Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5
Article Series - Objections to Calvinism
|
I want to begin a post series trying my best to answer some objections to the doctrines of Grace that I have encountered over the last two-plus years. The ones that I will attempt to answer are these: Election leads men to be proud and arrogant because they are “elect;” Why should I pray according to Calvinism; Why should I evangelize; Why should pursue holiness. I will take them in the order listed.
But before I get into the objection of pride because of election (I haven’t really heard this objection personally, unlike the other three, but I know it is out there), I to address an historical issue. Namely, the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. The last three objections–prayer, evangelism, and holy living–stem out of an apparent failure to distinguish Hyper-Calvinsim. The following is based off of the discussion of Hyper-Calvinism at Theopedia.com.
Hyper-Calvinism is characterized primarily (at least by Reformed Critics) by denying both: “the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike” and “the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation.”
Monergism gives the following list as Hyper-Calvinist positions:
- that God is the author of sin and of evil
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
- that it is wrong to evangelize
- that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
- that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
- that God does not command everyone to repent
- that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
- that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
- that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
- that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)
Calvinists would stand with Arminians and denounce theology that embraces these statements. Calvinism affirms that: God is not the author of sin; men have a compatible will; no one knows who is elect except God; election is confirmed by faith and repentance; men and women must persevere in faith and holiness to be saved; God is not racist and does not base his election upon human distinctives; Calvinism would not necessarily say that babies are certainly damned but that God is free to save however he pleases (although some would say babies go to hell); sacraments are not obstacles to salvation; God’s command to repent and believe is universal (Acts 17:30) and not limited to only the elect; the Lord knows who are his (2 Timothy 2:19); all governments are ordained by God and should be obeyed when not contradicting the clear teachings of Scripture; God’s grace benefits all men, though not in a saving fashion; one does not have to hold to the doctrine of predestination to be saved; one does not have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian.
Some have argued that if one follows Calvinism to its logical conclusions, he or she will arrive at Hyper-Calvinism. That may or may not be true. But Calvinism is not bound by logic but rather Scripture. The Scripture commands our humility, prayer, evangelism, and for saints to live holy lives. This is why Calvinists like Whitefield, C. H. Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, William Carrey, Adoniram Judson, Jonathan Edwards, and David Brainard were also evangelists. It is why Edwards and John Owen preached on holiness; John Owen wrote a book called Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers. It is why Edwards would pray for hours alone in the wilderness as a young man.
If I were to play the game of logical conclusions with Arminianism, I would have to arrive at Pelagianism which says there is no need for grace and Christ for salvation because God has given all men the ability to achieve righteousness on their own. Pelagius argued that the fall did not affect man so as he did not need the grace of God to grant him the ability to seek him. He believed that man was able to seek God on his own. But this led him to deny the need for grace and the atoning death of Christ. As a result he was condemned as a heretic, and rightfully so in denying the centrality of Christ’s death. But I would never equate Arminianism and semi-pelagianism with the heresy of Pelagianism. I ask the same of my Arminian brothers as well, do not assume that Calvinism is Hyper-Calvinism.
I like how Theopedia helps explain the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinsim,
Wayman contends that saving faith was not in the power of man at his best before the fall and therefore makes the following deduction, “What Adam had, we all had in him; and what Adam lost, we all lost in him, and are debtors to God on both accounts; but Adam had not the faith of God’s elect before the fall, and did not lose it for his posterity; therefore they are not debtors to God for it while in unregeneracy.” Lewis Wayman, A Further Enquiry after Truth, (London: J & J. Marshall, 1738), p. 51.
John Brine gives some insight into Wayman’s statement. Brine taught that every duty incumbent on Adam in his unfallen state he also had the ability to perform, and this duty extends to all men in their fallen state regardless of their lack of ability. Brine maintained that a lack of ability does not release a man from duty (with which most Calvinists would agree). Yet, somehow he sees salvation in a different category; for “with respect to special faith in Christ, it seems to me,” says Brine, “that the powers of man in his perfected state were not fitted and disposed to that act.” John Brine, A Refutation of Arminian Principles (London, 1743), p. 5.
Accordingly, saving faith lay not within the powers of man in his unfallen state, because there was no necessity for it. Since, therefore, it was not part of his powers in his unfallen state, it could not now be required of him in his fallen state. On this basis, duty-faith and duty-repentance are denied by the hyper Calvinist.
