Giving Calvinism a ... longer glance

@Reggie_O_Donoghue, I’m very interested in this point: would you be able to explain a little further…?

My favorite naive arguments against one part of Calvinism, predestination, is when you hear “It turns us into robots” and, sometimes in the same criticism, “If this is true, then we might as well do whatever we want.” What I like is that these are the two most inconsistent criticisms possible, as they are exact opposites.

Also, I never get the “it’s not fair complaint.” In Arminianism, if you have (for example) two twins with identical backgrounds and educations, and one accepts the gospel and other doesn’t, it must be because the former had an experience–perhaps meeting a proselytizing friend, that the other did not. There had to be some reason that prevenient grace was sufficient to put the former over the threshold but not the latter. Whatever was different, it was unfair. Calvinism does not have a monopoly on the unfair. The only soteriology that is fair is universalism.

1 Like

An interesting point. Thanks for sharing, @heddle. Is that the beard of the ‘Man Himself’ I spy in your avatar? :wink:

I’ve also heard it said that only universalists believe in a truly unlimited atonement since they argue that Christ died for all and all will be saved. Whereas, traditional orthodoxy requires an atonement limited by either its scope or its effectiveness.

That is to say, the Calvinist believes in an atonement that is limited in scope (Jesus died only for the elect) but unlimited in its effectiveness (all the elect will be saved). Whereas the non-Calvinist believes in an atonement that is unlimited in scope (Jesus died for everyone everywhere) but ultimately limited in its effectiveness (only some will trust Jesus for themselves).

Obviously an oversimplification, but I’ve found it to be a helpful illustration over the years. Mainly, because it helps make the point that we are not debating unlimited vs limited atonement. But rather, which limited atonement best makes sense of the biblical data.

1 Like

Greeting, @heddle. I agree that fairness doesn’t really exist, even with universalism. some of us struggle more than others to come to a knowledge of truth (even scientific truth) because of circumstances. I can’t recall if you’ve talked about the George Macdonald type of universalism? It’s more of an inclusivism that God won’t be satisfied with anything but full repentance, and takes as long as any parent to get there–even eternity. So, Hell would be considered purgatory when you eventually repent.
His “Unspoken Sermon” of “Justice” is the clearest example of that that I know, I think, but his novel “David Elginbrod” was on that track, too.
Thanks for your discussion.

2 Likes

This non-Calvinist believes we do not have to, or ought to, choose. I live with what I consider to be the Biblical tension unresolved.

3 Likes

So do I, the (wonderful) unresolved tension between how a timeless (actually, I believe ‘timeful’) God, in his immediacy dynamically interacts with us who are time-bound in our now, and yet providentially plans. Time-bound, tensed vocabulary does not apply to him. He is absolutely sovereign, but we are free to rebel snd reject him.

4 Likes

It is (the man in the beard.)

3 Likes

Dale, Amazing reflection on a juggling/balancing act by God to get so many people and events lined up and in place at the right time. Until now I had not thought of the omnitemporal aspect implied by it.

Be blessed. He is Risen!
Maggie

2 Likes

Yes. :slightly_smiling_face:

He is risen indeed!

2 Likes

And so will we :star_struck::

“By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.” ~ ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6:14‬ ‭NIV‬‬2011

Happy Easter, y’all! :upside_down_face:

3 Likes

The THE ORTHODOX CRITIQUE OF TULIP is enough if a summary to pique my interest as I agree with those points! Looking forward to reading this after getting caught up with this Blog!

It’s been so long that I typed what I did. Are you reading the Ancient Faith Ministries articles about Calvinism?

How is your church doing with the pandemic?

Lots I could say, but I think the biggest misconception I run into is that Calvinists believe in “predestination” and deny free will, while Arminians believe in “free will” and deny predestination. This is terribly misleading.

Calvinists believe in both free will - our choices are not compelled, or forced, but entirely free, and hence we are entirely responsible for the free choices we ourselves make, and that God has foreordained “whatsoever comes to pass”.

The prooftext for the Reformed position, in my mind, is Joseph’s words to his brothers… “You intended evil against me, but God intended it for good.” His brothers freely chose evil against Joseph, and God had planned this occurrence to happen for good.

We Calvinists don’t differ with Arminians because they believe in “free will”, rather, they think that by embracing free will, they would be logically forced to deny predestination.

Essentially, Arminians believe that predestination and free will are mutually exclusive, it must be either-or, and they opt for free will. We Calvinists essentially believe it is a “both-and,” They are not mutually exclusive, that it can indeed be both, and thus we embrace free will and predestination, even if it is hard for our minds to understand exactly how they work out together.

There are lots of additional nuances and qualifications I could offer, but that is usually the biggest misconception I try to correct, if helpful.

2 Likes

To be clear, compatibilism is incompatible with libertarian free will (pun intended).

The traditional solution to this conundrum of the co-existence of libertarian free will with God’s omniscience is to place God outside of time, and thus remove tenses from God’s knowledge. See Anselm, Augustine and (IIRC) Aquinas for this solution.

A newer solution championed by WLC is Monism (actually, Molinism), which states God has middle knowledge of counterfactuals. IMHO, this doesn’t actually solve the problem, but YMMV.

You mean Molinism, and I am not enamored of it. Try considering that God is omnitemporal.

1 Like

Molinism is an academic exercise that turns God into an epistemological calculator. It also has negligible support in scripture.

2 Likes

Not if God is omnitemporal.

It is incompatible by definition. Libertarian free will states the agent is the fundamental originator of their choices. Omnitemporality is orthogonal to that definition. E.g. Anselm states God knows and causes all choices according to their own nature, so if the choice is truly agent originated, then God is essentially causing the agent to be able to originate their own choices but not causing the specific choice itself nor determining the agent’s will. This is related to Aquinas’ idea of condignly merited grace, whereby we human agents still have a role in meriting our eternal life, even though it is all enabled via God. It is like God has given us all a grace car, taught us how to drive it, paved the roads, provided the gas stations, built in a GPS, stuck directions and warning signs all over the place, internally motivating us to want to drive to heaven, and so on, but it is still ultimately up to us to drive the car to heaven.

Are any of your verbs above about God not time-based, tensed?

No, but that’s just a deficiency of our language talking about a being who is both active but atemporal.

1 Like