Calvinism: A Conclusion

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.


I'll never be a famous blogger.  In order to build a successful blog, I'd need to post every day, and that's something I'll never do.  (And even then I'd need to contend with my lack of actual writing talent!)  You see, the original purpose of this blog is to be my mental clearing house.  A place for me to scrape the metaphorical turd off the bottom of my shoe (hence the name of my blog) and keep walking.  For me, hitting "Publish post" is like flushing the toilet.

This is the reason I haven't been posting more in this series about Calvinism.  As I made my way through the remainder of Roger Olson's book,  Against Calvinism , there were less and less aspects of it I wanted to write about... As he took the five points of TULIP and discussed each one in depth, I found very little that compelled me to write.  I found it difficult to even make my way through the remainder of the book.  The reason is very simple: I was sold.  

Although I'll certainly give Horton's  For Calvinism  it's fair shot, I'll be honest and admit that the topic is off my radar.  My family has started going to an Arminian church, (independent, but historically Wesleyan) and I'm relatively at peace with this issue that has bothered me for a long time.

As I think through this whole issue, one thing has become clear: I've always been an Arminian.  My Reformed upbringing is not without affect: I can fall in line when needed, supplying the typical Calvinist answers to the common questions when the situation arises.  But deep down, the God I've always believed in is a God who has limited his own sovereignty to allow me the genuine choice between right and wrong, to believe in Him or not.  

Before anyone calls me a historical revisionist, take a look at four of my posts from 2008.  In my response to an essay by atheist Richard Carrier titled Why I am Not a Christian, I give my rebuttals to each of his arguments.  Without exception, the God I defend is the God revealed by Arminian theology.  Take a look at my own words from four years ago:

From my response to "God is Silent":

God took the ultimate risk: He gave us free will, and in doing so, took the risk that we would reject Him; that our choice would result in eternal separation from Him. 

From my response to "God is Inert":

Part of loving God is obeying Him. A lot of the evil in the world arises from human beings exercising their free will, disobeying God. Creatures that are free to love must be free to choose.

And in my response to "Christianity Predicts a Different Universe" I adopt Kenneth Miller's words as my own:

God's love and gift of freedom are genuine - so genuine that they include the power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to Hell. -Kenneth Miller, in Finding Darwin's God [pp. 285-291]

I really struggled with those posts; Trying to clearly communicate why, even in the face of massive doubts, I believe that the Christian God is real.  Looking back has helped me see one reason why I've felt so out of place in my Calvinistic Baptist church:  For me, the god of Calvinism is indefensible, and I simply do not believe he exists.  I believe in a God who offers a choice between good and evil.  And I've believed in him all along.

"P" - Perseverance of the Saints: Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.


Olson finishes up his tour of Calvinism (by way of "TULIP") in chapter 3 by describing perseverance of the saints (the "P" in TULIP).  He defines it like this:

[A] truly elect person cannot ever be finally or fully lost because God will keep him or her from falling. (pp. 53)

I agree with Olson that this is by far the least objectionable doctrine in TULIP because it reflects little (if any) on the character of God.  I have often been puzzled by this doctrine, simply because it is completely self-fulfilling (at least from our perspective) and provides little comfort or utility in the life of a believer or non-believer.  Many examples can be given of "solid" Christians giving up their faith, and in these cases I often hear statements like "they either were not a genuine believer, or they will come back around eventually"...  In either case, the doctrine is useless and provides little comfort.

I'm sure some people disagree; Perhaps someone who is absolutely sure of their salvation might see this as assurance that this will never change.  But in that case, this assurance is only as sure as their belief that they are actually saved.  In other words, telling someone that they can never loose their salvation is only comforting in as much as that person is sure they are actually saved.  I've never seen this doctrine as adding anything to ones assurance that they'll end up in heaven someday.

Anyway, that end's Olson's tour of what he calls "Mere Calvinism", by way of the TULIP acrostic.

"I" - Irresistible Grace: Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series. 


Chapter 3 continues with Olson describing irresistible grace like this:

A person chosen by God for salvation will not, because he or she cannot, resist the "inward call" of God because God "bends their will."  It is not a matter of coercion; the Holy Spirit does not overwhelm and force the person to repent and believe; rather, the Holy Spirit transforms the persons heart so that he or she wants to repent and believe.

And then a little later,

[T]he work of the Holy Spirit in regenerating grace, although irresistible, never violates the person's free agency: "The elect are so influenced by divine power that their coming is an act of voluntary choice. 

