Why Calvinism's "Divine Determinism" Doesn't Satisfy an Arminian Theologian

Does God Foreordain and Render Certain Sins?
(And Why Some Questions Annoy Me)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/01/does-god-foreordain-and-render-certain-sins-and-why-some-questions-annoy-me/

by Roger Olson
[any editorial comments are mine - r.e. slater]

January 1, 2014

Comments

Not infrequently some Calvinist confronts me with a question that, in the way it is asked, implies two things:

1) I must have overlooked parts of the Bible, and

2) They have not read any non-Calvinist theology.

The way these people often ask their question annoys me because it’s insulting. First, more often than not, I’ve answered the question in either Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities or Against Calvinism. And, in most cases, some version of the Arminian answer may be found in virtually any book of Arminian theology.

Second, the tone of the question is usually that of “Aha! Obviously (!) you [meaning me] have not read the whole Bible or, if you have, you have simply chosen to ignore portions of it.”

I admit it. In my mere humanity, this approach annoys me so much I usually just turn away from it. It would be different if a student, for example, asked the question sincerely and honestly and respectfully, not implying that I obviously don’t have an answer. Often I point people to one of my books, ask them to read it, and then invite conversation about anything they’ve read there that they still don’t understand.

That’s why I wrote Against Calvinism—to explain the alternative to Calvinism (as well as to explain why I am not a Calvinist). I purposely kept it brief and relatively simple so that I don’t have to explain my view over and over again to people who are fully capable of reading such a simple book of Arminian theology. I can simply suggest they read it. If they’re really interested in the subject, they will. If they are only interested in asking insulting questions, they won’t.

I come back to the testimony many Arminians have made here and elsewhere. We frequently encounter Calvinists who are anti-Arminian but have never read a book of classical Arminian theology. They’ve only read books about Arminian theology written by Calvinists. Or, in some cases, they’ve never read a book about the subject but only listened to their favorite Calvinist talker bash a straw man called “Arminianism.”

So let’s go at it one more time (hopefully). Does God foreordain and render certain sin in general and specific sins? Calvinism says yes, but then usually retreats into the language of “permission” which, non-Calvinists believe, is inconsistent with Calvinism’s divine determinism.

If God “designs, ordains, and governs” sin and evil, then, as Arminius himself said (and Wesley agreed) God is the only real sinner. Adding that God does not “cause” sin but only “permits” it only raises the question of how God “ordains and governs” sin without causing it. Then, in most cases, Calvinists resort to the language of “secondary causes” which doesn’t relieve God of responsibility for sin if it is the product of his will and he renders it certain.

Now, an Arminian begins with the fact that God only permits sin in general and specific sins and then says that, yes, God also uses sinners and their freely chosen sins for his purposes, but without sin being part of his antecedent will. Sin is only part of his consequent will—what God wills to allow because of the fall and its consequences. So, the men who crucified Jesus, for example, were only “destined” to sin insofar as they planned and carried it out freely and God permitted them to do what they wanted to do. But this was part of God’s consequent will, not God’s antecedent will. And God did not render their sin certain. He knew what they would do, but he did not effectually manipulate them to do it nor was their sin part of God’s “design” except consequentially.

So, the whole answer depends on recognizing the difference between God’s antecedent will and God’s consequent will and the difference between God rendering certain and God permitting. When Scripture refers to God foreordaining something that is obviously ungodly, it has to mean that God foreknew it and chose to use the ungodly dispositions and actions of sinful creatures for his purposes. Why does it have to mean that? Because otherwise God is the author of sin and evil—something few Calvinists wish to say [based upon their system of divine determinism - res].

When this is pointed out, many Calvinists then jump to play what I call the “nominalist card”—that God is free to do whatever he wishes and we have no right to question it. In other words, according to them at that moment (even if overall they don’t seem always to believe this), God is above all law—even one that is part of his own nature and character.

 This is, of course, what Luther and Zwingli believed and stated very clearly. And from them it entered into the stream of Protestant theology much to the horror of Catholics and Orthodox but also many Protestants. The problem is that this makes God a-moral and therefore untrustworthy. Might is then what makes right. If God should decide that lying is good, it would be. The only thing “holding up” any rightness is God’s sheer will ungoverned by any innate goodness of character.

