The Profound Irrelevance of Calvinism
This is it. What I've been waiting for eagerly for the past year or so. I anticipated devoting much labor to obtaining it in my upcoming years in seminary, but it turns out that God dropped it in my lap ahead of time. In somewhat of an epiphany this morning, while reading the first chapter of Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy, I finally came to grips with my utter inability to reconcile Calvinistic theology with real life in Christ. But first, a preface regarding some underlying assumptions.
N.T. Wright, in his thought-provoking (and convicting) paper, How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?, offers this critique of those who claim to have a high regard for the Scriptures. Speaking of those who use terms like "inerrancy" and "infallibility", he warns:
As an evangelical, I can say that his perception is pretty accurate. While I would not admit to elevating anything other than God Himself higher than Scripture, I confess that we do uphold something as high as the Biblical text: Philosophy.
Why philosophy? Because philosophy is, humanly speaking, inescapable. Just as humans and other earth-bound life forms cannot escape their need for--and thus submersion in--oxygen, the essence of human epistemology is philosophy. You see, Bishop Wright's assumptions about the Bible also stem from his own personal philosophy. Whatever philosophy (or worldview, or ideology) we personally adhere to will and does inevitably shape our treatment of all truth, not least the Bible. There is no woman or man who may approach the Bible objectively. It is simply not possible. It would not be possible even for one to approach Jesus Christ objectively were he standing in front of us. Oh, we could certainly objectively conclude that he was standing there. But we could not objectively assume anything about what he was teaching us, or the reasoning behind certain actions. No, for this, we would have to go to some other source to help us decide what he meant or why he did what he did.
Where could we go? Well, to find out why he performed a certain deed, we might ask him why, or induce from teachings we had previously received from him; or perhaps the effect of the deed would shed some light as to its purpose. But this is all subjective, i.e. dependent upon some other previously experienced (or yet to be experienced) reality (whether word or happening) to make sense of it. Rather than seeking to be objective--which, as I mentioned, is ultimately impossible--our goal in determining truth is to be less subjective, i.e. closer to the "source" of that truth. And after all, all that matters to us as humans is that which we can, at some level, make sense of, even if that takes the form of coming to grips with the fact that some things (such as God's ways) do not make sense to us.
So there you have it. For me, philosophy is as important to us humans as Scripture, because without it, it would literally be impossible for me to interact at any level whatsoever with Scripture or even with God Himself. Philosophy, or reason, is at the very essence of what makes us human. The Enlightenment did not cause this to be true, nor were its pioneers the first to recognize it. They may have carried it too far (In my assessment, they did.), but that is no condemnation of the inextricable link between philosophy and humanity.
Now why is this assumption so important with regard to my forthcoming critique of Calvinism? It is a well agreed upon fact that Calvinists and Arminians appeal to the Bible as the source of their certain theology. Each thoroughly utilizes the Old and New Testaments, and each depends upon a "theology of God" and a "theology of man" drawn from Genesis through Revelation. They are both competent points of view, and both can be consistently pointed to through Scripture. But they cannot coexist, as they are soteriological opposites. Either one is true or the other, right? Possibly. However, I am going to propose that elements of each are true with neither being accurate 100% of the time throughout history. Therefore, what we need is a tie-breaker of sorts. The inescapable reality is that philosophy is to blame for the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Therefore, it is philosophy which must break the tie.
Before delving into my arguments against primarily Calvinism, let me do justice to both points of view by defining them for those who may be unfamiliar, vaguely familiar, or misinformed about the fundamental tenets and assumptions of each. The September 2006 issue of Christianity Today, entitled "Young, Restless, Reformed" gave an excellent synopsis of the Calvinist, or Reformed, position, so I will simply quote the sidebar from p. 35:
For a description of Arminianism, I will refer to Wikipedia:
A more thorough explanation of these tenets can be found here.
Now that we have a common point of reference, let us reason together first, whether Calvinism presents us with a theology compatible with all of Scripture, and second, whether Arminianism is an adequate alternative. You already know by bias, so I'm not going to try to be any more diplomatic than is necessary.
First, total depravity. Here I am in accord with both Calvin and Arminius. The Scripture is clear at several points that the totality of our being was infected and duly corrupted by sin at the Fall. However, in my view, the Calvinistic application of this reality is farther than reason (and Scripture) permits it to go. It is obvious, by the simple fact of our continued existence, that human beings were not automatically, immediately obliterated from the face of the earth. They did not cease being "made in God's image", the reality which gave them the complete essence, not merely of righteousness, but of humanity. A depraved humanity is nonetheless a humanity. And because we are human, we have certain innate characteristics which, in my view, render the Calvinistic conclusions impossible. More on that to come.
Second, unconditional election. I agree with Calvin where he observes that election, or salvation, is not dependent upon anything we humans do. That is the primary, classic Lutheran position. As Ephesians 2:8-9 state: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this (salvation) is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (ESV, emphasis and parenthetical mine). It is obvious that nothing we do, in terms of righteous works, can earn us salvation. However, God repeatedly gives this one caveat: having faith. The Calvinist would argue that "having faith" falls under the banner of our own "doing", i.e. of works. But this is a merely speculatory, unnecessary (and, I believe, inaccurate) conclusion. God repeatedly commends men and women "for their faith". He is not simply commending Himself for giving them faith. He is applauding them for trusting Him, for believing Him, indeed, for being most fully human!
Third, limited atonement. I have no beef with this. It is merely semantic and "practical" in terms of evangelistic witness to say that Christ died "for" someone who ends up rejecting His gift and therefore ends up in eternal hell. Some just cannot stomach the thought of telling a non-believer to whom they are witnessing, "Christ died for you--IF you choose to accept that." However, I have no serious quibble with someone who wants to express Christ's atonement as "universal, but only applicable to those who receive Him by faith." It's not a threat to orthodox doctrine, as least insofar as I can comprehend.
