click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Some Misconceptions about Calvinism
by C Michael PattonMarch 4th, 2010
103 Comments
Calvinism is a system of theology in Christianity that primarily pertains to biblical soteriology, anthropology (doctrine of man), and theology proper (the doctrine of God). It is well established as a part of historic Protestant orthodoxy that finds its theological roots in many of the developments of St. Augustine. It is named after John Calvin, a sixteenth century Protestant reformer, due to his responsibility in systematizing its thoughts. In essence Calvinism believes that the Bible teaches that God is sovereign and man is completely depraved. If man is to be saved, God must save him unconditionally. The only thing that man contributes to his salvation is sin. God, before the beginning of time, elected some people to salvation and not others. This election is based on God’s mysterious sovereign will, not anything in man.
After this terribly brief definition, I would like to cover some misconceptions concerning Calvinism by giving you a list of what Calvinism is not:
Calvinism is not system of theology that denies God’s universal love.
While there are some Calvinists who do deny God’s universal love for all man, this is certainly not a necessary or a central tenet of Calvinism. Calvinists do, however, believe that God has a particular type of love for the elect (an “electing love”), but most also believe that God loves all people (John 3:16). It is a mystery to Calvinist as to why he does not elect everyone. (More on this here.)
Calvinism is not a belief that God creates people in order to send them to hell.
Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinists. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.)
Calvinism is not belief that God is the author of evil.
Because of Calvinism’s high view of God’s sovereignty, many mistakenly believe that Calvinists hold God responsible for sin and evil. This is not true. There are very few Calvinists who believe that God is the author of evil. Most Calvinists believe that to ascribe responsibility for evil to God is heretical.
As John Calvin put it:
“. . . the Lord had declared that “everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good” [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]”
Calvinism is not a belief in fatalism.
A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control, though Calvinists differ about how meticulous this control is.
Calvinism is not a denial of freedom.
Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibalists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.)
Calvinism is not a belief that God forces people to become Christians against their will.
Calvinists believe in what is called “irresistible grace.” This might not be the best name for it since it does not really communicate what is involved. Calvinists believe that people are dead in the sin (Eph 2:1), haters of God, with no ability to seek him in their natural state (Rom 3:11; John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14). Since this is the case, God must first regenerate them so that they can have faith. Once regenerate, people do not need to be forced to accept God, but this is a natural reaction—a willing reaction—of one who has been born again and, for the first time, recognizes the beauty of God.
Calvinism is not a belief that you should only evangelize the elect.
No one knows who the elect are. I suppose that if there was a way to find out, both Calvinist and Arminians (the other primary option to Calvinism) would only evangelize the elect (since Arminians also believe only the elect will be saved even though they understand election differently). Since we don’t know, it is our duty to evangelize all people and nations. Some of the greatest evangelists in the history of Christianity, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, have held to the doctrine of unconditional election.
Calvinism is not a belief that God arbitrarily chooses people to be saved.
Calvinists believe that God elects some people to salvation and not others and that this election is not based on anything present or foreseen, righteous or unrighteous, in the individual, but upon his sovereign choice. But this does not mean that the choice is arbitrary, as if God is flipping a coin to see who is saved and who is not. Calvinists believe that God has his reasons, but they are in his mysterious secret will.
Calvinism is not a system of thought that follows a man, John Calvin.
While Calvinists obviously respect John Calvin, they simply believe that he correctly understood and systematized some very important Apostolic teachings concerning election, man’s condition, and God’s sovereignty. However, much of this understanding did not originate with John Calvin, but can be seen in many throughout church history such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. Ultimately, Calvinists will argue, they follow rightly interpreted Scripture.
Calvinism is not a system that has to ignore or reinterpret passages of Scripture concerning human responsibility.
Calvinists believe that all people are responsible to do what is right, even though, as fallen children of Adam, they lack ability to do what is right (in a transcendent sense; see below) without God’s regenerating grace. Therefore, God’s call and commands apply to all people and all people are responsible for their rejection and rebellion.
Calvinists do not believe that no one can do any good thing at all.
