. There aren’t all these rules, and they act like they like me.

I think we do find surrogate parents. They might be teachers, neighbors, or someone we work with. All through our lives, I’ve had a lot of different mentors. To me, they’ve become, in some ways, parents if they’re ten years older than me and our experiences are being shared because of proximity. They are watching over me and thinking about what’s best for me—You’re not ready yet.

I don’t see anything wrong with it. I think it’s always about relationship and a person’s ability to adapt in their maturity given a circumstance. I think that’s the way God is with us—You’re not ready, but I still want you to try and then figure out why it didn’t work. I knew it, you knew it—you weren’t ready—but I’m going to put that in front of you because I want you to become unafraid to risk new experiences. Life is filled with new experiences, and you’re only going to grow if you fall.

I don’t see any problem with that in God. I don’t see that if you get to number ten and jump off, God says, We’re done. I don’t see that at all. I think that God knew the beginning and the end, and we’re all players on the stage—even people who look really destitute, shiftless, dealing with mental health, or all the trauma and war.

I think God has different metrics than we do. I believe in grace, and I’m very happy that, in my belief system, God doesn’t choose one over another. I always see grace. If you’re born into war, you need an extra portion. If you’re born into privilege, then your relationship with God might be a little lax—God bless me, and I’ll help others, and I’ll try to be a decent human being. But that relationship might not go as deep, because through great pain we often experience a different kind of grace.

It’s watching a loved one die of cancer, all kinds of things that make you question everything—How do I fit into that picture? That’s my biggest problem with organized religion. They want to use their metric and want you to fit into their church. If you don’t, you either fake it or leave.

I don’t think God is like that. I’ve always thought God meets you where you are, even if you can’t articulate it in a prayer, even if it’s in silence and you’re just open—I am here, Lord. Whatever you want, and I don’t even know what to ask for. I just feel awful. I can’t change this. I feel powerless. I don’t understand it.

And that’s just today. If I telescope that out, I don’t see anything that’s going to get significantly better. I just see more failure and hopelessness—global things, economics, my child being very sick.

I think grace is essential to the relationship with God. That kind of grace can only come from God because we’re finite. We come at a time, and we will leave at a time, but God knows.

There’s a Bible verse that says, I will never give you more than you can endure. It’s a nice verse to hang your coat on, but when you’re there, it hurts a lot.

Don: I wonder what both groups would think of the story of Job. I think you touched on something that has occurred to me before, and that is the possibility that both of these things can be true, or that both of them can be false. The idea that we can somehow harness the mind of God and explain him to others and explain the words of the scriptures in a way that is truth-filled, enlightening, and honest is a deeply held belief by most religious people. But it may be that God’s ways are not our ways, and his viewpoint is quite different from ours.

That’s the power of grace: you end up basing your religion on what God does, not on what man does. By doing that, it negates some of the arguments that people have fought and died over through the centuries and millennia. It ought to give us, at the very least, a great deal of humility when we try to explain what God means when he says what he says.

Donald: I find it interesting, Don, that you often balance two ideas. It’s not this nor that—it may be both. You have to be strong to be able to balance two ideas. I think most people can’t or don’t balance two ideas well. That’s certainly evident in today’s society. We’re not balanced even in considering whether another idea has any validity. Balancing two ideas that might be seen as opposing requires a great deal of mental strength. We live in a world that doesn’t do that much at all about anything. We decide what we believe, and that’s where we land.

Back to what Connie was saying: This is what the church says. You’re going to be in the church, or you’re not going to be in the church. You go with the ideas of the organized religion, or you don’t. I’m surrounded by people who are one way or the other. I’ve often referred to the churches that are two miles apart—the Campus Church and the Village Church. They don’t have much tolerance for each other, so they don’t balance ideas. They don’t even consider the other person’s ideas worthy of consideration.

I don’t want to take us too far astray, but I think the idea of balancing ideas is important. When I tried to come up with this analogy this morning: if I was naturally born—everyone is—but then, as Connie was saying, if your parents are killed in an accident or something displaces them, then you turn to this surrogate parent idea. It’s a balancing thing. I hate to even ponder the idea, but maybe I should: that I’m adopted and could be overlooked.

C-J: None of us, because you’ve lived a very cloistered life. You have decided the boundaries. You go travel and then you come back, but your life is pretty scripted. For people who don’t have a scripted life, it’s all about grace. Although we’re talking about balance, I think what makes that rough sea navigable is God’s grace. It’s that radical love. It’s that radical relationship.

No, you don’t deserve it. No, you didn’t ask. No, you don’t get to go to the front of the line. In fact, you barely even think you’re seen. But God says, I do see you. I do recognize you. You don’t have to be good enough. You don’t have to work for it. I love you, and I cover you.