Fourth, irresistable grace. Now, Calvin makes his case here not directly, but by induction, playing off of a couple of key truths. John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." True. "God only draws those whom he has elected." False. Or, put another way, "Everyone God draws comes". False. To say that John 6:44 implies these things is a definitive logical fallacy. 1 Cor. 1:23-24 and Acts 16:14 speak of God calling, or drawing people to Himself, which I would agree is how all come to faith in Him. However, again, this does not preclude the possibility that God draws all men and women to Himself.
Fifth, and finally, perseverance of the saints. On this point, I am also in agreement with Calvin. However, we must note that it is not necessary to believe that God arbitrarily predetermined the salvation of select individuals (which is the primary tenet I am refuting in this article) in order to believe that salvation is once and for all. When asked, "What about those who profess Christ, are baptized, and bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and later denounce (or 'fall away from') faith in Christ, never to return?" The traditional Calvinistic answer would be, "Why, because they were never saved in the first place!" And this certainly has to be true. If only linguistically, "salvation" must be understood in the past tense. To say that one is "saved" is to say that something has happened. But that is not where the argument stops. Evangelicals, by and large, take the term "saved" (a verb) and turn it into a noun ("salvation"). They then proceed to put them in chronological order: After one is "saved", they then possess "salvation". At face value, this is too simplistic. But indeed, it is not, for the Bible speaks of salvation in a threefold way: first, in terms of justification: being born again/adopted into the "household" of God/grafted into the Body of Christ; second, in terms of sanctification: "being saved"/made more like Christ; and third, in terms of glorification: reaching our final destination in heaven.
Now we must ask, Does being justified, or "born again" automatically guarantee that we will be sanctified and/or glorified? This is an important question indeed, depending on your view of the requirements for justification. However, I believe Jesus helps us dispel any myths that we might lean on in order to find exceptions to this truth. It is of paramount importance that Jesus taught that total surrender to Him was a prerequisite of justification. According to Jesus, He will not be your Savior if He is not first your Lord. And He certainly is not your Lord if you "accept" Him but do not accept His call to "come and die". So there is a perfectly viable explanation for why so many nominal Christians "fall away" due to the word being "snatched up" by Satan, not having a "root", or being "choked by the worries, riches and pleasures of life". It is that many (perhaps most?) self-professed Christians have not received Jesus Christ as Lord, and thus have not be born again, or justified. Whatever the fruit that we have seen, whatever confession they have made, Jesus warns that there will be many who call Him "Lord" but have not submitted to Him as Lord, and thus were never "known by Him". Satan's greatest achievement would be to convince you that you have been born again into Christ if this would keep you from coming to terms with the fact that you are on wide, crooked road to hell.
Thus, I have made a departure with both the Calvinistic doctrine of predetermined, salvific election and the Arminian doctrines of "unlimited atonement" and "eternal insecurity of the believer". What am I to do if I cannot subscribe to either?! I suppose I shall just cling to the Bible and say, "I believe the Bible!" Or will there be a Stephensian soteriology? Probably not. There undoubtedly is some theologian out there who has posited this thesis long before I was born, and there is probably a name for it. I regret to admit that I have not happened to come across it. If such a theological "camp" exists, I should be delighted to be informed by one of you who is aware of it.
Now back to the issue of total depravity and what it means to be human, which I promised earlier to come back to. As I mentioned, I am reading The Divine Conspiracy, and in the first chapter, Dr. Willard explains what it means to be human in terms I have never before been able to articulate so persuasively. Here is what he says, and this to me is the issue that Calvinistic, predeterminative theology has failed to recognize. Considering the Biblical account of creation, Willard observes:
Regarding the effect of the Fall on our nature, he writes:
Again, our original calling, according to Genesis, is to be creative beings, or "rulers", who live in order to "count for good" in the world. Now follow me closely for a minute, because the waters get a little turbulent here. This calling, which has not been defected by the Fall, would be impossible for us to fulfill if God has already predetermine who will and will not be saved/glorified in the last day. Without a doubt, "all things are possible with God". However, "with God" is not the same as "by God", an important distinction. Willard explains that,
"When we receive God's gift of life by relying on Christ, we find that God comes to act with us as we rely on him in our actions (p. 20)." He proceeds that, "[God] intended to be our constant companion or coworker in the creative enterprise of life on earth (p. 22)." Perhaps this is why we call Jesus' last command to us the Great Commission (read, co-mission). We are on mission together. There is an interplay between our works and His (post-rebirth) in the redemption of mankind. Indeed this is an infinitely profound mystery, one that I cannot fathom to explain. But it is true. It must be. (Do not, however, mistake me to believe that the "hope of glory" is not "Christ in me" but "Christ and me." It is both, because of the former.)
What is the alternative to viewing God as our "coworker" in fulfilling His redemptive mission on earth? It doesn't take a very vivid imagination to picture it. While many analogies can be offered, the best I can think of is that of God playing a chess game with himself. The universe as we know it is the chess board, and we are the chess pieces. He simply moves us around wherever He pleases to achieve whatever outcome fancies Him. He is in utter and complete control, without one ounce of our initiative. And we could not have initiative because we would be mere pieces of marble or plastic, or flesh and bones, if you will. You see, if God predetermines who specifically will be saved, and does not merely foreknow it, then nothing at all--not one thought, decision, or action--matters in this world. Not that it wouldn't "matter" to God. But as individuals, we would be incapable of making any difference whatsoever in the world. We could not attribute one single deed--either moral or immoral--to ourselves in any degree. I could not thank my wife for a loving gesture she made toward me, only God. Likewise, it would be impossible to be motivated to do anything at all. For what is motive, except an act of the will, a reason for doing something.
There would therefore be no sense either attempting to motivate someone else or being motivated oneself to do anything, much less die to ourselves and evangelize the world. It would be of no use to say we are compelled by love for our brother to care for him or share the Good News with him. For we would not then be compelled by love for our brother, but by God. Thus, our "intentions" would be of no consequence whatsoever. They simply would not exist. Only God's intentions would exist. This is the profound irrelevance of Calvinism. It renders humanity utterly irrelevant, and thus renders life irrelevant.
