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.

"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.

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. :)

Total Depravity and Calvinism's Ugly God

This sunday my Pastor preached a sermon on the topic of Total Depravity, or as he put it: "Your Instincts Stink." You can hear it online (at least for a few weeks) here. This is the kind of sermon that makes me want to look for an Arminian church, not because I dislike my church, (on the contrary, I love it and the people there) but because sermons like this can damage my faith.

My pastor did an excellent job communicating the Calvinist belief that man cannot accomplish anything good on his own. This ideas was expressed via the teachings of Johnathan Edwards and Augustine that

"Man will always act according to his strongest inclination at that moment."

Now, the idea here is that our inclinations (and therefore our actions) are (because of the fall) always evil, and only by the grace of God can we do anything good, including believe and have faith. Salvation is accomplished solely by God, through the sacrifice of Jesus and the election of God's chosen people who are able to believe through power given them by God. Going back to the Edwards/Augustine quote above, God changes our inclinations, allowing us to act differently, to believe, and to be saved. Man has absolutely no part in it anything.

I can see how this is comforting. The ball is in God's court. I don't have to worry about it. But to me it is extremely troubling. If you always act according to your strongest inclinations, you have absolutely no ability to change the course of your life whatsoever. You may think you can simply examine your inclinations/motivations, (this was suggested in the sermon) and try to change them, but if this idea is correct, the action you took to examine your motivations was in iteself a response to your strongest inclination at that moment. You are a deterministic being. Your life has already been determined, and your future actions, thoughts, feelings, and emotions are already determined, unless God intervines.

Of course the whole Calvinist system is based on the belief that (for the elect) God WILL intervine, and help us change our inclinations, giving us the ability to believe in Jesus and be saved.

But that's not the only problem with Calvinism. As I've discussed before, the problem of evil is a very difficult one for anyone who believes in a personal god. The ugly God of Calvinism is a god who created this world, orchastrated evil, saves some people of His own choosing, and damns the rest to hell for not believing something that isn't true. Calvinism heightnens the problem of evil so greatly that a better alternative is that God does not exist at all.

I think the Arminian system gives a much more believable (and palletable) scenario, while still taking seriously what the Bible says about election: That God, by his grace, created man with a choice, and "elects" some by pursuing them, (perhaps as a result of their choices) and further enabling them to choose better still.

A Calvinist might say "But you are undermining Gods soverignty! God is in control, not man!" Blogger Ken Schenck at the blog Quadrilateral Thoughts answers this well:

"If God can create the world out of nothing, then He is certainly able to empower a person, by his prevenient grace, to reach the smallest point of volition ex nihilo, a point of the barest will either to remain depraved as they are or to signify ever so slightly a desire for more grace... leading to God's empowerment to signify a desire for more grace still. Would you suggest that God is not clever enough to figure out how to do this, to empower totally depraved humanity to begin to make a choice?"

Now back to what I mentioned above, about sermons like this, and how they can damage my faith:  There is nothing wrong with going to a church that teaches ideas that are contrary to your own beliefs.  If one is actively engaged with their faith, and continually examining their beliefs, this is inevitable.  But when ideas like this are presented in a way that suggests something is wrong if you don't totally agree, or that there isn't room for discussion, I begin to wonder if I am worshiping in the right place.  I'm not suggesting that any belief be accepted as equal, but some discussion of alternate (but equally biblical) views should be accepted.

Of course, a Calvinist would claim that Arminianism is unbiblical based on their selected proof texts...

Justice, The Image of God, and Calvinism

A couple weeks ago, our Sunday School class discussed "The Image of God", and what that might be.  We divided up into groups and listed several possibilities.  At the top of virtually every groups list were entries like "morality", "sense of right and wrong" and "desire for justice".  Our deeply-rooted sense of injustice when we're wronged [Hey, that's not fair!] seems to be the human trait that we believe comes directly from God himself.

[As a side note, it was interesting to see how absent any form of "physical appearance" was from our lists.  It seems that modern science has finally eradicated (at least among the people present) the delusion that our bodies somehow uniquely reflect a portion of God's being.]

There are, of course, good reasons why we believe that our morality and desire for justice is also a fundamental characteristic of Gods.  Throughout the Bible we see God fighting for justice, or commanding his followers to seek justice.  Countless passages tell of  how God "loves justice" (Isaiah 61:8, Psalm 33:5) and hates those who make unjust laws or withhold justice (Isaiah 10:1-4, Deuteronomy 27:19).  So it seems that we share with God a fundamental desire for fairness, justice, and righteousness, and this may be what is meant by "the image of God".

As I thought about this conversation in the days after the class, I began to wonder why Calvinists don't see a terrible problem with their cherished theological system...

A Calvinist believes that God is the only entity involved in our salvation in any way; He conceives, initiates, and completes the salvation of "the elect" without any contribution from them at all.  They believe that some people are created for the sole purpose of eternal destruction, while others are created to be the objects of God's love, and are destined for eternal life.  According to Calvinists, there is absolutely no difference between the two types of people other than Gods choice.

If your "injustice meter" isn't red-lined, get it checked.

So I ask the question:  How could a God who is so concerned with justice invent a system that is so unjust?  I think the answer is simple:  He couldn't.

I'm reminded of a poem I read a few years ago by Charles Wesley, which discusses what he calls "The Calvinistic Conundrum".  Here's a small portion:

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.

Taking God's Sovereignty Too Far?

Today in our Sunday school class, the teacher spoke on the subject "What every Christian should know about SIN".  Naturally, the subject of evil, it's origin, and effect on creation was high on his list of discussion topics.

The teacher, coming from a strongly Calvinistic viewpoint, emphasized the soverignty of God while maintaining that God allowed sin, but did not originate sin.  From this perspective, there really is no reason sin must exist, except to create a problem for which there is only one solution: Jesus Christ.

This is obviously (at least to me) a pretty weak argument, and I suspect most who hold to it would recognize this.  That's why the age-old fall back of "mystery" is so often peddled as the stop-gap between our common sense and the weaknesses of a particular theological position.

During the Q&A portion of the class, someone brought up the solution to this problem I think is most viable: That evil is the result of God's choice to give us the ability to sin; Evil exists in the world because a world without freedom is a world without love. We were created by God to love him, and true love cannot be forced.

The response from the teacher was something about being cautious that we don't undermine God's sovereignty, and the mystery of the balance between God's control over everything (including our choices) and the fact that God holds us responsible for our choices.

Why is it so horrible to suggest that God might choose to limit himself, specifically that he might limit his power over our own choices?

It's not like there isn't any biblical precident:  The doctrince of divine kenosis (self-limiting) in the person of Jesus is well known and accepted.  Why is it so scandalous to suggest that God would choose to limit himself in other ways?  Isn't that the story of Adam and Eve; That God gives them the REAL choice to obey or not?  Haven't we distorted this story into something else in order to defend the soverignty of God?

And I won't even mention open theology. (oh, wait... I just did)

Am I missing something, or is it plainly obvious that God's choice to limit himself does not diminish his sovereignty in any way?

What's the big deal?