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

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 20 - Every Theologian In History

"No one should be surprised if a theologian falls into contradiction with himself at times—especially if he (or she) writes much over a very long period of time. I’m a historical theologian and have studied the theologies of virtually every major Christian theologian from Irenaeus to Pannenberg (and beyond). In every case I find some tension, some element of conflict within the theologian’s own system."

--Roger E. Olson, source

I do not think Dr. Olson's intention in making this comment was to support the concept of theological paradox, especially since he has written disparagingly of that subject in the past. Although his statement was probably intended to say something about the natural human inconsistency which we all share, it may point to something much more significant.

Is it possible that a universal element of logical tension exists because there is an inherent limitation within "human reason" that prevents us from successfully systematizing the infinite? Is it possible that we are trying to squeeze timeless realities into temporal containers? Could we be working with eternal truths that do not arrange neatly into the categories we are working with and assuming by our human limitations?

Just a thought.

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

Trying Triablogue

Some readers may recall an unfortunate scuffle I had with some of the authors at Triablogue sometime back. Not worth going into in detail at this point.

I have read Triablogue occasionally in the aftermath of that incident, and have concluded that readers may find some value in some of the items posted there. Although it was not possible to achieve reconciliation (or at least some kind of manly agreement) with the site's primary author, it is probably wise to simply overlook any offense that may have existed. 

One of the key points of contention was my insistence that the author should stop labeling his posts about Moderate Calvinism with the misleading "Anti-Calvinism," and my suggestion that he should save that label for posts dealing with folks who are not fellow Calvinists and who actually oppose Calvinistic theology. At the time, this seemed kind of obvious and easy to correct. I have not seen the egregious labeling error repeated since that time, so I'll assume the author took my friendly advice to heart.

Thus, without giving an unreserved recommendation of the site, today I'll rescind my previous advice of generally avoiding it. As an example of something useful at Triablogue, you may enjoy this recent post by a "mystery" author who responds cogently (and gently) to an argument advanced by Roger Olson. Appropriately, it carries the label of "Anti-Calvinism."

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/05/helping-roger-olson-become-even-more.html

Divine Decrees, Election and Hell: A Moderate Calvinist Viewpoint

In the last post, I referenced a then ongoing discussion I was having with Roger Olson. As this pleasant discussion continued, we turned to the topic of hell. The reality of eternal punishment tends to provoke deep thought. The text below is excerpted from my response to Dr. Olson, and represents my best attempt to briefly explain my Calvinistic view of the topic. This is one person's attempt to theorize about how the Biblical data can fit together within a Calvinist framework, and of course a lot of additional clarifications would be needed for this to be a fully satisfying effort. My proposal follows some other Calvinist thinkers and carefully distances from others. The primary aim here is to understand how it is possible for a Reformed approach to extol God's total goodness while affirming His total control over all things. Some of my high Calvinist friends (you know who you are!) will undoubtedly find this view too "soft." I have to admit that I still have a lot of questions about my own view and am still puzzled by much of this at the end of the day. These matters are lofty, and much too wonderful for me.

In my brand of Calvinism (which is admittedly not “high, federal Calvinism”, but historic/moderate), although we unabashedly affirm that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, we do not view good and evil as decreed symmetrically. In other words, while God ultimately intends to allow evil to occur, and to use it for His good purposes, He is also strictly separated from evil in significant ways, as follows:

• He does not commit evil Himself (actually, He can not); However, He is directly involved in good whenever it occurs (He can do good only)

• He never acts as the direct or proximate cause of evil; However, He is always and only the direct or proximate cause of good

• He only intends evil in a passive way; However, He actively intends good

• note: these distinctions also serve as an explanation of why we do not rejoice in the evil that we view as divinely ordained

To illustrate, we say that election is solely a “positive” decree. It is God’s decision, from eternity, to do good (savingly) to certain hopeless sinners. God does not “positively” decide to condemn the others; He decides to allow many (or perhaps most) sinners to voluntarily condemn themselves. Thus reprobation is nothing more than the absence of election. 

Further, although God does not choose to ordain the salvation of all sinners, He positively decrees to give life, breath, food, water, possessions, and many other kindnesses to all people in spite of their rebellion against Him. This is Common Grace. Although God “hates” sinners for their wickedness (Ps. 11:5), He “loves” them as His creatures (Ps. 145:8-9, 13, 17). 

Similarly, our theology views hell as neither a mere concession to evil, nor as a mere utility for revealing God’s glory. It is viewed as a deeply tragic yet glorious conquest of evil by justice. Hell is unspeakably tragic in that a portion of those made in God’s image break fellowship with Him forever. Yet it is glorious in that all unrepented evil is justly and eternally condemned. 

