Myths About Calvinism: There Are No Real Choices

The following article was written by Stephen Altrogge, and posted on his site, THE BLAZING CENTER.


Myths About Calvinism: There Are No Real Choices
By Stephen Altrogge 
Click here to see the original post at Stephen's site.

________________________________________________

Alright, I confess: I’m a Calvinist. Do you still like me? Will you still invite me over for you Super Bowl party? Will you still be my Facebook friend? Can we still do piano duets (I don’t play the piano, but if I did I would want to play duets)? I sure hope so.

But what exactly does it mean to be a Calvinist? There is a lot of confusion and misinformation and downright misrepresentation when it comes to Calvinism. Depending on who you talk to, a Calvinist is someone who:

1) Believes God hates everyone (see Westboro Baptist Church).

2) Believes God has chosen people to be saved, and no matter what a person does, nothing can change that choice.

3) Is grumpy, sour, and always making sure everyone else is obeying the rules.

4) Doesn’t believe in evangelism because God has already chosen people to be saved.

Over the next several posts I want to address several common myths regarding Calvinism, and explain how I, a Calvinist, respond to those myths.

The first, and probably most prevalent myth regarding Calvinism, has to do with free will and choices. The argument goes something like this: If God has predestined people to be saved then people don’t have a free will, and our choices for or against God are not real choices. 

I get this argument, I really do. In some ways, it’s the logical extension of the doctrine of predestination. If God does the choosing, that must mean we don’t do any real choosing. Am I right? After all, who can resist the will of the Almighty God?

Slight problem though: the Bible makes it crystal clear that God predestines people for salvation AND that every person is responsible to choose Jesus Christ. This is a paradox for which the Bible make no apologies, and a paradox which every true Calvinist gladly embraces.

Ephesians 1:4-6 says:

In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

I don’t know how much clearer you can get when it comes to the doctrine of election. If I am a Christian it is because God predestined me, before the ages began, to be adopted as a son. He did not predestine me because of anything good or bad I would do. He predestined me according to the purpose of his will. This fills me with gratefulness.

These kinds of words run throughout the entirety of Scripture. Romans 8:29-30 says:

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This passage forms an unbreakable chain. Before the foundation of the world God, foreknew those whom he would be predestine for salvation. Those whom he predestines are always called, those whom he calls are always justified, and those whom he justifies are always ultimately glorified. This is completely God’s doing. He gets all the credit and all the glory. From beginning to end, God does the saving. Scripture couldn’t be more clear on this subject.

But Scripture also makes it clear that every man and woman is responsible before God to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus began his ministry by proclaiming: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In Luke 5:31-32 Jesus said to the Pharisees:

Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

In Acts 2, after preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, Peter called his listeners to repentance:

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

True Calvinism embraces the unconditional election of God. The Bible makes no apologies for the fact that God elects specific men and women to be saved apart from any conditions within them. God is God, and he is free to do whatever he pleases. The clay cannot say to the Potter, “Why have you made me this way?”

True Calvinism also embraces the real need for repentance. This is not some sort of tricky word game God is playing. Every man and woman is commanded to turn from their sins and choose God. The choices we make for God or against God are real choices, and we will really be held accountable for those choices.

How do God’s sovereign, electing purposes, and man’s free will work together? I’m not sure. The Bible doesn’t spell it out in detail. It gives us some hints as to how they work together, but it doesn’t ever clearly answer the question. As a Calvinist, I fully embrace God’s sovereign perogative to choose whomever he pleases. I also fully embrace every person’s responsibility to repent. I find the following quotes from Charles Spurgeon helpful in this matter:

I believe that God will save his own elect. And I also believe that if I do not preach the gospel, the blood of men will be laid at my door.

I am quite certain that God has an elect people, for he tells me so in his word. And I am equally certain that everyone who comes to Christ shall be saved, for that also is his own declaration in the Scriptures. When people ask me how I reconcile these two truths, I usually say that there is no need to reconcile them, for they have never yet quarreled with one another.

The true Calvinist believes that election and free salvation do not quarrel with one another.