Cross Posted at Think Wink.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Bob, if you or any of the other Calvinists know of objections like the ones I have mentioned feel free to let me know and I will include them in the series. And I would agree, if one were to play the "logical conclusion" game, open theism is one of those conclusions that would be made.
But I hope that we can all avoid playing that game and start being Scripturally consistent. This might make it harder for systems to be understood in a nice neat package but it will be more theologically and biblically sound.
So where does the logic start and stop in calvinism? You mention that while hyper-calvinism might be the logical conclusion of the precepts found in calvinism and then reject that your system needs to be logically consistent. This is especially interesting as Calvinism’s points seems to be the only logical conclusions of the other points.
While you did not do so here, other notable Calvinists (whom must also deny the use of fully consistent logic) have stressed logical consistency when arguing against free will in salvation and the acceptance of a free gift as a work. Jesus is constantly telling people that they need to believe to be saved, as if they needed to do something of their own free will.
Where does logic begin and end as a useful tool in Calvinism? Or in general?
If there is such a denial of a hard hammering out of the Bible in true, historical Calvinism, is it possible to hold up two logically contradictory premises when building a theology? Perhaps the sov of God and the free will of man in salvation?
Bob, it all depends on which starting premises one uses. I think you can construct a theological system that is both logically tight (fitting with the idea that God is a rational being) and that allows for the sov of God and the free will of man without ending in Open Theism. Is God sov enough to allow man to have free will in loving or rejecting him? Or is that beyond his power?
I feel (emph on feel) like there is an over emphasis on the sov and justice of God and not enough placed on his mercy and love in Calvinism.
Edwards prayed on hours and hours on end when he was a youth because he was afraid that he was not one of the elect, because in the Calvinistic framework, there was no way to be sure. Ironically, the system that included eternal security lead him (and most of the people swept up in the Great Awakening) to doubt his salvation! (Source: Jonathan Edwards, a life)
Good comments, Henry.
First you ask this,
So where does the logic start and stop in calvinism? You mention that while hyper-calvinism might be the logical conclusion of the precepts found in calvinism and then reject that your system needs to be logically consistent. This is especially interesting as Calvinism’s points seems to be the only logical conclusions of the other points…Where does logic begin and end as a useful tool in Calvinism? Or in general?
My answer is that one cannot allow the logic to carry one outside of what Scripture says (i.e. Hyper-Calvinism, Pelagianism, Open Thesim, etc.). My logic must be biblically consistent. This does allow a person to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man together, because the Bible talks about God's sovereignty and man's culpability in and responsibility for his choices. If I allow my logic to take me outside of the Bible, I am now moving into the heretical and blasphemous, and the same is true for the Arminian side as well. If he or she allows his or her logic to drive her outside the written revelation of God, she is no longer consistent with what God has said about himself. If Jesus is the logos, logic, then we must stay with what he has revealed about himself in the Scriptures, within his logic. So in the realm of theology (such as Reformed vs. Remonstrant) logic both begins and ends in Scripture.
Edwards prayed on hours and hours on end when he was a youth because he was afraid that he was not one of the elect, because in the Calvinistic framework, there was no way to be sure. Ironically, the system that included eternal security lead him (and most of the people swept up in the Great Awakening) to doubt his salvation! (Source: Jonathan Edwards, a life)
This is very much true and I do not dispute it. But this was also when Edwards admits that he was not yet converted. In The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 1, Chapter 1, pages xii-xiii, Edwards says of his fear of the sovereignty of God,
From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life; and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to this sovereignty of God, and his justice in thus eternally disposing of men, according to his sovereign pleasure. But never could give an account how, or by what means, I was thus convinced, not in the least imagining at the time, nor a long time after, that there was any extraordinary influence of God’s Spirit in it; but only that now I saw further, and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it. However, my mind rested in it; and it put an end to all those cavils and objections. And there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, with respect to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, from that day to this; so that I scarce ever have found so much as the rising of an objection against it, in the most absolute sense, in God showing mercy to whom he will show mercy, and hardening whom he will. God’s absolute sovereignty and justice, with respect to salvation and damnation, is what my mind seems to rest assured of, as much as of any thing that I see with my eyes; at least it is so at times. But I have often, since that first conviction, had quite another kind of sense of God’s sovereignty than I had then. I have often since had not only a conviction, but a delightful conviction. The doctrine has very often appeared exceedingly pleasant, bright, and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not so. (Bold emphasis is mine; Italic emphasis is Edwards)
The very thing that you said gave him fear in his youth later, after what he viewed as his regeneration, became his greatest treasure and delight!