So I am asked if this theology of God renders awe and admiration as it apparently does for those who adhere to it. And I answer: NO! The more I consider it (and I have been seriously, fairly considering it for quite some time), the more such a possibility rings of despair. It is the raw material for suicide indeed to believe that one "does not matter" in the scheme of life. And I am not alone in feeling this way. Willard supports that this is the inevitable effect of such theology on one's psyche, pointing out that:
And so I conclude that if God truly and utterly does control our every thought and action (which is, as I have argued, the unavoidable implication of Calvinism if one carries such line of thought to its fullest extent), then He is the most heinous type of God imaginable, and most certainly one that I do not care to worship--as if I had a choice. Thankfully--praise be to God!--I do not have to worship this kind of God, because this is not the kind of God the Bible teaches us exists, nor is it the kind of God that sound reasoning and experience reveals to us. I say it again, Praise be to God! We have been fearfully and wonderfully made.
N.T. Wright, in his thought-provoking (and convicting) paper, How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?, offers this critique of those who claim to have a high regard for the Scriptures. Speaking of those who use terms like "inerrancy" and "infallibility", he warns:
The problem with all such solutions as to how to use the Bible is that they belittle the Bible and exalt something else. Basically they imply—and this is what I mean when I say that they offer too low a view of scripture—that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book and it is our job to turn it into the right sort of book by engaging in these hermeneutical moves, translation procedures or whatever. They imply that the real place where God has revealed himself—the real locus of authority and revelation—is, in fact, somewhere else; somewhere else in the past in an event that once took place, or somewhere else in a timeless sphere which is not really hooked into our world at all out touches it tangentially, or somewhere in the present in ‘my own experience’, or somewhere in the future in some great act which is yet to come. And such views, I suggest, rely very heavily on either tradition (including evangelical tradition) or reason, often playing off one against the other, and lurching away from scripture into something else.
As an evangelical, I can say that his perception is pretty accurate. While I would not admit to elevating anything other than God Himself higher than Scripture, I confess that we do uphold something as high as the Biblical text: Philosophy.
Why philosophy? Because philosophy is, humanly speaking, inescapable. Just as humans and other earth-bound life forms cannot escape their need for--and thus submersion in--oxygen, the essence of human epistemology is philosophy. You see, Bishop Wright's assumptions about the Bible also stem from his own personal philosophy. Whatever philosophy (or worldview, or ideology) we personally adhere to will and does inevitably shape our treatment of all truth, not least the Bible. There is no woman or man who may approach the Bible objectively. It is simply not possible. It would not be possible even for one to approach Jesus Christ objectively were he standing in front of us. Oh, we could certainly objectively conclude that he was standing there. But we could not objectively assume anything about what he was teaching us, or the reasoning behind certain actions. No, for this, we would have to go to some other source to help us decide what he meant or why he did what he did.
Where could we go? Well, to find out why he performed a certain deed, we might ask him why, or induce from teachings we had previously received from him; or perhaps the effect of the deed would shed some light as to its purpose. But this is all subjective, i.e. dependent upon some other previously experienced (or yet to be experienced) reality (whether word or happening) to make sense of it. Rather than seeking to be objective--which, as I mentioned, is ultimately impossible--our goal in determining truth is to be less subjective, i.e. closer to the "source" of that truth. And after all, all that matters to us as humans is that which we can, at some level, make sense of, even if that takes the form of coming to grips with the fact that some things (such as God's ways) do not make sense to us.
So there you have it. For me, philosophy is as important to us humans as Scripture, because without it, it would literally be impossible for me to interact at any level whatsoever with Scripture or even with God Himself. Philosophy, or reason, is at the very essence of what makes us human. The Enlightenment did not cause this to be true, nor were its pioneers the first to recognize it. They may have carried it too far (In my assessment, they did.), but that is no condemnation of the inextricable link between philosophy and humanity.
Now why is this assumption so important with regard to my forthcoming critique of Calvinism? It is a well agreed upon fact that Calvinists and Arminians appeal to the Bible as the source of their certain theology. Each thoroughly utilizes the Old and New Testaments, and each depends upon a "theology of God" and a "theology of man" drawn from Genesis through Revelation. They are both competent points of view, and both can be consistently pointed to through Scripture. But they cannot coexist, as they are soteriological opposites. Either one is true or the other, right? Possibly. However, I am going to propose that elements of each are true with neither being accurate 100% of the time throughout history. Therefore, what we need is a tie-breaker of sorts. The inescapable reality is that philosophy is to blame for the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Therefore, it is philosophy which must break the tie.
Before delving into my arguments against primarily Calvinism, let me do justice to both points of view by defining them for those who may be unfamiliar, vaguely familiar, or misinformed about the fundamental tenets and assumptions of each. The September 2006 issue of Christianity Today, entitled "Young, Restless, Reformed" gave an excellent synopsis of the Calvinist, or Reformed, position, so I will simply quote the sidebar from p. 35:
Calvinism as an identifiable theological school began with John Calvin (1509-1564). Also referred to as Reformed theology, Calvinism draws on pre-Reformation theologians like Augustine. It has taken a variety of forms over the centuries, but the acronym TULIP is still a handy summary of its distinguishing marks.
Total Depravity: We cannot respond to God's offer of salvation, since our will--indeed, our whole being--has been rendered incapable by sin (Rom. 3:9-10; Rom. 8:7-8; 2 Cor. 4:4). Regeneration by the Holy Spirit must precede our response of faith. This contrasts traditions that say we have sufficient free will to respond to God's offer of salvation or that we can "cooperate" with grace.
Unconditional Election: God chooses to save some people, not because of anything they have done, but according to his sovereign will (Acts 13:48; Rom. 9; Eph. 1:3-6). Some Calvinists have also taught that God elects certain people to damnation, but few advance this view aggressively. This contrasts with other Christian traditions that teach that God desires to save everyone, but only elects those whom he foreknows will respond to his grace.