Particular and General: A Key Tension in Reformed Soteriology

Reformed soteriology is humble and grand enough to tolerate significant tensions. One evidence of this is its ability to view the overarching, eternal purpose of God in both general and particular ways. In doing so, it maintains a clear line of division between the generalities we can know and the particulars known to God alone. It views the particulars abstractly, as categories without content. For example, we know abstractly that God has sovereignly elected some (i.e., the "elect" as a category); but we do not know concretely who they are (i.e., the content of the "elect" category). At the very same time, Reformed soteriology views the generalities concretely, as partially categorized content (for example, we know the general truth that God loves and desires to save every living person, without exception). The Biblical Calvinist does not apply election in an unwarranted way; he does not use this truth to invalidate God's general love for the non-elect and His general desire to save all sinners. Election is specific to a subset of humanity, but God's love and saving desire are all-humanity-wide. God is love.

Let's imagine for a moment that we are speaking with two unbelievers. God knows that one of them is elect and is going to be brought to repentance, and He also knows that one of them will die in the stubbornness of his heart. For our part, we don't know which one of them is elect, or if both of them are elect, or if neither of them is elect. We don't know if either of them will repent and be saved. Even if they both appear to repent and believe, we won't know for certain that their conversions were genuine until we meet them in heaven. On earth, we can't know with absolute certainty that they are truly saved and will persevere to the end. Those are particulars that belong to God's own purpose and wisdom. 

What we can know for certain and by faith is this: God has a purpose for both of them. Both are created in God's image and are loved by Him. Both are enemies of God. Both, in their current state, would gladly choose an eternity in hell over intimate fellowship with their Creator. Both are sinners who need saving grace. God would be pleased greatly by the salvation of both, and He will also be pleased to display His justice if they remain His enemies and perish. If they repent, they will be saved. From the standpoint of generalities--from our human standpoint--both unbelievers are identical. In our eyes, both are potentially elect. But from God's standpoint--in His own omniscient knowledge of the particulars--they are very different. One is elect and will be brought to faith, and the other is destined for damnation. Even if we knew for certain that one of them was elect, we wouldn't have any way of knowing with any certitude which one it is. So unconditional election is a solid and certain truth, but it is equally a mystery.

So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. (Romans 9:18) 

High Tension Wires:
Very Powerful!

We can approach these two unregenerate souls with the sure knowledge that God elects, but not that God elected either of them in particular. We can approach them in the certain understanding that God will bring justice directly upon some human beings, but not in the sure knowledge that either of these sinners will have to personally bear the wrath he justly deserves. We can know that both of them are currently under the wrath of God, already condemned for their unbelief--yet neither of them has perished yet, so we can be hopeful about both of them. We know that both will perish if they do not repent. We know that Jesus bore the wrath of God, and we know that if either of these unsaved persons repents he will no longer be under God's wrath. He will pass from death to life and will be created anew in Christ. We look at these two people and see potentials, not particulars. We see conditions, not determinations. We see a process partly finished, but up to the point of our visible horizon neither one is differentiated from the other. In God's mind they may be different, but in our minds they cannot be. It is enough for us to know that God knows.

What happens when you remove
the tension from one side?

The great error of the hyper Calvinist is to attempt in his own mind a coalescence of the generalities and the particulars, so that they become one in his mind. He tries to know things he cannot know, and is forced to rely on his own senses to determine who is and is not elect. He seeks to preach God's love to the elect only, to communicate God's saving desire to the elect only, to preach the Gospel to the elect only. He tries to be as efficacious in his efforts as God is in His ordination of all things. Thus, the hyper Calvinist simultaneously exalts his own perceptions while oversimplifying the complexities of God's dispositions. He limits everything to the unknowable particulars, which he concretizes, having no room in his thinking for the generalities or the undefined abstractions. The inherent arrogance of this approach should be obvious. The lopsidedness is striking.

This understanding will help us to take a Biblically balanced view of many topics, among them the extent of atonement. We can posit particular redemption from the standpoint of divine particularity. God knows whom He saves by the atonement. Once we have said this much, what need is there to limit the sufficiency or the potentially salvific nature of Christ's work? The fact that God will not apply the redeeming power of the blood of Christ to all people is no reason to believe it does not essentially contain that power. From the standpoint of generality, we can make no assumptions. So, in considering the elect abstractly, we can say "Christ died especially, efficiently, particularly for them." In looking concretely at the masses of lost humanity, we must say, "Christ died for the whole world." We can tell a lost sinner, "Christ died for you," and this will be true in many senses whether the person we are speaking with is specifically elect or not.

