I have previously stated some reasons Why I Am Not a Calvinist. Apparently, there’s a resurgence of Reformed theology among young Christian hipsters. In a way, I’m glad. The fact that a new generation of believers is digging into theology at all is a good thing. As I stated in that post, I’m probably more of a “modified Calvinist” than an Armenian. I mean, God has to be sovereign or He can’t be God. Nevertheless, there are some aspects of hard Calvinism that, from my perspective, have hellish implications.
For instance, I recently heard Pastor Mark Driscoll use a moving illustration about free will and election. People who go to hell, he said, “will” to go there. They blatantly disregard God’s love and choose to bolt. In order to save them, God must violate their desires and rescue them. By way of example, he told a gripping story about the day he rescued his young daughter from dashing into oncoming traffic. She had been told to not run into the busy street, and had the consequences explained to her. Yet one day she disobeyed her father and barreled into the street. Driscoll had only seconds to respond and yank her out of the way of a truck. The story was quite powerful. This, he said, is what God does to the believer. They are recklessly running from God, and if not for the Father’s intervention, will forever be plastered.
But if this is an illustration of God’s mercy and loving election, I think it’s flawed. Why? Because it means God is equally righteous and just in letting His children run into traffic. I ask you, does God sit and watch millions of souls careen into hell and do nothing?
Mike, is this a trick question? Seriously.
In all honesty what more should God do? He’s written His love on the hearts of His creation. He sent His Son to redeem us, vile creatures that we are. He wrote a book that transcends the ages and remains available even to the remotest regions through smugglers and missionaries. And yet He still intervenes, but He doesn’t force His love and salvation on any of us. He weeps over the lost, over those who stray. His Holy Spirit is constantly drawing people to Him and back to Him. But it remains our choice to accept or deny Him. To turn to Him or away from Him.
No man can determine our eternal home: only God. Jesus Himself said there will be branches cut off and thrown into the fire.
True love combined with true justice is something we have yet to understand.
No. It’s not a trick question, Nicole. If God chooses to run into the street and rescue some, doesn’t that mean He lets others barrel into traffic unchecked? If the above illustration is meant to show God’s mercy, I think it also inadvertently illustrates the opposite. Allowing people to go to hell (i.e. run into the street), when it is within His power to rescue them, seems unloving and unjust… especially when He chooses to intervene upon some and not others.
As I said in my initial post “If God’s choice is the determinant of who gets saved, then it’s also the determinant in who doesn’t. So if God desires that all men be saved (I Tim. 2:4, II Pet. 3:9), and some don’t, then either God doesn’t really desire that or there are factors other than God’s will — factors that He allows — in the equation (human freedom).”
Gotcha. I agree.
I think the whole bit is needlessly polarized. With my background, I’ve had the predestination argument until I was blue in the face. At fourteen I spent three days arguing with a teacher over this.
Anyway. Personally, my understanding is that when two polar opposites arise as a result of interpretation, either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong. Given I can use the same passages to argue either side of this, I’m very inclined to call both ends wrong.
Rather than needlessly complicate this, why not just go with the following:
1. God is not a tyrant.
2. Man is not the center of the universe.
3. God is totally sovereign.
4. Man has a free will and is totally responsible for his actions.
I don’t know anyone on either end of this ‘debate’ who will argue that.
Kaci, I think there might be a third option — “when two polar opposites arise as a result of interpretation,” both sides might be CORRECT. A while back, in a post entitled A Paradigm for Paradox, I speculated that understanding the complex, multi-dimensional nature of the universe helps us resolve apparent biblical paradoxes like that of God’s Sovereignty and Human Free Will. In the same way that triangles both CAN and CANNOT be circles (see aforementioned post), Man both IS and IS NOT completely free. It’s been said that over the door to heaven is a sign that reads, “Whosoever will, let him come.” But from the inside that same sign reads, “Chosen before the foundation of the world.” Like that sign, I think the Calvinism / Armeniansim debate has two opposite, but equally true, sides.
Kaci, I think there might be a third option — “when two polar opposites arise as a result of interpretation,” both sides might be CORRECT. A while back, in a post entitled A Paradigm for Paradox, I speculated that understanding the complex, multi-dimensional nature of the universe helps us resolve apparent biblical paradoxes like that of God’s Sovereignty and Human Free Will. In the same way that triangles both CAN and CANNOT be circles (see aforementioned post), Man both IS and IS NOT completely free. It’s been said that over the door to heaven is a sign that reads, “Whosoever will, let him come.” But from the inside that same sign reads, “Chosen before the foundation of the world.” Like that sign, I think the Calvinism / Armeniansim debate has two opposite, but equally true, sides.