 

And then, before the words were out of my mouth:

This seems peculiarly paradoxical, but that doesn't bother Boettner or other Calvinists.

Okay, the first statement makes sense to me: The Holy Spirit fundamentally changes a person's heart, so that they want to (and always will) believe.  But that's not a violation of free agency?  Did the person have any say in whether their heart was transformed?  Obviously not.  I think you get the point.  This is another area where it will be interesting to see Horton's perspective.

Olson also raises two scriptural concerns with irresistible grace that I thought were interesting:

1) "Draw" vs. "Compel"

Olson describes how Calvinists claim that the word "draw" in John 6:44 really means "compel". Olson suggests that if the Greek word for "draw" can only mean "compel" then John 12:32 (which uses the same word) teaches universal salvation.

Obviously Olson must make the case that the Greek word for "draw" cannot have two similar (but different) meanings in the two contexts for this to be a valid argument.  I'm not one to dig into the Greek and try to make a determination myself.  (I know people that would, and more power to them, but I'd just be fooling myself.) I'll look forward to Olson's full discussion in chapter 7, and (I assume) Horton's opposite viewpoint in For Calvinism.

2) The order of regeneration and faith

This concept was completely new to me: Since repentance and faith are not possible unless a person has been regenerated (according to the Calvinist system) then logically regeneration must precede repentance and faith.

This is obviously opposite of typical experience, as well as counter to the message of "believe and be saved" as normally presented (even by Calvinists).  In reference to this, Olson cites John 3:1-21:

Jesus tells Nicodumus that he must be born again and that belief in him will accomplish that (v. 14).  There is really no way to reconcile this passage with belief that regeneration precedes faith. (pp. 52, emphasis mine)

I'm not sure how verse 14 relates to that (did he mean v. 15?) but even so, this whole issue of regeneration preceding faith seems like one of these theological fabrications that just must be so, because a theological system requires it...  

"L" - Limited Atonement: Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.

In chapter 3, Olson describes limited atonement by first stating that all Calvinists accept the penal substitution theory of the atonement, namely that 

[T]hey believe... that God punished Jesus for the sins of the people God wanted to save... In other words, Jesus Christ satisfied the justice of God by bearing the deserved punishment of every person God wanted to save.  That's what makes them "savable". (pp. 47)

He then goes on to define what limited atonement means:

The limited nature of the atonement... was in its scope and not in its value. It was particularly intended by God for particular people (as opposed to everyone indiscriminately) and it definitely secured or accomplished the salvation of those for whom it was intended - the elect. (pp. 47)

and later, adds this little tidbit:

[M]ost Calvinists deny that God intended the cross for all people, which means, of course, that he does not love everyone in the same way. (pp. 48)

This part of the chapter is where Olson begins to present some material that I'm anxious to hear from Horton's (pro-Calvinist) point of view.  Olson gives a short summary of how Calvinists explain the various benefits received by the elect and non-elect, especially in light of the "all" passages in scripture.  Olson describes how Calvinists claim (as in the quote above) that God loves everybody, but not in the same way.  So Christ died for the sins of the elect, but not the sins of the reprobate.  Christ's death benefits the non-elect in a more general way, like in the rising of the sun (Matthew 5:45).  The "all" passages in scripture are said to apply to the non-elect in this more general way.


Olson puts it like this:

On the basis of what Scriptures do Calvinists affirm limited atonement? ... Boettner, Sproul, Piper and others point to passages such as John 10:15; 11:51-52; and 17:6, 9 19, in which Jesus says things such as "I lay down my life for the sheep."

Olson will rebut this more completely in chapter 6, but here he simply states that these passages, all of which indeed talk bout Jesus dying for "his people" do not necessarily exclude the possibility of Jesus dying for others.  He continues:

In fact, 1 John 2:2 clearly states that he, Jesus, is the atonement for the sins of the whole world. Piper and others claim this refers to the children of God scattered throughout the world and not everyone. (pp. 50)

I'm sure Horton will present this argument more elegantly, but to me this claim just reeks of BS. Combine this with the divine picture that emerges when God is charged with sending people to hell "for his good pleasure", and the "T" in TULIP becomes the most problematic, at least for me.

"U" - Unconditional Election: Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.