The best Calvinist thinkers and scholars of the past have embraced key tensions and important distinctions between the general and the particular. Those who have been most Biblically grounded have warned us to remain purposely ignorant of those things which God has not seen fit to reveal, and to hold solid and steadfast in embracing all that He has made known in His awe-inspiring wisdom.

Elect or Non?

Recently, a friend was struggling with assurance and the concept of divine election. He looked at me and said, "How do I know if I am one of the elect? How do I know I am not among the non-elect?"

I replied, "The answer to that question is simple. What do you want? Anyone can be lost if they want to be. The rest are elect."

It is a disarmingly straightforward truth: lost people are lost because they want to be lost. Saved people are saved because God has given them the will to know Him. Damnation is according to our own choice; salvation is according to His. 

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 18 - C. Michael Patton

Michael Patton recently posted an article entitled, "The Irrationality of Calvinism." It contains excellent, THEOparadox-approved commentary on theology in general and "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" in particular. His words echo my own reasons for rejecting Arminianism and becoming a Calvinist. At least one Arminian has responded to Mr. Patton's article (see here and here), and has ironically proven the point by entirely missing the point (the unhidden angst may have clouded the ability to understand).

This photo is shamelessly "borrowed" from Mr. Patton's post.

Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Patton's insightful article:

I am a child of Western thought. Therefore, I like to figure things out. If possible, I like to figure it all out. This causes problems between me and God sometimes, and I need to deal with it better. Sometimes I only really follow or engage with God when I get it. When things make sense to me, my intellectual anxiety is eased and my will can engage. Who? What? Where? How? and especially Why? Theological gurus call this “cataphatic” theology. Cataphatic theology emphasises God’s revelation and our understanding of it. Taken to an extreme, we can find ourselves in the arrogantly awkward position of, as A. W. Tozer put it, “trying to look God eye to eye.” When we have to understand everything, we attempt to trade our finitude for infinitude. And this should scare us to death. We need a healthy dose of “apophatic” theology. This emphasizes mystery. Our Eastern brothers and sisters normally get this better than we do. They are content without publishing a new theology book every year. They don’t normally write papers explaining the mysteries of the world, have societies discussing the nuances of our faith, or argue about too much. Taken to an extreme, this can lead to an unexamined faith, where people know what they believe but they have no idea why. And God did go through a lot of trouble to explain quite a bit of himself to us. While there are secret things that belong to the Lord (apophatic), the things revealed belong to us (cataphatic). We need balance. We need a cool yet passionate head about us. We need to hold some theological ropes very tightly, but we need to loosen our grip on others. There is quite a bit that we can know about God, but there are so many things that we don’t get and we will never get.

---------------------------------------------------------- 

I often hear people talk about Calvinism as a closed box system that forces everything to fall in line, even when we have to sacrifice biblical integrity to do so. I often hear the accusation that Calvinism is a system that makes rationality its primary goal. And this is often true. Sometimes Calvinists do attempt to fit things into a system and engage in questionable, logic-driven hermeneutics to do so. 

However, I think we need take a step back and see that while the shoe fits when it comes to some particular issues in Calvinism, these accusations are far from forming the bedrock of the primary issues in Calvinism.

----------------------------------------------------------

... the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s election to make it fit. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. This creates a problem. It creates great tension. For the Calvinist, this tension cannot, and should not, be solved. So how does the Calvinist live with this? How does the Calvinist answer the Why? questions? “Why does God choose some and not others? Why does he still find fault?” What is the Calvinist answer to the How? question? ”How can there be true freedom when God is sovereignly in charge of election?” We have no answer. We get off our stool and punt to apophatic theology. The tension is left intact. We place our hand over our mouth here and say, “Though we have no answers to why God did not choose people he truly loves, we will trust him without judgement.” We will redefine neither divine election nor human freedom to make them fit a more rational or logical system. While there is nothing wrong with using one’s reason to understand truth, there are problems when reason takes priority over revelation. If the Bible teaches both human freedom and sovereign election, we leave the two intact. If the Bible teaches that God loves everyone more than we can imagine and that God desires all to be saved, yet he does not elect some, we trust God’s word and live with unanswered questions. These two issues, human freedom and sovereign election, are not contradictory when put together, but they are a mystery.