I feel (emph on feel) like there is an over emphasis on the sov and justice of God and not enough placed on his mercy and love in Calvinism.
This is what tells me a person does not truly understand Reformed soteriology. The mercy and love of God move us so mightily to preach the gospel, to live holy lives. We depend upon the "God who mercies" (literal translation of Romans 9:16) for everything. It is only by his grace that we can achieve anything of positive spiritual growth. That grace is only given to us because of the mercy and love of God (Ephesians 2:4-5). Also the sovereignty and justice of God is what makes the mercy and love of God so sweet to me. The fact that God did not give me what I fully deserve for my sin in his justice, but rather was merciful to me and gave me grace to repent and believe, allows me to sleep at night assured that God will not destroy me, for like Edwards said in his sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, there is no reason I can give that I did not go to hell last night as I slept except the mercy of God. The whole point for God saying in Exodus 33:19 that he will mercy who he mercies and graces who he graces is so that Israel will know that God chose not to destroy them and leave them in the wilderness, but Jehovah chose to be merciful to them and personally escort them into the promised land. In the revelation of God's name in Exodus 34:6-7, the emphasis is not on God's justice, but on his mercy and grace and compassion and covenant-keeping love and faithfulness. But God has the sovereign right not to give that grace, mercy, love, and faithfulness to everyone but to whom he chooses to give it.
Now you might respond to this in a different post, but when one says “free will,” I must ask the question: what are you saying you are free from?
Hank,
It is not a question of “free from,” rather, it is a question of “free to do.” I am free to choose. I am free to accept the gift of grace or to reject the gift of grace.
I am still kinda hazy on what exactly is Hyper-Calvinism. It seems like you list all the bad outworking of Calvinism and label them as Hyper-Calvinism. I myself see H/C as a stronger form of the Calvinisms that you and Brad and Bob have described.
Most specifically, I would think that the defining feature of H/C or Strong Calvinism is its strong position on the Sovereignty of God. God is so sovereign that every single action performed by anything, whether it be Angels, Humans, dogs, video game designers, wind, earthquakes, dust movements in the cosmos, etc… have been actively governed by God.
Active Sovereignty vs. Passive Sovereignty would be another defining characteristic. Active Sovereignty is the directed acting of God in determining the actions of a given agent. Passive Sovereignty is the ability to override any action of a given agent; ultimate authority resides with God, but It allows agents to make free choices. I would say that there is a 2 part sliding scale here. Strong Calvinists (Hyper-Calvinists) would give God a 5/5 Active Sovereignty, 0/5 Passive Sovereignty. Weak Calvinists would give God a 2/5 A/S and a 3/5 P/S, so on and so forth.
I think this is where Hyper-Calvinism, or Strong Calvinism starts. The outworkings of this, such as double predestination, or being the origin of Evil are logical extensions of this beginning point.
Because of this, I think Hyper/Strong Calvinists add and S to TULIP.
What do you think Hank? Is there somewhere I have gone amiss?
It is not a question of “free from,” rather, it is a question of “free to do.” I am free to choose. I am free to accept the gift of grace or to reject the gift of grace.
My question is what would keep you from being able to "choose"? If I understand Arminianism, he or she would say that he or she is free from all outside influences so that he or she is free to choose. If this is true, then isn't free will a form of rebellion against God? May be may be not, but it certainly can sound like it.
To say that the H/C doctrines listed in the post are just the bad outworkings of Calvinism and labeled H/C makes me uncomfortable. Do not forget that one of the strongest presuppositions of Calvinism and the Reformers was sola scriptura, Scripture alone. Those doctrines listed above are biblically untenable. You cannot find an affirmation of their truth anywhere in Scripture. Calvinism thus denies their validity. The same thing is true with free will. Free will is not found in Scripture, it is a philosophical notion. But the command to choose is found in the Bible (Joshua 24:15) and Calvinists affirm that humans must make a choice, and are responsible for what they choose. Calvinism seeks to be biblically consistent, and H/C is not biblically consistent as you can see in the list.
