How I Lost My Faith, Part 3

I've been thinking about how best to describe how I lost my faith.  Those that know be best will be aware of the doubts I've struggled with over the years, but how exactly did I come to finally give up my faith?  I thought I would start by posting a few entries from my journal around the time when all this happened.

October 15, 2014

P and I had a really good talk on Saturday.  I was able to tell her pretty much exactly what's been going on in my mind, and get here perspective too.

She is much more even-headed about all this than I expected.  I think she understands me pretty well.  She told me that she struggles with some of the intellectual issues with Christianity, but feels like she would never leave it because she feels a relationship with God.  So (like she said) that seems to be the big difference:  She has intellectual issues but has a relationship, and me with similar intellectual issues but my primary problem is a lack of relationship.

I asked her why she wasn't more angry about me not being that "good christian husband" that every church family expects the father to be, and she surprised me... She said that when she married me, that's not the expectation she had of me, and that my rejection of my faith was not something she saw as a rejection of our marriage.

Anyway, I feel much better now because I got a lot of this off my chest.  It's amazing how much better it makes me feel to have spoken with P and for her to know.  I told her that if she stays a Christian, then the worst I will ever be is a doubting Christian, and that my priority and defining role is as her husband.  No matter what, I'm committed to focusing on being her husband and friend.

I don't know what I'd do without her.

How I Lost My Faith, Part 2

I've been thinking about how best to describe how I lost my faith.  Those that know be best will be aware of the doubts I've struggled with over the years, but how exactly did I come to finally give up my faith?  I thought I would start by posting a few entries from my journal around the time when all this happened.

August 7, 2014

I'm really not sure what will come of all this.  I don't really see any good outcomes.  Either I live the life of a hypocrite and imposter my whole life, or I give my loved ones horrible amounts of pain and grief for the rest of their lives.

I'm pretty sure I can't raise truly christian kids if I don't believe it myself.  And not knowing where P stands on all this, it's hard to know what the future could look like.  No matter what, I will first and foremost be her husband, and the father of my kids.  So if she remains christian, I think I will need to remain a doubting christian.

I really feel truly alone in this.  Without anyone to talk about it with, it's hard to stay grounded.  I think I could eventually talk to P about it, but I want to be sensitive to how much of a painful subject this can be.  I sense that she is (or could be) somewhat close to where I am, but we haven't talked much about it.

I often (in my mind) compare this season of doubt to those in the past... In the past, my doubt was this terrible thing that I would seek out a solution to, at any cost.  I would search and read and do whatever I could to snuff it out...  But now, now I don't see it as anything that could possibly be fixed.  I've been through all the "fixes" and know so very well all the typical remedies one applies to help heal a "sick" person such as myself, and so I feel different this time, like there is no possibility of "healing".  I know that sounds defeated and can be self-fulfilling, but that's how I feel.   I have lived for so long (10+ years!) in this state of desperate desire to know God, to believe and trust him, but never felt as if he was ever there.  It's like (if he exists) he has totally shut me out from access to knowledge of him.  We as Christians are always saying that God desperately wants a relationship with us, but I have found that to not be true.  I've so many times reached out in desperation to him and heard absolutely nothing in return. 

The most I ever felt was a connection to worship music... I would come close to crying during particularly moving songs, but the same thing happens if the song is not a worship song.

So either he just is not there, or I have been left out, totally forbidden from a relationship with him.  But how then can I explain the experience of those who seem to have a genuine relationship?  The more I learn about confirmation bias, and the psychology of belief, the more explainable it becomes.  The existence of people who really believe in the existence of UFOs, or even YEC (in the face of contrary evidence) the more explicable a belief in God and relationship with him (even if he does not exist) becomes.

This is sad and scary and depressing and terrifying and I have no idea what to do about it.

How I Lost My Faith, Part 1

I've been thinking about how best to describe how I lost my faith.  Those that know be best will be aware of the doubts I've struggled with over the years, but how exactly did I come to finally give up my faith?  I thought I would start by posting a few entries from my journal around the time when all this happened.

August 6, 2014

So I think I'm coming to the gradual realization that I don't believe in God.  It's either that I am losing my belief in God, or it was never there all along.  I think it's probably a little of both.

Yesterday at church I had to lead the 4th & 5th grade small group, and they were doing a "gospel presentation".  They had encouraged the kids to bring friends, and did an old-fashioned invitation.  I felt like an imposter and outsider the whole time.  I had to do a gospel recap when I got back to the classroom with the kids, and was able to do it fine, but had a really hard time emphasizing the immanency of a choice.  The kids director was in there with me, and she kept correcting me and adding to what I was saying.  When I got to the part about hell, I really struggled to "bring it home" and she jumped in and took over for me.  Anyway, I left church feeling like an outsider and an imposter for the first time in my life.

It's terrifying to think about acting on this.  The implications for my family are not pleasant.
P and I had a rare talk about this after church.  We're both very timid about staring this directly in the face.  She knows about my doubts and the struggles I've had with my faith over the years, and she even said at one point that it's becoming clear that I don't believe any of it.  That surprised me because she said it so calmly.  I know she seems to struggle with the same sorts of things, but in a very different way, so when she was calm about it, I think she either is in the same boat, or is hiding a log of emotion.  We need to talk more, but I'm terrified that it will hurt her, and I just don't want to do that.