 ---------------------------------------------------------- 

There is no need to solve all tensions, especially when the solution comes at the expense of one’s interpretive integrity. There are many tensions in Scripture. There are many things that, while not formally irrational, just don’t make sense. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and creation out of nothing all fit this category. All of these are beyond our ability to comprehend. ... The issue of human freedom and unconditional election is in the same apophatic domain. We can’t make sense out of them and once we do, we have entered into error. There are many things God reveals that confuse us and baffle our thinking. They seem irrational. Yet we find God saying, “Chill. Just trust me. I’ve got this under control. While I have revealed a lot and I know you have a lot of questions, this is a test of trust. I love everyone but I did not elect everyone. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Will you trust me or will you redefine things?”

God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction. We may not know how to reconcile these two issues, but that does not mean God does not know how. Their co-existence does not take away from their collective truthfulness.

I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of understanding and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to abide for the sake of Biblical fidelity.

As I said before, I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human understanding. I think it is a good illustration of how West meets East. Revelation meets mystery. Cataphatic theology meets apophatic theology. While Calvinism is not formally irrational, it is emotionally irrational. I get that. But I think we need to take both pills.

- C. Michael Patton (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/the-irrationality-of-calvinism/
)

In a later comment, Mr. Patton adds this:

Reason is always required. But reason does not cancel out mystery. We strive for the cataphatic until we sweat blood. Then, when no solution makes good sense of revelation, we allow mystery to come in and do it apophatic job. Again, think Trinity and you will see what I mean. Can you rationally understand the Trinity? If you can, you have just entered heresy. I think that there are five great mysteries in the Scripture that we cannot resolve:

1. Creation ex nihilo
2. Hypostatic Union
3. Dual nature of Scripture
4. Trinity
5. Human Freedom/Responsibility and Divine sovereignty (unconditional election included)

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.

Common Grace and Saving Grace: Flood Light and Spotlight

Here's an important fact to remember about Common Grace and Saving Grace: one never negates the other, as if one were darkness and the other light. Both are lights. They can strengthen one another, but they can never darken or diminish one another.

Some in the Reformed tradition, having accepted the glorious doctrine of unconditional election, begin to view everything through "election glasses" which tend to limit every aspect of God's nature and action.
  

Election Glasses may be stylish and comfortable,
but they can be theologically reductionistic.

It is dangerous to start building our theology with the divine act of election and then read that back into every other divine attribute and action. Some would reason this way: "God only elects some so He must only love some" ... however, God in His Word veritably shouts the exact opposite! Why not say, "God only elects some, so He only has the power to save some?" No Christian would ever say that, yet God has never defined Himself in Scripture as "power," while He has defined Himself emphatically as "love."

A spotlight is directed toward a limited and particular area

The fact that God loves the elect in a special way does not negate His general love for all, any more than an effectual call can negate the reality of a general one. Both work together.

  

Election is a type of love, but it is not the only kind. Election magnifies God's love; it does not shrink His love. Election extends His love to include the salvation of certain worthless wretches ("election according to grace"); it does not rescind His love from the rest. Election makes His willingness to save (all) effectual (in the case of some), but it does not remove His love or His willingness to save from the rest. Election simply takes a general willingness to save and makes it a FIRM WILL to save. In other words, the spotlight of Saving Grace does not unplug the flood light of Common Grace. Both work together in perfect harmony without conflict or negation. Both shed positive light, but in different ways and to different ends. They may be two different kinds of lights, but both are lights indeed.
  

A flood light provides a general ambiance of light

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 2

This is Part 2 of a discussion of Randal Rauser's recent essay, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist." Click here for Part 1.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

In part 1, we discussed the first of two points:

1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Now we will move on to the second point:

 

2. Rauser clouds the Biblical texts with vague hermeneutical speculation rather than accepting the plain teachings of the passages.

