Calvinism, Arminianism, Southern Baptist Traditionalism, and Accusations of Theological Dishonesty

Below is a parable that was written in response to the post and subsequent comment thread that are found here:

https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-slight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election

That post was re-blogged from here:

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-sleight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election

As a side note: For some reason, the person who moderates the Arminian Perspectives site finds my comments unworthy of approving for publication, and has a long history of either denying my comments outright once the substantive points are on the table, or editing out the most important parts before publishing.

Those two posts raise some interesting issues that are worthy of discussion. However, we should take a far greater interest in the not-so-subtle accusations of theological dishonesty found in the posts, and then stated even more strongly in the comment threads. The reason for this should be obvious: any Christian who publicly accuses a fellow believer (or, in this case, an entire group of fellow believers) of a pattern of dishonesty may face dire spiritual consequences in the event that it was his own misunderstanding or confusion (and not a fellow believer's dishonesty) that led him to a false conclusion.

Scripture is clear on both sides of this point:

I Pet. 2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
The person who accuses a brother of one of these evils (deceit) may in face be guilty of another (slander). Other Scriptures also apply:

James 4:11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

Gal. 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

II Cor. 12:20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

I attempted to post the parable below as a response at the Soteriology101 site and was not successful, most likely due to the length of the material. So, the comment I would have posted there is placed here for your consideration:

Friends, here is a little parable for your consideration, which may illustrate well the dynamic that is occurring on this comment thread (and many, many others across the internet, unfortunately).

Cal Venice and Amond Ian are little kids discussing their respective homes. Let's listen in . . .

Armond: I love my house, it is so great! It has a really solid foundation. You should come over and visit sometime. 
Cal: Cool. Sounds like fun! You might want to visit my house sometime, too. It is very unique and interesting.
Armond: What's so great about your house? Someone told me it isn't even a "real" house and has no foundation. Is that true??? Tell me about the foundation.
Cal: Well, that is partially true. My house does not have the kind of foundation you are used to seeing on a house, it's actually a---
Armond: Is it a foundation made of cement, and planted firmly into the ground, like my house's foundation?
Cal: No, it's not like that at all. It's actually--
Armond: Really? Is it even a house then?
Cal: Well, yes, it is actually a house, but it is much more than just a house. It's a hou--
Armond: That is the strangest thing I have ever heard. If it doesn't have a foundation, it can't be a house at all, right? LOL. 
Cal: If you say so. But my house has four bedrooms, one and a half baths, a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, quality metal roof, plenty of windows, and lots of awesome closets. It is two stories tall and filled with all of the usual household furniture, like beds and couches and stuff. It has a great HVAC system, plumbing, electricity, and all of that. You'll be surprised when I tell you what kind of house it is.
Armond: You keep calling it a "house" when it obviously isn't one, since it clearly has no foundation. However, other than the odd lack of a foundation, that sounds just like my house! But how can a house not have a foundation? Are you trying to trick me? I'm getting very suspicious.
Cal: No, I assure you I am being completely honest with you. Let me explain further. Unlike your house, which sits permanently on one spot, my house was designed with flexibility in mind. It is able to move around and goes places where a house like yours could never even be built. It's called a--
Armond: Oh, I get it now, your house is nothing more than a two-story trailer!!!!!!! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Cal: Because it's not a trailer. It's-- 
Armond: Okay, let's stop playing games and just be upfront and honest about our houses. A house without a regular foundation that moves around to different places is just a trailer. Someone told me your family has been dishonestly acting like you don't live in a trailer for years. But everyone knows your family is a bunch of pretenders who can't admit that they live in a trailer. I even heard a famous architect, Willie Lame Cage, say people who live in trailers don't like to admit it. He's the smartest guy in the world, almost as smart as my dad, James. Or is it Jacob? I can't remember. In any case, you and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers. Let's fight now!
Cal: Okay, but before we start punching each other, I would like to ask you another question: out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a house boat? 
Armond: A house boat? LOL, what a stupid idea! A "house boat," if such a thing even exists, would be nothing more than a boat! I heard that somewhere, and my teacher, Lee Tin-Flowers, also read it on a website. He says a "house-boat" is just a boat--as much a "boat" as any other kind of boat! Boats are boats, and can't be houses, so there! If you say you live on a boat, then you can't possibly live in a house, and if you say you live in a house, you can't possibly live on a boat. Why aren't you getting this? I knew you were a liar from the moment I first saw you! After I get done beating you up, I'm going to start a podcast and a blog to tell the world how messed up you are. You and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers who pretend to be house-boaters!

[After this, there is a very long pause, during which Cal ponders whether he should try to explain the compatibility of "house" and "boat." They look at one another suspiciously, considering whether they should start throwing punches, then back away slowly. At last, both boys go home for dinner and then listen to some of their favorite podcasts.]

Lee Tin-Flowers: Am I wrong for questioning what the "house-boaters" say? Am I wrong for saying I see it another way? Here on the podcast, I always like to point out how I once had a part time job as a speed boat driver. I quit that job because I never could understand how boats can be houses. No one in their right mind would try to live on a speed boat, right? I try to tell these so-called "house-boat" people that they actually just live on a boat and can't possibly live in a house, and they never seem to be able to admit it, even though I quote their own favorite website, house-boats-r-us dot com, which clearly states: "A house boat is no less a boat than any other boat." So, as you can see, no matter how many times they try to tell you they live in a house, or a "house-boat" (whatever that is), they just refuse to admit they are actually nothing more than casual boat people without real houses. They also contradict themselves constantly, trying to say they actually do live in houses, which is obviously not true since houses have foundations, and they admit their so-called houses don't have foundations, which means they must actually live in trailers. None of this ever made any sense to me when I was a speed boat driver. It is all just casual boater double speak, as I explain on my website, HouseFoundations101. Go there to read the five best reasons why house-boats don't exist, and why I quit my job as a speed boat driver. Here is a quote from A.W. Tow-boat that proves my point . . .
Armond: Aha! I just knew Cal Venice was a liar, and this confirms it! I'm going to go around telling everyone how he lies! Liar, Liar Liar!!!!!