Calvinists believe in what is called “total depravity” (so do Arminians). However, total depravity does not mean that people cannot ever do anything good. Calvinists believe that unregenerate people can do many good things and sometimes even act better than Christians. But when it comes to people’s disposition toward God and their acknowledgment of him for their abilities, gifts, and future, they deny him and therefore taint all that they are and do. An unbeliever, for example, can love and care for their children just as a believer can. In and of itself this is a very good thing. However, in relation to God this finds no eternal or transcendent favor since they are at enmity with him, the Giver of all things. Therefore, it might be said, while all people can do good, only the regenerate can do transcendent good.
Calvinists do not necessarily believe that God predestines (wills) everything, including the color of socks I chose this morning.
There is a spectrum to belief about God’s sovereignty in Calvinism. The one thing that unites all Calvinists is their belief in God’s sovereign choice to elect some people to salvation and not others. However, Calvinists differ concerning God’s involvement in other areas (for more on this, see here). Some Calvinists believe in what might be called “meticulous sovereignty”, where God has not only predestined people to salvation, but also he has predestined everything that occurs. As the old saying goes: “There is not a maverick molecule in the universe.” However, most Calvinists believe in what might be called “providential sovereignty.” Here, Calvinists would distinguish between God’s permissive will and his sovereign will. In his permissive will, many things happen that he permits, but is not necessarily bringing about as the first cause. In his sovereign will, many things happen because of his direct intervention (for more on this, see here).
Similar Posts:
- Ten Myths About Calvinism
- For those of you interested in the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism
- Calvinists Sometimes Make the Worst Calvinists
- Calvinists often make the worst Calvinists
- Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding
Loading ...
103 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m not a Calvinist, but I do appreciate the emphasis that Calvinists have for the sovereignty and glory of God. Of all the points you mention, the one that seems to make the least sense is the first point: “Calvinism is not [a] system of theology that denies God’s universal love.” I read the John MacArthur response you linked, but that still doesn’t satisfy this issue for me.
How can Calvinists say that God truly cares about the lost if God chose them to spend eternity in hell?
MacArthur even states, “…God’s compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind [is not] insincere or meaningless.” But how could it not be? If a Calvinist believes that man is totally depraved and can do nothing on his/her own towards even coming towards salvation and it must be the work of God and yet God has chosen the lost to be eternally damned, how can anything else God might do for such a person be seen as anything but insincere or meaningless. God might allow the person to hear the gospel preached clearly 1,000 times, but the person can’t respond because he/she was not chosen. God might bless a lost person with a great family, a great job, and a comfortable life in this world, but how can that be love when such a life is just a flicker of comfort in the face of eternity in hell? How can *anything* God would do on behalf of the lost be seen as love, concern, compassion, or mercy when according to Calvinists the fate of the lost cannot be changed since they are chosen to be damned?
Like or Dislike:
0
Good article Michael, though some of your defense of Calvinism is purely semantical. For instance: If God has a “particular” kind of love for me, that leaves me (pre)destined for hell “unconditionally,” I’ll pass on that kind of “love.” You can be sure that “love” is not love in anyone’s understanding. Also the “supra/infralapsarian distinction is ultimately a wash; if I have no opportunity for eternal life (because God didn’t love me in the particular way to choose me for life), then I am essentially created for hell–as well as destined to go there. We can frame the process differently, but the end result for a “real, non-elect” person is the same. I think it’s fair to say that Compatibalism IS a soft determinism–and I think most will agree that it’s not “freedom” in the way we naturally think of freedom [the ability to do otherwise in a given circumstance or situation];
THough I’m not the fan of calvinism, I appreciate the insights and discussion. I’m from a Southern Baptist tradition (though now serving an American Baptist church), and Calvinism is ascending in the SBC denom. and riding high at at least one of our seminiaries (Southern Baptist THeological in Louisville).
Like or Dislike:
0
Gee, with all these “Calvinism is *not* …”, you’re eliminating all the strawman targets for the Libertarian Free Will Arminians to shoot at and burn.
Like or Dislike:
0
I disagree by logical implications with just about everything you’ve said here. You can say all day Calvinism is not…, the question is one of logical consistency. But of course we’ve been over this before, so I’ll save you (and me) the time and frustration by not rehashing it all over again.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have read a lot (lots, lots, lots) of work of Calvinists over the past few years and I can tell you that I believe your assessment is not representative of Calvinism. Wheather we’re talking about Piper, Helm, Frame, Boettner, Gerstner, perhaps even Sproul and Ware (maybe not those lost two).