Limited Atonement: Christ died for the sins of the Church, not for the whole world (John 10:15; Mark 10:45; Rev. 5:9). This contrasts with traditions that teach that Christ died for all, even though all may not appropriate the benefits of his sacrifice.
Irresistable Grace: Those God elects cannot resist the Holy Spirit's draw to salvation (John 6:44; 1 Cor. 1:23-24; Acts 16:14). Again, this contrasts with Christian traditions that teach that we are able to reject God's forgiveness--thus, while God may choose to save everyone, not everyone chooses to believe.
Perseverance of the Saints: By God's power, believers will endure in faith to the end (John 10:28; Rom. 8:30; Phil. 1:6). Other Christian traditions teach that people can forsake faith and lose salvation.
For a description of Arminianism, I will refer to Wikipedia:
Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought in Protestant Christian theology founded by the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius. Its acceptance stretches through much of mainstream Protestantism. Due to the influence of John Wesley, Arminianism is perhaps most prominent in the Methodist movement.
Arminianism holds to the following tenets, some of which it shares with Calvinism:
1. Total Depravity: Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation.
2. Sola Gratia: Salvation is possible by grace alone.
3. Sola Fide: Faith alone, apart from any works whatsoever of human effort, leads to salvation.
4. Conditional Election: God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus as God's only Son and atoning sacrifice.
5. Unlimited Atonement: Jesus' atonement was potentially for all people
6. Unforced Grace: God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe.
7. Insecurity of the Believer: Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.
*This list has been slightly modified by me. Please refer to the article for exact wording, if you deem it necessary.
A more thorough explanation of these tenets can be found here.
Now that we have a common point of reference, let us reason together first, whether Calvinism presents us with a theology compatible with all of Scripture, and second, whether Arminianism is an adequate alternative. You already know by bias, so I'm not going to try to be any more diplomatic than is necessary.
First, total depravity. Here I am in accord with both Calvin and Arminius. The Scripture is clear at several points that the totality of our being was infected and duly corrupted by sin at the Fall. However, in my view, the Calvinistic application of this reality is farther than reason (and Scripture) permits it to go. It is obvious, by the simple fact of our continued existence, that human beings were not automatically, immediately obliterated from the face of the earth. They did not cease being "made in God's image", the reality which gave them the complete essence, not merely of righteousness, but of humanity. A depraved humanity is nonetheless a humanity. And because we are human, we have certain innate characteristics which, in my view, render the Calvinistic conclusions impossible. More on that to come.
Second, unconditional election. I agree with Calvin where he observes that election, or salvation, is not dependent upon anything we humans do. That is the primary, classic Lutheran position. As Ephesians 2:8-9 state: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this (salvation) is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (ESV, emphasis and parenthetical mine). It is obvious that nothing we do, in terms of righteous works, can earn us salvation. However, God repeatedly gives this one caveat: having faith. The Calvinist would argue that "having faith" falls under the banner of our own "doing", i.e. of works. But this is a merely speculatory, unnecessary (and, I believe, inaccurate) conclusion. God repeatedly commends men and women "for their faith". He is not simply commending Himself for giving them faith. He is applauding them for trusting Him, for believing Him, indeed, for being most fully human!
Third, limited atonement. I have no beef with this. It is merely semantic and "practical" in terms of evangelistic witness to say that Christ died "for" someone who ends up rejecting His gift and therefore ends up in eternal hell. Some just cannot stomach the thought of telling a non-believer to whom they are witnessing, "Christ died for you--IF you choose to accept that." However, I have no serious quibble with someone who wants to express Christ's atonement as "universal, but only applicable to those who receive Him by faith." It's not a threat to orthodox doctrine, as least insofar as I can comprehend.
Fourth, irresistable grace. Now, Calvin makes his case here not directly, but by induction, playing off of a couple of key truths. John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." True. "God only draws those whom he has elected." False. Or, put another way, "Everyone God draws comes". False. To say that John 6:44 implies these things is a definitive logical fallacy. 1 Cor. 1:23-24 and Acts 16:14 speak of God calling, or drawing people to Himself, which I would agree is how all come to faith in Him. However, again, this does not preclude the possibility that God draws all men and women to Himself.
Fifth, and finally, perseverance of the saints. On this point, I am also in agreement with Calvin. However, we must note that it is not necessary to believe that God arbitrarily predetermined the salvation of select individuals (which is the primary tenet I am refuting in this article) in order to believe that salvation is once and for all. When asked, "What about those who profess Christ, are baptized, and bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and later denounce (or 'fall away from') faith in Christ, never to return?" The traditional Calvinistic answer would be, "Why, because they were never saved in the first place!" And this certainly has to be true. If only linguistically, "salvation" must be understood in the past tense. To say that one is "saved" is to say that something has happened. But that is not where the argument stops. Evangelicals, by and large, take the term "saved" (a verb) and turn it into a noun ("salvation"). They then proceed to put them in chronological order: After one is "saved", they then possess "salvation". At face value, this is too simplistic. But indeed, it is not, for the Bible speaks of salvation in a threefold way: first, in terms of justification: being born again/adopted into the "household" of God/grafted into the Body of Christ; second, in terms of sanctification: "being saved"/made more like Christ; and third, in terms of glorification: reaching our final destination in heaven.
Now we must ask, Does being justified, or "born again" automatically guarantee that we will be sanctified and/or glorified? This is an important question indeed, depending on your view of the requirements for justification. However, I believe Jesus helps us dispel any myths that we might lean on in order to find exceptions to this truth. It is of paramount importance that Jesus taught that total surrender to Him was a prerequisite of justification. According to Jesus, He will not be your Savior if He is not first your Lord. And He certainly is not your Lord if you "accept" Him but do not accept His call to "come and die". So there is a perfectly viable explanation for why so many nominal Christians "fall away" due to the word being "snatched up" by Satan, not having a "root", or being "choked by the worries, riches and pleasures of life". It is that many (perhaps most?) self-professed Christians have not received Jesus Christ as Lord, and thus have not be born again, or justified. Whatever the fruit that we have seen, whatever confession they have made, Jesus warns that there will be many who call Him "Lord" but have not submitted to Him as Lord, and thus were never "known by Him". Satan's greatest achievement would be to convince you that you have been born again into Christ if this would keep you from coming to terms with the fact that you are on wide, crooked road to hell.