At one point we were discussing what I should do about all this... Her response was "whatever causes our family the least amount to strife".  This surprised me, because it implies that she doesn't really care whats "under the hood" but just about preserving the status quo.  She later said she was mostly joking, but I need to remember to continually reassure her and consider her fears of change.

The Glow Stick

Nine months ago, I was really struggling.  It was Christmas time, and I was in the depths of despair; I had been struggling with doubts about God, and this weight was almost unbearable for me.  I remember feeling a desperate need to connect with God - partly because he was feeling ever more distant, and partly to help dull the ever-present and increasingly sharp pangs of doubt that plagued my thoughts.  

It was a Sunday night, December 21.  My wife and I packed our three kids into the mini-van and headed out to our church to attend a Christmas service at our church in Holland, MI.  When we arrived, we split up: My wife to drop the baby off in the nursery, while I took the big kids to find a seat.  At the door to the auditorium, we were met by greeters with large baskets of glow sticks.  

"Don't crack them yet!" they told us as we each grabbed one.  "We'll all do it at the same time.  They'll let you know."  It would be a miracle if my kids made it 10 minutes... That glow stick was suddenly the most seductive temptation they had ever experienced.

The service was mostly worship; We sang several songs, some old hymns (which I love) and some newer ones.  That night was particularly difficult for me.  I remember feeling disconnected from everyone, even as we worshiped and sang some of my favorite Christmas songs.  I desperately desired connection with God.  The night seemed charged with energy and excitement, so my struggles to really feel a connection with God and my church seemed extremely out of place.

Near the end of the service, the worship leader began to speak:

"As we gather here tonight worshiping God for the amazing gift he has given us - Jesus Christ - Let us remember that those of us who have placed our faith and trust in Jesus Christ - We have entered a very special relationship with God - He has given us something very special - a deposit - in our hearts.  This is the Holy Spirit, and through the Holy Spirit, God lights up our lives, in many many ways, so that our lives become an amazing light in this world.  We shine out into the world declaring God's love for the world!  So now take the glow sticks you were given at the door, crack them, and raise them high as a symbol of the special relationship we have with God, and as a symbol of the light we shine out into the world in this special time of year!"

The lights dimmed, and my kids cracked their glow sticks with gusto, relieved to finally realize what they had no doubt been obsessing with for almost an hour.  I cracked mine too, and soon the auditorium began to glow with the light of hundreds of blue lights.  As we began to sing the next song, I looked down at my glow stick, and what I saw changed my life forever.

My glow stick was defective.

As I eyed the tiny feeble glow that came from the bottom of my stick, my annoyance was quickly replaced with dismay as the symbolism sunk in.  Tears flooded my eyes as the implications of this event began filling my mind.  Then came the anger.

I know it's silly, but it's hard to overstate the impact this had on me in that moment.  There I stood, surrounded by a thousand glowing points of light, held high by a thousand worshiping souls.  Each person's blue light was a glaring representation of something they had, but was wholly unavailable to me: A relationship with God.

Why did this happen?  If God has any sort of influence in this world at all, why would he allow this particular glow stick to make it into my hands, on this particular night?  I could think of two reasons:

1) God really doesn't want a relationship with me.  Maybe the Calvinists are right; God chooses whom to draw near to him.  He doesn't want me.  Okay, God.  Thanks for the message.  I finally hear it loud and clear.

2) God wants us to "have faith" and this is one way I can do that.  But when I place myself in his place (by imagining how I feel about my own kids) it is clear that December 21, 2014 was a pretty critical night to get things right, and make sure the defective stick doesn't make it into Joe's hands.  Either God doesn't really care, or he's just a pretty big Jerk.

3) God isn't real.  

After some retrospection, I think it's safe to say that God and I parted ways that night.  It took me a couple more months to finally be honest with myself and admit that I didn't believe he existed.  But that was the night when I realized that if he does exist, he's not someone I want to be friends with.

I Don't Believe in God

So it's been three and a half years since my last post.  There is a lot to say about these last few years; I am about a million light-years from where I was when I posted my last general update.  I am tempted to write an entire memoir explaining how I got to where I am now, but I think it might be best to say it right up front:

I no longer believe in God.  

I say this not with my head held high in arrogance in defiance, nor do I say it with head hanging in embarrassment.  I say it simply with the relatively recent understanding that God is not real, and all my efforts (on this blog and otherwise) were an attempt to convince myself that I actually believe the things I professed to believe.

Over the last several years, I have been practicing my faith in the absence of any deep and regular christian friendships (other than my wife), and this has allowed me to examine my own beliefs with much-reduced levels of peer-pressure.  As I saw my faith receding into my past, I began to identify my struggles with faith as (sometimes feeble, and sometimes quite effective) attempts to silence the inner voice that has always known the truth:

God is not and has never been real to me. 

This realization (which I have come to over the last several months) is simple, yet it opens up so many unanswered questions.  I'm tempted (as usual) to try to answer them all in this first post, but those are subjects for future posts.

Obviously I have exactly zero readers, so this post will go out into the ether without a sound.  But there's something so refreshing about it...  Now it's out.  Kinda. :)

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.

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.