I’ll meet you halfway on this one. (And I need to go back and read the cited post.) See, while I agree that portions of each opposite are true on some level, I’m of the school that if I can’t buy part of the argument, I cannot, therefore, buy the argument as presented to me.
If you represent the two arguments to me removing all the conflict, you would have a third option – neither is Calvinism or Armenianism (a word I never quite spell right for some reason).
To that end, I do agree with you that there does appear to be some level of both – hence the “man has a free will and God is wholly sovereign.” Essentially, it takes a fully sovereign God to make a fully free people.
That still doesn’t quite make both Calvin and Armenius right. Rather, it makes both wrong on some level, and right on some level. But since they both err on some level, neither can be correct as a whole.
Did that make sense or am I rambling again?
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you that, after you take out all the potentially unbiblical elements, something other than Calvinism or Arminianism exists. I call myself a “modified” Calvinist. It’s a convenient way of embracing aspects of Calvinism I believe are biblical (God’s sovereignty, human depravity, perseverance of the saints) and jettisoning the rest (limited atonement, irresistible grace, unconditional election). In fact, my first point in my Why I Am Not a Calvinist post is: No one human system perfectly codifies and articulates all Truth. It’s an opportune way to avoid selling out to any one theological scheme.
No worries. I can get too far into semantics if I’m not careful. 0=)
Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike.
heh heh
If all deserve hell and God saves some, does that make him a monster for not saving all?
I’ve adopted two children. They did nothing to merit my love or deserve to be chosen–I chose them from before their births. I didn’t choose millions of other babies,. Does that make me a monster?
The Bible says that God fit some vessels for destruction. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pots fit for glory and some fit for destruction? What if the only way for God to show you, the object of his mercy, that he is a God of mercy and a God of wrath, was to have some vessels made for mercy and some for wrath?
God wants to be known by us. How can he show himself to us if he allows none to perish?
And what is the alternative to God saving us out of the busy street. We save ourselves? One little girl looks up and sees the truck and has strong enough legs to leap to safety and another sees the truck but can’t jump out of the way fast enough? Survival of the fittest?
I chose God because I’m smarter, more logical, softer hearted, more spiritual than my brother?
From birth I was dead in my sins, opposed to God. What suddenly made me smart enough and humble enough to cry out for a Savior? It had to be a force outside myself that did it.
All that the Father draws will come to me, Jesus said. I came so I know I was drawn by the Father.
Hi Sally! A couple responses:
One — The illustration of your adopted children breaks down at this point: Though you passed over millions in “choosing” those two, in so doing you did not consign the rest to a place of eternal physical and spiritual anguish. The hellish implications of Calvinism, for me, is not that God chooses some, but that in not choosing others, the Father allows them to careen into perpetual, unending, torment. For some, this may seem just. But I personally have a hard time seeing that as loving.
Two — The Romans 9 quote, in isolation, definitely proves a Reformed position. Problem is, there’s many, many other verses. This is one of my issues with Reformed proponents (and please bleach that of any rancor): they use a lot of scriptures in isolation. For every “vessel of wrath” verse, there are verses about God’s universal love and our freedom to make eternal choices. The problem is, grouping these scriptures creates a paradox. And this, I suggest, is the real issue: How to resolve apparent paradoxes.
Grace to you, Sally!
the adoption analogy breaks down because I can’t save all the babies. I’m human. So the ones I left behind in the orphanage can’t really hold me responsible.
God, could save all men.
You and I agree on that, I’m sure.
Whether he chooses not to save all men so as to not violate free will (and I say, “screw free will, if you see a kid sticking his finger in the light socket don’t ask him to stop, don’t beg him to stop, if you love him, hank his hand away before he kills himself.”) or he chooses not to save all men because somehow the death of the wicked glorifies him, he still could save all people and he chooses not to. I don’t see any way around that.
