Molinism's Olive Branch Becomes Its Scourge

I think in their zeal to fling wide the gates of Molinism to Calvinists by saying that we can also affirm Molinistic Middle Knowledge, some Molinists like Hernandez and Stratton have inadvertently provided the death blow to their own view. 

Stratton has said that a Calvinist could affirm that God could have middle knowledge of what Libertarianly free creatures would do in any circumstances and yet chose to create a Calvinistic Compatibilistic world instead where all our free choices are determined. (They could say that we could affirm Middle knowledge but think that God decided to create a Deterministic Incompatibilist world where our choices are determined but therefore not free and responsible, but then that would be to say that a Calvinist could adopt Molinism by denying Calvinism which I doubt is their point.) 

While I appreciate them trying to mend the fences between our two theological camps, I think they will need to retract that sentiment on pain of falsifying their own view. That is, they seemingly can make that argument IFF Molinism is in fact false. Here is why. 

If Compatibilism is true in even one possible world (the actual world as they grant), then it's true in every possible world. This is because Compatibilism is merely the claim that some variety of determinism and some kind of freedom sufficient for responsibility are possibly compatible with each other. That is, they are not, in principle, contradictory. Incompatibilism claims that they are, in principle, contradictory – that there cannot ever be an instance of a determined and yet free action.

Yet, there cannot be something that is in principle a contradiction and yet true in some possible world. There is no logically possible world where a contradiction is logically possible. So once they’ve granted Calvinism is even possible in some logically possible world, then they’ve granted that determinism and freedom are not in principle a contradiction and thus in every possible world they are not a contradiction. This means that Incompatiblism is necessarily false in every possible world. And since Libertarian Freedom is an Incompatibilistic view, the Libertarian freewill view becomes necessarily false. But Libertarian freedom is a necessary component of what Stratton calls “mere Molinism.” And as such Molinism would be false. 

Now, it seems to me that they will more likely just bite the bullet and admit that one cannot be a Calvinist and affirm Molinism in any meaningful way (that is, affirm it in any way that isnt already accounted for in Reformed theology and Classical Theism), but they could also admit that Molinism is just absurd. Here’s to hoping! 

For more of my articles on Molinism, see HERE.

For more of my articles on Calvinism and Reformed Theology, see HERE. 

Did Sin Never Enter God's Mind?

Does Jeremiah 19:5 count as a substantive critique of Reformed theology? Did sin really never enter the mind of God?

Enjoy the show!

For more on Reformed Theology, click HERE.

Calvinism, Atonement, and Assurance

In this episode I discuss if the objections that Calvinism undermines Christian assurance or makes Paul's statement on the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3 a "lie." 

Enjoy the show!

For more of my work on Reformed Theology, click HERE.

Christian Huls - A Response to His Objection to Calvinism: Part One

In a recent blog post, Christian Huls gives a litany of reasons for why he is not a Calvinist. Ostensibly he believes that these are valid, reasonable, and Biblical objections to Reformed Soteriology, namely Calvinism. In responding to these comments, I hope to show that his comments do not provide any real substantive objections to Calvinism or belief that Calvinism is the Biblical view. I should note here however that I am not attempting to prove Calvinism is true or Biblical. I am simply responding to his objections. This means that to defeat his objections I merely need to show that they are either not accurate to Calvinism, incorrectly evaluate an entailment of Calvinism, presuppose Huls own view and thus rely on question begging, or incorrectly interpret a Biblical passage as teaching something that Huls thinks that it does. For this last kind of response, since Huls is often making the harder claim that Calvinism is contrary to the Bible, in these cases, I do not even need to show that Calvinism provides the best understanding of the passage(s) in question (though I think it does), but rather I must merely demonstrate that there is nothing contrary to what the Scripture teaches. That is, that there is no possible way to read the passage in a responsible manner inline with Calvinistic theology. Due to the fact that Huls has made the much stronger claim in these cases, it make my job enormously easier, so I’ll  thank him in advance for trying to shoot for the stars here. Due to this, I will often not need to make my case from the scriptures. Some will have a problem with this, but remember, I’m not even attempting to here show that Calvinism is true and Biblical. That’s not the burden that I bear in this series. I am not providing a positive case for the truth of Calvinism. I am responding to claims made against it. So Scripture will be used to cross reference points, show inconsistencies with Huls’ own comments with other passages, etc. but readers should not expect me to be presenting the Biblical case for Calvinism in this project. To that end, I also readily admit that at the end of this, even if all my rejoinders go through and every one of Huls’ objections is defeated, this will not show that Calvinism is true or Biblical. Rather, all it will demonstrate is that is not falsified by the kinds of objections that Huls provides.

Procedurally, I have put Huls’ comments in bold typeface and have offset his “reasons” numerically. My comments follow his. His article begins with a single statement that I would like to address first. Huls writes,

 

I reject Calvinism because it is riddled with contradictions, most especially about the nature of God.