[Meanwhile, Cal Venice reads a few good books on architecture, engineering and boating, then goes to volunteer at an agency that builds houses for the homeless. Later, he goes to the mission field and gives his life for the cause.]

[Armond and his friend, Trey DeShaun Alice, more firmly convinced than ever of their views on the utter incompatibility of houses and boats, continue to slander Cal and his friends as dishonest liars. They later find themselves standing before a rather concerned Judge who solemnly calls them to account for every word they have ever spoken or written.] 

THE END.  

Hopefully the tie-ins with determinism, compatibilism, freedom of will, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are clear to all readers.

While we are on the topic of house boats and conversations that miss the point, you might enjoy this video on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/pXUcmVibTUI

One of my favorites.

May you know the blessings of godly fellowship with grace, mercy, and peace in Christ, dear friends!

Faith and Regeneration: Which Comes First?

INTRODUCTION

This is basically a theological version of the "chicken and egg" conundrum. Occasionally it amuses me that Calvinists and Arminians (and others) are so apt to come to blows with regard to this question (I am referring to the theological one, not the chicken/egg question). As far as chickens and eggs are concerned, the answer is quite obvious from this text:

Genesis 1:20-23 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

God created "birds," not eggs, on the 5th day. "Eggs" are the intended method by which they will be fruitful and multiply. I hope you can appreciate what a great mystery has just been solved here. 

Unfortunately, the ordering of faith and regeneration does not have such an easy solution. Let's examine all of the texts related to the topic of "regeneration" to see whether they answer this question.

INVESTIGATING THE TEXT

1. The Greek noun παλιγγενεσία (PALIGGENESIA) appears twice in the New Testament:

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

This text is clearly not referring to individual, salvific regeneration, so it has no bearing on the discussion.

Titus 3:4-8 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

This text, which clearly refers to individual, salvific regeneration, and even mentions faith in close proximity, does not give any hint of which came first.

2. The Greek verb ἀποκυέω (APOKYEO) is used once in the context of spiritual birth:

James 1:16-18 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

There is no mention of the ordering of faith and regeneration here. What is undeniable is that God alone regenerates, and that it is "of His own will" that He has regenerated His people.

3. The Greek verb ἀναγεννάω (ANAGENNAO)  appears twice in the New Testament, both times in I Peter:

I Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

This text, while not explicitly addressing our question, only speaks of the role of faith as a protection for believers after regeneration has occurred. Rather than mentioning our faith as the cause of regeneration, Peter speaks only of God's mercy as the cause.

I Peter 1:22-25 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for

“All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass.

The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.” 

And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

This text, while mentioning regeneration and the preached Word of the Gospel, offers us no indication of the ordering of faith in the equation. If anything, we might refer back to verses 20 and 21, which tell us plainly that "through Him [we] are believers in God." This gives all of the credit for the origination of our faith to Christ, and not to our own act of will in exercising faith. The true sight and knowledge of Him (as proclaimed in the Gospel) produces faith, as surely as the sight of a raging hurricane produces awe and dread.

4. The Greek verb γεννάω (GENNAO) is sometimes used in the context of spiritual birth, or regeneration:

John 1:9-13 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

On the surface, this passage might seem to place faith ahead of regeneration. However, the text does not specify at which point regeneration occurred. Rather, it shows that the "right" of sonship was given to those who believed. Thus, the right of sonship follows upon faith. This right is given to those who are born of God and have believed.

John 3:1-8 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

This text says much about the new birth, but gives us no indication of the ordering of faith and regeneration. It simply tells us that regeneration is necessary to salvation. Although faith figures prominently in the remainder of the chapter and the book of John, there is no conclusive evidence of ordering here. 

There are several passages in I John that mention spiritual birth:

I John 2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.

There is no evidence of the ordering of faith and regeneration here, unless we take "practicing righteousness" to include initial belief in Christ.

I John 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

No evidence of the ordering of faith and regeneration here.

I John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

No evidence of the ordering of faith and regeneration here.

I John 5:1 Everyone who believes (Present Active Participle) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, (Perfect Passive Indicative), and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him (Perfect Passive Participle).

On the surface, this verse might seem to teach that regeneration occurs before faith. However, it could be interpreted the other way. Thus, there is ultimately no conclusive proof of the ordering of faith and regeneration here. If anything, the verb tenses might point toward regeneration preceding faith.

I John 5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

Although faith and regeneration are both mentioned, there is no evidence of the ordering here.

I John 5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

No evidence of the ordering of faith and regeneration here.

CONCLUSION

So, if all of the New Testament passages dealing with regeneration are ultimately silent (or at least inconclusive) on this issue, what was the point of this exercise? We arrive at three conclusions:

1. The subject is not definitively settled by the Biblical text itself (perhaps God has not deemed this to be an area in which we need to have a settled certainty).
2. Any position that insists on a particular ordering must be driven by something other than the text (such as soteriology, systematic theology or philosophical considerations).
3. Upon thorough consideration of these texts, three possibilities remain: 
• Faith precedes regeneration
• Regeneration precedes faith
• Both occur simultaneously

I would favor the third option and recommend it for consideration by all. As a Calvinist, the second option would seem to be the next best. Based on the Biblical text, there can be no doubt that regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, reconciliation, sanctification and all other good gifts are given to us by God, and are not from ourselves. That is GREAT NEWS, regardless of your stance with regard to the order.

A Discussion of the Ordo Salutis

In case anyone is interested, I am having an interesting conversation with some Arminian brothers here:

http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/interesting-comments-from-john-macarthur-on-the-nature-of-preveninet-grace-the-ordo-salutis/

Pretty interesting stuff.

Here is my attempt to describe a Biblical Ordo Salutis:

http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-biblical-ordo-salutis-for-biblical.html

A Response to Leighton Flowers: What is the "Dead" State of Fallen Man?