I agree with so much of how you have said above (notice, “how” not “what”) that you almost sound like an Calminian except that I agree with Olson that there is no such thing and never can be. I agree with commenter number 2 that there is no logic to your “Calvinists do not” points above.
If I were a Calvinist I’d have to be a consistent one (otherwise I’d frustrate myself) – I’d probably be a Sproul Jr. But even there they’re so many contradictions that I could never be satisified; and hiding behind the bushal of “mystery” would seem to be an inadquate escape.
I respect your view – I just can’t share it.
Like or Dislike:
0
A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control, though Calvinists differ about how meticulous this control it.
Brother, I gotta say, fatalism is just that we can’t do anything other than what we do. It doesn’t matter if fate is something amorphic or something grounded in God’s omniscience or divine plan.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for that comment Ray, but I have stated that a million times before and CMP just won’t buy that Calvinism = fatalism. Rather he simply seeks to limit fatalism to the Oedipus sense of the word where the determinative factor is some impersonal cause and effect fate. He doesn’t realize that a divine causative agent determining things is just as bad and in some ways as worse form of fatalism. From the article you linked.
“Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. It may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called “Logical fatalism” (or, in some cases, “Metaphysical fatalism”); when argued for in the second way, it is commonly called “Theological fatalism”.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Just an add on…
Thanks for sharing your view. It’s nice to see how you understand this very important subject even if I don’t share the way you nuance it.
P.S. Another good post would be to write one called “Arminians: Myths and Realities” to, as commentor number 1 said, “eliminate [Calvinists] strawman” arguments by clarifying some points of confusion – but Roger Olson already wrote that book, so why repeat it?
Like or Dislike:
1
Some of the greatest evangelists in the history of Christianity, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, have held to the doctrine of unconditional election.
You forgot to mention the Apostle Paul!! He is arguably THE greatest evangelist in the early church.
Like or Dislike:
0
I do plan on writing one about Arminian misconceptions. There are a lot out there.
Like or Dislike:
0
Guy, I can’t really just say this over and over again and think that the next time you will believe (even if it is only limited to my version of Calvinism —which it is not) that Calvinism is not fatalism. Even in the definition described in the comments, it simply would not work. Most Calvinists are compatiblists, believing that the will and responsibility of man is in play, even if God is predestining many of the events (though not all of all but those who hold to meticulous sovereignty).
I cannot make people follow by what are the true representations of the subjects, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to present them outside of the box that opponents put them in.
I can assure you, that I don’t follow any straw-men method, even when I do believe that the “straw man” representation is better.
Please, at least on this blog, allow the positions this courtesy.
Like or Dislike:
0
A couple observations I made when reading your post that highlight the commenters’ points above about logical consistency:
1) Every time I’ve engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist — and not supralapsarians, either — I’ve heard fired as a silver bullet the bit that says that if God is sovereign, His will cannot be thwarted. Grace is irresistible because God’s will in election cannot be circumvented. Yet as Calvin said, “By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord…” Ergo, God either willed it to happen or His will was thwarted.
2) If God’s “mysterious secret will” is not arbitrary, how can we presume to know why He doesn’t choose some? What if He does choose the elect by those He knows are more naturally submissive to His will and will glorify Him most? The response will be that our “worthiness” can’t come into play because of God’s intent that “no man can boast,” but boasting is prevented by the fact that no one really knows if they’re elect or not. Besides, people do boast anyway — even the elect! Paul’s point was that no one could justifiably boast, and no one can justifiably boast in something that was only enabled by God’s action to redeem us.
Like or Dislike:
0
I must say, though, that if someone’s going to be a Calvinist, I hope they’re CMP’s kind of Calvinist.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Steve.
You said:
“1) Every time I’ve engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist — and not supralapsarians, either — I’ve heard fired as a silver bullet the bit that says that if God is sovereign, His will cannot be thwarted.”
That is a misunderstanding of both systems and a staw man against Arminianism. Both sides believe that God is sovereign. Sure, there are people in both camps that will take there views to what they believe is the “logical” conclusions. For example, Arminians become open theists. Calvinists become hyper-Calvinists. But to characterize either by these “logical” extremes is unfair and irresponsible unless the purpose is highly qualified in an educational setting.