Although God ultimately “decreed” the outcome, those condemned were condemned by their own will, and voluntarily. Having unregenerated hearts, they preferred their own condemnation to God’s holy presence; they preferred the caustic sting of justice to the mercy sincerely offered; they called out for the rocks to fall on them to escape from the presence of a Little Lamb. 

Thus, hell’s condemnation is viewed as passively ordained (one might even say as a “concession” to the creature’s will); however, hell as an enactment of divine justice is viewed as positively ordained, and as good triumphing over evil. This approach represents an extension of the same compatibilistic reasoning we apply to the story of Joseph, the appointment of wicked Cyrus as God’s servant, and the death of Christ on the Cross. In each case, God ordained evil and intended good simultaneously. The evil was done voluntarily by the creature; the good was done purposefully by God.

An Irenic Discussion of Arminianism and (Moderate) Calvinism

For the last week, I have been enjoying a healthy and deeply interesting dialogue about Calvinism and Arminianism with Dr. Roger Olson on his blog site. This has been an occasional but ongoing conversation since he first started blogging back in July of 2010. Although we are poles apart on a number of theological issues, Dr. Olson has been gracious in his dealings with me as an "opponent." I am including our back and forth comments below for the benefit of curious folks who want to know whether this can even be done . . . and for contentious folks who don't think it can be done. I am also posting this because it contains defenses of key Moderate Calvinist stances regarding theological paradox, compatibilism, the extent of the atonement, God's decrees, and other matters.

As followers (and representatives) of Christ, we must be unified in our love for one another, even if we are not unified on every point of doctrine. It's more important for Calvinists and Arminians to love one another than to "defeat" one another.

See it all here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/calvinism-and-the-god-as-author-analogy/#comments

1. 
   
2. Derek Ashton says:
   December 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm
   Dr. Olson,

   Interesting topic here! Speaking for myself as a more-or-less Piper-esque Calvinist (and not implying that he would claim my views), I want to address the line of reasoning some previous commenters have chosen. Specifically, I would like to address the idea of taking certain tenets of Calvinism to their “logical conclusion.”

   It is worth noting that the Desiring God article linked in your post is a good bit more in-depth and honest about the tensions than many of your readers may realize. I would also suppose that Calvinists in general have much more sophisticated views than the “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” approach which seems to be a “straw man of choice” in this thread. In itself, the term compatibilism implies that “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” is insufficient to describe the viewpoint to which compatibilistic Calvinists adhere. In fact, the term contains an implicit denial of “determinism taken to its logical conclusion.”

   Compatibilism certainly involves some mystery and tension. But let’s be honest–all Christians embrace logical tensions to some degree. Take the statement, “Jesus is God” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny essentials like the virgin birth, the humanity of Christ, the death of Christ (and therefore the resurrection), etc. because God can’t “logically” be born, be a creature, die, etc. Take “Jesus is a human being” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny His deity, eternality, etc. Such reasoning is obviously not valid (at least not for Christians), yet I see no difference between this and the kind of reasoning contained in some of the comments above (note that I am not saying anyone here is not a Christian; only that the reasoning employed is invalid for Christians). Many core doctrines of the Christian faith contain this kind of tension, and it would not be proper to take one facet of the doctrine to its “logical conclusion” without overlaying and nuancing through appeals to other aspects of the doctrine. Let’s not sugar coat this, or pretend that every aspect of every Christian doctrine can properly be “taken to its logical conclusion.”

   One could ostensibly take selected portions of the ancient creeds and use them to argue against the truths contained in other portions of the same creeds. Even Arius would have agreed with parts of the Nicene creed; then, by taking them to their “logical conclusion,” he would have argued against the other parts. Arius took portions of the Biblical teaching to their “logical conclusion” without embracing other portions because, in his mind, it would not logically make sense to do so. Is there not a danger in this kind of reasoning, which seems to make human understanding, rather than God’s Word, the ultimate measure of the Truth. Arius was, after all, a genuine heretic on both Calvinist and Arminian terms.

   What I appreciate in the writings of compatibilistic Calvinists like Piper is a willingness to honestly accept all of the Biblical data, even when it goes beyond the ability of the human mind to reconcile all of the ensuing tension. While I admire the rigorous commitment to logic on the part of many Arminians, I have yet to find one that (to my satisfaction, at least) admits all of the Biblical testimony into the system. For me, losing precious Biblical propositions is worse than having inexplicable holes in the system. And with that said, I am a Calvinist today because I do not find a more logically consistent system that takes in all of the Biblical data. I easily find more logically consistent systems that don’t take it in. For me, it’s Sola Scriptura first, and then the fun part of working out the logic as far as possible.