Perhaps, dear reader, you are aware of the criticisms of Calvinism recently put forth by Leighton Flowers, a Southern Baptist preacher, professor and Youth Evangelism Director for the Texas Baptists. Flowers is a prolific podcaster and blogger who presents a distinctively Baptist approach to non-Calvinism. I have listened to nearly every podcast he has released, and have briefly interacted with him on the "About" page of his blog site, Soteriology101.com. In what would seem to be an amazingly courageous move, Flowers has also debated the formidable High Calvinist heavyweight, James White. Unfortunately, this was an epic exercise in missing the point, and I found both of their debate presentations and post-debate follow up responses equally disappointing.

This photo was Leighton's humorous take on
his recent debate with James WhiteSee the debate here: https://youtu.be/lzoZjSTysIs

A BRIEF CRITIQUE

There are a lot of good things to say about Leighton Flowers, so let's start there:

• He is respectful in his manner of dialogue with opponents
• He conducts himself with humility
• He generally speaks positively of Calvinists and accepts them as brothers
• He articulates a clear theology of salvation from a "traditionalist" (i.e., non-Calvinistic) Baptist perspective
• He serves as a ministry leader, and is not just a "talking head" with opinions
• He has a sense of humor (a characteristic that is woefully lacking in so many Calvinist/Arminian dialogues on the internet)

There are some notes of concern as well, and at least one of them is genuinely alarming:

• He doesn't always have his facts straight (as an example, in one of his podcasts he mentions D.A. Carson as an example of a non-Calvinist scholar - Huh???)
• He frequently overstates the persuading power of his views, which have not actually proven persuasive to thoughtful, Biblically grounded Calvinists
• He often presses illustrations to logical extremes that amount to "straw man" arguments
• He sometimes ignores critical distinctions that are consistently drawn by mainstream Calvinists
• In contradiction to his typically respectful comments about Calvinists, he has actually said more than once that he believes this passage might refer to them:
• And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

We can only assume that Flowers has not thought through the implications of that last point, which are quite inflammatory. Viewed charitably, the statement is a bit out of character, though nonetheless troubling. All in all, Leighton is far friendlier toward Calvinists than many others who engage in this type of debate.

A SIMPLE REFUTATION: IS FALLEN HUMANITY TRULY "DEAD" TOWARD GOD?

Let's take a brief look at an issue Leighton Flowers has often mentioned in his polemic against Calvinism. According to Flowers, Calvinists routinely compare man's "dead" state to that of Lazarus in the tomb, while he prefers to relate it to the state of the prodigal son in Luke 15. The prodigal son was only figuratively dead, right? He still had the natural ability to return to his father, right? So, perhaps fallen man is just "mostly dead":



Leighton's view ignores both the context and the content of Ephesians 2:1-3, which states:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Agreeing with Leighton, the clear implication of this text is not that fallen man is incapable of doing anything. However, it is actually much worse than that. According to this text, fallen man is incapable of doing anything that is not sinful. Humanity's "dead" acts are trespasses against God's law and are worldly, demonic, disobedient, fleshly and lust-driven. Believing in Christ for salvation does not seem to fit with this set of "dead" capabilities that remain in fallen human beings.

Much more telling, and far more detrimental to Leighton's position, is the obvious context of Ephesians 2. See Ephesians 1:19-20, which comes just a few verses prior:

... and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places ...

Without question, the flow of the text shows us that Paul is linking the believers' dead state prior to salvation with Jesus' dead state prior to his resurrection. Was Jesus "mostly dead" in the tomb, or was He "all the way dead"? Does Jesus' death and burial more closely resemble that of Lazarus, or that of the prodigal son?

This context-based exegesis stands like a sumo wrestler in opposition to a weak speculation that draws all of its force from the misapplication of an unrelated passage.

Reminding us of the three most important rules for proper Biblical interpretation: context, context, and context.

The whole Bible, taken in context, will always lead us inexorably to something along the lines of Calvinism. An army of critics will never change this, though they may push back with all their might.

True Calvinist Confessions: "I am a Casual Determinist."

As a committed Calvinist, I unashamedly advocate Casual Determinism. I would venture to say that every sincere Calvinist who holds to Biblical truth should be (and probably is) a Casual Determinist.

Please note that I am not talking about "Causal Determinism," nor am I advocating that philosophical viewpoint. I am discussing and arguing for a Biblical position of Casual Determinism.

What is Casual Determinism?

First of all, what do we mean by determinism? This can be defined as the belief that all events are pre-determined to occur. There are various kinds of "determinisms," which are variously advocated by philosophers and theologians of different stripes. The opposing position, Libertarianism (also known as a belief in "Libertarian Free Will"), holds that it is wholly impossible that events for which human beings may be held responsible are pre-determined. Even a casual reading of the Bible, much less a sound program of exegetical study, would seem to decisively demolish the "Libertarian" viewpoint.

In general, Calvinists (along with conservative Lutherans and others who hold to a high view of Scripture) are considered to be Determinists because they believe that God pre-determines everything. However, while we hold this conviction with tenacity and deeply conscientious devotion, we reserve the right to be rather casual about the details. Thus, we are Casual Determinists. We seek to affirm what is clear from Scripture, and not to go beyond what is written.

In other words . . .
1. We acknowledge that there is a great deal of mystery regarding God's pre-determination of everything.
2. We recognize a clear distinction between the pre-determination of good and the pre-determination of evil. God delights in good. He hates evil. He pre-determines both, but in different ways. While He may pre-determine evil, He never commits it nor approves of it. As for good, He alone is its source and author. Get it?
3. Along with Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, et al, we affirm God's absolute sovereignty without denying the voluntary choice and moral responsibility of human beings.

What are the Benefits of Casual Determinism?