There is simply no “silver bullet” for either side. Both have very good points.
Most importantly, there are so many good Calvinist and good Aminians who love and are completely committed to the same Lord and his Gospel.
“2) If God’s “mysterious secret will” is not arbitrary, how can we presume to know why He doesn’t choose some?”
No one can. And any Calvinist who knows what he is talking about would not presume to know why, even in theory. All Calvinists go off of is the unconditional nature of the argument Paul seems to make in Romans 9 (i.e. “before they had done anything good or bad…”)
Like or Dislike:
0
Also, just as an FYI: This post is not meant to debate whether or not Calvinism is the best option, only to correct many misunderstanding that are so often represented by both Calvinists and Arminian.
Like or Dislike:
0
For those of you who complain about the attitude that you often find in Calvinists, I am sad to say that I will more often than not agree. Read these posts of mine:
“Calvinists Often Make the Worst Calvinists”: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/09/calvinists-often-make-the-worst-calvinists/
“Calvinists, Let’s Calm Down”
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/calvinists-lets-calm-down/
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, Michael. Once again you show why you’re one of my favorite theologians around: humility. That’s what should characterize our theology more than anything else.
I got to a PCA church because I don’t mind disagreeing on these things. When I say I have yet to hear a Pattonesque Calvinist, I don’t mean it to say you’re wrong about what Calvinists believe: I just mean that we have the impression of Calvinists that most Calvinists give us. I’m certainly glad there exist varieties that don’t imply that non-Calvinists (I’m not sure how “Arminian” I am, either) are desecrating Christ’s sacrifice and claiming that people just save themselves by being good.
Like or Dislike:
0
If Calvnists are not fatalists and claim that humans have “free-will” (as defined by Calvinists), how can humans really have any free choice to choose Christ when (according to Calvinism) they are utterly depraved and incapable of even beginning to move towards God and God has chosen the elect and that elective grace is irresistable, therefore it seems that (according to Calvinism) the eternal fate of individuals is sealed before they are even born. I’m curious, how is that not fatalism? Maybe Calvinists don’t think that’s fatalism because God doesn’t pre-determine everything (like which socks I’ll wear today), but it seems like eternal judgment is fatalistic in Calvin’s system and that’s more important than anything else (and especially sock choice).
(Btw, my apologies if I’m coming across too forceful with my questions… I’m not trying to be rude… I’m trying to get at one of the main issues why I don’t hold to Calvinism… and I’m curious to hear how a Calvinist who thinks a lot on this subject explains this issue.)
also another question:
I’m curious, do Calvinists think all non-Calvinists are Arminians?
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m curious, do Calvinists think all non-Calvinists are Arminians?
I can’t speak for Calvinists directly since I am not one. However, knowing a bit about the issue I can state that there are other views. A view which has gained recent precedence due to the likes of Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig is the Molinist view. This view has it’s origins in the 16th Century. Another relatively modern development around this issue is Open Theist view, though some supporters of this view claim that there were adherents of this view as far back at the 5th Century or so.
Of these two “other views” I think most Evangelical Christians would agree that Molinism is within the realm of Christian Orthodoxy falling somewhere between Arminians and Calvinists in terms of balancing human freedom with divine sovereignty though it’s beliefs are distinct from both. On the other hand most Evangelical Christians would consider Open Theism unorthodox and, to some, heresy because it denies that God has full knowledge of future events.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T (#19):
If any evangelicals believe Open Theism to be unorthodox it is because they make the mistake of thinking that Open Theism denies Gods omniscience.
In other words, someone should write a post like this one and like one on Arminianism, clearifying some misconceptions of Open Theism. I am not an Open Theist, but will affirm that they are most certainly within the bounds of Orthodoxy!
Like or Dislike:
0
Derek,
I was not giving my personal opinion in that post or commenting on the truth or error of Open Theism. I think it is simply a fact that the majority of Evangelicals believe Open Theism is unorthodox. Wayne Grudem even famously left the ETS after they refused to kick out Pinnock and Sanders. Whether this belief is well-founded goes beyond the scope of this post and is something I won’t comment on.
