Theology for the Masses

Often when discussing Calvinism with my Reformed friends, I hear them use language like “God allowed/permitted sin.” This kind of rhetoric seems strange, though, coming from a group of people who believe, as the Westminster Confession of Faith says, that “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

Logically consistent Calvinists recognize this problem and concede that God must have ordained and caused evil as well as good. As John Piper has said, “Everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.” That is, God didn’t merely “permit” sin or “allow” it; He actively caused it as its Primary Cause.

John Calvin (as quoted by Piper) even goes on to chide those “inconsistent” Calvinists who want to use “permit” and “allow” language when it comes to sin, “John Calvin denies that there is any “mere permission” in God: From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [= idly] permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.”

Now, to be fair, Calvinists believe that God ordained, indeed determined and caused, sin to come into the world without in any way morally implicating God. Essentially God is the Primary Cause of sin and human agents are the Secondary Cause. God determined before creation that humanity would Fall, but because God is only the Primary Cause and not the actual agent committing or having the desire to sin, God cannot be held culpable.

Let me loosely, if not inefficiently, illustrate this*

God Determines (Primary Cause)
↓
Humans Have the Desire (The Immediate Cause) which God has Determined**
↓
Humans Sin (Secondary Cause)

The logic of this aside (for we will concede the point just for the moment and assume that a God who punishes people for actions that they could not have in fact chosen otherwise is actually good) I think it is important to note that nowhere in this model is there room for “permission” language. God does not permit anything; He causes everything – in such a way that He is not responsible for any of the negative results (but curiously all of the positive ones).

Now, when Calvinists slip into “permit” language, not only does it violate the Compatibilistic Freedom model they cling so tightly to, but they are actually employing Libertarian Freedom language. Indeed, John Piper has made this very point, “But we should not assume, as Arminians do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination.” In other words, it is logically inconsistent and theologically misleading for a Calvinist to say that God “allowed” instead of “caused” something just so it will sound more palatable to their audience.

Of course, there are many Calvinists who do not fall into this trap – as I have just demonstrated with Piper and Calvin. But this post if for those who think is permissive to do so – If you do indeed find “determination” and “causation” language morally abhorrent when it comes to evil and sin, then you would do well to become an Arminian or Open Theist – for that is exactly their complaint! If you do not believe in a God who caused the Holocaust or little girls to get raped, then by all means, abandoned your Reformed views.

In either case, let us not continue employing Calvinistic rhetoric and “permit” language together. For if Calvinism is right, God is not being glorified by such a denial of His Sovereignty.

However, if you are Reformed and you wish to retain your right to “permit/allow” language, you should at least understand that you are falling outside traditional, classical Calvinism, and your position is logically incoherent within that system This ought to tell you something as well b/c for your classical Calvinists, like John Piper, have no problem saying, “It is not wrong to say that God causes evil and sin.”

*Calvinists, I’m trying to be fair in this illustration, so if you think something could improve it, then please let me know – I don’t want to be misleading.

**Calvinistic/Compatibilistic Freedom maintains that a person makes a free choice so long as that choice is immediately caused by an inner state (desire). The person acts according to their own desire, and is therefore making a free choice. They could not act otherwise, but they do act according to their desire, and are therefore responsible for their decision and action.

If we accept, which I do, Tom’s rejection of the soteriology of the State, how should Christians interact with the government? I don’t see a scriptural imperative, as the situation of a participatory government as we Americans have currently did not exist during the writing of our set of sacred texts. Given that lack of an imperative, do Christians vote, run for office, try to legislate the tenants of our faith?

Do we wash our hands of participation in government and focus solely on the work of the Kingdom of God, the whole while reaping the benefits of this country’s contradicting history of domination and freedom? Do we actively engage it, using it as a tool to bring God’s distributive and or retributive justice to the people that we can bring it to?

I don’t know, but with the November of 2008 slowly approaching debate by debate, I am giving increasing thought. I’d like to hear yours.

Violence is the default reality of our society. We assume violence. We consume violence. We trust violence. It is our default reality because we can see no other alternative to defeating evil in many circumstances. We run to it before considering other possibilities. We flee to violence because it offers us protection and preservation. Indeed, violence offers the very same things the unseen God does.