Even though you may not sense God’s presence, I am with you. You are my child. You are my creation, and I will not abandon you. Even when you think things couldn’t get worse—you’re in a concentration camp, or wherever—it’s not just my belief system. It’s God’s grace that cloaks me, even though I’m surrounded by chaos and by people who are being harmed greatly.

It doesn’t have to be something catastrophic. If you lose your hope, if you don’t have anything to get up in the morning for—whether it’s your child or finding purpose in yourself or believing in yourself—why get up? It’s God’s sustaining grace that calms the waves in the storm. We can’t do it for ourselves. We can’t manifest our own destiny. I really believe God is the captain of my ship.

Today, this is going to happen. I can set the schedule, and then it’ll change, and I have to adapt. I think that’s the way it is in our most intimate relationship with God. I’m loping along, things are good, and then—Wow, didn’t see that coming. But God is always present.

Don: If you look at the Bible stories, you see God’s response to different people in quite different ways. You see the Arminian way, where God gives people choice and they choose one way over another. You also see the Calvinistic way, where God takes a man like Saul and turns him into Paul—there’s no negotiation, no free will. He’s elected, and he is going to serve.

Jonah is another example—a reluctant prophet who doesn’t really have much choice. He made his choices, but God kept turning him around. The notion that there’s a single way to salvation doesn’t line up with all the Bible stories we read. So yes, Donald, there could be opposing viewpoints that are apparently contradictory, and maybe that’s exactly what God intended.

It may be off-putting to some, but to others like myself, it’s very reassuring that God has many different ways to meet his creatures in the routine days of their lives. It’s not something we can predict, and it’s certainly not something we can fully understand. It ought to give us great humility about telling others what God’s plan is—especially for them.

C-J: If you were to substitute the word education for salvation, it becomes clearer that it’s a continuum. It’s a relationship. It’s what you’re reading, who you’re with, and so on. Then it’s not about win or lose. It’s a dynamic of revelation. When we learn, we receive revelation. We see things differently. I really see my relationship with God not as working my way to heaven or even to a better life or the next life. I see it as: What am I doing with what I’ve learned? What is the intentional purpose of where I am at this moment in time?

What constitutes a good decision? It might be a good decision, but it might not bear good fruit because of an unforeseen event I didn’t understand—or even know was on its way to me—a forest fire, a flood, whatever it is. God is looking for a response to opportunity to build a relationship, not only with God and with ourselves but also with others. It’s all a reflection of our relationship with God.

That goes back to what you were saying earlier about the Protestant work ethic. That’s the fruit—to be a witness without having to talk about Jesus. You don’t have to. There are many other belief systems that see the Creator very similarly to us—in ritual and words and text. I’ve met some very good people who don’t identify with a particular belief system.

David: I think what Donald said is exactly the crux of the issue here: we can’t hold two competing ideas in our minds. The problem is that the Bible gives us multiple competing ideas. As Don said, we can’t handle that. What we do instead is choose one of the ideas in the Bible and latch onto it, either because it suits us or (more likely) because it’s what our parents or our church pushed onto us. That then becomes the scripture for us, even though it’s by no means the whole of scripture.

Kiran’s talk this morning highlighted two competing ideas—and they are just two examples of the convolutions and contortions that scripture seems to have caused. Perhaps that’s because of the way we’re looking at it. One of the first things Kiran said this morning stuck with me. He quoted Corinthians to the effect that some things can be discerned only through the Spirit.

To me, that’s how I would read the Bible: What does it say to me in the Spirit? Not—What does it say to my intellect? This is the problem. We look at scripture as an intellectual exercise. It’s not. It’s a spiritual exercise. To me, that’s the answer. That’s the way to balance it. Donald put his finger on it—it’s about balancing these competing ideas. There is a balance. There’s no right and wrong between them. They are different perspectives. 

The beauty of scripture is that they’re all there, and none of them is wrong. In one sense, you might say none of them is right. But what is right is something you know through the Spirit. It’s not something you can know through any one perspective given to you in scripture, or through your church, or through doctrine.

Don: Moreover, as I think I’ve said before, we’d rather be wrong than uncertain. If we don’t know something, we make it up. Then we take a guideline and establish it into rules, and the rules become constitutions. There’s no end to how much we want to defend our ideas and our viewpoints—when in fact we haven’t a clue what we’re even talking about.

David: And we make things up. It’s not always a deliberate lie. We’re just interpreting things, spinning things in our own minds without realizing that we are subverting the Word of God. This is what worries me about some aspects of the Bible.

You have the Synoptic Gospels telling us about Jesus and his mission and what he taught—it’s all beautiful. Then the rest of the New Testament has John and Paul fundamentally interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, telling us what Jesus’s mission meant and what his words meant. Right there, you begin the problem of interpretation and spin. 