Like or Dislike:
0
Correction to last post. It was Norman Geisler who left, not Wayne Grudem.
Like or Dislike:
0
In what meaningful way does God love the reprobate in Calvinism? The reprobate would be much better off never having been born rather than to experience the Calvinistinc “love” of God. As Wesley said, such a love makes the blood run cold.
Like or Dislike:
0
Regarding unconditional election not being arbitrary:
“Arbitrary” vs. “unconditional” (that is; “not based on any condition”) seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
If God has a reason for electing someone, then wouldn’t that reason be the condition that his election is based upon?
Like or Dislike:
0
Good point Ron. I would agree. It seems to me that if the Calvinist system is true there either is criteria by which God is electing people (unknown as they may be) or it is random and He is essentially flipping a coin. I have yet to have someone explain to me how this would be a false dilemma and show a third way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ron, all “unconditional” means is that it is not conditioned on the subject being elected. There are all sorts of circumstances in life, with children, and other things that this applies. For example, if you boss were to say “Someone here is getting a raise. I have my reasons for chosing who I choose, but it does not have to do with your performance or any other thing about YOU.” You see, it is an “unconditional” raise only with respect to those who recieve or don’t recieve it. That is as far as the word “unconditional” is meant to go.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m not sure I understand your example. If some boss gave raises that were not based on performance (or anything else about the employees), then his actions would rightly be considered as arbitrary by the employees. If raises were awarded this way at any company there would be a huge outrage. I seriously doubt that anyone honestly disagrees with that.
I haven’t spent that much time thinking about this issue, so I’m very open to correction on this point. Sticking to your boss illustration, can you give me a non-arbitrary reason why the boss would give a raise to Sam and not Tom, keeping in mind that that reason can’t be grounded in Sam or Tom?
side note: an issue of contention may well be the definition of arbitrary. I suggest everyone look it up (including myself!)
Like or Dislike:
0
How is it that God loves the reprobate? I know some Calvinists want to affirm some sort of universal love for mankind, but it rings a little hollow when they were created and God had already chosen them for reprobation (or passing over). Wouldn’t it have been better for them to have not been born? It just seems like a failure to follow out the logical conclusion of a belief.
If every event ever has been determined before hand by God and nothing else could happen, then wouldn’t sin be included? Wouldn’t the first sin be included, since God also determined the state of mind and nature off the original sinner? And how could we possibly be responsible for actions that we don’t ultimately determine, but God does?
I mean this post tries to make Calvinism look completely tight and together with no problems, a perfect system, but to me it looks like a failure to follow the logic of some of the conclusions; a failure to connect the dots.
Calvinists do not necessarily believe that God predestines (wills) everything, including the color of socks I chose this morning.
The Westminster confession seems to disagree, saying, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
So then I have to wonder if it’s right to call those who deny meticulous determinism Calvinists. How do we define Calvinists? Is it those who adhere to the theology of Calvin or not?
Please know that this is not meant as an insult to CMP or any other Calvinist. I am honestly interested in the answers to these questions and healthy iron sharpening with brothers and sisters in Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wow! From this post and the one on “free will” I think MOST Calvinists are in serious denial. Your free will argument presents the best argument I’ve heard against the idea of total depravity I’ve ever heard, that is if the T.U.L.I.P. T really means totally and not just outside the will of God. And several of the points you make here are so nuanced nothing can be said. I mean seriously CMP, “God’s election isn’t arbitrary because well it’s God.” “God determines everything (except our sock color). Man influences nothing. But because he can pick out his own socks he has free will and because it’s God it isn’t fatalism.” “It is just for man to be held accountable for his sins even though man cannot incline himself toward God, God must do it for him. And God only picks an elect few.” And the craziest (in my opinion) “Even though God created the non-elect for the purpose of burning in hell we are to believe God has unconditional love for man.” Talk about tough love.
Like or Dislike:
0
Even with LFW God still creates people knowing that they are going to hell and that nothing will change that.
Like or Dislike:
0
A more complete title would be;
Some Misconceptions about Calvinism…
That Arminians don’t want to let go of.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chapter 16 (God’s Providence) of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is an excellent read on the meticulous sovereignty of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Since we don’t know, it is our duty to evangelize all people and nations.”