I could go on, but I’m not re-writing my books here—or any other Arminians’ books. To Calvinists with questions about Arminian theology I say—go read! Arminian books are not all that scarce. If you just can’t bring yourself to read a book of Arminian theology, at least read John Wesley’s sermons “Predestination calmly considered” and “On free grace.” But, really, don’t pontificate (even with questions) about Arminianism if you haven’t studied it at all.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

* * * * * * * *

Those Pesky Calvinists are Back

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/02/03/the-pesky-calvinists-are-back/

by Scott McKnight
[any editorial comments are mine - r.e. slater]

Feb 3, 2014

Comments

In a period of three days I experienced three different people troubled by pesky, young Calvinists. First, a leader told me he had all but left a local church because too many young aggressive Calvinists were disrupting the church so he backed out; second, a pastor told me of a friend on a church board made up of pesky Calvinists who was both accused of heresy and removed from leadership because he had participated in a spiritual formation conference; and now this from a young man troubled by both the confidence of pesky young Calvinists and the implications of that theology on how we view God.

This, as my friend Roger Olson has often said, is the core issue:

• What kind of God meticulously determines all things and then holds people accountable for what was predetermined?

• What does the love of God mean in such systems of thought?

I recently saw an article on the internet said “the [Calvinist interpretation of the] doctrines of grace are my life.” Really? Isn’t Christ your life? Isn’t God your life? Well, those pesky Calvinists are back and it is time to raise an alarm.

There is room on the Village Green for all of us. We can disagree without it becoming divisive of the unity of the church.

Here is a letter I got from a reader who is concerned about the pesky Calvinists.

“After much restlessness, I just cannot accept a couple of these things as a reality… 

1. A notion that the way God governs the world is by absolutely controlling every single thing… And yet, He is not the author of evil (when the very reason that the angels and the people offended God was precisely because of God Himself predetermining to do so). I just sincerely cannot accept this as merely a “mystery.”

The will of decree being whatever that actually does take place, and the will of command being almost secondary to the former will seem to break down for me when I say, “If a boy went home, indulged himself in pornography and acted upon his sinful nature, it was matter-of-fact a will of decree! God desired the boy not to sin in a ‘narrow sense’ but He did in the ‘wider sense’!  God’s ultimate will was that the boy sinned!”

2. Despite being able to make every person come to Him, [God chose not to (sic, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election) - res]. This was probably in order that those who are chosen by God would be grateful as they look at those who are eternally damned [sic, the Calvinist doctrine of "double damnation" b/c of their doctrines of predestination and election - res]. This does not fill my heart with gratitude… It fills my heart with bitterness towards God… 

For these reasons, more than any other issue (inerrancy v.s. infallibility, women in leadership, baptism, communion, etc.),  this is the most important issue for me…”

* * * * * * * *

Mark Dever, pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church tends not to mention

Calvin in his sermons. Drew Angerer for The New York Times

Evangelicals Find Themselves in the Midst of a Calvinist Revival

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/us/a-calvinist-revival-for-evangelicals.html

by Mark Oppenheimer

January 3, 2014

For those who are sad that the year-end news quizzes are past, here’s one to start 2014: If you have joined a church that preaches a Tulip theology, does that mean a) the pastor bakes flowers into the communion wafers, b) the pastor believes that flowers that rise again every spring symbolize the resurrection, or c) the pastor is a Calvinist?

As an increasing number of Christians know, the answer is “c.” The acronym summarizes John Calvin’s so-called doctrines of grace, with their emphasis on sinfulness and predestination. The T is for man’s Total Depravity. The U is for Unconditional Election, which means that God has already decided who will be saved, without regard to any condition in them, or anything they can do to earn their salvation.

The acronym gets no cheerier from there.

Evangelicalism is in the midst of a Calvinist revival. Increasing numbers of preachers and professors teach the views of the 16th-century French reformer. Mark Driscoll, John Piper and Tim Keller — megachurch preachers and important evangelical authors — are all Calvinist. Attendance at Calvin-influenced worship conferences and churches is up, particularly among worshipers in their 20s and 30s.

In the Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, the rise of Calvinism has provoked discord. In a 2012 poll of 1,066 Southern Baptist pastors conducted by LifeWay Research, a nonprofit group associated with the Southern Baptist Convention, 30 percent considered their churches Calvinist — while twice as many were concerned “about the impact of Calvinism.”