   Note: I am not saying Arminians don’t believe the Bible; I am saying their system, especially as represented in this thread, seems to inconsistently elevate human logic in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of Providence while readily accepting the logical tensions of the Incarnation and other orthodox doctrines. No Arminian says of the humanity of Christ: “Whatever the Bible means in those passages, it can’t mean that!”

   Finally, to answer your questions in the post, I would take the position that evil does not become good simply because God ordains it. It would never become a ground for rejoicing simply because God ordained it. Our sadness at the atrocities in this world may in fact reflect God’s own heart and mind in the matter. However, along with Him, we rejoice exuberantly in all of the good that He ultimately brings about through the evil that is done. Per Romasn 8:28.

   To illustrate this in a more personal way: by God’s grace, I hate and abhor my own sins. I am deeply saddened and shamed by them. Yet I also rejoice in the forgiveness and grace that I could never have experienced if I was sinless. I don’t love being a sinner; but I love being redeemed from sin! Yet I couldn’t have been redeemed if I had never been a sinner. Thus, as a forgiven perpetrator of heinous crimes against a holy God and His creatures, my Calvinistic theology lines up perfectly with my experience and what I find in the Scriptures. If anything, a true Calvinist will ask God for MORE feelings of moral repugnance against evil. And at the same time he will ask for more JOY in God’s good grace as well. All of this lies right at the heart of Jesus’ teaching: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Apparently He believes in paradoxes, too.

   A happy New Year to all, and much joy in Christ!

   Derek Ashton
   Reply
   • rogereolson says:
     December 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm
     Derek, I always appreciate your civility even when we sharply disagree. You will not be surprised to read me say that, in my opinion, it is Calvinism that seeks logical consistency over biblical fidelity. I will point this time to only one example: limited atonement (which I realize some Calvinists reject but which seem to be part and parcel of what you call eloquently “Piper-esque” Calvinism). As I have explained in Against Calvinism, the high Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement must ignore much Scripture. Of course, I think you would agree, neither side in this debate really “ignores” any Scripture. What we are calling ignoring is really interpreting in a non-natural sense. I hope you will agree that no intelligent Arminian literally “ignores” any of Scripture. What we do is interpret Scripture differently (than Calvinists). So, to be fair, I don’t believe any informed, intelligent Calvinist literally ignores any of Scripture. What happens, in my opinion, is that much of Scripture is interpreted in non-natural ways in order to make it fit with the system. I’m sure you would admit that’s what you really mean when you say non-Calvinist systems of theology overlook or ignore crucial passages of Scripture. In my opinion, limited atonement does exactly what Piper argues we must NOT do in his long footnote about Clark Pinnock in (I think) Desiring God. He argues that Pinnock believes some things because Scripture allows it and logic requires it. I can’t believe any Christian does otherwise. We all believe some things because logic (or evidence) requires it and Scripture allows it. That’s how I view limited atonement. I don’t say Calvinists who believe in it ignore or overlook Scripture; I say they take something they believe (e.g., unconditional election of some sinners and irresistible grace granted to them only) and force it to its logical conclusion (limited atonement) and then interpret Scriptures no non-Calvinist would interpret this way as supporting limited atonement. As for your explanation of your feelings about evils God ordains I will just say I can’t even imagine living with that level of cognitive dissonance. If I came to believe that God ordained and rendered certain an event such that he manipulated the thoughts and motives that sinfully caused it I would have to celebrate all of that and not isolate the good results and celebrate only them. That seems absurd to me. I realize it doesn’t to you. However, I thank you for joining the discussion. Your Calvinist voice is always most welcome here because you are not insulting or uncivil. I wonder if you would answer this question I have put to many Calvinists without satisfactory answers? From where did the first evil inclination come?
     Reply
     • Derek Ashton says:
       December 31, 2012 at 4:36 am
       Dr. Olson,

       Thank you for your very kind words.

       I actually agree with what you mentioned concerning non-natural exegesis used in support of limited atonement. My views on that topic are more in line with Richard Baxter (and many other puritans, including numerous Westminster divines), R.L. Dabney, William G.T. Shedd, Bruce Ware, and (I suppose) John Calvin. I am drawn to the moderate historical stream within Calvinism whose adherents are apt to take texts such as I John 2:2 at face value. I disagree at least partly with Piper’s approach on this.

       There are admittedly those on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian spectrum who engage in system-driven exegesis (and some on both sides who tend not to, thankfully). One of the arguments I have made to fellow Calvinists is that they should take a more moderate view on limited atonement simply because it fits more consistently with God’s universal love/saving desire for all people (which is strongly affirmed by Piper) and the free offer of the Gospel (also strongly affirmed by Piper). These mainstream Calvinist essentials, which unfortunately aren’t conveyed well by the TULIP acronym, logically argue for a less limited atonement than most of today’s vocal Calvinists are promoting.