1. Philosophical and theological arguments against causal determinism are rendered powerless because Casual Determinism may or may not entail Causal Determinism.
2. We do not have to deny human freedom in order to affirm divine determinism. We are quite casual in recognizing the fact that some type of genuine human freedom exists alongside determinism. And we do not need to solve all of the mysteries of the universe in order to affirm what the Bible clearly teaches.
3. We can interpret all events through the lens of God's absolute sovereignty.
4. We can speak of circumstances and human choices in the same ways the Biblical authors spoke of them, without feeling that we are somehow attributing evil to God or somehow denying His sovereignty.

We can be rather casual in our determinism because GOD is GOD, His Word is TRUE, and it is not our job to know everything.

Our role is to study His Word, worship His majesty, trust His wisdom, follow Christ, and proclaim His Truth. Regarding these things, we are anything but casual!

Both Determined and Free? A Conversation with Dr. Roger Olson

Recently I have been enjoying some conversation with Roger Olson, the "irenic Arminian" theologian and scholar, at his blog. I always find conversation with Dr. Olson to be interesting and informative. He is one of my favorite non-Calvinist discussion partners, although we disagree rather thoroughly in many areas. 

We have recently engaged profitably in discussion in the comment box at this post on Dr. Olson's blog:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/11/the-ultimate-horror-story-reflections-on-stephen-kings-new-novel-revival-spoiler-alert/

Today, Dr. Olson has responded to me directly with this blog post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/12/can-a-single-act-be-both-determined-and-free/

I have posted my reply, as follows:

Dr. Olson, 

Thank you for giving attention to this important issue, which seems to be a key point of disagreement between Calvinistic and Arminian/non-Calvinistic thought.
Like most other Calvinists, I would point to multiple "fine distinctions" in order to sustain the appeal to compatibilism.

I would begin by defining compatibilism a little differently, as the basic belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. The theory that "freedom" is being free to do as one chooses despite having no ability to do otherwise is just one form of compatibilism among many interesting options. Personally, I do not prefer that approach, and only oppose "Libertarian Free Will" or "power of contrary choice" to the extent that they, by definition, rule out compatibilism (in the broad sense). I agree with your contention that "free will" is mysterious, that it is "situated" within a context of limitations, that it is fully realized only by Christian conversion, and I believe that it is much more "genuine" than most of today's Calvinists will admit. Augustine was not afraid to use the term, and even Calvin hinted at a broader freedom of choice. There was a stream of historic Reformed thought along this line (Jeongmo Yoo has an interesting book on this topic).

Next, I would appeal to a distinction between "natural ability" and "moral ability" in saying that we are naturally capable of choosing other than we do, even if not morally capable (thus, in some sense we have the power of contrary choice). I have the natural ability to give away my possessions or to steal, but I might only have the moral ability to do one of them in a given set of circumstances. I don't have the natural or moral ability to choose to jump to the moon (although I do have the ability to attempt to jump to the moon). Moral ability is limited, not necessarily by God's decree, but by our own will (or moral character). In essence, ironically, the very will to choose is what limits the range of choices!

Finally, I would appeal to a distinction within God's secret decree between the foreordination of good and the foreordination of evil. Good arises always with God's direct action and involvement, by grace, and not from the creature alone. Evil arises only with God's inaction, from the creature's own moral nature, as God permits the creature to act on its own independent will. In other words, He ordains to allow evil to occur apart from His own direct action, by permission only (yet with complete foreknowledge and a design to permit--and then remedy--all of the evil that occurs). Thus, nothing happens because it is merely pre-determined. Good happens by God's predestination, providence and promise, while evil happens by His permitted purpose (with both good and evil being thus pre-determined in some sense, and worked into His overarching plan). As you know, the origin of the first evil remains mysterious on these grounds; however, we would categorically deny any possibility or implication that evil arose from God Himself (perish the thought).

This is, of course, a very abbreviated form of a more complex argument (actually an entire philosophical construct) that is employed by Augustinian thinkers to explain how God could foreordain (or decree, pre-determine/pre-program, etc.) all things without ever touching, committing, positively willing or becoming culpable for moral evil. There are plenty of Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Augustinians, who can expound these topics much better than I.

As a concluding note, I want to make it clear that I am not attempting to refute what you have written or formally debate the issue (doubtless you would outmaneuver me!). We are laying out two very different and incompatible philosophical approaches that are employed to make our theologies tenable in our own minds. As a part of my ongoing education and understanding of the Arminian viewpoint, I very much appreciate your time and care in stating your position clearly, and in treating the other position charitably. Great stuff!

Blessings in Christ,
Derek

PUPPETS: Another Epic Calvinist-Arminian "Debate"

Having a little "chat" with some Arminian brothers over here:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/muppet-calvinism

I do not know how I get myself into these tangles. Well, maybe I do know how, and should instead wonder "why?" Admittedly, it was hard to resist commenting on the graphic that was posted as a discussion starter:

Lovely Caricature, eh?

Whatever the case, the discussion may be helpful for those who want to understand how the Bible affirms human freedom in compatibility with a robust, meticulous and exhaustive divine sovereignty. The question on the table is: "Does Calvinistic theology make man into a mere puppet?"

A proper understanding of Calvinistic theology (the non-hyper variety), divine sovereignty, human responsibility and Biblical compatibilism (which is not necessarily equivalent to the many forms of philosophical compatibilism) will lead to a decisive "NO" on this question. However, some who argue against Calvinism delight in throwing up the old canard of "Your theology makes us into puppets!"

I would like to take a moment to roundly scold those vocal Calvinist apologists who haven't sufficiently nuanced their compatibilism, and would seem to lend support to the charge. While I am at it, I'll also scold those Arminians who know what Calvinistic theology teaches and refuse to admit that their puppet analogy is a ridiculous caricature.

Then again, who in this world even cares if some obscure Calvinist scolds them?

II Samuel 7:18 Then King David went in and sat before the LORD and said, “Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?

Arranged Marriages

I asked my daughter: "Should we have arranged marriages, or should we be allowed to marry someone we love?" 

She thought for a moment, and then shouted: "FALSE DICHOTOMY!"