Here is the first case where Huls radically overstates his case, even by his own arguments that follow. Most of Mr. Huls’ own list would not even qualify as contradictions since they do not entail that Calvinism affirms both a proposition and its negation. A contradiction is X and ~X. It is not that X entails Y and someone thinks Y is false. What Huls seems to mean is that Calvinism, on his view, just contains falsehoods. We will see shortly that his objections often beg the question, border on the trivial, redefine or equivocate on terms, proof text without any exegetical reflection or engagement with Calvinistic exegetical scholarship, etc. While I appreciate my discussions with Huls and consider him to be a brother and commend his zealous defense of the Word, in this case, his own theological presuppositions have led him to some rather superficial and myopic engagements with Reformed thought and theology in how we understand what the Bible teaches.

Now, let us proceed to the first five reasons that he gives.

 

1.       Calvinism makes God partial in arbitrarily selecting some for salvation and not others, when Scripture says that there is NO partiality with God (Deuteronomy 10:17; 2Chronicles 19:7; Job 34:19; Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; 1Peter 1:17).

“Arbitrary” is a word with various uses. IF we mean it in the sense that it is done based on the choice of one person rather than due to a law dictating something, then sure. In that sense of the term, election is arbitrary. God chose it and it was not the necessary outcome of some law imposed upon him.

However, this is clearly not how the objection means the term since even on most non-Calvinist views God is not bound by laws external to himself and they do not think that God acting for his purposes apart of laws is a bad thing. So this objection that somehow the supposed arbitrariness of God in election given Calvinism would be a bad thing, cannot mean such an innocuous sense of the term.

They clearly mean it in the more common usage of the term that for something to be arbitrary is for it to be random or on a whim, rather than for any reason. However, if that is the way the objection must use the term, then it fails to be an objection that works against Calvinism. On Calvinism, election is unconditional in the sense that it is not based on a character or action that we do – it is not because we are rich or poor, Jew or gentile, slave or free, man or woman, strong or weak, smart or…. not. However, that does not mean that God does not have reasons for his selection for his own purposes (as we are told in Eph. 1:5; 1:11). The Calvinist view is not some kind of random cosmic lottery or dart board. That just is not our view. It merely means that God’s election of individuals is not conditioned by anything that they will or work (Rom. 9:14).

This means that in a banal sense election would be arbitrary, but in such a way that it would be unobjectionable even to non-Calvinists like Huls. Yet it would not be arbitrary in the sense that the criticism means the term.

 

2.       Calvinism makes God inequitable in irresistibly saving some, and not the rest, when God says that He established equity (Psalm 99:4), “delights in uprightness/equity” (1Chronicles 29:17), and “will judge the world… with uprightness/equity” (Psalm 9:8; 75:2; 96:10; 98:9; see also Psalm 17:2; Isaiah 45:19).  Note that the Hebrew word for “uprightness/equity” is מֵישָׁרִים (MYShaRIM), which means “level, order, or fairness.” Isaiah even says that “the way of the righteous IS equity,” and then he prays and asks God to make the path of the righteous LEVEL (or equal)” (Isaiah 26:7). 

This objection is found in the pages of Scripture! I really like when this happens because if we all agree that the Scripture is our authority on these issues, then we should believe it when it expressly says something right? So where is this found? In Romans 9, after Paul says that God chose Jacob over Esau before “the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls…” Paul repeats in FOUR ways that it had nothing to do with the twins or their actions or choices. God chose Jacob:

a) before they were born

b) before they had done good or bad

c) so it would be God’s purpose according to his choice / because it is his choice to call

d) NOT because of their actions

What does Paul say next? Well, he anticipates and objection from his reader to the idea that God’s election is based on his purposes alone and not based on anything we will or work or want. And what is that objection? It is the exact objection that Huls provides – well that is unjust/inequitable! Paul writes, “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? Far from it!” (9:14) So I am greatly encouraged that my theological commitments get the exact same objections that Paul’s did. Think about it. If Paul was teaching that God elects those who choose him first and repent and believe, would anyone object to it as being unfair/unjust? There are plenty of objections against that view, but it being unfair/unjust isnt one of them. So, if Paul believed and was teaching in line with Huls, the objection just would not make any sense whatsoever.

We can also answer further that since all humanity is in sin, that all humanity deserves wrath. So, for God to chose to save the ones that he chooses for his purposes is not unfair/unjust. He does not owe salvation to anyone. Thus, the fact that he saves any at all is mercy, not justice.

In addition, Calvinists affirm that salvation comes to all – Jew, gentiles, slave, free, rich, poor, powerful, oppressed, man, woman, young, old, etc. When the Bible speaks of equity/uprightness it speaks of using equal scales, treating all people fairly, etc. For the criticism to be valid against Calvinism, we would need to be saying that God will save the rich but not the poor, or he will save men but not women. Those kinds of inequitable scales are simply not what is affirmed by Calvinism and  thus the claim of inequity or injustice simply reveals a lack of understanding of Biblical concepts and of Calvinistic thought.