       Concerning the doctrine of Providence, I don’t think a Reformed view requires that God “manipulates the thoughts and motives” behind sinful actions. All mainstream Calvinists retain, at the very least, the concept of “unconstrained” and “voluntary” creaturely actions (thus no one is “manipulated” under normal conditions). This is one of the critical distinctions entailed in compatibilism. Of course, I understand that this quibble probably doesn’t make the Reformed approach any more attractive for committed Arminians.

       Your question about the first evil inclination certainly provokes thought. My Biblicist side wants to say Scripture leaves this entirely in the realm of mystery. And that is probably the best place for me to leave it, as much as I would like to speculate. Do you see Open Theism, Arminianism, Molinism or any other non-Calvinist system answering this in a more satisfying way?

       You probably know that Augustine danced around with this question in the Enchiridion, chapters 10-23. His answers are paradoxical: God only created good; evil is a corruption/privation of that good; thus evil cannot exist apart from good, while good can exist apart from evil; anything totally evil would cease to exist because in it there would be no good thing left to corrupt with evil; thus a being cannot be evil without also being good in some sense.

       Augustine’s answer is sensible enough, but still leaves your question unanswered. What prompted the initial privation of good? I suppose only God truly knows.

       Blessings,
       Derek
       Reply
       • rogereolson says:
         December 31, 2012 at 10:11 pm
         Derek, I always appreciate your irenicism (which doesn’t in any way dilute your strongly held theology). The problem I have with any Calvinist appealing to mystery when faced with the question of the source of the first evil inclination is the typical Calvinist doctrine of providence which, according to my understanding of it, anyway, excludes anything real (and even evil, though a privation of the good only, is real in that it exists) from escaping God’s ordination. Surely, if God is as all-determining and controlling as most Calvinist theologians assert (e.g., Helm and Sproul), then nothing, not even the first evil inclination, can fall outside God’s plan and determination. The way most Calvinists have handled this (including Edwards) is to say that God brought it about by withholding the grace needed for the creature not to develop an evil inclination. Edwards admits that this amounts to making God the author of sin and evil in a restricted sense. God, he argues, is not the cause of them, but, like everything else, they only exist because God desires them to and renders them certain. (I have expounded this and documented it in Against Calvinism.) It seems to me a key difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (and this difference existed also between, say, Luther and the Anabaptists) is that one side sees evil as having purpose above, higher than the purpose of the creature (e.g., selfishness). It has divine purpose, ultimate purpose. The other side regards evil as a surd, lacking any purpose at all. God can bring good out of it, but it has no divine purpose behind it. God never intended for it to come into existence. The problem with the first view, it seems to me, is that, from an ultimate perspective, evil is not really evil. Anyway, that is how I would have to regard it did I hold that view.
         Reply
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 2, 2013 at 10:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           I see your point, and this is truly an important difference, as you noted. On Calvinistic terms, no event (including the first evil) can ever be viewed as non-ordained or unforeseen by God. He could not have been “surprised” when the first evil occurred.

           However, does the classical Arminian approach really view evil as entirely purposeless? It would seem that God’s omniscience entails an awareness on His part of every evil that ever will or can occur, and His omnipotence would include the ability to prevent or allow it. If this is so, then He must maintain ultimate control over evil (and therefore have some kind of purpose in allowing it). If not, He could choose not to allow it.

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm
           Purposeless in terms of intentionality. Of course God had a purpose in allowing it. The difference lies in intentionality. In Calvinism, as I understand it (having read scores of books by Calvinists including Calvin himself), every event is foreordained and rendered certain by God for a specific purpose. God intends it to happen, not just to permit it to happen (Calvin rejected the language of permission in discussing divine providence). In Arminian theology we distinquish between two wills of God: antecedent (in which evil does not exist at all) and consequent (in which God permits evil in order not to control creatures so that they can only do what he intends for them to do). Thus, in Arminian theology, evil has no purpose in God’s overall plan. It happens. God deals with it, overcoming it and, when possible, bringing good out of it.
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 3, 2013 at 2:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           Thank you for explaining this in further detail; those are useful distinctions. Does this approach make the cross “plan B” rather than God’s original design?

           Much has been made of Calvin’s critique of divine “permission,” but he makes it clear that what he opposes is a “bare permission” by which God would relinquish His Lordship and Providence, and merely respond to human wills rather than rule over them.

           I really appreciate your taking time to discuss these matters with me. At the end of the day, we are fellow Christians. That is what counts!