For us violence often has a salvific quality to it. It is seen as that which can ultimately save us, preserve us, and justify us. We call upon it to protect our American way of life. We utilize it in the effort to preserve our lives, which Christ said we could not save anyway. We employ violence to justify things we already wanted to do.

Long before our willing submission to soteriology of violence, however, we have bought into what others have called the ‘Soteriology of the State.’ That is, what we once trusted the church for (salvation, preservation, justification) we have handed over to the state. The state preserves our way of life, it saves us from evil (terrorism), it justifies our desires and actions (consumerism and exploitation). In fact, it tells us what we should live and die for. We’ve fallen in a Soteriology of the State – Caesar has become our Lord. [1]

If you doubt this, just look at the war rhetoric of our nation – it is rhetoric taken from the church: The spreading of democracy coincides with the spreading of the gospel (GW – “Democracy is God’s gift to the world.”). The war was needed to ‘preserve the American way of life,’ just as Christians are supposed to preserve society by being ‘salt.’

In our co-opted Soteriology, we have blindly bought into the ideology and agenda of the state. The goals of the state have become our agenda and Jesus has become nothing more than a bumper sticker politician.

Because we have given Lordship to the state, we’ve also given away any possibility of seeing an alternative reality – especially an alternative reality where violence doesn’t win. If violence is used to stop evil – violence, not the cross, wins. This is, in effect, eliminating evil with evil – the very thing Paul commanded us not to do. Indeed, he tells us to over come evil with good. Then, in the very same context, tells us to submit to government. Government = evil, submission to government = overcoming evil with good. [2]

Is this impossibility of seeing an alternative reality to the Soteriology of the State, the Soteriology of Violence, the reason we so quickly jump to violence as justifiable? I think so. Even Just War Theory says violence is the last alternative after all others have been exhausted. But because we assume violence we cannot see any alternative to exhaust. Maybe this is part of our problem.

Christians as part of the kingdom of God cannot continue to conform their lives to the kingdoms of this world. In the kingdoms of this world violence wins – violence saves. In Christ’s kingdom the denial of self, the laying down of one’s life, and the taking up of one’s cross wins.

All I know is that I’ve seen us (as American Evangelicals) jump to violence without biblical support. [3] In the rules of logic the one who says something exists must offer evidence. Is there NT justification for violance? I’ve found nothing compelling.

I don’t like this non-violent streak in the NT. But I also know that we must be faithful to the witness of Scripture which says, ‘pray for your enemies, love those who hate you, bless those who curse you, go the extra mile, turn the other cheek.’ You will simply not find an example of Jesus or any other NT writer saying, ‘protect your way of life, spread democracy, or slug your enemy.’

Peace (no, really) in Christ.

1. This, I think, is why we are so adamant about getting a Republican in office. We think politics (the state) is the way to save America. Unfortunately, politics never saved anyone and Jesus wasn’t a Republican. [↩]
2. It’s not even funny to me how many times I’ve heard Christians justifying the war in Iraq by saying that we should submit to our government and its decisions. Yeah, apply that logic to abortion and see what you get. [↩]
3. And I understand why. I wish I could allow myself to do the same. I’d much rather someone prove to me that I’m wrong though – it would be a lot easier on my conscience. [↩]

Today I want to discuss the next objection on my list, Election and Evangelism. Let me review the series so far. In the first post, I tried to distinguish historic, five-point Calvinism from hyper-Calvinism. In the second post, I showed that election in a Reformed soteriology is not a source of pride and arrogance, but is a humbling action of God that reveals his glory, from Romans 9:11 and 1 Corinthians 1:20-31. In the third post, I argued that election does not diminish our pursuit of obedience and holiness, but rather grounds our pursuit and gives us confidence that we will be obedience.

continue reading…

The first objection that I want to tackle in my series on “Objections to Calvinism” is that of Election and Pride. Now this is not an objection that has personally been raised to me. No one has actually said to me, “I am not a Calvinist because it makes you prideful and arrogant.” But I have heard of people raising that issue with others and so I’d like to tackle this issue first before getting into some objections that have been raised to me personally.

continue reading…