Calvinism is a theological orientation, not a denomination or organization. The Puritans were Calvinist. Presbyterians descend from Scottish Calvinists. Many early Baptists were Calvinist. But in the 19th century, Protestantism moved toward the non-Calvinist belief that humans must consent to their own salvation — an optimistic, quintessentially American belief. In the United States today, one large denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, is unapologetically Calvinist.

But in the last 30 years or so, Calvinists have gained prominence in other branches of Protestantism, and at churches that used to worry little about theology. In 1994, when Mark Dever interviewed at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist church in Washington, the hiring committee didn’t even ask him about his theology.

“So I said, ‘Let me think about what you wouldn’t like about me, if you knew,’ ” Mr. Dever recalled. And he told them that he was a Calvinist. “And I had to explain to them what that meant. I didn’t want to move my wife and children here and lose the job.”

Mr. Dever, 53, said that when he took over in 1994, about 130 members attended on Sundays, and their average age was 70. Today, the church gets about 1,000 worshipers, with an average age of 30. And while Mr. Dever tends not to mention Calvin in his sermons, his educated audience, many of whom work in politics, knows, and likes, what it is hearing.

“I think it is apparent in his teaching,” said Sarah Rotman, 34, who works for the World Bank. “The real focus on Scripture, and that all the answers we seek in this life can be found in the word of God. In a lot of his preaching, he does really talk about our sinfulness and our need of the Savior.”

That focus on sinfulness differs from a lot of popular evangelicalism in recent years. It runs contrary to the “prosperity gospel” preachers, who imply that faith can make one rich. It sounds nothing like the feel-good affirmations of preachers and authors like Joel Osteen, who treat the Bible like a self-help book, or a guide to better business.

“What you’d be hearing in some megachurches is, ‘God wants you to be a good parent, and here are seven ways God can help you to be a good parent,’ ” said Collin Hansen, the author of “Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey With the New Calvinists.” “Or, ‘God wants you to have a good marriage, so here are three ways to do that.’ ” By contrast, Mr. Hansen said, those who attend Calvinist churches want the preacher to “tell them about Jesus.”

Some non-Calvinists say that the rise of Calvinism has been accomplished in part through sneaky methods. Roger E. Olson, a Baylor University professor and the author of “Against Calvinism,” is the Calvinists’ most outspoken critic.

“One of the concerns is that new graduates from certain Baptist seminaries have been infiltrating churches that are not Calvinist, and not telling the churches or search committees who are not Calvinist,” Professor Olson said. According to what he has heard, young preachers “wait several months and then begin to stock the church library with books” by Calvinists like John Piper and Mark Driscoll. They hold special classes on Calvinist topics, he said, and they staff the church with fellow Calvinists.

“Often the church ends up splitting, with the non-Calvinists starting their own church,” Professor Olson said.

At its annual meeting in June, the Southern Baptist Convention received a report from its special Calvinism Advisory Committee, which addressed charges both of anti-Calvinist prejudice within the denomination and of unfair dealing by Calvinists.

“We should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine,” the report read.

While many neo-Calvinists shy away from politics, they generally take conservative positions on Scripture and on social issues. Many don’t believe that women should be ministers or elders. But Serene Jones, the president of Union Theological Seminary, said that Calvin’s influence was not limited to conservatives.

Liberal Christians, including some Congregationalists and liberal Presbyterians, may just take up other aspects of Calvin’s teachings, Dr. Jones said. She mentioned Calvin’s belief that “civic engagement is the main form of obedience to God.” She added that, unlike many of today’s conservatives, “Calvin did not read Scripture literally.” Often Calvin “is misquoting it, and he makes up Scripture passages that don’t exist.”

Brad Vermurlen, a Notre Dame graduate student writing a dissertation on the new Calvinists, said that the rise of Calvinism was real, but that the hoopla might level off.

“Ten years ago, everyone was talking about the ‘emergent church,’ ” Mr. Vermurlen said. “And five years ago, people were talking about the ‘missional church.’ And now ‘new Calvinism.’ I don’t want to say the new Calvinism is a fad, but I’m wondering if this is one of those things American evangelicals want to talk about for five years, and then they’ll go on living their lives and planting their churches. Or is this something we’ll see 10 or 20 years from now?”