 

3.       Calvinism makes God unloving to the majority of His creation as He did not sacrifice His Son for them, when Scripture teaches that God is infinitely loving (Exodus 34:6; Isaiah 63:9; Jeremiah 31:3; Micah 7:18; Luke 11:42; John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 8:37; 2Corinthians 13:11, 14; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 2:4; *3:19; 5:2; 2Timothy 1:7; Titus 3:4; *1John 4:8-10, 16, 19), that He loves all men (John 3:16; Titus 3:4), and He defines love as sacrificial and unconditional (1John 3:16; Romans 5:8; see also John 3:16).

This objection has numerous problems. First, it does not follow that because the atonement of Christ is not effectual for any but the elect that therefore it is not sufficient for the reprobate or that God is unloving to them. This would be like saying that because God only provided a means of atonement for his chosen people Israel in the Old Covenant, that the Old Covenant makes God unloving since God is infinitely loving and yet did not provide sacrifices for the Moabites or the Amorites or those living on the Asian Steps or in what is now Madagascar. Does that make God unloving because he set his special redeeming covenant love on his chosen people? Of course not.

It should also be noted here that Calvinism does not claim that there was no general or common grace elements accomplished on the cross. The claim is merely the atonement accomplished in Christ’ blood was effectually won only for the elect, and not for the reprobate. So, it is false if one thinks that a Calvinist believes that the only thing accomplished by the cross was the effectual atonement for the elect.

 

4.       MANY Calvinists claim that God actively hates the lost, when hating is a deed of the flesh, contrary to the Spirit of God (Galatians 5:19-20) and He commands us that rather than hating our enemies, we are to love them (Matthew 5:43-44) and do good to them (Luke 6:27; see also Proverbs 25:21; Romans 12:20). 

Simply because some Calvinists claim it does not mean it is a feature of Calvinism. I do not even see how this means that Calvinism is not true simply because some people claim this. This is like the atheist who says that they cannot be a Christian because their aunt was a Christian and she said something racist at Thanksgiving once. I’ll take it that this suffices as an answer since this isnt even really an objection to anything exclusively Calvinistic.

 

5.       Calvinism claims that God does not desire the salvation of all men, when Scripture says God is not willing that ANY should perish (Matthew 18:14), but rather that He desires that ALL would come to repentance (2Peter 3:9), that ALL men be saved and for ALL to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Timothy 2:3-4).

Context matters. As I will show, simply proof texting these verse as if they say what Huls wants them to simply does not engage with the Calvinistic exegetical case and does not present a clear exegetical case for the view espoused by Huls. He needs to demonstrate his case in the face of the exegesis of Calvinist theologians and not merely beg the question of his view.

-          MATTHEW 18:14. The text simply does not say that God is not willing that any should perish, full stop. It is speaking of children specifically and it is why Jesus says that “it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.” In addition, this falls on the heels of the warning to not cause child to stumble and sin or it would be better to have a stone tied around your neck and thrown in the sea, and then the command to cut off your hand or gouge out your eye if they cause you to sin. After that, he then gives the parable about a man going to find his lost sheep and rejoicing more over the one who was found than the 99 who stayed. Only then does he say “it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.” This is an expression of what Calvinists call the moral or prescriptive will of God – it is a tragic evil when children are forced or wander off into sin. It is simply a mistake to think that this is a soteriological passage, at least not directly. There may be indirect applications and allusions to salvation, but that is not the primary point of the passage.

 

-          2 PETER 3:9. Starting in v8 we read. “8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.”

Notice here that the issue is responding to those who are mocking and saying that Jesus will not come because it has taken too long already. Peter is saying that they should be patient and he says this for two reasons. First, time is not the same for God as it is for us. So for his audience which may have already waited a few decades (a full lifetime for many of them) they may think that it has been a long time, but Peter reminds them that is has not and that with God a day is like a thousand years so they may have waited 30 years but that isnt even like a day with God. Wait until a 1000 years and  that may be like one day in the providence of God.

 

Second, Peter then reminds  them that God is not slow but is patient. And who is he patient toward? “You” (ὑμᾶς). This is the second person plural pronoun – “y’all,” This is the object of the verb – God is not willing that any of y’all perish, but for all (πάντας) to come to repentance. The promise that Peter has for the church is that God is patient, not wanting any of y’all to perish but for all y’all to come to repentance. The πάντας in the final clause is not a universal all to every person.

 

It would be like me talking to a handful of my friends who are getting worried that dinner at my house might be cancelled because I don’t seem to have started serving it yet. They know I invited over more of our group of friends too. So I tell them that I’m waiting to start dinner because I’m patient toward my friends, not wanting any to miss dinner.

To supporting pronoun in the final clause modifies the object in the main clause. It simply does not mean that I am patient toward my friends because I want ALL PEOPLE EVERYONE IN ALL TIME to have dinner at my house. That just is not how grammar works.