It’s only a problem if you then latch onto one of those views and build everything on it. But if you accept them all—they’re all beautiful thoughts. John’s thoughts, Paul’s thoughts, they all matter. They all count. But you can’t cherry-pick one and say, I’m going with that one, and I’m going to build my church on that. That’s not the way to go about it.

Don: The reason we do that is because we’re convinced that somehow what we believe is what conditions salvation.

David:
Because it’s there in the Bible. 

Don: Yes. The idea that this is God’s work and not our work is a difficult concept to embrace. Somebody should write a book about grace.

Reinhard: This is a difficult subject for me—the idea of Calvinism—as if we don’t have to do anything because God chose us. And the same with Arminianism—that God, through foreknowledge, knows we are going to choose.

I think there’s a third idea: God, of course, through foreknowledge, knew from the beginning. That’s why he created before, and he knew us before the foundation of the world. The commonality of all this is that all these people—like us—have a relationship with God. We know the Bible. I think this is not given to outsiders. It’s only those who know God’s Word. The sheep know the shepherd—just like us, we know.

If we think about legalists and open-minded believers, I think all of us love God and want to live according to biblical principles. All the apostles—especially Paul—were given instruction by God about what to say. A lot of Paul’s teaching is embraced by all Christians.

To me, all in all, even though this is a hard subject, when we establish a relationship with God, we know what God wants. That’s why God says, If you love me, obey my commandments. As Christians, we still have to go through this route. We cannot disregard it. We are all believers in God. I think we just let the Holy Spirit work in us and discern what we need to do as far as our belief in God. We just continue our relationship with God and get closer to him every day. That’s what I think we need to do.

C-J: If you go back to the time before literacy, when people couldn’t read and write or read what we’re discussing here—the context of the written word and interpretation by the Holy Spirit—then you can apply that. But before that, if you look at indigenous peoples who survived for thousands of years—certainly for hundreds—their system of understanding God came through nature.

Whether it was a flood, new babies in spring, or the renewal of the land with rain and warmer weather, it was all seen as the hand of God. They interpreted a positive relationship between people as an expression of God: when you extend grace, when you are kind, when you help.

All those things Kiran mentioned earlier about what made a good Protestant work ethic—living in community—it functioned better. It was more productive, and it was protective.The church still is all those things. We call it politics today, but then it was seen as understanding God in relationship. God is in each of these people. So our relationship with these people also has to demonstrate love, kindness, and inclusivity.

That was the challenge for the people who came over on the Mayflower and everyone else. You had to get along. It was essential for your survival. You had to recognize everybody’s individual gifts, talents, and where they were in life. What we expect from children now would be very different from what was expected of a 10-year-old back then. Life was much more precarious. You could easily die from disease, accident, famine, or some natural disaster.

We get hung up on literacy and interpretation. We should really be going back to the basics with God—relying on a sense of what God wrote upon our hearts: that intuition, that spirit. We get cluttered pretty quickly. We put a lot of things in our house we don’t need that don’t benefit us. We have a lot of interruptions in our lives, especially now with all this digital stuff. 

We are a very fractured species—intellectually, ideologically, spiritually—and therefore damaged.

Donald: If you take a look at this week—I don’t know how many of you, probably fewer than half, have looked over the shoulder of what’s going on in St. Louis, which happens every five years. It’s just an amazing thing. Becky and I have participated in a number of them—Becky more than I have. That would be the General Conference Sessions for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent this past week bringing this group of people together—common believers.

There are a variety of reasons people go to St. Louis. Some are curious, some want to make a difference, and some are there to try to share their perspective. In the context of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, when you look over the shoulder at what’s going on—all these reports being given—it’s an amazing thing. Then there’s the business sessions, which you can only get into if you’re a delegate. You can only take up so much time at a microphone to try to persuade people whether this T is crossed or that I is dotted.

So why are we doing this? What’s the reason for gathering like this? I’m not here to make that judgment. But I would say lots of people go because it’s a big Seventh-day Adventist party. There are thousands of people there. It makes you think: My judgment between these two things is right. We’re all correct. This is what Adventists believe. Then they go home, and everybody’s happy, rather than holding two things and saying, I’m a Seventh-day Adventist, I’m proud of it, but this is my perspective. This isn’t what I know.

That’s probably controversial.

C-J: It’s the politics of accountability and financial domains. You’re not just paying for your church when you pay a tithe. You’re also asked, indirectly, to support other things the Adventists do—curriculum being printed, what’s in that curriculum, their schools, universities. It really is a peacock event. These are the wealthiest donors and influencers in one category. These people get to speak. This money is already pre-earmarked. The church has always been a government, and it functions very much like a government in terms of doctrine and persuasion. If you put that as an overlay on your faith, you’re going to get in trouble.