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm
           Thanks, Derek. I always enjoy having dialogue with you. But, as I’m sure you have noticed, we tend to go around in circles–always returning to the same questions and answers and differences. I wonder to what extent our basic differences (also between most evangelical Calvinists and evangelical Arminians) are a matter of perspective? I’m not relativizing the matter because I do believe one of us is right and the other wrong (or we’re both wrong). But I’m continually puzzled by how equally sincere, God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, reasonable people can see God’s sovereignty in Scripture so differently? To answer your question. I don’t think of the cross as “Plan B” in the ordinary sense because, as a classical Arminian (not an open theist) I think God knew all along what was going to happen. I do think the cross is part of God’s consequent will, not God’s antecedent will. But just in case you have difficulty with that, think about the fact that ONLY (not shouting, just emphasizing) a supralapsarian can really say that the cross is God’s “Plan A,” part of God’s antecedent will. An infralapsarian (most Calvinists) will also have the same challenge (from a supralapsarian) as you give me. I once asked John Piper about this, hoping to trap him (we were having a very irenic, civil discussion but he was trying to trap me, too–into affirming open theism) and he said he “might be” a supralapsarian. He indicated he was leaning in that direction. I think that would be the way anyone would have to go if they affirm that the cross is “Plan A” in the sense of logically preceding God’s decree to permit the fall. What do you think? Can an infralapsarian say that the cross is God’s “Plan A” in the sense you mean–”God’s original design?”
       • Derek Ashton says:
         January 5, 2013 at 10:02 pm
         Dr. Olson,

         Yes, I have noticed that our discussions (and most between Calvinists and Arminians) seem to always take the same turns. It is easy to get frustrated with this and start pressing harder (or louder) in an effort to get things resolved. But I doubt it is necessary to get past the differences; perhaps just understand them better. That is what I most appreciate about our dialogues. You have been involved in this discussion with many different Calvinists and for a good while, so your restraint in this regard is very much appreciated. It says much about your character.

         Regarding your question, I believe the cross was/is “Plan A,” but not because of supralapsarian leanings. Some infralapsarians would take all of the decrees together and call that, collectively, “Plan A.” From this standpoint, every Calvinist can (and should) view the cross as “Plan A” or God’s original design. This is perhaps similar to your approach in the comment above, which seems to take God’s antecedent and consequent will(s) together as “Plan A.” The move seems warranted in both cases, and perhaps points to an important similarity between the two schools of thought when backed into the same corner!

         As a side note, I like the approach taken by R.L. Dabney, who said the following (so much better than I can say it):

         “… he who apprehends the action of the infinite mind reasonably and scripturally at once, sees that, while the sublapsarian is right in his spirit and aim, both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which should never have been raised. As God’s thought and will do not exist in his consciousness in parts, so they involve no sequence, neither the one nor the other. The decree which determines so vast a multitude of parts is itself a unit. The whole all-comprehending thought is one coëtaneous intuition; the whole decree one act of will. But in virtue of the very consistency and accuracy of the divine plan, and infinity of the divine knowledge, facts destined to emerge out of one part of the plan, being present in thought to God, enter into logical relation to other parts of the same plan. As the plan is God’s thought, no part precedes any other. But none the less those parts which are destined to be, in execution, prior and posterior, stand in their just causal relations in his thinking. One result decreed is to depend on another result decreed. But as the decree is God’s consciousness, all is equally primary. Thus there will be neither supra- nor infra-lapsarian, and no room for their debate.” (This is from Dabney’s essay entitled, God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, as Related to His Power, Wisdom and Sincerity)

         While slightly more sympathetic to the infralapsarian position, Dabney stands with a number of other Calvinists in the moderate stream who disparaged the lapsarian debates in general. In their view, the whole project goes well beyond the bounds of Scripture and involves us in questions that are ultimately unanswerable (or at least defy systematization). Herman Bavinck was another notable representative of this viewpoint.

         So it would appear that we can both agree that the cross is viewed as God’s original design from each of our perspectives. Now, please don’t take the following as an attempt to “trap” you (and I doubt I could successfully trap you, anyhow) . . . but does this put you in the position affirming that evil, in general, was also part of “Plan A,” or God’s original design? And would this not make evil “intentional” and “purposeful” from the divine perspective, even if taken as God’s consequent will? Finally, does this potentially put us in the same boat as far as theodicy is concerned? Maybe the differences can be illustrated more succinctly in this attempted summation:

         ***The Calvinist says God (in His secret, sovereign will) deliberately decrees to permit evil (for a purpose), and every evil is used for the greater good.
         ***The Arminian says God (in His consequent will) knowledgeably chooses to permit evil (for a purpose?), and some evils are used for the greater good.

         Both are taking measures to maintain that God is not directly “responsible” or “culpable” for the evil that occurs. Yet both view evil as God’s “will” in some sense. However, if my summations above are correct, Calvinism more satisfactorily vindicates God’s permission of evil by putting every evil to good use. For Calvinists, this is part of what is meant by “works all things together for good” in Romans 8:28.