Thus, I have made a departure with both the Calvinistic doctrine of predetermined, salvific election and the Arminian doctrines of "unlimited atonement" and "eternal insecurity of the believer". What am I to do if I cannot subscribe to either?! I suppose I shall just cling to the Bible and say, "I believe the Bible!" Or will there be a Stephensian soteriology? Probably not. There undoubtedly is some theologian out there who has posited this thesis long before I was born, and there is probably a name for it. I regret to admit that I have not happened to come across it. If such a theological "camp" exists, I should be delighted to be informed by one of you who is aware of it.
Now back to the issue of total depravity and what it means to be human, which I promised earlier to come back to. As I mentioned, I am reading The Divine Conspiracy, and in the first chapter, Dr. Willard explains what it means to be human in terms I have never before been able to articulate so persuasively. Here is what he says, and this to me is the issue that Calvinistic, predeterminative theology has failed to recognize. Considering the Biblical account of creation, Willard observes:
...it is nevertheless true that we are made to "have dominion" within an appropriate domain of reality. This is the core of the likeness or image of God in us and is the basis of the destiny for which we were formed. We are, all of us, never-ceasing spiritual beings with a unique eternal calling to count for good in God's great universe...In creating human beings God made them to rule, to reign, to have dominion over a limited sphere. Only so can they be persons. Any being that has say over nothing at all is no person...They would be reduced to completely passive observers who count for nothing, who make no difference (p. 21-22). (emphasis mine)
Regarding the effect of the Fall on our nature, he writes:
However we may picture the original event, "the fall," one cannot deny that such mistrust pervasively characterizes human life today and that things do not go well on earth...But at the same time our fundamental makeup is unchanged. The deepest longings of our heart confirm our original calling (p. 23). (emphasis mine)
Again, our original calling, according to Genesis, is to be creative beings, or "rulers", who live in order to "count for good" in the world. Now follow me closely for a minute, because the waters get a little turbulent here. This calling, which has not been defected by the Fall, would be impossible for us to fulfill if God has already predetermine who will and will not be saved/glorified in the last day. Without a doubt, "all things are possible with God". However, "with God" is not the same as "by God", an important distinction. Willard explains that,
"When we receive God's gift of life by relying on Christ, we find that God comes to act with us as we rely on him in our actions (p. 20)." He proceeds that, "[God] intended to be our constant companion or coworker in the creative enterprise of life on earth (p. 22)." Perhaps this is why we call Jesus' last command to us the Great Commission (read, co-mission). We are on mission together. There is an interplay between our works and His (post-rebirth) in the redemption of mankind. Indeed this is an infinitely profound mystery, one that I cannot fathom to explain. But it is true. It must be. (Do not, however, mistake me to believe that the "hope of glory" is not "Christ in me" but "Christ and me." It is both, because of the former.)
What is the alternative to viewing God as our "coworker" in fulfilling His redemptive mission on earth? It doesn't take a very vivid imagination to picture it. While many analogies can be offered, the best I can think of is that of God playing a chess game with himself. The universe as we know it is the chess board, and we are the chess pieces. He simply moves us around wherever He pleases to achieve whatever outcome fancies Him. He is in utter and complete control, without one ounce of our initiative. And we could not have initiative because we would be mere pieces of marble or plastic, or flesh and bones, if you will. You see, if God predetermines who specifically will be saved, and does not merely foreknow it, then nothing at all--not one thought, decision, or action--matters in this world. Not that it wouldn't "matter" to God. But as individuals, we would be incapable of making any difference whatsoever in the world. We could not attribute one single deed--either moral or immoral--to ourselves in any degree. I could not thank my wife for a loving gesture she made toward me, only God. Likewise, it would be impossible to be motivated to do anything at all. For what is motive, except an act of the will, a reason for doing something.
There would therefore be no sense either attempting to motivate someone else or being motivated oneself to do anything, much less die to ourselves and evangelize the world. It would be of no use to say we are compelled by love for our brother to care for him or share the Good News with him. For we would not then be compelled by love for our brother, but by God. Thus, our "intentions" would be of no consequence whatsoever. They simply would not exist. Only God's intentions would exist. This is the profound irrelevance of Calvinism. It renders humanity utterly irrelevant, and thus renders life irrelevant.
So I am asked if this theology of God renders awe and admiration as it apparently does for those who adhere to it. And I answer: NO! The more I consider it (and I have been seriously, fairly considering it for quite some time), the more such a possibility rings of despair. It is the raw material for suicide indeed to believe that one "does not matter" in the scheme of life. And I am not alone in feeling this way. Willard supports that this is the inevitable effect of such theology on one's psyche, pointing out that:
The sense of having some degree of control over things is now recognized as a vital factor in both mental and physical health and can make the difference between life and death in those who are seriously ill...Obviously, having a place of rule goes to the very heart of who we are, of our integrity, strength, and competence.
By contrast, attacks on our personhood always take the form of diminishing what we can do or have say over, sometimes up to the point of forcing us to submit to what we abhor. In the familiar human order, slaves are at the other end of the spectrum from kings. Their bodies and lives are at the disposal of another. Prisoners are, in most cases, several degrees above slaves. And, as the twentieth century has taught us, thought control is worst of all. It is the most heinous form of soul destruction, in which even our own thoughts are not really ours. It reaches most deeply into our substance.
And so I conclude that if God truly and utterly does control our every thought and action (which is, as I have argued, the unavoidable implication of Calvinism if one carries such line of thought to its fullest extent), then He is the most heinous type of God imaginable, and most certainly one that I do not care to worship--as if I had a choice. Thankfully--praise be to God!--I do not have to worship this kind of God, because this is not the kind of God the Bible teaches us exists, nor is it the kind of God that sound reasoning and experience reveals to us. I say it again, Praise be to God! We have been fearfully and wonderfully made.