Most specifically, I would think that the defining feature of H/C or Strong Calvinism is its strong position on the Sovereignty of God. God is so sovereign that every single action performed by anything, whether it be Angels, Humans, dogs, video game designers, wind, earthquakes, dust movements in the cosmos, etc… have been actively governed by God.
Many of the things that you are faulting in H/C's view of God's sovereignty are in the Bible. The Bible has an extremely strong view of the sovereignty of God. Jesus attributes to God the rising of the sun and the falling of the rain (Matthew 5:45). Jesus also says that not even a sparrow will fall to the ground apart from God's will (Matthew 10:29 ESV). Job attributes the snow, rain, ice, and lightning as coming from God (Job 37:6-13 cf. Job 38:22-30; Psalm 148:8). God is behind the wind and clouds in Psalm 135:6-7). God causes the grass to grow in Psalm 104:14. Scripture teaches in Proverbs 16:33 that not even the lot that is cast is outside of God's sovereignty, there is no random chance (I am aware of Casey's treatment of this verse in an earlier thread but he fails on a simple grammatical level because the teacher here is refering to the lot's every decision, not man's. Also, Ecclesiastes 9:11, the term "chance" appears but the Hebrew there is better understood as "unexpected" and the Hebrew term only appears one other time in 1 Kings 5:4 and is translated as misfortune or an evil event, LXX is ponhros which is used in Matthew 6:13 to describe "the evil one" or "evil"). The Bible paints a picture of nothing being outside of God's active control, which it seems that you are implying.
Active Sovereignty vs. Passive Sovereignty would be another defining characteristic. Active Sovereignty is the directed acting of God in determining the actions of a given agent. Passive Sovereignty is the ability to override any action of a given agent; ultimate authority resides with God, but It allows agents to make free choices. I would say that there is a 2 part sliding scale here. Strong Calvinists (Hyper-Calvinists) would give God a 5/5 Active Sovereignty, 0/5 Passive Sovereignty. Weak Calvinists would give God a 2/5 A/S and a 3/5 P/S, so on and so forth.
I would prefer to view it as God's active sovereignty through actions that are active or passive. God was active in the hardening of Pharaoh but at the same time he was not creating fresh evil in Pharaoh, rather, God was removing his restraints upon the existing evil in Pharaoh's heart. H/C would postulate that God worked new evil into Pharaoh's heart to harden it. That I would not agree with nor can you find that in the Bible. But to say that God wasn't actively in control of that would destroy the parallels that Paul sets up in Romans 9 where God is the one loving//hating (Romans 9:13), mercying//hardening (Romans 9:18), making vessels of honor//making vessels of dishonor (Romans 9:21), preparing vessels of wrath for destruction//preparing vessels of mercy for glory (Romans 9:22-23). God's actions are either passive or active, but his control is active. Paul says that God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11 NASB). The verb "works" is an active participle. God is working all things. But the actions he takes depend on what he is wanting to bring about.
I think this is where Hyper-Calvinism, or Strong Calvinism starts. The outworkings of this, such as double predestination, or being the origin of Evil are logical extensions of this beginning point.
Both Calvinism and H/C start here, but Calvinism seeks to be governed by Scripture where as it seems that H/C doesn't. Again, H/C affirms biblically untenable truths (see above post) where as Calvinism seeks to affirm Scripture.
HT,
Again, Strong Calvinism thinks that they have a scriptural basis for their ideas, just as weak Calvinists do… and a wealth of other theologies.
Once you mention the word trinity in your theology you have gone beyond the Bible.
Two points. First, how would a weak Calvinist understand election and the atonement in your mind? Norman Giesler calls himself a "moderate Calvinist" but does not hold to all of the doctrines of grace.
Second, there is a difference between a doctrine whose name isn't in the Bible (i.e. Trinity, total depravity) and a doctrine that isn't in the Bible (i.e. God is the author of sin). Yes I agree that there are doctrines whose titles aren't in Scripture. But you have to agree that there are doctrines that cannot be found in Scripture at all. Free will is a philosophical idea, but the idea that man has to make choices that he is responsible for is a doctrine that can be defended from Scripture. I am saying that one cannot find libertarian free will in Scripture, not just the term "libertarian free will" or "free will." Please do understand the distinction I did not quite enunciate clearly in my previous comment.