And I can’t justify that with my idea of love. So I say, “My idea of love is imperfect. God is perfect and he loves perfectly. I will just have to trust him that he’s done the right thing in creating hell and in sending some men there.”
ummm that should be “yank his hand” not “hank his hand” =0)
Yeah. By his own act of free will in Eden, mankind withdrew himself from God’s favor, which would have provided a means for Him to “yank” the finger out of that socket. From that moment forward, individual salvation has always depended upon what the individual did with regard to faith in God. God’s love, however we conceive it, is not in question. Nor is His will–He wills that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The very same God that SHOULD have the ability in His complete sovereignty to “yank” mankind out of the clutches of sin and death MUST work within the covenants He established with mankind. Therefore, He waits for mankind to respond to His Prevenient grace, which has been made available to everyone (Titus 2:11).
After a comprehensive study of Jean Calvin’s Institutes and history, I am thoroughly convinced there are absolutely NO redeeming qualities manifested in Calvin or included in his institutes that warrant argument for ANY of his positions.
Arminianism and Calvinism are NOT two opposing viewpoints. Calvinism was established, then Arminianism was written in response (Remonstrance) to the unbiblical philosophies perpetuated upon the people of northern Europe. Calvinism has never been proven biblical, and Arminianism is not a set of doctrines, but a response to Calvinism.
The ideas of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are NOT antithetical viewpoints. God is certainly sovereign–no doubt about it. However, just as Jesus limited himself to the body of a man (Phil. 2:7-8) in order to atone for our sins, Adonai formerly limited Himself to the compromised framework man created because of his blatant sin in Eden. In fact, by His sinless life, Jesus restored mankind’s relationship with the Father.
Man’s responsibility does not exist in a vacuum. Of course God knows what each individual is going to do transcendent of time. However, God waits for us. Is that the best God can do? No. But, it wasn’t God that inspired sin in mankind. It doesn’t require a thousand pages of philosophy to explain how a loving Father, who loves his son, may not always have the immediate authority to protect and save his son.
I know the argument will come about God not having the “authority” to do something–because God has all authority. I’m not naive to the argument. However, it doesn’t hold any water. If my son grows up and leaves home, I’m not immediately available to help him. Our spiritual relationship with God is similarly affected (distanced) because of sin.
What then of Calvinism? It’s one of many doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1) that has dragged more souls to the depths of hades than any other false doctrine ever perpetrated upon the Church of Jesus Christ. I’m talking about all of it: from 5-point Reformed to 1-point Baptist. Calvinism is anathema.
Contending hard!
Al Christian
Lawton, Oklahoma
Hi, just wanted to comment and offer some further reading at my site:
http://www.fether.net/category/calv/
The error I believe Calvinism makes concerning sovereignty is that it keeps it in a vacuum, apart from other attributes of God such as love, justice, and compassion. Sovereignty without mercy is what Satan has. A justice that defies all God has ever told us makes God an incomprehensible tyrant instead of a loving Father who reaches out for his prodigal children.
I believe much of what divides Christians is due to faulty or vague translations, and I’ve seen what I believe are deliberate attempts in various translations to push theologies such as Calvinism or universalism. The smallest tweaks and careful selections from semantic ranges of words can turn the Bible in just about any direction. Context, including common expressions of the time, is everything.
Free will in mankind is certainly God’s sovereign right to allow. I see it as us being like children in a playground surrounded by a fence. We cannot go beyond certain limits (hence the often-leveled and presumably unanswerable statement, “If we had free will then we could fly, breathe under water, walk through walls, etc.”), but neither does God direct every activity within the playground. We are free to choose the swings over the slides, to play tag if we want, to decide to behave or suffer the consequences (and such rules of behavior are for our own safety).
And in the same way, when attempting to reconcile God’s sovereignty and love, I conclude that God would never so limit us as to disallow our choice of whether to return His love, as any contrived or forced “love” would not be worthy of this God. Choices are what this life is really all about. We are free moral agents within limits, but those limits do not constrain us to a square foot of ground to stand on in the “playground” of life. Only a love freely chosen is true love. Any isolated verses or passages that defy what I see as a most foundational principle must be misunderstood. As they say, always interpret the difficult by the plain.
But I see this whole debate as ultimately a rerun of the old question about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin: it doesn’t matter! The gospel is still preached to all, and salvation is still by faith alone in Jesus alone. Both sides teach that the individual is responsible for reading and heeding the NT letters concerning spiritual growth.
Yet Calvinism has a unique fault: that of driving away some from the gospel because of the hideous picture it paints of a God who really does throw babies into the flames of hell just like some heathen gods. I’ve seen people reject the gospel for exactly what Calvinism teaches about God. And no, this isn’t about making the gospel pretty so people will like it, but of grotesquely distorting the sovereignty of God to the point where He most resembles the devil.