I’m restating what I said in a comment to the other thread, but — why doesn’t God just save everyone? And, why is evangelism the precursor to people becoming saved? Why don’t random converts just pop up without correlation to where the Gospel has been preached?
Calvinism’s answer to these questions must be “it’s a mystery”, whereas Arminianism has a coherent answer to both. I should be careful — just because an interpretive framework promises an answer to a question doesn’t make it superior, since we must allow for the possibility that the answer is wrong! But in this case, I’m not convinced that Calvinism answers enough questions that it can satisfactorily bear the weight of the mysteries it must invoke.
Like or Dislike:
0
TUaD: Everything about Arminianism that you disagree with is simply based on a misconception that you don’t want to let go of.
Wasn’t that helpful?
Instead of sniping with snarky little comments, why don’t you interact in a meaningful way with some of the questions/arguments that have been posted? Or at least just post a quote from some famous Calvinist that you think settles the matter– at least that can be interacted with.
Like or Dislike:
0
We can all deal with the minor ancillary questions and not talk about the elephant that it in the room of both Arminians and Calvinists: Why does God create people he knows will go to hell? Most certainly, I assume that these people would have rather not been created at all. Both sides can have the same answer or just leave it in the area of mystery.
If I wanted to be coherent, I would become a advocate of “second chance” evangelism. If I wanted my theology to be cozy, I would find universalism in the text (and I could twist and turn enough to find it). But it is not that which is most coherent is true. It is that which best understands the biblical revelation.
Either way, let us not act as if either side has (more) coherent answers to these questions when the elephant is smelling up the place.
Point being that there are some things that we don’t know but we simply trust God for. Palatability is not a faithful friend to either position. Seeming incoherency does not mean something is true. There is serious mystery whether you are a Calvinist or Arminian.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m not sure I see an equivalence between the two views.
Calvinism affirms that billions of people were thrust into this world UNABLE to turn to God in submission. Some forms of Calvinism (represented by commenters on this board, among others) further affirm that God created billions of people with the PURPOSE of condemning them to Hell.
Arminianism affirms that billions of people will go to hell because they freely chose not to submit to God.
Do you really think these are equivalent?
An analogy might be: A couple chooses to have children, even though they are certain that at some point, the children will be disobedient and deserving of punishment. Another couple chooses to have children for the express purpose of inflicting punishment upon them when they disobey. Or to address the more moderate form of Calvinism; the couple has a child with Tourette’s and punish the child every time he says something inappropriate, even though he is unable to do otherwise.*
So I reject the notion that at the end of the day, both views are equally unpalatable and incoherent, and I find it hard to believe that anyone doesn’t. Yes, both have coherence and palatability issues, but there is something to be said about degree.
* I know nothing about this disorder, so this example might not be technically precise!
Like or Dislike:
0
The question of why God creates people who will spend an eternity in hell is indeed a difficult one for Calvinist and Arminian—but not equally so. If the Arminian is correct, the lost person condemns himself through a free choice to refuse belief. If the Calvinist is correct, the lost person never had a genuine opportunity to believe at all. So the problem for the two is similar but also is significantly distinct.
From a non-Calvinistic perspective, Calvinists do seem to frequently appeal to mystery when explaining what to everyone else seems to be clear contradiction. In our apologetics, we don’t let any proponents of other religions get away with this. If a fuzzy, everything-is-true relativist tried to tell us that, yes, monotheism, polytheism, and pantheism can all be true because it’s a mystery we would nail them (lovingly and respectfully, of course!
). But when Calvinists tell us that God ordains everything, yet is not the cause of sin; that His choice of the elect has absolutely nothing to do with the individual, yet is not arbitrary; that God determines who is eternally saved, allows others no opportunity for salvation, yet He is good and loving; etc.—they are surprised when we balk at an appeal to mystery?
I agree with CMP that this issue does not depend on logical coherence [alone] but on sound interpretation of biblical revelation. My Calvinistic brothers and sisters may vigorously disagree, but this is precisely why I am not a Calvinist.
Like or Dislike:
0
That last paragraph may sound a little snarky, but that’s not the way I meant it. There are sound biblical interpreters on both sides of this issue—people much better qualified than I am! I only meant that I have been convinced of my views through exegetical study, not emotional appeals or philosophical debate.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ron and Curt,
Both of your statements make sense and I do understand where you are coming from, even though I land differently. While I do think that they both have palatability issues, the Calvinistic system does suffer from more. “Degree” was a good way to put it.