"Very good." I said. After all, a marriage could be arranged between a man and woman who already love each other (perhaps some marriages are arranged this way unwittingly), or a marriage can be arranged between a man and woman who will grow to love each other. Real love and arranged marriage are not mutually exclusive (I am not saying we should practice this, by the way).

Next I said, "Now, imagine that I am both omnisicient and omnipotent. Could I pre-arrange a marriage for you with someone you love?"

"Of course you could, if you were God!" She said. After thinking it through for another moment or two, her face lit up and she exclaimed, "Hey, wait a minute . . . ALL MARRIAGES ARE ARRANGED!"

I smiled.

She had expressed a brilliant, simple, and thoroughly Biblical thought. Every marriage, including the most loving marriage on earth, is an arranged marriage. And most every marriage can be a genuinely loving one.

So, how is it that my 12-year-old daughter understands compatibilism so much better than the Arminian apologists I meet online? Why can't they see through the false dichotomy of "foreordained" and "free"? They tell me it is a "contradiction" (and much worse). I wonder, do they think God is too limited in His power, or wisdom, or freedom, or knowledge, or ability, or love, to accomplish such a wonderful thing?

Adding Some Important Clarifications to the SBC Statement on Calvinism

The recent SBC statement rightly affirms God's love for all people and His desire for all to be saved. Roger Olson has suggested that Calvinists should be required to explain these statements further, and that it might be disingenuous for them to sign the statement without elaborating (See here, here and here). 

To demonstrate the point, he proposed that a coalition of Calvinists, Classical Arminians and Open Theists ought to be challenged to sign the following, without qualification, and wondered if any would be willing to do so:

“We affirm that God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved and that God elects some to salvation and that people do not have free will to decide whether or not to be saved and that God knows the future exhaustively and infallibly.”

I could never sign that in good conscience because it denies human freedom/responsibility.

However, I agree that more should be said by Calvinists and Arminians about God's love for all people and His desire for the salvation of all. I chose (of my own free will) to add the following comment to Dr. Olson's third post on this subject, including some proposed clarifications to be made from both sides. This will really prove a point:

Dr. Olson, 

I am glad you are discussing the SBC statement.  

I doubt ANYONE would sign your proposed statement (of course, you already knew that). I, as a Calvinist, would object to the denial of freedom, but not to the affirmation of God's general love and desire for the salvation of the lost. 

With regard the actual SBC statement, I agree that more could (and probably should) be said about God's love for everyone and His desire for everyone to be saved. 

If I had my way, Calvinists would have to explain further by stating: "We affirm that God loves all people in the sense that He freely gives them life and breath, reveals Himself to them, provides every good thing they experience, withholds patiently for a time their just and well-deserved punishment for sin, extends His open hand of salvation to them, and calls them to Gospel repentance; and that He desires the salvation of all people in the sense that He would delight in saving all, and will never turn away anyone who turns to Him; and that this sincere love and desire on God's part do not result in the salvation of all people because many freely choose to reject Him in spite of such kindness."  

And Arminians would have to state, "We affirm that God loves all people in the sense that He freely gives them life and breath, reveals Himself to them, provides every good thing they experience, withholds patiently for a time their just and well-deserved punishment for sin, extends His open hand of salvation to them, and calls them to Gospel repentance; and that He desires the salvation of all people in the sense that He would delight in saving all, and will never turn away anyone who turns to Him; and that this sincere love and desire on God's part do not result in the salvation of all people because many freely choose to reject Him in spite of such kindness."  

This could be followed up with, "Both Calvinists and Arminians agree on these points." 

Blessings,
Derek

The End of a Long and Interesting Debate

For several weeks now, I have been engaged in discussion with a non-Calvinist brother named Matt. Matt has taken a position of incompatibilism, stating that God cannot both sovereignly foreordain all things and simultaneously permit evil to occur through the exercise of genuine freedom on the part of the creature. He believes Calvinism makes God the "author of evil" and leaves man without moral freedom or responsibility. As one might expect, I argue that this understanding is incorrect.

Thus far, there have been 26 separate volleys in this informal debate, which originally took place in the comments at this post: http://atheologyintension.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/2376/

Matt has also taken the time to post each comment as a separate blog post on his site.

Below is my final summary response. I would imagine Matt will reply to this, and that his response will be the end of our discussion (for now, at least). Here is my closing argument:

Matt, 

Thank you for taking time to reply and for all of the work you have undertaken in reorganizing our comments into individual posts. 

I will make a few final comments here, and then leave off. This has been a most interesting exchange, and I am grateful for the time and thoughtful attention you have given to it. 

You can imagine my disappointment in finding your last two posts fraught with the same mischaracterizations of Calvinism that prompted me to write to you in the first place. Here on posts numbers 24 and 25, you demonstrate a total misunderstanding of key Calvinist convictions, proving to me that I have utterly failed to dislodge these misapprehensions from your mind. Throughout our discussion, and especially in these latest posts, you present Calvinism in an utterly inaccurate way, and as a theological position which would actually be blasphemous, heretical, destructive, and entirely inconsistent with Scripture, if the position was actually held by anyone. I cannot think of any mainstream Calvinist who has ever held to the kind of belief you define as Calvinism. Even many hyper Calvinists would cringe at some of the propositions you tell us Calvinists must affirm. 

As such, I find your sudden shift to a demand for “argumentation,” rather than “assertion,” to be curious. Your persistently repeated misstatements about the beliefs of Calvinists have prompted me to attempt to clarify what Calvinists actually believe versus what you claim they believe. This is, of course, not a matter of mere logical proof, but of historical analysis. I chose not to inundate you with endless quotations proving that real Calvinists don’t actually believe what you say they believe. A visit to calvinandcalvinism.com will provide veritable mountains of proof. Therefore, beyond the following quotation, I will simply suggest you study the actual beliefs of dozens of historic Calvinist leaders, from the Reformation onward, which have been carefully documented at that site. Best of all, everything there is surrounded by extensive context in order to lessen the possibility of misinterpretation. 

