For & Against Calvinism - The main arguments

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.

Having read the forward of each book, I think it might be helpful to summarize the main argument that each author will unfold in their book.

Calvinists are inconsistent because if they followed their system to it's logical ends, they would conclude that God is the author of evil, both natural and man-made (sin).

Arminians are inconsistent because if they followed their system to it's logical ends, they would conclude that salvation is works-based, i.e. not by God's grace alone.

Michael Horton puts it like this:

Roger thinks that if I followed Calvinism to its logical conclusions, I should concede that the Holocaust and natural disasters are caused directly by God and that those condemned on the last day could justly blame God rather than themselves...

On the other hand, I think that if Roger followed Arminianism to its logical conclusion, he should go on to deny that salvation is entirely of God's grace; that Arminianism leads inevitably to human-centered rather than God-centered convictions if followed consistently.

Obviously, neither group agrees that their system leads to these undesirable ends.

My initial reaction is that each system does seem to lead logically to the ends described by Horton.  It's for this reason that it will be interesting to read the arguments laid out by each author.

Starting Perceptions & Biases

As I mentioned in my last post, I'm just starting to read the two books,

Against Calvinism - By Roger E. Olson
For Calvinism - By Michael Horton

I thought it might be good to post a few thoughts regarding my initial perceptions regarding this topic before I get too far into these books.

Obviously, having grown up in a Reformed church, having spent the last decade in a John Piper-esque Baptist church, and recently having spent many hours (on my commute) listening to D.A. Carson, my theological background is decidedly Calvinist.  With as much theological self examination as I can muster, I can confidently admit that everything I know about God has been learned in a Calvinist context.  I think this has two important implications:

1) I am more likely to misunderstand Arminianism
2) I am more likely to (correctly) identify the problems with Calvinism.

That said, I enter this current study with these perceptions and biases regarding the two approaches in question:

• Calvinism seems more intellectually rigorous.  This is however,  probably a result of my background.  Having been in Calvinist circles all my life has no doubt exposed me to more Calvinist scholars.  Still, it seems like the Calvinist bench runs deep: Sproul, Carson, Grudem, Piper, Keller, Mahaney, Packer...  In contrast, I can't name a single Arminian scholar.

• Calvinism seems to affirm free will, but these attempts either redefine it or end in 'mystery' (read: contradiction).  This issue came to the surface while listening to D.A. Carson discuss open theology here.  Carson describes himself as a compatabilist, in that he claims that God is sovereign over human choices, but humans are responsible for those choices.  He doesn't go as far as other comaptabilists, however, by saying that we have free will only in that we are free to do only as we desire.  In either case, the ball is dropped: the former ends in contradiction, while the latter is simply redefinition of free will, removing from it any trace of it's natural meaning.

• I don't see how Calvinism can explain the problem of evil, without making God the author of evil.  Calvinists solve this issue by pointing to the transcendence of God, and having a God that "we don't understand". To me, this is simply lazy.  On the other hand, simply being distasteful doesn't make something wrong.

• The common charge of Arminianism being a "works based theology" doesn't resonate with me much.  This seems more of an attempt to villify it with a label.  I look forward to learning more about that.

• Calvinism seems to have stronger scriptural support, although this is a very uninformed perception.  Passages like Romans 9 seem to be almost unexplainable in an Arminian system, but I haven't looked into that much.

For/Against Calvinism

I've recently started reading about Calvinism.  A friend of mine and I decided to read the two books,
Against Calvinism - By Roger E. Olson
For Calvinism - By Michael Horton

I've struggled with this topic before, but I can't say I've done anything other than casual reading on the subject.  And as I mentioned in my previous post, D.A. Carson (a very strong Reformed teacher) has been highly influential in my thought life.  But the points at which I've taken issue with his theology have frequently been related to the issues of God's sovereignty.

Ideally, the outcome of this study would be an actual decision... I don't think it's desirable or helpful or even possible to straddle the fence on this one.  I'm not sure if a decision will result, and even if one does, whether I'll discuss it on this blog.  I won't promise any sort of systematic review or notes, let alone any sort of timetable, but I'll definitely post some thoughts or quotes as I go.  I'll also welcome your comments.

Some changes

Although I have approximately zero regular readers (give or take a few) I thought it would be good to post an update, since a lot has changed with me in the last couple years.  Here's a quick snapshot:

1) I spent the vast majority of my commute time listening to the sermons/lectures of D.A. Carson.  I've really enjoyed his frank, no BS approach to studying the Bible, and his theology has really resonated with me.  In particular, I'm attracted by his refusal to draw conclusions where there is insufficient biblical data.  Most teachers seem to strive to draw conclusions that support their overall theological system, even from texts that have zero relevance or even contradict that system.  Other than at a few points, I've found his teaching to be quite convincing, and this has led to a general quieting of the doubts and related issues that have fed this blog in the last two years.  (Hence the reason for the inactivity in this blog)

Some of Carson's stuff that I've found particularly interesting and useful are:

The God Who Is There - This is actually an evangelistic series intended for biblically illiterate college students, but I found it to be extremely good, if you can get past the coddling at the beginning.