Well done, Matt. Very insightful.
ReplyDeleteI've got good news and I've got bad news for you.
The bad news first... I worry, as I have expressed to you many times before, that you are making a habit of seeking to intellectually "vanquish" your "enemies." It is a war to you, one that you cannot lose. The trouble is, this "war" is against your brothers and sisters, many of whom are genuine, clear-thinking, God-fearing believers. Once again I will beg you to never attempt to reduce your opponent's position to idiocy. (Would you call RC Sproul or John Piper idiots to their faces? No, but you seem to be doing so behind their backs.) It is profoundly arrogant and unloving. Seminary may tempt you to do this even further (or perhaps it may not.) But remember one thing: "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."
Nevertheless, I must admit that I, too am personally repulsed by some of the implications of Calvinism. I like the chess metaphor. An even more repulsive idea that comes to mind as I ponder limited atonement and irresistible grace is Divine Masturbation. Calvinism seems to propose a God that has no interest in interaction or cooperation, but seeks only to simulate such things in an exercise of narcissistic gratification.
Of course, as we philosophize (and your point is well-taken about philosophy) we must always do so with fear and trembling, at the risk of judging God by human standards.
Ah yes, my friend, you have indeed expressed that to me many times before. And many times before I have attempted to weasel my way out of it by asking you to draw the line between confidence and arrogance. But rather than do that once again, I guess I should ask, What particular lines did I write that you felt crossed the line of confidence into the realm of arrogance? The essay would have had to be twice as long had I inserted "to me", "in my opinion", or "I believe" every time I made any sort of claim. I should hope that the nature of essays gives room to express strong opinions without having to qualify each one of them, that it would be "understood" that all of the claims I am making are opinion, even if they are well-reasoned and informed.
ReplyDeleteIt obviously was not enough to say from the start:
"that Calvinists and Arminians appeal to the Bible as the source of their certain theology. Each thoroughly utilizes the Old and New Testaments, and each depends upon a "theology of God" and a "theology of man" drawn from Genesis through Revelation. They are both competent points of view, and both can be consistently pointed to through Scripture."
...or to forwarn that, "You already know by bias, so I'm not going to try to be any more diplomatic than is necessary." I guess we just have different opinions on how much "diplomacy" is necessary. ;-)
I certainly did not intend to suggest that those who hold a different view than mind are mindless idiots. And I don't think that's implied simply by pointing out that they've utilized a logical fallacy in arriving at a particular conclusion. Now, if after reading my arguments and agreeing with them you feel like they make opposing arguments look foolish, well, that's your mind talking, not my words. ;-)
I do admit, however, that diplomacy, or tact, is a gift. I truly aspire to come across as diplomatically as Brian McLaren or Tom Wright. Thank you for reminding me of my need to pray more fervently and consistently for that gift.
I chuckled at your metaphor suggestion. In all fairness, though, you have to admit that it's very rhetorical, heavily loaded language. It's not a far step away from implying that God has not been eternally satisfied in Himself prior to Creation--that He created us because He needed us. If you re-phrased the metaphor "Divine Self-Pleasuring", then I would have to confess that this is an accurate characteristic of God. The only reason He is pleased whatsoever by creation is because it is "in his image", i.e. a reflection of his goodness. In other words, God is supremely, solely, and eternally pleased with Himself. I believe this with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength.
I greatly appreciate your stopping in and giving your input. Look forward to hearing from you again soon.
Grace,
One more thought I felt I should share from both the Old and New Testaments, regarding knowledge.
ReplyDelete"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way." Prov. 19:2
"For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." Romans 10:2
Other NT passages commending knowledge or condemning lack thereof include:
Mark 12:24, John 8:31-32, Rom. 15:14, 2 Cor. 6:3-10, 2 Cor. 10:5, Philp. 1:9, Col. 1:10, Col. 3:10, 2 Peter 1:5-8
The Bible overwhelmingly teaches us that love is the preeminent virtue and that all other virtues should fall into place within the framework of love. "I may have____, but if I have not love..." So trust that I am well aware of and in full agreement with this. The point of this article and its ensuing comments, however, is not to debate what constitutes love, a matter about which you and I often disagree, but soteriology.
Please be careful not to make presumptions and accusations about things of which you are not certain, especially on a public forum such as this.
Ok Matt, I got through it. Here are my observations and responses…
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are a very good writer and thinker. You will do well in seminary. This was little hard for me to read, not because of your writing, but because it is not a topic that interests me very much. It is a little too ‘intellectual’ for me. Like… who really cares besides MDiv students and theologians? I want to know how to live, and love God more…and to love my neighbors. I want to know how to advance the kingdom of God in my city. I could really give a rat’s ass about who is more intellectually consistent, Arminus or Calvin. However, that is my problem, not yours.
Here were a couple of things I noticed, and wondered about. You seem to be using the term, philosophy, as what I would call, worldview, values, bias, assumptions, and what Peter Berger calls ‘plausibility structures” referring to the constructed social nature of belief systems. I almost missed your line of reasoning there, because philosophy means something different to me, something more academic and intellectual, but I finally went back and re-read and got your point. I agree that we cannot be totally objective.
You said: “Philosophy, or reason, is at the very essence of what makes us human.” That is a broad statement, and one that I am not sure I agree with. We could discuss a lot of things that might be considered the essence of what makes us human… a blue collar worker in Detroit would probably mention something else other than “Philosophy” … so maybe your are introducing your bias here as a theology student.
You said: “But they cannot coexist, as they are soteriological opposites. Either one is true or the other, right?”
Scot McNight just posted some good comments on false dichotomies on his web site. I think what you said above, may be an example of setting up a false dichotomy for the sale of argument to disprove one alternative. I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of truths in tension in the scriptures. There is a major problem (at least in my mind) with systematic theology: we try to reduce scriptural or divine truths to “systematic” rational constructs that are apprehendable by finite human reasoning. I believe this debate between Calvinism and Armininism is a good example of this. I think it very likely that both are true to a degree, and neither are entirely true at their systematic extremities. That’s where the element of mystery comes in.