Here is what the Westminster Confession explicitly states concerning God’s sovereign foreordination and the origin of evil: 

“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (WCF 5.4) 

This is what Calvinists actually believe. The Calvin and Calvinism site referenced above will show you various ways Reformed thinkers have logically reasoned through the implications. You may say that this is self-contradictory and impossible. To you, perhaps it is. To them, and to me, it is not. 

Note that the WCF does not deny permission of sin, but affirms it, insisting that the permission is not without God’s bounding, ordering and governing of the sins that are permitted. You have stated that the language of permission is an Arminian approach. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t think the WCF is an Arminian creed. Can you now see, from the WCF, that the language of permission is actually, historically speaking, a stock Calvinist answer to the question, and that this is exactly opposite to the beliefs you presented as “Calvinism”? Frankly, if Calvinism was what you claim it is, I would join you in staunchly opposing it. I would actually go further and condemn its adherents as anti-Christian heretics. Fortunately, Calvinism takes a position exactly opposite to the one you say it affirms regarding the goodness of God and the origin of evil. 

Throughout our discussion, I have argued from numerous Biblical texts that the Calvinist’s position is both reasonable and logical. You do not accept my arguments, and that is okay with me. But it would be dishonest for you to claim I haven’t presented arguments for my position. 

You have asserted that Scripture itself is not sufficient to decide the question under consideration, and have demanded logical proof and argumentation, insisting that these are sufficient to determine the question. In my view, you have elevated human reason above Scripture by discounting the possibility that direct Biblical propositions can settle the question, and implying instead that the reasonings of your own mind can settle it. My position on this is reciprocal to yours. I hold that clear Biblical propositions DO undeniably settle the matter, whether or not the reasonings of my mind (or yours) can attain to the divine logic undergirding the divinely revealed answer. In other words, my core epistemological presupposition is that Scripture itself is more reliable and trustworthy than fallible human logic. I am honestly surprised that you disagree on this point (although it is possible that I have misunderstood your position on this). 

Matt, it is unfortunate that you misrepresent my views on logic and paradox in a way strikingly similar to the way you misrepresent Calvinism. The reason may be that I have not explained well enough, or that you have honestly misunderstood, and hope it boils down to one these (or a combination of both). Here again, I can only seek to clarify my position and argue from Scripture. 

I can certainly appreciate the logic of your arguments and illustrations regarding things like “married bachelors,” etc. My answer to all of this is simple: matters of divine ordination and human freedom cannot be oversimplified in this way. Sure, there are plenty of either/or dichotomies in our world. Married or not married. Pregnant or not pregnant. Speeding or not speeding. Everyone understand this. However, the existence of either/or dichotomies does not invalidate the possibility of both/and synergies (which are sometimes presented as false dichotomies). What about this one: square or circle? In two dimensions, this really is an either/or dichotomy. But in three dimensions, we have the cylinder, a “square circle.” We also have square triangles (pyramids) and circular triangles (cones). So . . . what if we human beings could only conceive of two dimensions, and an all-knowing God who sees three dimensions told us something is both square and circle? Would we argue with Him, and say that His claim is illogical? Or would we trust that on His level of understanding it is possible for a cylinder to exist? Stated simply, I view divine ordination and human freedom not as a married vs. bachelor issue, but as a square vs. circle issue. We see squares and circles where God sees cylinders. And again I ask, what prevents God from being able to do things like this? Is He not on a higher level than we are? Is He not wiser? Smarter? More knowledgeable? More capable? 

You may think all of this is illogical. You are free to think so. However, I just laid out a sound logical reason for you to affirm and trust God’s harmonious use of both foreordination and genuine human freedom. This is not all as simple as 2+2=4. We are dealing with infinities here. In human experience, we don’t have anything exactly like eternal, divine “ordination” to compare with or argue from. To fully understand exactly how all of this works, we would have to be eternal, divine, all-wise, all-good and all-powerful. I’m just guessing that those shoes don’t fit either one of us, Matt. 

Finally, I want to thank you once again for a challenging and enjoyable conversation. I pray you will be mightily used by God in the work He has given you to do, that you will continue to grow in your love for Christ and your knowledge of Him, and that your entire life will be blessed and prospered in Him. I also hope that a large cylinder shape is ordained to be set up somewhere in the New Creation, and that we may freely decide to meet under its shadow for a continuation of this discussion, with a fresh insight and understanding that magnificently humbles us both through a recognition of how little we actually apprehended when we engaged in this discussion. And there we shall worship the Lamb together! 

Until then, many blessings, brother. 

In Christ,
Derek Ashton

Calvinistic Compatibilism: A Discussion of Divine Causation, Human Freedom and Moral Responsibility

Below is an excerpt addressing the subject of divine causation and compatibilism. This has been adapted from a series of responses I recently shared with some non-Calvinist Christians who have taken an incompatibilist position (i.e. their belief is that God's pre-determination of everything is incompatible with human freedom of choice and moral responsibility). I argue here for the opposite view, that God's sovereign pre-determination of everything is perfectly compatible with human freedom of choice and moral responsibility for our actions. This is excerpted from an ongoing conversation in the comments at the following blog post:
http://atheologyintension.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/2376/

Dear Non-Calvinist friends:

You present an interesting argument. The main thrust seems to be that Reformed theology makes God the author of evil, and in so doing removes man's freedom and moral responsibility. This objection is not new; it has been a common challenge faced by Calvinistic thinkers for centuries. I believe the argument is flawed, and I will explain why in detail. First, here is a summary:

1. The argument fails to distinguish between hyper Calvinism and mainstream Calvinism
2. The argument is based on a faulty understanding of mainstream Calvinism, which affirms compatibilism rather than mere determinism.
3. The argument is based on a faulty understanding of compatibilism, which affirms human freedom and responsibility in addition to determinism.
4. The argument groundlessly assumes compatibilism is impossible and self-contradictory.
5. The argument is based rationalism rather than a sound, Biblical epistemology (theory of knowledge)
6. The argument gives undue credit to the human mind's ability to peer into the unrevealed. 
7. The Argument fails to present a Biblically and logically sound alternative to the Reformed approach, which it rejects based on multiple misunderstandings.