1 John - This is a verse-by-verse exposition of the book of 1st John.

2) I moved.  I have lived the past decade in a city in upstate New York, and have recently moved back to my home state of Michigan.  My new job just happens to be in Holland, MI, just 30 minutes or so from my hometown.  One of the many reasons this is significant, is that Holland (like me) is very Dutch, and (less like me) very Reformed.  This move leads to the next big change:

3) I'm looking for a church.  The move means that I had to leave the church that I love, and now must find someplace new.  The upside in this is that I have a lot to choose from;  Holland is the historical home of the Dutch Reformed Church, and it is still one of the most conservative areas in the country.  There are literally two churches on every corner (sometimes three) but by my count, 3/4 to 4/5 of them are either CRC or RCA.

A (hypothetical) regular reader of mine would recall that I've asked a lot of questions regarding Calvinism in the past, and often wondered if my former church (a Baptist, John Piper-esque Calvinistic church) is the best place for me.  This is one of the reasons for the next item:

4) I'm reading about Calvinism. This one I'll cover in my next post. :)

"Highly Educated Forms of Stupidity"

Last week I found a great article by J. Budziszewski, a philosophy professor at University of Texas, Austin.  It describes his conversion experience, and is titled "Escape from Nihilism".

I was going to post a longer section, but the article is so great that I thought I'd just post this small snippet, and point to the whole article here for the rest.

[A] strong mind that refuses the call to serve the God who made it has its own way of going wrong. When some people run away from God, they rob and kill. When other people go away from God, they do a lot of drugs and have a lot of sex. When still other people run away from God, they just sleep their lives away.

Well, when I fled from God, I didn’t do any of those things. My way of running away from God was to get stupid. I am very serious. Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that you have to be highly educated and intelligent to commit, and I discovered them all.

God keeps them in his arsenal to pull down mulish pride.

- J. Budziszewski, in Escape from Nihilism [source]

"The Faulty Mechanism of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

[Y]ou must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years. Not to mention that all these random occurrences must take place in such close proximity to each other, and in such a small window of time on order for the two "new" male and female species to find each other and mate before they die. The odds of that are mind boggling. And to believe that this conveniently happened millions of times over? 

Evolutionists do not believe what Steve suggests above.  If what he suggests above were to happen, it would truly be mind boggling.  But this is simply not what evolutionists believe.  This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution. 

This type of argument is very common among Young Earth Creationists, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the belief they claim to dismiss.  How can someone dismiss evolution on the grounds of lack of evidence if they simply do not understand it?

Let me try to clear up three very common errors made by Steve and many other YECs.  The following three points are fundamental to evolutionary theory, and if one doesn’t grasp these points, they simply do not understand the theory.

1) Natural selection is a non-random mechanism

2) Evolution occurs primarily in groups

3) Evolution is a cumulative process

Natural selection is a non-random mechanism

Above, Steve is claiming that evolution isn’t plausible because “millions of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again throughout billions of years” couldn’t create a new species.  He is totally correct.  Steve (and many other YECs) miss a key aspect to evolutionary theory: natural selection.  Natural selection is non-random because organisms that are able to reproduces more will pass their traits on to their offspring.   Organisms that cannot reproduce will die without passing on the traits that do not let them reproduce.   Evolution occurs when many random mutations are passed through the non-random filter of natural selection, producing a process that is not random.

Evolution is a cumulative process

It is very common for YECs to claim that evolution isn’t plausible because random mutations must occur over and over again, and the probability of this happening is just too small.  This claim falsely assumes that there is no mechanism for maintaining one mutation before the next can occur.  In fact, natural selection is just that mechanism.  Natural selection turns what would be a random process into a cumulative process.  Each mutation that is selected by the environment (because it provides a reproductive advantage) is a stable organism, which reproduces and introduces the mutation into the collective gene pool.

Evolution occurs primarily in groups

The claim made by Steve above falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly, where one individual produces another individual of a different species.  In fact, populations of animals gradually evolve, not individuals.   The most easily understood type of this kind of speciation is called allopatric speciation, where one group is separated from the main group.  Due to different environmental pressures, this separated group undergoes cumulative changes that are different from the main group. 

Putting it all together

So evolution occurs when the non-random mechanism of natural selection acts on random genetic variation, over long periods of time, and primarily in groups, not individuals.  If you miss any one of those elements, you simply do not understand evolution, and you are in danger of making ignorant accusations that simply don’t hold water

"The Religion of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

Evolution is the most dogmatic religion there is. In order to believe it you must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years.


[And then later]


Would you agree that it takes much less faith to believe a wonderful,loving, all knowing, always present, and all powerful GOD simply created everything perfectly just for us just because he loves us. Why must there be a greater reason or explanation beyond that. Why can't we take his word at face value?

Evolution is not a “greater reason” for God’s creation; it isn’t a reason at all, it is HOW God created, not WHY.  Steve is confusing purpose and mechanism; they are not the same thing.

Furthermore, evolution does not require “faith” and is not “dogmatic” because it is based on evidence.  As I describe in my previous post, there is a vast amount of evidence.  As new observations are made, theories are changed or abandoned to conform to the evidence.  This is exactly the opposite of dogma or the sort of faith implied above.

In fact, young Earth Creationism is actually more dogmatic, because it takes a particular belief, and (flying in the face of the evidence) claims that this is the way it should be, and any claims to the contrary are wrong.  It cannot accept that whatever God has done (As determined by biblical and scientific evidence) is okay.  This is idolatry, and this is wrong.