Good stuff.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I appreciate your response. I agree with you; Arminianism is by no means mystery-free. Although I do think in most of the cases, the questions pertain more to how it works (eg, how does God perfectly foreknow the outcomes of free-will decisions, etc) than why God does something that appears to defy “logic”.
In that sense, I think the elephant you allege is in Arminianism’s room is outside munching on some hay. I gave this answer yesterday about why God would create those who would reject Him — one answer is that if genetics, culture, geography, etc, are an essential ingredient of “who we are”, then to get you, CMP, God may have tolerated the existence of some nonbelieving ancestor of yours, because without that ancestor, there could have been no you, either.
I don’t think that’s the only answer to the question but I don’t see anything wrong with it, either. What do you think?
Thanks again for your dialectical approach.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Calvinist and the Arminian both affirm that God created some people that He knew beforehand would be condemned to hell forever. In neither view, of course, will all be saved. So as Michael points out, both views must face the issue of why God creates people who will ultimately go to hell.
Now supposedly the Arminian view makes this awful reality easier to swallow. The Arminian answer, that the free will choice of man to reject Christ condemns him to hell, is indeed accurate according to Scripture. But the Calvinist points out the equally biblical truth that while man makes his choices, God sovereignly makes His choices too. He chose some (not all) to salvation from before the foundation of the world, without respect to any of their good or bad deeds (unconditionally).
Admittedly these truths present themselves as contradictory to human reason, yet both the teaching that man acts freely (according to his nature) and is responsible, and that God is behind the scenes orchestrating everything according to His purpose, are equally taught in Scripture.
Arminianism wants to emphasize man’s choices, it seems, as a means of relieving God of ultimate responsibility for creating some people that will go to hell, but the ultimate responsibility is still God’s nonetheless, for He created them and He created hell. He might have not done so, or He could have saved all, but He did not.
Now the Calvinist has a difficult time explaining apparent contradictions described in his system, but he presents them faithfully as holding true to the biblical testimony. The Arminian sees these truths but says that since they cannot be reconciled by human reason, they cannot be as Calvinists say. Supposedly believing these things makes God a monster.
Yet Scripture consistently portrays man’s sin as his own fault, and says he is held liable for it, despite the being born a sinner and being by nature under God’s wrath. It also consistently portrays God in… (continued)
Like or Dislike:
0
It seems like people are more focused on the ‘why does God not choose everyone?’ idea. I’m sure that most everyone here would agree that none of us deserve God’s grace of salvation. But the so-called “inconsistencies” seem to stem from the fact that makes God a bully if He does whatever He wishes with His creation. The very definition of sovereignty is:
. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.
If this is true, then no one has the right to accuse God of not being loving or given everyone a chance to be saved. After all, what about the people, living in the jungle somewhere who died without ever hearing the gospel? Are they not in Hell? Where was there opportunity to be saved? By most of the comments here they would have to say (logically) that God was not loving because they “never had a chance.”
Whether we agree or disagree about the sovereignty of God in salvation, we cannot ignore it because it is so prevalent in Scripture: (Ro 9-11, Acts 13:48, Re 17:8, Eph 1:1-14, Deut 7:7) and other scores of passages which deal ONLY with the fact that God did the choosing, but never gives us the why.
So, while we can sit around all day and discuss the issue we have to let Scripture do the talking—for both sides.
Thanks for listening to me ramble.
In Christ,
Steven
Like or Dislike:
0
(continued from above) absolute control of all that happens in His universe, for it says that all things are being worked out according to His purpose. This couldn’t happen unless God is in control, down to the smallest details– such as the hairs on our heads being numbered, the birds of their air getting their food, the outcome of every roll of the dice. So man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty interact, and we see this clearly from Scripture in such events as Judas acting according to the evil in his own heart to betray Jesus, and yet describing this betrayal as an act foreordained by God to accomplish His purpose. Or Jesus and His disciples preaching the Good News of the Kingdom to all and bidding people to repent and believe, yet Jesus also saying “you not believe because you are not part of my flock” (John 10:26), and “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”(John 6:65) to explain why some people did not believe in Him.