         Blessings,
         Derek
         Reply

Five "Conundrums" of Calvinism - A Second Response

Following are Scot McKnight's sketches of Roger Olson's objections to Calvinism and a few brief responses.
  

CONUNDRUM #1 - How can God have absolute divine sovereignty and humans be genuinely responsible?

  

Is this really a conundrum? If God is absolutely sovereign, surely He is able to create beings that are genuinely responsible! His sovereignty can't be construed as hindering Him from being able to do this. The question fails to take its own premise into consideration. A less-than-sovereign God would be limited this way, but not the supremely sovereign God of the Bible.

 

Furthermore, how can God be GOD and not have absolute divine sovereignty? Could He truly be God and possess only limited or partial sovereignty? The question seems absurd and unworthy of God.

 

CONUNDRUM #2 - How can God determine everything and anything be evil? That is, if everything is God’s will, and God is good, everything is good or at least nothing is evil. This includes rape, child abuse and hell.

 

This question presents a false dichotomy. Why can't God will both good and evil in different ways and to different ends? If God wills that an evil thing should occur (not from Himself directly, but through a creature acting freely), and then acts with just judgment to remedy the situation, isn't this good? It does not mean the evil was good, but the evil was a means to a greater good that could not have existed if the evil had never happened. Once this is understood, the rest is a matter of trust.

 

As a side note, hell is not necessarily evil. Inasmuch as it is a just judgment against actual crimes (such as rape and child abuse), hell is an expression of God's goodness. Hell is the place for evil to be judged, but that does not make it evil. Hell is a just (and therefore good) response to evil. There can be no doubt that hell is a sad reality, but it is neither unjust nor evil in and of itself. The very fact that someone would label God's just judgment of sin as something "evil" reveals a deep misunderstanding of the Biblical teaching.

 

CONUNDRUM #3 - How can anything injure God’s glory if God wills everything? Even unbelief, even heresy, even sin.

 

In one sense, nothing can possibly "injure" God's eternal glory. This is the meaning of the doctrine of impassibility. In another sense, there is a kind of theology that fails to reflect the true glory of God because it credits man for God's work. The effect of this theology is to hinder the soul of man from reaching its highest attainment: loving and glorifying God. Such theology can harm man, but it does not injure God. God's ordination of any theology that is less than Biblical can be regarded as an act of judgment against those who do not love the truth. It doesn't hurt or diminish God's glory; rather, it hurts those who embrace it. The same is true of heresy and sin and unbelief. We help our own souls by abandoning such things - yet we are not somehow "helping" God in the process. We are simply acknowledging the Truth about Him - and this is to our own benefit as well.

Bad theology only injures God's glory in the minds and hearts of those who hold it. It doesn't bring actual harm to God. So, be an Arminian if you want to hurt yourself. But don't ever believe that any Calvinist thinks you are hurting God by doing so.

CONUNDRUM #4 - How can God’s saving some and passing over others and [sic] be good and loving and gracious? [Olson thinks God chooses on the basis of foreknowledge.]

 

Can we sum up "good and loving and gracious" as equivalent to "merciful"? If we can, then God answers the question this way: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." God doesn't owe any sinner anything, so His just judgment in releasing sinners to judgment is good. He gives generously to all - even those who reject Him - so His love cannot be called into question. He forgives all of His enemies who turn to Him in faith, so His grace is beyond doubt. I don't see how the Calvinistic approach leaves any room for a believer to question God's love. Perhaps it leaves room for an unbeliever to question God's love, but that is the very reason the person remains an unbeliever: he doesn't trust in the love God has for him, therefore he doesn't turn his heart toward God and benefit from the provision God has made for his salvation.

 

CONUNDRUM #5 - How can God be good and ordain evil actions in this world?

 

How can God be GOD and not ordain all that exists and all that occurs? How can God be just and save a hell-deserving fool like me? Only by the cross. Before the cross God forgave sin, and how could those Old Testament saints ever explain the apparent contradiction in this? They didn't need to explain it. They needed to trust God. And those who trusted Him were justified on the basis of a sacrifice that hadn't yet occurred. Yet God ordained the evil actions that would lead to the sacrifice of His own Son in order to save all who trust in Him. Arminians should trust God more and stop asking silly questions. There are many things not yet revealed.

 
Don't get me wrong. I love Arminians, used to be one myself, and think there are many godly brothers in that camp. I have great admiration for certain Arminians. I also think a lot of Calvinists are wasting their great theology on loose living and apathy. May God resurrect the Calvinistic power and passion of men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Newton, Richard Baxter and John Bunyan in our day! But perish the thought that anyone should abandon the clear teaching of Scripture over these supposed "conundrums" presented by Drs. McKnight and Olson.

