"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. :)