Honzo,
It sounds like you are saying that no theological system is actually based upon the Bible and that they are, for lack of a better term being up since 2:30 am, deceiving themselves to think that they are based upon a reading of Scripture. Could you elaborate on this please? Does any theology base itself upon Scripture? It doesn't sit well with me considering Calvin wrote a book on systematic theology explaining to the king of France what he was teaching from the Bible.
My question is what would keep you from being able to “choose”? If I understand Arminianism, he or she would say that he or she is free from all outside influences so that he or she is free to choose. If this is true, then isn’t free will a form of rebellion against God? May be may be not, but it certainly can sound like it.
Actually, you have almost summed it up nicely. One is free to go with God’s plan or against it; one is free to sin or not to sin. It is a power that God allows us to have. Free will abused is the only possible form of rebellion against God.
What I am saying in regards to the systems of theology is that many systems try to be based on the Bible, and a great majority start from the Bible and proceed outward. The trick is how well they do it.
I find it heavy-handed to say that people don’t base their doctrines on the Bible when they most certainly do! Gareth Reese would mop the floor with anyone that says otherwise. Saying that someone goes beyond the Bible in their theology is true, but so does everyone that employs more than a isolated book to book biblical hermeneutic. The second one says infallible, trinity, or monergism; they have gone far beyond what the Bible says (enter Logic). The trick is if they make the connections well and use the whole scope of
Every single systematic theology goes beyond what the Bible teaches. With the possible exception of a few chapters in Romans There are no systematic theologies contained in the Bible. No book is a systematic work. Some works, such as parts of Romans go in depth on some issues, but nowhere does God have someone lay everything out, plain and clear.
One can easily make a case for the Bible implying that God is the author of sin.
Is God in control of everything?
Is the creation of sin something?
Then wouldn’t God be in control of the creation of sin?
If not, then God is not in control of everything.
Actually, you have almost summed it up nicely. One is free to go with God’s plan or against it; one is free to sin or not to sin. It is a power that God allows us to have. Free will abused is the only possible form of rebellion against God.
Actually, what I am saying is that the notion of libertarian free will itself, not the abuse of but the actual idea of it, is a rebellion against God. It sounds like the last bastion of human pride that man will not let go. "I have to have my free will. If I don't, then I think God is unfair and unjust." Human "free will" in the Arminian sense is just another form of rebellion against God. It is the last place where man will not let God be absolutely sovereign and let man preserve his own sense of autonomy that he felt he had as a sinner. It puts man at the center of everything, and even puts God under man because of his desire to uphold the creation's freedom over and above his own freedom. It is forcing God to loose his freedom for the sake of the creation. He is no longer free to do what he wills. It almost makes his deistic.
Now if this comes across as a "strawman" I do apologize because looking from the outside in of free will, this is what it looks like. I see absolutely no text to support this philosophical idea that is being imposed upon God and upon the Bible for the sake of human pride and human self-worship.
As far as the origin of sin, I have always had a question that only Reformed theology has had the best and most biblical answer. The question is, and may be you might be able to answer it in another post if you think it is worth while, if God made everything good, which includes the angels and all of creation, then how did sin enter into that universe? How could creatures who only see and know goodness suddenly arrive at choosing sin? It had to come from somewhere, so where did it come from? It couldn't be from Adam/Eve because earth was good, no evil. It couldn't have come from Satan because he was in the very presence of perfection. So how did the idea to desire something more than that perfect state enter into their minds? May be from you perspective it might go like this, where did the choice of sin over rebellion come from?
Great post Hank, you did a good job replying to the numerous pop-cliches and characturiziations of Reformed theology. As far as logical outworkings of Arminianism I think Open Theism is one. In order to avoid the charge backfiring on the Arminian that God made people to send them to Hell they need to cut off God’s foreknowledge. Thus we hack off atributes to make a God that is palatable for the natural man. I think that is how Arminianism has started, it is a theology of the natural man, open theism is one of it’s conclusions. I mean you simply wont get open theist ideas from the Bible, it is an elevation of fallen man’s sense of what is fair for God to do over the revelation of God itself.