 

-          1 TIMOTHY 2:3-4. Here the context is that Paul is commanding Timothy to pray for all. But while all means all, all isnt all that all means. That is, just because πάντας is used here for “all men,” just like in the previous example context matters. Paul commands Timothy to prayer for all and then he mentions expressly kings and those who are in authority. It is in this context that we find the statement referenced, “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

 

However, Paul follows this by saying “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed as a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

 

Notice that this desire for all to be saved is explained by Paul’s appeal that there is one God of all, and one mediator, and that it is because of that fact that Paul was appointed to the gentiles. This is an example of the fact that God was not just the God of the Jews. Jesus is not a Jewish mediator who only brings Jews to God – God and Jesus are for Jews and Gentiles! This is why Paul was commissioned as a teacher to the Gentiles. This verse fits the ubiquitous New Testament them, not that Jesus died for every single person or that God wants every single person to be saved, but that God and Jesus and the gospel are for all nations, tongues, tribes, and peoples. It is not just for the Jews but also for the Gentiles.

 

Paul then follows his normal motif of expanding this basic gospel consideration that it is not just for Jews but that it is also for men and women. Throughout his corpus, Paul regularly moves from “Jew/Gentile” to “man/woman.” And this is precisely what he does here. In 2:8-15, Paul moves from praying for kings and those in power to live dignified lives and mentioning Jews and Gentiles, to then talking about the having men pray and how men and women live dignified lives.

 

This verse does not demonstrate that God desires all people to be saved in the same kind of effectual saving way as he does the elect. It is about that the gospel is not an in-group / out-group exclusive club for the rich and powerful Jewish men of the world. It is for literally all kinds of people!

 

6.       Calvinism teaches that God condemns people for His good pleasure, but God says that He takes NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked but would rather they repent and LIVE (Ezekiel 33:11).

This is a simple equivocation on the term “pleasure” based on a misunderstanding of Reformed theology. The term חָפֵץ used in Ezekiel 33:11 is the term which means something like to delight in. This is a kind of pleasure used in delighting in good food or wine or a spouse. There is a secondary meaning of the term however that does mean to desire to do something and this is typically what the Reformed confessions and professions mean when we say that it was by God’s good pleasure. We mean it was by the counsel of his will, his plan, his purposes. We do not mean that he takes some kind of personal delight in their deaths (the first sense of חָפֵץ). We do mean the second sense. And this is in fact precisely how this term is used in the Old Testament to describe God wanting the death of the wicked. We see in 1 Samuel 2:25b after Eli rebuked his sons for their wickedness, the narrator tells us that Eli’s sons “would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired (חָפֵץ) to put them to death.” This is precisely the same term used in Ezekiel 33:11. In fact, notice here that the causal arrow goes from the consequent to the antecedent. Why do the sons not listen? For/because God planned to put them to death.

So, if Huls would like us to think that Ezekiel 33:11 means that God can have no desire whatsoever for the death of the wicked by his plan and counsel, then he would be forced to admit a true Biblical contradiction. Thus, when Calvinists say that it is by God’s pleasure (his will/plan) for the wicked to perish before being able to repent and believe, we mean it precisely in the 1 Samuel 2:25 sense and not the Ezekiel 33:11 sense.

 

 

7.       Calvinism makes God ungracious to the majority of His creation, when He says that He is the God of ALL grace (1Peter 5:10) who gives grace to all (John 1:14-17; Romans 5:15-21; Titus 2:11; Ephesians 4:7).

God is certainly the God of all grace. But where does it follow from that that not giving grace to every person is being ungracious? The term in the New Testament for grace is χάρις and means grace or favor and typically refers to something unearned, unmerited, and not required on the part of the giver. If we follow Huls’ understand, for God to be gracious he must show grace to all people without exception. This would then mean that giving grace would no longer be gracious! It would just be required. This certainly cannot be the case for God does not show the same grace to those in hell as he does to those in heaven. Now for Huls, those in heaven may have met the condition of believing, sure. But then if God shows all grace to all people, this would mean that he would show even conditional grace to all people. Certainly, such universalism is not what Huls would go for, but his argument here seems to necessitate it.

In addition, we have the same issue as before with the universalizing of the term of the term “all” to be “all without exception” when time and time again, the majority use of the term is something like “all without distinction” which fits far more comfortably with the Biblical theme of the inclusivity of the gospel.

This seems also to run afoul of Romans 9 where we are told that God sovereignly chooses whom he will have mercy on (the flip side of grace needed to make grace just) and that this is done before people are born and is not based on who wants/wills or works. Do we say that God is unmerciful because he tells us that he does not show mercy to all? Obviously not and this would result in one affirming the “that’s not fair/that’s unjust” objections which Paul’s interlocutor protests with in 9:14 and 21.

 

8.       Calvinism makes God unmerciful to the majority of His creation, when Scripture reveals that He is abundant in mercy (Ephesians 2:4), His mercy is over ALL His works (Psalm 145:8–9), and He desires to show mercy to ALL (Romans 11:32).