So I believe the Calvinist view is more faithful in presenting these truths from Scripture and that it rightly emphasizes that which Scripture does, namely the glory of God in all that He is and does, and His preeminence in the biblical story. The Calvinist doesn’t know why God elects some and not others, he only knows that like everyone else, he is not worthy of being elect but that God has had mercy on him. He trusts that God’s choices in these matters are fair, good and holy, because God is all these things. It does not presume to judge these actions and say that it is not right for God to do as He pleases in His universe, but rests in what has been revealed, as to God’s reasons. God’s goodness is self-evident, so the Calvinist does not require or demand an explanation of how it is good that God seems to predestine some to hell while being merciful to others. He only knows that he himself, an undeserving sinner, has been brought near.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just a base question. At what point is a “mystery” really a contradiction?
I could say that I’m typing on a computer in Hastings, MN right now well at the same time I’m riding a roller coaster at Disneyland. When you ask me how this is possible I could just say “it’s a mystery” when really it’s of course a contradiction. A physical object (me) cannot be in two places at the same time. Where is the line between mystery and contradiction and how do we know when we’ve crossed it?
Like or Dislike:
0
Forgive me if this is a re-post. I’m not sure if the first one went through.
It seems like people are more focused on the ‘why does God not choose everyone?’ idea. I’m sure that most everyone here would agree that none of us deserve God’s grace of salvation. But the so-called “inconsistencies” seem to stem from the fact that makes God a bully if He does whatever He wishes with His creation. The very definition of sovereignty is:
. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.
If this is true, then no one has the right to accuse God of not being loving or given everyone a chance to be saved. After all, what about the people, living in the jungle somewhere who died without ever hearing the gospel? Are they not in Hell? Where was there opportunity to be saved? By most of the comments here they would have to say (logically) that God was not loving because they “never had a chance.”
Whether we agree or disagree about the sovereignty of God in salvation, we cannot ignore it because it is so prevalent in Scripture: (Ro 9-11, Acts 13:48, Re 17:8, Eph 1:1-14, Deut 7:7) and other scores of passages which deal ONLY with the fact that God did the choosing, but never gives us the why.
So, while we can sit around all day and discuss the issue we have to let Scripture do the talking—for both sides.
Thanks for listening to me ramble.
In Christ,
Steven
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
When Scripture presents two truths at the same time that seem, from our standpoint, to contradict one another, then I would say this involves a certain “mystery”. But it seems quite possible that from God’s vantage point, predestining or ordaining certain things to happen while at the same time preserving the freedom and genuineness of our choices, is in no way mysterious.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T,
Your question is correct in saying that you, being in two places at once is contradictory. However, we are talking about God, who is not bound by the same physical and temporal circumstances that we as human beings are. So in essence, it is a mystery in the sense that God never reveals the ‘why’ of election but only the ’cause’ which according to Ephesians 1:5, is simply “His good pleasure.”
Ultimately, we all have to deal with mysteries, if that’s what you choose (no pun intended) to call it that. Things such as, why do some babies die and others live? Why are some people born into countries where the gospel is so abundant while others are not?
All these things have to be dealt with on both sides, not just the Calvinist side.
Like or Dislike:
0
Just a quick thought here on a point that I don’t believe has been brought up in the discussions on either thread.
Calvinists keep referring to the problem that Arminians have with not all people being saved by asking the question about the people that have never heard the Gospel.
It seems to me that a lot of the answer to that may lie directly at the feet of Christians all down through the ages that haven’t taken God’s commandment to “go into all the world and make disciples of all nations” seriously. If that had been done faithfully, there certainly wouldn’t be nearly as many people in this world, if any at this point in time, that have never heard the good news.
Like or Dislike:
0
Divine Sovereignty and Creaturely Freedom and Responsibility: This limited, finite Calvinist is happy and joyful to have God resolve the tension and mystery in His Own Way!!
Like or Dislike:
0
When Scripture seems to be saying two things that are contradictory or mutually exclusive, shouldn’t we consider other exegetical options before we sweep the dirt of contradictory interpretations under the rug of mystery? We dismiss the truth claims of other religions for just such self-contradiction.
More Comments:
1 2 3 Next »