As I see it, the bigger conundrums belong to Arminians:

How can a mere man tell God that He can't have absolute sovereignty without robbing man of responsibility?

How can a mere man tell God that He can't ordain evil for His own good purposes?

How can a mere man tell God He isn't allowed to choose whom He will mercifully save and whom He will justly condemn? (Isn't it ironic that Arminianism takes away God's freedom of choice?)

How can a mere man tell God that His goodness renders His ordination of all things impossible? As if God is not permitted to ordain certain things, and as if some things have to occur quite apart from God's sovereign ordaining.

A Response to Scot McKnight Regarding Roger Olson's "5 Conundrums of Calvinism"

Scot McKnight, who says he abandoned Calvinism for an Anabaptist-flavored Pietism, recently posted and commented on Roger Olson's "5 Conundrums of Calvinism." McKnight makes this astounding claim:

"There are often better, non-Calvinist explanations, and the Calvinist appeal to conundrum, or antinomy, masks the illogic and fails to deal with the more adequate rational, logical answer of others. Divine determinism and meticulous providence create more problems for God’s character than they solve problems. Divine self-limitation and human free will are better, more rational explanations."

Really? Does McKnight truly think the Bible leaves those options open? I don't mean to be harsh, but one can only reach this conclusion by miniaturizing God, exalting man, and playing fast-and-loose with Scripture. It is better to have philosophical conundrums on our hands and remain uncompromising with Scripture than to construct pretend "explanations" of the Word of God using mere man-made speculation. I responded as follows:

First, It is obvious that God self-limits (however, His self-limiting - or condescension, divine humility, etc. - is itself an expression of His eternal glory). For a Calvinist, there is no problem in any of that. The major problem, in fact, is not that God self-limits, but that human beings self-exalt. For example, we magnify ourselves by imagining that we can devise better "logical" explanations for the philosophical conundrums created by the Bible rather than simply accepting God's own testimony and admitting we are limited in our logic, information and understanding. We don't particularly like God's testimony because it leaves a lot of holes and seems to create logical conflicts. Our rationalistic minds demand resolution; we don't want to live in the lowliness of our own limits, or the discomfort of mysteries and paradoxes. We easily commit the error of filling in the gaps with our own thoughts. However, because the contradictions themselves are only apparent, the resolutions we create are also only apparent. They are a mirage designed to make us feel better - but in reality we have solved nothing. There was nothing to solve because God never saw any conflict between the two sides we supposedly resolved (e.g. His meticulous sovereignty and our freedom of choice). In fact, if we "solved" the apparent problem by contradicting a single Biblical proposition, we only succeeded in creating a bigger problem for ourselves! 

Second, it is true that "explanations" have been devised which fill in the logical gaps left by the Bible. However, I daresay this has only been done at the expense of the Bible. There is no way to take ALL of the Bible at full face value without accepting a great deal of mystery and some degree of paradox or antinomy. We stand in great danger of overstepping whenever we begin to demand answers to questions God Himself has left unanswered. 

In conclusion, I remain a Calvinist because it is the only system I know of that allows me to give full credit to God's revelation in the Bible without delving presumptuously into the matters He has not revealed. At the same time, the Reformed system leaves me the freedom to explore philosophical matters with the understanding that I am only thinking the lowly thoughts of a man - so I can rest in God's wisdom even when I can't get it all figured out "logically." It teaches me to take my own thoughts less seriously, and God's thoughts with absolute confidence. If my system is criticized because it doesn't answer all of the questions to the satisfaction of a fallen human being, I can live with that. 

I believe any true Pietist can and should find such an arrangement refreshingly humbling. Pietists and Calvinists ought to be the best of friends. :)

Response to Roger Olson: A More Biblical Analogy

Roger Olson has offered a challenge to Calvinists in this post: A Good Analagy to the ULI of TULIP.
.
In answer to his question: "Which scenario better fits the biblical data, our understanding of God’s character, and our sense of justice?" . . . I'd have to say, "Neither." 
.
The distorted Calvinistic scenario Olson borrows from William Klein reinforces my suspicion that even the most irenic Arminians really don't "get" Calvinism. Which reinforces my suspicion that real, Biblical Calvinism can only be grasped by revelation, not mere human reasoning. Fundamental to Olson's misconception is the fact that mankind did not merely put himself in a position to become spiritually dead through the fall - no, man killed himself through his transgression. Spiritual death is not something that is going to happen to sinful man; it is something that already has happened to Him. "For on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die."
.
Here is an alternative scenario with a more accurate Calvinism, complete with the "reversified" names:
.
1. The people now known as Srennis were once infinitely blessed by their Lord and Maker, Rotaerc, and enjoyed splendid fellowship with Him. For reasons no one can fathom, they decided to rebel against Him. As a result, they went insane and committed suicide, one and all alike.