See the answer above as this is precisely what I anticipated. If Huls wants to press passages like Romans 11:32 to mean that God must be merciful to all in the same way or else he is unmerciful, then he must admit to a direct contradiction of Romans 9 where Paul categorically shows that God is intentionally unmerciful to many. So Huls here can either press his anti-Calvinistic rhetoric and affirm a Biblical contradiction, or he can abandon his objection.

 

 

9.       Calvinism makes God uncompassionate to the majority of His creation, when God says that He is compassionate (Deuteronomy 4:31), and His compassion never fails (Lamentations 3:22, 32).

Here Huls seems to merely be on a copy and paste binge, replacing grace for mercy for compassion. Must I go through the litany of examples where God is demonstrably and expressly not compassionate to persons? Was he compassionate during the flood? Was he compassionate to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities on the plain? Was he compassionate to Pharaoh? What about the innocent first born of the Egyptians – was he compassionate to them? Was he compassionate when he placed various nations under חָרַם (holy war/the ban) to wipe out all their men, women, children, pregnant women, nursing infants, etc.? Was he compassionate to the Israelites when he brought in Assyria and Babylon to slaughter, rape, pillage, plunder, and carry them off into exile? To pretend as if God is not savingly compassionate to all persons equally somehow makes God uncompassionate is to simply reveal one’s complete and utter lack of reading and reflection on Biblical passages and to focus on such a myopic, romanticized concept of YHWH as being a butterfly rather than a holy hurricane. God’s wrath and justice and holiness simply do not stand in opposition to his compassion. God showed compassion to Noah and his family but not to the other inhabitants of the land. Does that make him uncompassionate? According to Huls romanticized concept of God, maybe it does. But that is not the holy God of the Bible. That is not YHWH. Does Paul tell us expressly in Romans 9 (citing from Ex. 33:19) that God will have compassion on whom he has compassion, and this is contrasted with those whom he hardens (i.e. does not show compassion to) in v16-19.

 

 

10.   Calvinism makes God unjust for condemning people to hell for something they have no control over, when God is a God of justice (Isaiah 30:18).

This objection begs the question that it would be unjust for God to condemn people to hell for something that they “have no control over”. Notice that this is exactly the objection that Paul anticipates from his interlocutor in Romans 9. After saying that God chose Isaac and not Ishmael and that he chose Jacob and not Esau, and that this was done completely out of their control (see again my answer to objection #2), the objection comes “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?” (9:14). To which Paul replies, “Far from it!” And this is clearly an example of mercy and hardening in judgement since he expressly applies this divine prerogative to choose apart from human control to mercy and hardening. “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” This follows with a similar objection,

                “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”

Notice again Huls’ voice in this objection to Pauline theology. How is it fair for God to find us at fault (i.e. condemn) when people cannot resist his will (have no control)? Here I would much rather stick with Paul and the Biblical view of God as the sovereign rather than try to prop up humans as a sovereign ones and have the objections to Paul come from my lips. I would rather bend the knew to Paul than shake my fist at the heavens, quoting Invictus, and demanding God respect my autonomy and captainship of my own soul.

Plain and Simple: Calvinism and the Plain Reading of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1

 

In this unscripted episode I walk through a simple and plain level reading of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 to show that Calvinism aligns very well with the text without really any theologizing or hermeneutical hoops. 

Enjoy the show!

For more of my work on Reformed Theology, see my collection HERE.

A Calvinist Cornucopia Discussion

In this episode I try out a new "live" discussion format for the podcast - think highly structured audio version of a Facebook wall... 

In this we discuss topics ranging from double predestination, equal ultimacy, the Reformed understanding of two wills, the nature of freewill, Christian assurance, cage-stage Calvinism, and even Spiderman makes an appearance. 

Enjoy the show! 

Study on the folk intuition of freedom which I discuss: Forget the Folk: Moral Responsibility Preservation Motives and Other Conditions for Compatibilism

For more content on Calvinism and Reformed theology, click HERE.

Can a Calvinist Know They Are Saved?

 

Can a Calvinist know that they are saved? This objection, typically from Provisionists and Lutherans, is a common sticking point in soteriological discussions. But is it a good objection?

Enjoy the show! 

Various Calvinist Musings - Part 2

In this episode I continue my previous episode with some musings on various issues related to Reformed Soteriology. In this episode I discuss a Warranted Case from the Bible for someone to affirm Reformed / Calvinistic Compatibilism (that we are both determined and free) as well as addressing the objection that Calvinism in someway makes God the "author if sin."

Enjoy the show!



For more on Reformed Theology, visit HERE.

Various Calvinist Musings

In this episode I give various Calvinistic musings, ranging from why Inspiration and basic Christian orthodoxy are good arguments for a kind of Calvinistic Compatiblism/Soft Determinism, thoughts on why discussions about sovereignty often fail before they get started, and if Calvinists can "know" that they are elect.

Enjoy the show!

Does Calvinism Make God the "Author of Sin"?