A friend of mine once said about this topic, that when we die and enter into the kingdom of heaven. That on the outside of the entrance gate will be written “whosoever will” … but when we pass through the gate and see it from the divine perspective, it will say, “those whom He foreknew and predestined”. As a theology student, don’t try to reason out (reductionism) all of the mystery. Leave some stuff for us to find out about when we get there.
Did Arminius actually teach total depravity? I was under the impression that he taught that there was some good in man from the image of God that made it possible to exercise the will toward seeking God and salvation.
If you examine Catholic theology, St. Thomas of Aquinas and his Natural Law, I think you might find a third alternative to the two dichotomies that you presented.
Good post, thanks for including me. Try to keep it a little shorter next time. Maybe write the full paper for grad school, and then edit it down for the web.
Thanks,
joseph
Joseph, thanks for the input (and for reading the whole thing!
ReplyDeleteI realize it's a bit too long for a blog. I thought about saving it for a more scholarly paper sometime in the future, but being the postmodern pilgrim that I am, I felt like just putting it out there as it came to me and letting it continue to form through conversation. In no way do I view it as a finished piece, hence my vagueness and drifting at times.
After posting it, I felt that I may have used "philosophy" a bit too loosely, without distinguishing it from philosophy as a field of academic study. I was more using it in the active sense, as in, logical reasoning. But I wanted to avoid the word "reason" because it's a loaded word, especially in light of the postmodern aversion to the Englightenment glorification and exploitation of reason (which I share). Many kudos to you for going back and seeing what I meant by it, rather than letting your original connotation lead you. That's a rare and honorable thing.
I understand that many people feel that the whole topic is unhelpful, from one side or the other. So for those of you who feel that the whole issue is "beside the point", more power to you. I honestly wish I could feel the same way. But for me, it has come to be of utmost importance for a couple of reasons. First, as a minister, there is increasing pressure to stake out where you stand on this issue. For example, I applied to Acts 29 Network to help us plant The Core, and was rejected because I wasn't Calvinistic enough. That's no big deal, except that other than their Reformed bent, I admire them for being exemplary missional church planters and would very much appreciate the opportunity to partner with them in Kingdom work.
Secondly, I am stuck in a tug-of-war between an ethical responsibility to submit myself honestly before Scripture and a moral responsibility to act on what I learn there without hypocrisy. Scholars and pastors who teach theologies but do not make any serious attempts to apply the implications of those theologies to their daily lives are hypocritical and are simply unhelpful to anyone (I would say the same thing of atheists). Likewise, I do not want to be one of them, "believing" one thing and consciously living another. So the ethical responsibility for me is to not rule out the Calvinistic view just because it scares me. However, the moral responsibility of acting according to my beliefs would end up driving me to madness, and likely suicide. But then that would be immoral, wouldn't it! So it's a catch-22... unless the conclusions I have presented here prove mostly true. If we truly do have wills which impact the lives of others for eternity, then my continuing to live has infinite value. If eternity has already been predetermined for everyone, then my life--insofar as my ability to produce eternal works is concerned--is utterly void of value, and thus I would be better off in heaven than struggling down here on earth to no avail (If indeed He has predestined me for heaven). So the reason I feel the need to refute what I see as Biblical error is that these theologies have a direct impact on how we live, here and now. It is psychological suicide to believe that nothing you do matters for eternity and then go about persuading people to heed the Gospel, to live right, to love God, etc.
By commenting that philosophy is "at" the essence of our humanity, I did not intend to imply that it's all there is to us. I was merely applying Willard's line of thought regarding God's creation of humans as "rulers" of the rest of creation, i.e. beings who exert will in order to bring about good on earth and for eternity. This is one of the things that makes us unique from the rest of creation, as it is a fundamental reflection of God, the ultimate Ruler and creator of good things. Other distinguishing factors, I would say, include the capacity to love. But, of course, it would be impossible to love without a will...
RE: the dichotomy, I actually did not argue for a dichotomy, saying that, "I am going to propose that elements of each are true with neither being accurate 100% of the time throughout history." And later I confessed to adhering to neither line of thinking completely:
Thus, I have made a departure with both the Calvinistic doctrine of predetermined, salvific election and the Arminian doctrines of "unlimited atonement" and "eternal insecurity of the believer". What am I to do if I cannot subscribe to either?! I suppose I shall just cling to the Bible and say, "I believe the Bible!"
So I could not agree more that we are not merely stuck with a choice between A and B. Thank you for emphasizing that.
RE: total depravity, yes and no. He taught it, as explained in the article, but he did not take it to imply that humans have been rendered incapable of being essentially human ("rulers" and "lovers") from the fall, as Calvin did. In other words, he meant something different by it than Calvin did.
RE: the cute metaphor of reading one thing on the front of Heaven's gates and another on the back, I have always found that analogy to be, at best, disingenuous. To me, it implies that God is a deceiver. If God has given human beings the capacity to understand what it would be like if He controlled their every thought and action, and indeed, if He wished to communicate that through Scripture, then it seems naive to say that we should not entertain such thoughts. The reality is that He has made us perceptive enough to realize that He's merely manipulating us as pawns in the game of life, if that is indeed the case. If the "heaven's gate" metaphor was accurate, (a) we would have to be completely unaware that He was doing so, and (b) He would not have taught such a thing in Scripture. I would be entirely fine reaching heaven only to find out that He had been controlling my thoughts and actions the whole time, if I wasn't told ahead of time that that's what He was doing. But Calvinists claim that He has told us this.
Thank you for recommending Aquinas' Natural Law. I have not studied it and look forward to doing so. Again, I'm really just getting my feet wet with regard to the history of theology. I'm far from a true theologian yet, and may never be much of one. Only God knows.