2. Rotaerc loves the Srennis greatly, but He respects their freely made choice to kill themselves out of their sheer irrational hatred for Him.

3. Rotaerc sends a miracle-working Hero named Susej to the Srennis. The Hero raises 40% of them from the dead. As they awaken, they are at first deeply ashamed of their inexcusible rebellion and wish only to die again. But the Hero's assistant, Tirips, assures every one of them individually that Susej has paid an immeasurable price for their transgression, and they are fully forgiven. Then, as Tirips whispers reassuringly to them, they raise their heads with delight to look upon the Hero's luminous countenance and find rest for their hearts in His grace-filled eyes. They are so grateful and captivated that they never take their eyes off of the Hero again.

4. In their peripheral vision, the Srennis can still see the carnage around them, and each one realizes he could have been - and by any just measure should have been - left dead like the others. The Hero looks upon the Srennis with deep compassion and tells them not to fear, for they are His chosen and His beloved. Each one marvels that the Hero has chosen to bring him to life, and is mystified as to why he would be the undeserving recipient of such amazing kindness. And the Hero gives the Srennis a new name: Srennis-Devas!

5.  Through His assistant, Tirips, the Hero reveals the wonders of Rotaerc's undying love, and promises to lead the Srennis-Devas back to Him.  They follow the Hero onto a huge, brightly gleaming boat made of pure polished diamonds, provided by Rotaerc Himself. Susej takes them away to a new land where there is no possibility of rebellion or the horrible results it brings. As they travel, the Srennis-Devas remember how Susej looked with pity even on the dead, and how Tirips whispered to all of the dead and offered them water, even though they remained stone cold and unresponsive. Only 40% of the boat's capacity is filled, and some say they can hear the unmistakable sound of weeping from within the Captain's quarters.

6. The Srennis-Devas arrive safely in Rotaerc's land and rejoice with Him forever, basking in the glorious glow of their beloved Hero and Lord - His Son Susej - and enjoying blessed fellowship with Tirips the Holy. Although they do not know why Susej left many of their brothers dead, the Srennis-Devas do not accuse Him of injustice. Rather, they fall down breathless before His goodness and enduringly trust in His pure justice and mercy.

As is the case with all analogies, this one is not perfectly accurate and has limits. However, it's a sight better, more Biblical, more fitting to the concept of justice, and more like the character of God than the ones offered in Dr. Olson's blog post. Wouldn't you say so?

New "Arminocalvinist" Music Group Features Roger Olson and John Piper

At the risk of losing any credibility this blog might have gained in the last two and a half years, we now submit what some will certainly consider to be a profane and horrifying display of disrespect and worldliness. To such I would simply urge a loosening of the phylacteries.


Seeing as the rest of you have a sense of humor, you will probably enjoy this video featuring the irenic Arminian, Roger Olson, rocking out with some of our Calvinist friends at a local seeker church. This group calls itself "45:12", which apparently means "four 5-pointers and one 2-pointer." But some have hinted that the name might be a cryptic reference to Isaiah 45:12, sneaked in by Piper in an attempt to subliminally influence Olson toward meticulous sovereignty. Olson mentioned to me in a private conversation that he was aware of this plot, and was planning to write 3 books, published by 5 different publishers, in response. Piper will not be named explicitly in any of the books, but will rather be referred to as "a leading Baptist proponent of the Young, Restless, Reformed movement who has authored many books and pastors a big church in Minneapolis, whose name you would recognize . . ."


Piper says he knows that the group is controversial, but he is committed to reaching out to seekers. "I know some will say this is compromise, but I say, uh, 45:12 is all about sharing great contemporary music with the whole world - even seeker sensitive, um, for lack of a better word - false shepherds - who masquerade as Gospel preaching Evangelicals. But, as Roger would say, we have to keep the doors of the [finger quotes] big tent wide open for whatever heresy wants to call itself Evangelical."


Disclaimer #1: This is only a joke. None of this actually happened.
Disclaimer #2: Don't get too excited, Spurgeon has not been resurrected (yet).
Disclaimer #3: No, John MacArthur has not become charismatic (yet).
Disclaimer #4: No theologians were harmed in the making of this motion picture.

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Other Disclaimers

This is not an endorsement of rock music, "Christian" rock music, Roger Olson's theology, the "arminocalvinist" spectrum, infant baptism, men wearing wigs, contextualized Christianity, secular Christmas music, men's jewelry, bandanas, mega churches, or smoke machines. I do, however, endorse disco balls and sequin covered guitars.

Also, just to reassure his critics, Piper's antics in this video are not taken from actual footage.