A common objection to Calvinism is that the anti-Calvinist believes it makes God the “author of sin,” (which I will call “AoS objection”), in which it is proposed that if God is the author of sin, the God is inappropriately related to the existence of sin such that he is somehow blameworthy for it. There are numerous responses to this objection that I think easily dispatch the problem by correctly understanding the Reformed view of God’s sovereignty and decrees in relationship to creation. Guillome Bignon’s book Excusing Sinners, Blaming God is a good example of this. The line of response typified by Bignon, is, basically, that the term “author of sin” is left too vague and ill-defined to pose a meaningful objection to Calvinism and Reformed dogma. That is, “author of sin” could mean several different things and could hide several assumptions about the relationship between God and creation, and a certain view of Libertarian Freedom, that are not present in Calvinism. Because the AoS is a variety of internal critique (i.e. “IF Calvinism is true, then God would be the author of sin…”), bringing in assumptions, principles, and views that are not intrinsic to Calvinism means that objection fails – it no longer is evaluating Calvinism qua Calvinism, but rather is objecting to a misconstrued strawman of Calvinism slanted and distorted by extra-Calvinistic principles. This does not mean Calvinism is true, but merely that this objection often fails for that reason.

There are other responses that could be given as well from views concerning the non-moral goodness of God such that God just is the good and as such, has no moral obligations to any moral standard like we humans do. This would mean that whatever God did for his own reasons would be good for God to do precisely because God does it. This is complex and would take too long to explicate here, but I wanted to atleast give a nod in that direction so many of my readers who would make such an argument (myself included) can rest assured that I am aware of its viability.

However, in addition to the above responses, I recently saw another rejoinder to the AoS that I had not seen before and found interesting. I have not thought about it long enough to think of all the ins and outs so I’d like to throw it open to everyone here to weigh in on its merits (if any). It goes like this:

One of the assumptions of the AoS, is that if God is the author of sin, it means that he is becomes the sole actor and only responsible party – that God being the “author of sin” removes the human component, even if they freely chose to act upon their desire to act sinfully. That is, that God would be monergistically responsible for the existence of sin, and man’s choice is not considered sufficiently free enough to be blameworthy or causally determinative. They argue that this just is what “author” means. This then, in conjunction with the first rejoinder above, a set of horns on a dilemma.

Hebrews 12:2 calls Jesus the “author” of our faith. If we take the meaning needed to make the anti-Calvinistic objection to work, that “author of…” just means a monergistic work where God becomes the only responsible party eliminating the volitional role of the human, then we would also need Hebrews 12:2 to mean that. That would mean that in order to press the objection against Calvinists, the anti-Calvinist would need to affirm the Calvinistic notion of monergism with respect to the existence of faith in the believer – that God in Christ is the one solely responsible for the existence of what he is the author of and that man was determined and thus not praiseworthy for their own faith – they chose because God “authored” them to it.

In order to avoid this, the anti-Calvinist will need to then equivocate on the term “author” and say that author can and does in some instances mean something other than the responsible agent for the existence of some feature of what they authored, if they authored it with the secondary cause of human action and choice. However, the instant that they do this, then they have shown that Bignon’s rejoinder above properly dispatches their original objection.

This means that the AoS objection either proves too much and inadvertently proves the Calvinistic doctrine of monergistic salvation, or else it does not prove enough to sustain its case because it requires a concept of authorship that the Calvinist would not affirm (and that they themselves do not affirm in analogous cases).

Therefore, the AoS objection fails because the anti-Calvinist cannot have his book and eat it too.

For more on Reformed Theology and Calvinism, please visit the collection here. 

Freedway Thinker #3 - Did Paul Really Mean What He Said in Romans 9?

A bit longer for a "brief" reflection but here I discuss some of the issues with non-Calvinistic (specifically Provisionistic) readings of Romans 9.

Sovereignty and Conversational Confusion

This is a corrective and a challenge for both Reformed/Calvinists and non-Calvinists to be clearer when we talk about sovereignty with each other. I’m not going to here be arguing that Reformed theology/Calvinism is true or non-Calvinism is false. Rather I’m going to try to untie part of the Gordian knot that exists between us in how we understand each other.

Often the Reformed/Calvinist will accuse (sometimes rightly) the non-Calvinist have having a deficient view of sovereignty while the non-Calvinist will hear the Reformed/Calvinist talk about the implications of sovereignty as being some form of Compatiblism (which entails determinism) and then fail to make the necessary disambiguation in Reformed/Calvinistic thought between Sovereignty, Predestination, and Determinism.

Sovereignty on the Reformed view is rather mundane. Sovereignty simply has to do with God’s RIGHT to rule over all of his creation. God is the sovereign over all things, not most things. God is ALL-mighty, not MOSTLY-mighty. He has the right as king over all things. This is why in the WCF talks of sovereignty as:

“he hath most sovereign dominion over (all things), to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth.”