Thanks again for stopping in and engaging the topic, despite your baneful feelings toward it. ;-)
Aaaargh....I was just getting ready to log off and go clean my house, but I made the mistake of clicking over here from Jesus Creed, and now I must. read. this. in its entirety. I hope you're happy.
ReplyDeleteIf the article blesses and challenges you, I will be happy. ;-)
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who have already read and commented, I wanted to let you know that Coreman and I discussed some ways to make the article more fair and respectful, which I have implemented. Thanks, Coreman, for the cordial interchange.
wow, great post, long but very good. two great books mentioned early on, Willard's D.C. and Wright's "How Can the Bible..." I have underlined the same quote from Wright's book.
ReplyDeleteBrad,
ReplyDeleteI see that you're from KC. My wife grew up there and most of her family still lives there. My friend Ryan (pastor of The Core) and his wife Christina have family up there as well, and travel there pretty frequently. He is The Coreman, above. (Don't worry, Ryan, I'm not blowing your cover. It's pretty easy to figure out who you are). ;-)
Hiya,
ReplyDeleteVery well written, I think.
The Wright quote is typical of his do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do intellectual disingenuousness. In his multiple attempts at defending a few of his doctrinal distillations, he often writes and says something like, “I’m just letting the bible say what it says,” which belies this quote considerably. Oh, well, Tommy’s not known for his consistency.
If philosophy is the unavoidable hermeneutical lens for those who are dependent on Christ alone, then I am puzzled over your view of Unconditional Election. You write:
God repeatedly commends men and women "for their faith"
And though this is true, did he not create the heavens and the earth? Is he not the alpha and omega? I don’t think that you would assert that he is bound by his own creation, and I really mean that, I don’t get the feeling that you would say that. But, if he commends people for their faith, condemns other for their lack, but created both of them and knew that each would believe or not believe respectively before the first electron orbited the first nucleus, is the effect not the same as unconditional election? In fact, I suggest that your philosophical viewpoint on this holds a great danger. If God responds positively to the faith of individuals, but does not elect them apart from conditions, then what is grace? It is deserved. It is, to whatever small degree, a wage. But of course that is not grace at all. The grace of Jesus Christ is unavoidably turned into the loving reward given to those that he created and knew in advance would respond properly. The cross is a gesture because God is rewarding those who, by some quality of their own (which God created in them), believe.
As well, I think you performed a little systematic shell game with your semantics in the irresistible grace section. You interchanged irresistible grace for calling and for drawing. All of which almost need their own section. But there certainly other didactic passages which more fully address this in addition to the three you mentioned. For instance, if one is look to the possibility of “call” in 1 Cor 1:24 as the same intention of “call” as that in Romans 8:30, then it is irresistible. Those who are “effectually” called are those who cannot turn from God. I think you are correct in saying that it does not preclude others being “called” but that use of it cannot be the same as how it is meant in Romans 8:30. And since 8:30 comes in such close contact with the deep exclusivism of 8:28, and in light of the other passages you cited, it does seem as though that the theme of those being called “effectually” by God are those that are brought into the Kingdom of God. And, if there are others who are “called” then they are not effectually called, which would fit into the use of it in Matthew 22:14, and must be a different use of klaetos.
Zowie, there is so much more to talk about, and I really disagree with much of what you said in the rest of the post…but at least you love Jesus. We can always build on that.
Jason
Thanks for the cordiality and the sharpening. Seriously.
ReplyDeleteWhat seminary do you attend?
I would actually hold to a "predestination" based on foreknowledge, which is, I've heard (from my history prof, Calvin scholar, Scott Manetsch), Arminius' actual position. God predestines those he foreknows will choose Him. Some people have an impossible time figuring out how foreknowing and puppet-mastering are two distinct actions, but I divide these very sharply. We all hold our mysteries. My mystery is that God, in his omniscience and omnipotence, has the abililty to create beings capable of faith, despite their utter moral depravity, which can accept or reject his gift of eternal life. This is just as sovereign and just as attributable to God as puppeteering, in my view. Put simply, "God knew what He was doing when He enabled fallen humans to have faith." He is sovereign enough to trust (and ultimately, to know with absolute certainty) that some of those given this capacity will choose to receive His gift, despite the rejection of many others. I see God's sovereignty all over this. Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Your Name be the glory.
FYI- I know I'm blowing my cover here, but I'm not a Biblical theologian. I ought to be, which is why I'm studying at TEDS. But as of now, I'm basically a philosopher with a smattering of Bible knowledge and a lot of conviction. Take my thoughts as humble outworkings of my theological journey. (see "About Me")
Hiya,
ReplyDeleteI am at Gordon-Conwell, 2nd year M.Div, probably gonna also get MA Biblical Languages, but, probably like you, God has many times made me want something that got me someplace else, and then I found myself being drawn to another something else, having been lovingly and excruciatingly sanctified while kicking and screaming. Sound familiar?
I honestly had never heard your formulation, which I think is faithful to Romans 8:30. What I appreciate about it is that it seems to keep God mostly sovereign, which is my only concern in reading any non "calvinistic" "reformed" "whatever" formulation. I had always understood that passage to just refer to either those that God Knows, as in, "I never knew you" or that none of the remaining items on the "ordo" are possible if the person doesn't exist and thereby is unknowable. If by any measure I hear a formulation in which our activity is involved in our salvation, I instantly have a little fit, but only because I am very protective of the totality of what happened on the cross. I seriously don't care about defending systematic formulations or reformers (and I doubt that they care, either). Just so you know where I'm comin from.
It really is an astonishing balance isn't it. In having an ongoing conversation with a pasotr I know who is a Greg Boyd acolyte, I realized that no matter what the viewpoint, if the person loved Jesus their experience in coming to faith is inevitably Arminian. What has been additionally interesting for me is that my reformed-ness is constantly being affirmed in God drawing me closer and making me to pursue holiness.
Look forward to more.
Jason
G-C... my friend Brian's getting his D-Min there. How many are in the MDiv program there?
ReplyDelete