Historically, Calvinists have taken a variety of positions, from a VERY SOFT compatibilism to a VERY HARD determinism. You have quoted from several examples of this diversity. A.W. Pink (depending on the day of the week), Vincent Cheung and Gordon Clark are in the line of the more hyper brand of Calvinists, who are most likely to espouse the hardest form of determinism without apology. You extol this as being somehow more “consistent.” Others like Piper, Packer and Frame are more likely to express a compatibilism that affirms human freedom as a mystery within (and even upheld by) divine ordination. I have read Calvin’s discussion of free will in the Institutes; he is a textbook compatibilist, at least in that part of his writings.

So I think it is a bit unfair for you to say Calvinistic ordination always “collapses into causal determinism” and then disparage the softening statements of compatibilism offered by the more moderate voices in the group. This would be akin to me saying that an Arminian view of free will collapses into Pelagianism (or perhaps Open Theism), while ignoring the Classical Arminian’s affirmation of Total Depravity (which strongly inhibits – or rather, kills –  libertarian freedom), and Prevenient Grace (which ackowledges the deadness and – gratefully – affirms our need for divine grace). I prefer to view the more moderate/mainstream Calvinists’ softening statements as evidence of a commitment to Biblical balance, preventing them from falling into the philosophical trap of hard determinism (the kind hypers veritably revel in). I do not see the softening statements as logical contradictions, but an attempt to be consistent with Scripture, grounded in the humility that confesses God’s ways are superior to our highest intellect.

I cannot see how God can be God without ordaining all things. I find this inconceivable simply because it is contrary to His Word:

• Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.
• Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?
• Isaiah 46:8-11 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.”
• Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will …

At the same time I cannot see man’s God-given freedom as less than a genuine, morally responsible and unconstrained liberty. Here I am just agreeing with Calvin and other compatibilists. We insist that God can ordain everything without denying his creatures real freedom. We cannot turn from either of these conscientiously held convictions.

Photo borrowed from
www.tominthebox.net

One of the great difficulties in this discussion is the fact that you and I are speaking two very different philosophical languages. We embrace opposing assumptions and presuppositions (although I would guess we fundamentally agree that Scripture is inerrant and Christ alone saves, by grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone).

Your arguments presuppose that freedom of will is incompatible with God's pre-determinate counsel. If I agreed with this presupposition, I would find your arguments unassailable. However, do you have any way to prove that this really is the case? Do you have a Biblical argument to prove this?

My presupposition is that God's all-determining will, eternal decree, and continuous providential action are not at all incompatible with creaturely freedom of will. I see God's decree clearly taught in Scripture, so I cannot take that away without a total change of heart in terms of the exegesis. On the other hand, I live in a world in which I experience every moment the liberty of my choices. Uncoerced, unconstrained, and apparently including the ability to choose otherwise than I do. But alas, which am I to believe? God's Holy Word or my undeniable experience?

But there is more. Another aspect of my experience has been my absolute and unquenchable rebellion. Only God's sovereign grace could ever have changed my heart and altered my course. And yet by His grace I did not find myself constrained or forced to believe. I chose freely; yet I could (and would) only choose to believe in Christ by sovereign, irresistible grace.

Then again, God's Word commands me to choose and holds me responsible for the choices I make. It nevertheless says I can have no good thing (faith and repentance included) unless God grants it to me by His mercy.

So now I have God's Word on both sides, and my experience on both sides. What can I do but hold on to both of them? I can't explain how God sovereignly ordains all things and yet keeps me free to choose in ways that render me morally responsible, unconstrained, voluntarily motivated, and apparently not without other options.

So I find myself embracing compatibilism, the belief that there can be a pre-determination of everything by an incomprehensible God without any diminishment of natural human freedom and responsibility. A million "rational" arguments against it won't change my understanding of God's Word or my experiences.

To be clear, when I say a million “rational” arguments won’t convince me otherwise, I am referring to arguments that are purely based on human logic, and thus appear to be “rational,” yet do not take Biblical revelation into sufficient account. I would like to think that all of my Arminian brothers will agree heartily with me on this point.

We are getting down to the root issue here. If I understand your position correctly, you fundamentally disagree with the premise of Christian compatibilism (i.e., that God’s pre-determination of everything is compatible with [and not contradictory to] genuine human freedom), and you do not even think it remotely possible that it could be true.

That last part presents a very strong claim of assurance in the way divine sovereignty and human choices can relate to one another. You are not simply saying they DO NOT relate a compatibilistic way; you seem to be making the claim that they CAN NOT relate this way. The alternative would seem to be a view of divine sovereignty that does not involve pre-determination of everything. I wonder how you distinguish between those events that are pre-determined and those that aren’t? Or is nothing at all pre-determined by God?

Don't fall for "Teeter Totter" theology!

To me, these matters are a great mystery. I view God's sovereign decree and my freedom as much more complex than a mere philosophical "seesaw," which would entail that any gain on one side necessarily results in a corresponding loss on the other. I conceive of my freedom as existing within and being upheld by His all-determining sovereignty.

I find it fascinating that any thinking person would not consider the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human choices to be a mystery. In saying this, I should be careful to define my terms. By “mystery,” I mean an item or area of knowledge which God has not revealed to us explicitly through some means (e.g., the Bible, creation, etc.).

I should also reiterate my definition of “compatibilism,” as mentioned above. It is simply the belief that divine pre-determination of everything does not conflict with genuine human freedom of choice. Jonathan Edwards affirmed this, but also went much further by actually proposing a theory of how it all works. I am not doing that (at least not right now). Although I admire Edwards’ attempt, I don’t view the results as something “revealed by God,” and thus I cannot claim the matter is no longer mysterious to me simply because someone has come up with what they think is a great explanation. Someone else may come up with a better one. Even so, until God reveals this, it remains an area of uncertainty for compatibilistic Christians who regard the Bible as their highest epistemological authority.