Sovereignty then has to do with his RIGHT as Sovereign over all. However, this is where the disambiguation in Reformed theology comes in and starts to cause confusion for those who do not properly draw appropriate distinctions. Sovereignty means that God is the sovereign over ALL of his creation. This is why the Bible can talk about God working all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to his purpose. Notice that ALL things are worked out and are under the oversight and purpose of God. Not most things. Not some things. Not the things that he can control but not the freewill decisions that we do that go against his plan. All things. Nothing happens in his kingdom that is not permitted by him and all things are under the direction and control of his plan and purpose – his sovereign right as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, plan and purpose. The confusion arises at this point for many Reformed/Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. Because, on the Reformed view, we believe that God has predestined and predetermined all things BECAUSE God is sovereign, we will often state God’s predestining of all things just AS, definitionally, God’s sovereignty. God sovereignly predestines all things but his predestination is not synonymous with his sovereignty. His sovereignty is dispositional – he has a right to rule over all. His predestination is active – he acts, because he IS sovereign, over all. God can predestine rightly, at least in part, because he is sovereign. Not vice versa.

This is further compounded because of how Reformed Christians will often critique non-Reformed positions. For example, when a misinformed Arminian (misinformed because Arminianism does not historically affirm Libertarian freedom) or an SBC Provisionist affirm Libertarian freedom and say that IF God predestined the person or acted irresistibly on the will that God would then be “controlling” (in the directly causal sense) or the “author of sin” or in some way that God is not permitted to do so, the Reformed person will see this person as saying that there is an area of God’s own creation that he is NOT sovereign over – that he does not have the absolute right as King over to do by, for, and upon it whatever he desires to do. So while the Libertarian may think that they are attacking Predestination or Determinism, the Reformed/Calvinist hears the objection as assuming some area that is not under God’s sovereign kingship. Thus, an objection against Determinism is given a rejoinder that the person is actually objecting to Sovereignty. This then fuels the confusion. The non-Calvinist will then hear that Reformed theology just defines Sovereignty AS Determinism.

This is further fueled by how each person understands the word “control.” Think of how I can say “nothing at my work is out of my control” and “I control the character in the video game with the joystick.” In the first, I may mean that there is nothing that goes on in my office that is without my notice or permission or power to direct, fix, act upon, anticipate, etc. It may even mean everything that happens is planned and directed by me. However, no one would understand that to mean that I am the primary causal agent meticulously and directly causing everything to happen. I am not the efficient cause of every last thing. And yet when I am controlling a character I am just such a cause. When the Reformed/Calvinist talks about nothing being out of God’s control, we mean it as an analog to the first kind of use of the term because we are Compatiblists. We understand that God, though the first mover, works in sovereign administration through the means of secondary causal conditions and agents. He determines whatsoever comes to pass, but that is providentially worked out via means.

However, because our critics in this discussion are Incompatiblists of the Libertarian variety, and often fail to disambiguate between external criticisms and internal ones, they will take an externalist critique of Compatiblism’s Soft Determinism which thinks it unavoidably and definitionally entails Incompatiblism’s Hard Determinism, and then use that as if that is what Reformed/Calvinism AFFIRMS, and move into an internal criticism of saying that on Reformed/Calvinism God controls all things in the SECOND sense of the term. This however, because it moved from an external critique to an internal critique not only begs the question of Incompatiblistic Libertarian Freedom, but it also sets up a strawman of Reformed/Calvinism that is different from what we actually affirm.

Notice then what a simple definitional usage of a term like sovereignty can do and how the role it plays in dialogue can so quickly make communication derail. We need to be far more self-aware of how we use and understand terms and how other people, from within their own systems, use and understand those same terms. Without it, we will simply be in a grand narrative of talking past each other.

Can a Calvinist be certain of their salvation?

Can a Calvinist be certain of their salvation? (internal critique)

An important thing to note is that we do not place our hope or faith in our election – we place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ and him crucified as a fulfillment of the good promises of God. He has promised good to us and by our faith in him, we cling to his promises.

Why do I have assurance? Because God is good and faithful and has given certain means of grace to his people – word and sacrament, sanctification and the inner witness of the Spirit to me. We should not conflate a strong and confident assurance with a kind of epistemic certainty that is not susceptible to solipsism. ALL views are susceptible to solipsism. I do not need to know that I know that I am elect in Christ. I need to know that God has made promises to his people and described what his people will experience upon true conversion, and have given means of grace and assurance to his people to build them up in the faith. THE GROUNDS OF ASSURANCE ARE CUMULATIVE but rooted in God’s covenant love.

We could ask, how does the Arminian or the Provisionist know that they have the right kind of faith that will finish the work of redemption and please God enough to make his provision actual for them? How do they know that they wont walk away from it tomorrow if tragedy strikes and be removed from the body forever? How do they know that they are not a butterfly dreaming?

The question before us is already a poorly formed objection to Calvinism. Inherent in the question is a kind of decisional theology advocated by semi-pelagians like Finney and company. It looks to you and your own sincerity and conviction as the grounds for your assurance and hope. This is exactly the wrong place to look. We do not look to ourselves as the final cause of our hope, but to Christ.