Donald: What I’m trying to share is that it’s okay. Let them do that in St. Louis. Let people pay their tithes and offerings to make that possible. If it brings security to you in your faith—which it obviously does if you look into it—anybody there is thrilled to be there. That’s a perspective. But the problem is we don’t say, That’s a perspective. We say, That is the way it has to be. To write them off is just as wrong as writing this off. That’s what I’m trying to say.

I had a conversation this week with a very dear friend, the primary pastor of the church in the village who was let go six months ago. He just bought 100 acres nearby and is going to start his own thing. My very dear friend and I were talking, and I asked, What do you think? This is an amazing thing to have happen in our community. He wrote the whole thing off: Have you ever heard him speak? —No.

C-J: But that’s the way it works, Donald. It’s not just Seventh-day Adventists—I’m going to take my toys and go play somewhere else. In order to do that, buying the land is an act of not just resistance but also of saying, I have enough people to support me, so I must be important. I’ve seen that happen many times with churches. They call it seed faith, or other things. But what it really is, is, I’m done arguing with you. I’m right. These people think we’re all in the same boat, and we can just do it over here. You do your thing. We don’t have to be in agreement.

If you take away the context of literacy, God would never do that. It’s unproductive for the survival of the species. It also doesn’t represent how God deals with us as individuals.

Donald: I’d like to go back to what I think I said in the beginning—an amazing capacity Don Weaver has—and that is to balance two things. I don’t have any problem with: This is not the other, or maybe it is the other—but it’s not necessarily wrong. It’s not something where I’m taking my toys and going home to do something over here against you or over there. Why can’t we say, Probably the contribution that’s being made there is as valid as what I believe here?

C-J: The thing is, Donald, you are one person. When you have a collective whole—your constituency—you have to have consensus. What you’re asking for has never worked, even in a family unit of three kids and two parents. Getting consensus requires compromise. Not only compromise, but: What is the messaging going to be to our children?

Unless children learn how adults negotiate—I never heard my parents argue in front of me. I knew things were really bad when nobody was talking. I knew things were bad when we weren’t going to the park after church. The subtext was: Nobody’s working towards peace. We’re just not going to talk about it. Eventually, somebody will concede by action. That’s a terrible way to learn higher-order thinking and problem-solving—and what’s worthy of being dismissed.

You’re right—it’s not that big a deal. The most important thing is that we have financial stability and that we agree on our moral compass. That’s where you should land in a family, and that’s where you should land in a church. Do you want to be the pastor, or do you want to be God’s vessel? If you want to be God’s vessel, then you join together with people you don’t like because you must demonstrate how to negotiate, bring peace, and be mature.

If we don’t have enough money, we don’t buy it. If we need a bigger parking lot, then we carpool. We cannot afford to do things just to prove to someone else that we’re prosperous because God’s blessing us. It’s an insane concept, but churches do it all the time. Schools do it. Governments do it. We’ve really missed the mark when we start leaning into the rule of law—what we can demonstrate through text and promote as our mantra, our belief system—instead of learning that there’s a balance in nature that we did not create.

God created it. Some things will die, some things will flourish. And when that season and time is done, there will be an extinction and a new generation—something that can adapt to the environment better. That is the way of nature. God is intuitively nature. It’s dynamic. You can’t all agree—or what will happen? We will die from within. There will be no new idea, no creativity, no exercising our muscles or our frontal lobe.

Don: Fortunately, we have artificial intelligence that’s going to get us out of all this. 😉 

C-J: No, this is about relationship. You don’t have a relationship with a machine other than what you program it to do and the power you give it. 

Don: Power—yes.

Kiran: I just wanted to say that Paul in Titus 2:11 says grace has appeared to offer salvation to all people. The same Paul goes into Romans 9 and says, I will have mercy on whom I want to have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I want to have compassion. So—is Paul schizophrenic? Is he bipolar? What’s going on?

I want to ask one last question. If you think about Calvinism, there is huge comfort in it—knowing that if you are selected, or one of the elect, God will guarantee your salvation. He’ll make sure you are not only redeemed but also transformed. What if that kind of salvation is not just for the elect, but for the entire human race? Would that bother you? 

Reinhard: I think I would be all right with it. 

Regarding the meeting in St. Louis, to me, the organization has to grow that way. Everybody comes for a revival, social or religious meeting. But when they go back to their own country, they seem equipped with new spirit to spread the gospel. Every church—especially the bigger ones—has annual meetings like that.

If you look in the past, as Connie mentioned, God dealt differently with his people. Maybe the angel talked to people or the prophets. As we come into this modern day, we have a lot of resources from scholars, authors, theologians. But again, the social need for the church to grow—every organization needs that one big meeting. As it gets bigger, they have to pass the torch to another leader. This has to keep going as long as the world exists. I think it is needed, even if we’re not part of it. It’s needed.

Don: We’ll have an opportunity to continue our discussion next week.