So I don't see how compatibilism can ever "collapse" into mere determinism. It involves determinism, yes, certainly. But if you define determinism in a way that automatically rules out the possibility of genuine freedom, I can only say that my compatibilism does not involve that kind of determinism. I would actually join you in arguing against any determinism that rules out human freedom and responsibility. I would equally oppose any version of human freedom that rules out determinism. I refuse to close off these categories as if they are mutually exclusive, since there does not appear to be any compelling reason to do so from a Biblical, philosophical or experiential standpoint.

Do you think it is remotely possible that predestination and freedom are not mutually exclusive?

I am honestly amazed that anyone can have so strong an assurance in ruling out the mere possibility (that God could possibly establish His sovereignty and our choices in a compatibilistic way) that they would even cast accusations of “irrationalism” at those who do affirm it.

By the way, I have never argued that it is virtuous to accept things that don’t make sense. My clearly stated position is that it is sensible for Christians to accept all the teaching of the Scriptures – the whole counsel of God – even if they find some aspects hard to understand or explain.

However, I would challenge anyone to Biblically and logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to use compatibilism in His administration of the universe. In essence, can you show me how the concept of God’s pre-determination of everything and the concept of human freedom, when taken together, result in a genuine contradiction?

I am not asking whether these concepts strike you as contradictory, if they feel contradictory, if they appear to be contradictory, etc. (or even if you find the idea to be dangerous from a practical standpoint). I am only asking for Biblical and logical proof that they ARE contradictory.

The person who tries to do this faces a very significant problem: GOD is included in the equation! We are discussing a partly unrevealed relationship of metaphysical concepts which involves God’s management of His creation, the relationships of time and eternity, God and humanity (not to mention angels/demons and other entities we may not even know about), choice and freedom, responsibility and volition, etc.

My contention is that the best Biblical and logical sense we can make of the situation (taking all of the Biblical data and our own experiences into account) is to affirm that God mysteriously works (and remember, by “mysterious” I mean something He hasn’t explicitly revealed to us) in such a way that human freedom exists in harmony with divine pre-determination.

I also believe that one can make a much stronger Biblical argument for compatibilism than for incompatibilism. But that is part of the reason I am a compatibilist.

As an addendum, I share many of your concerns regarding the potential ill effects of an imbalanced Calvinism. Much of this can be characterized as hyper Calvinism (I sometimes refer to “high[per] Calvinism,” meaning anyone, whether “high” or “hyper” in his views, who over-emphasizes certain logical implications at the expense of other matters clearly revealed in Scripture). I am not saying all High Calvinists are hyper or imbalanced; but imbalanced Calvinists are almost always High or hyper in their theology.

This is part of the reason I have embraced Moderate Calvinism, and devoted myself to deterring and opposing any form of Calvinism which:

• denies or downplays human responsibility
• calls God the author or direct cause of evil
• uses God’s sovereignty as an excuse for sin
• hinders evangelism/missions on the basis of election or other theological considerations
• leads to apathy in service and devotion
• elevates human logic above the revealed will of God

To be honest, I would rather serve alongside a consecrated, moderate, and fair-minded Arminian who is growing in godliness than a cold high(per) Calvinist who is complacent and arrogant. 

In my view, Calvinism “done right” will actually result in the opposite effects, and to a greater extent than any non-Calvinist philosophy will. That is my conviction, and part of the reason I am a Moderate/Paradoxical Calvinist.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments and interactions.

Does God Ordain Everything that Occurs? Sure He Does!

Someone has recently posted a long list of quotations from various Calvinists (and one or two hypers) in order to "prove" that Calvinists believe God ordains all events, including evil ones. He also expresses his strong disapproval of this theology. The list of quotations, found here, is actually a great resource for Calvinists (assuming they can bear with the author's misleading comments, which are interspersed throughout).

Here is the response I posted:

Thank you for sharing this great collection of quotes and your thoughts on them. 

I can certainly understand not liking what you believe to be the unavoidable logical implications of Calvinistic theology. Fair enough. I hope you won’t mind my asking a few follow up questions. 

1. So, you deny that all events are ordained by God, correct? And your primary reason is that certain objectionable events have occurred, and you cannot conceive of a good God ordaining those events, correct? I want to be sure I am accurately understanding your position. 

2. Okay, assuming I have understood you correctly, what are the alternatives? 

• Does God ordain any events? Which ones?
• What are the primary differences between “ordained” and “non-ordained” events?
• Is God aware of “non-ordained” events before they occur? Or does He learn about them as they happen?
• Can anything outside of God (i.e., creation) exist without His initial creative action to “ordain” its existence? If not, how do we separate this initial “ordaining” action on God’s part from the creature’s subsequent actions, so as to say that God in no sense “caused” or “ordained” some of the creature’s actions? At what point do a creature’s actions begin to be “non-ordained”?
• What is the relationship between “ordained” and “non-ordained” events? Do some “ordained” events depend on “non-ordained” events (e.g., does the “ordained” event, forgiveness, depend on the “non-ordained” event, sin)? How does God “ordain” the good events without “ordaining” the evil ones that must occur in advance?
• Does God have the power and authority to prevent “non-ordained” events?
• If God foresees and allows an event, is He not in some sense “ordaining” its occurrence?
• Do “non-ordained” events happen in such a way that God cannot be said to maintain any control over them, i.e. to cause, allow, or prevent them?
• If these events cannot be caused, allowed, or prevented by God, what is His relationship to them? Does He have any authority or power over them?
• In what sense can any event occur outside of God’s ultimate oversight and authority? Does He maintain any sovereignty over these events, and in what sense? 

I don’t expect you to answer all of these questions. My intent is simply to show that it is easier to object to Reformed theology’s answers than it is to propose a well thought out and Biblically grounded alternative. 

Thanks again, and have great weekend. 

Blessings,
Derek Ashton

Anyone who thinks deeply about these matters will quickly run into paradoxes. Is there a better solution than a Biblically faithful, Calvinistic compatibilism?