Tim Challis writes of this kind of baseless assurance:

“When you seek assurance of your salvation, where do you look? Will you take refuge in the sincerity of your prayer? Will you comfort yourself by saying, “I meant it with all my heart”? If you take refuge in your own sincerity or in the passion you felt years ago when you prayed a prayer, you are building your assurance on shakey ground.”

And let me add, if you look to the conviction and passion of your prayer from this morning, the ground is just as shakey. The Reformed tradition is gritty and real and true to life. It recognizes that our assurance may wax and wane. We may go through dark nights of the soul. To try and demand a kind of epistemic certainty of Calvinism that is beyond all real Christian experience, or else throw it to the waste bin, is the height of a special pleading objection – to set the standard of expectation so high, beyond what even the objector’s own theological system would permit, is an obscenely uncharitable and flat out naïve way to engage in theological reflection.

We can ask these questions of epistemology of ANY view. There is nothing special or unique about Reformed soteriology in this regard.

We can have reasonable assurance by looking to God, his promise and covenant keeping nature, his glory in the finished work of Christ, and pressed to our souls by word and Sacrament, church and Spirit. We continue to work out our salvation, or the assurance thereof, with fear and trembling, but we know that God has said that those who love him love his word, love his body, love their neighbors, mortify the flesh, grow in prayer, display the fruit of the Spirit more as they mature, and long for deeper fellowship with God. Without some kind of defeater for the faithfulness of God, the work of the Spirit in my life, and the promises that accompany them, I have no reason to doubt my inclusion in the people of God. Simply asking “yeah but do you know that you know” is not an objection. It’s posturing. Look to Christ and his life, death, burial and resurrection, and the promises of God for his people that accompany them, and you will have assurance because God cannot lie. But you can… if you navel gaze and look to your own faithfulness, you will have no reason for hope and only cause for despair.  

The Grounds of Assurance

The Westminster Confession of Faith says in chapter 18:

This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

Similarly, the Belgic Confession says in article 24:

So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.

And the Canons of Dort say in articles 12 and 13 of section 1:

Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.

In their awareness and assurance of this election, God’s children daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the fathomless depth of God’s mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give fervent love in return to the One who first so greatly loved them. This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.

So we see several sources of assurance:

·         Westminster points to "the divine truth of the promises of salvation," and the Belgic Confession specifies "the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior" upon which those promises rest. Westminster cites these Scriptures for support:

·         Hebrews 6:17 In the same way God wanted to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of the promise that his purpose was unchangeable, and so he intervened with an oath, 18 so that we who have found refuge in him may find strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, which reaches inside behind the curtain

·         Westminster continues, "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made," specified by Dort as "a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on," and Westminster cites:

·         2 Peter 1:4 Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge. 10 Therefore, brothers and sisters, make every effort to be sure of your calling and election. For by doing this you will never stumble into sin. 11 For thus an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be richly provided for you.

·         1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we have come to know God: if we keep his commandments.

·         1 John 3:14 We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death.

·         2 Corinthians 1:12 For our reason for confidence is this: the testimony of our conscience, that with pure motives and sincerity which are from God—not by human wisdom but by the grace of God—we conducted ourselves in the world, and all the more toward you.

·         Westminster wraps it up with, "The testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God," referring to Romans 8:15-16, "which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption," citing these verses:

·         Ephesians 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ—you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory.

·         Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

·         2 Corinthians 1:21 But it is God who establishes us together with you in Christ and who anointed us, 22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment.

Distinguishing True Assurance from False

The Canons of Dort say that "by God's just judgment" some "who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen" become "carnally self-assured" rather than having an actual assurance of faith. So how can an "infallible assurance" (in Westminster's language) and this "carnal self-assurance" be distinguished?

A.A. Hodge's commentary on the Westminster Confession takes a stab at the question.

True assurance, however, may be distinguished from that which is false by the following tests:

1. True assurance begets unfeigned humility; false assurance begets spiritual pride. 1 Corinthians 15:10; Galatians 6:14.
2. The true leads to increased diligence in the practice of holiness; the false leads to sloth and self-indulgence. Psalm 51:12-13,19.
3. The true leads to candid self-examination and to a desire to be searched and corrected by God; the false leads to a disposition to be satisfied with appearance and to avoid accurate investigation. Psalm 139:23-24.
4. The true leads to constant aspirations after more intimate fellowship with God. 1 John 3:2-3.

It is common for Calvinists to cite 1 John 2:19 in the case of those who either were falsely assured or who deceived others (knowingly or not) into believing they were saved:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.

Conclusion

Calvinists teach that to be assured of salvation, you must look first to Christ, his merits, and his promises, then to the fruits of faith that he has granted you. It is not found by inquiring into the decree of election, nor by looking chiefly to yourself. It is not necessary to be assured of salvation in order to be saved, but it is a good thing to strive for nonetheless. There are ways of distinguishing it from "carnal self-assurance," and those who have such false assurance are mistaken about their salvation.