In chapter 3, Olson defines unconditional election (the "U" of TULIP) by quoting Loraine Boettner's book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:

The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an eternal, divine decree which, antecedently to any difference or desert in men themselves, separates the human race into two portions and ordains one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death [hell]. (pp. 43 in Olson)

Olson summarizes unconditional election in this way:

God's predestination of the eternal destinies of individual human beings has nothing whatever to do with their foreseen character or choices. [emphasis his] (pp. 46)

Olson then goes on to describe what he calls "the dark side" of unconditional election, that because salvation and reprobation are unconditional, God could save everyone if he chose, but does not.  He gives the Calvinist explanation of why this is so by quoting again from Boettner:

The condemnation of the non-elect is designed primarily to furnish an external exhibition, before men and angels, of God's hatred for sin, or, in other words, it is to be an eternal manifestation of the justice of God.

That certainly is an explanation of the purpose/reason for hell that I needed to digest for a while... I think I've heard Piper say something similar, basically that hell exists to display God's justice for His ultimate glory.  Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see that as very glorious.  

C.S. Lewis gives a different explanation of hell in his excellent book, The Great Divorce.  In the book, Lewis explains hell not as punishment for sin, but as an option that God mercifully allows.  God respects an individual's choice to remain separate from Him.   Lewis puts it this way:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell chose it.

I see this issue (and I believe Olson would agree) as the main problem with Calvinism.  I've discussed this before, and I'm reminded of Wesley's poem Oh Horrible Decree.  Here's my favorite part, which still gives me goose bumps and tugs at tears every time I read it:

Oh Horrible Decree

Worthy of whence it came!

Forgive their hellish blasphemy

Who Charge it on the Lamb. 

The righteous God consigned

Them over to their doom,

And sent the Savior of mankind

To damn them from the womb;

To damn for falling short

Of what they could not do

For not believing the report

Of that which was not true.

"T" - Total Depravity - Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.

Chapter 3 of Against Calvinism discusses the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) one "letter" at a time.  Olson defines the first, Total Depravity like this:

[Total depravity] means that every part of every human person... is infected and so affected by sin that he or she is utterly helpless to please God before being regenerated... by the Spirit of God. (pp.42)

Olson's description of total depravity is the shortest of all the letters of TULIP, because (I assume) it is one of the points that he agrees with, and is generally agreed to by most Christians.  I've written about total depravity before, and I don't have much to add to that post.  I did, however, find his description of sin very interesting:

Everything that flows from the dead person is putrid and filthy even if it seems to be virtuous.  The reason is that true virtue is define by the motive, and the sinner's heart, blackened by sin, has a constant disposition toward self rather than toward God or neighbor. ... Sin lies in the motives, and they are entirely wrong until the Holy Spirit regenerates the person. (pp. 43)

This description of sin caught me a little by surprise.  I'm not sure if this is because I've been consistently taught differently, or that Olson simply described sin on the basis of motives in a more direct way that I've seen in the past.  In either case, I'm reminded of several specific conversations where someone who is doing something good questions their own motives.  (i.e. someone asks "I'm not sure if I'm doing this for the right reasons") The common response I hear is something like: 

"Maybe your motives are pure, maybe they're not.  Can we ever be free from lingering selfish motives?  What's more important is that you're obeying God."

Is that the right response? If not, what's the correct response to someone who struggles with doing good for the wrong reasons?  Or is Olson's definition of sin inaccurate?

What do you think?

Against Calvinism - Chapters 1 & 2

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.

As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm less familiar with Arminian theology.  For this reason, I'm reading Against Calvinism first.

Chapters 1 and 2 are very introductory.  Chapter 1 discusses Olson's motivation for writing the book, and some historical background of what he calls the "young, restless Calvinists" led by John Piper, etc.  Olson describes how  Piper is essentially repackaging Jonathan Edwards for a younger generation.

Also interesting to me (pp. 18, Chapter 1) was a short history of the Reformed church, specifically regarding Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan (I grew up in the former and have recently moved to the latter).  Looking for a new church in this area has proven to be an interesting endeavor, since the climate and culture still retains a strong Christian Reformed influence.

Chapter 3 gets into the meat of the discussion by going through TULIP one letter at a time.  I plan a separate post on each letter of TULIP, addressing some questions regarding each point of "the doctrines of grace".  But for now, I'll end this post with a quote that stood out from Chapter 1 of Against Calvinism.

[The] kind of Calvinism which attributes everything to God's will and control makes it difficult (at least for me) to see the difference between God and the devil.