He suggests the teaching of Romans 9 is very complex, and proposes we use John 3:16 as an interpretive control against the Calvinistic understanding. In my view, a better approach is to hold the clear truth of Romans 9 in balance with the clear truth of John 3:16. Otherwise, we are in danger of skewing our perspective by discounting valuable Scriptural data.

Back to the text . . .

I will be the first to admit there are passages in the Bible that are hard to understand. However, Romans 9 is not one of them. It is hard to accept, but not so hard to understand at the basic level. Without any doubt it is "strong medicine." But the strong medicine of God's Word is the cure for our sin-sick souls' deepest diseases, and we need to be willing to receive it full strength. Let our Systematic Theology feel the pain if it must, but Scripture is non-negotiable.

Rauser dilutes this medicine by proposing the following "complexities": 

(his words are in orange, with my responses following)

Rauser: The specific individuals Jacob and Esau serve as symbols representing people groups

Me: Sure, these individuals are heads of nations. But that doesn't change the fact that they are themselves individuals, as Rauser's statement candidly admits. They are individuals who represent nations, and nations are of course made up of individuals. One of Paul's points is that being ethnically a part of an elect nation does not make the individual elect (Romans 9:6-8). Isaac and Ishmael were both descendents of Abraham, but only Isaac was elect. Jacob and Esau were both descendents of Isaac, but only Jacob was elect. In other words, election extends beyond the national/ethnic level to the individual level.
Rauser: There is the potential for the hyperbolic use of language.

Me: It is true that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbolic language, but Rauser needs to show how the language is hyperbolic, and what is meant by the hyperbole. Otherwise, this claim does nothing to clarify the meaning of the text. It would have to be some kind of extreme hyperbole for the text to mean, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved equally." That interpretation is, in fact, antithetical to the context as well as to the terms employed.
Rauser: Insofar as “election” is in view there is the distinction between election for a particular task and election for an eternal destiny.

Me: Is this idea drawn from the text, or brought to it by the interpreter? Let's see . . . the entire previous chapter and the letter itself are about salvation. Paul begins the passage by speaking of the eternal destiny of Israel (Romans 9:3). Does he change course somewhere along the way? Would election to different tasks cause us to question God's justice (Romans 9:14)? Paul is certainly referring to eternal destinies in Romans 9:23-28, as is the case in Romans 9:30, where he says the Gentiles have attained righteousness by faith. That's not "task" talk, it's "salvation" speak. Where, exactly, does Paul switch from discussing eternal destinies to discussing tasks? Rauser would need to present some strong exegesis to make this claim believable.
Rauser: Insofar as one accepts the appropriateness of the “scripture interprets scripture” principle there is the question of whether texts which seem to teach divine omnibenevolence (e.g. John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) should function as interpretive controls of those texts that seem not to.

Me: As shown in Part 1, the Biblical Calvinist does not have this problem. Omnibenevolence is taught in Scripture, and God's hatred of the unregenerate is also taught, along with God's election of some to salvation. For Calvinists it's both/and (or "all three"), not either/or. This is the reality of Biblical paradox, under which our thoughts must be forged like steel on the anvil. Among the soteriological options, it is our judgment that Calvinism alone has the epistemological integrity to withstand the full weight of the tensions found in divine revelation. Rauser's theological commitments seem to require him to affirm the omnibenevolence of John 3:16 without any tempering from other Scripture passages. It's much easier - and more common among theologians - to declare a passage "complex" and then just ignore the tension it creates.
Rauser vs. The Text

Romans 9 is not as mysterious as Rauser's suggestions imply. Let's see if we can understand the place of "Esau I hated" in the flow of its teaching. This will be both edifying and educational.

Graphic by Eddie Eddings of calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.com, 
 a site everyone should visit often.

In Romans 9:13, Paul's reason for quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is to reinforce what he has just said about God's sovereign election of Israel as opposed to other nations - including those nations descended from Abraham (which is also Malachi's point) - by the election of the individual named Jacob as opposed to the individual named Esau. Since the type of election Paul references occurred prior to birth (Romans 9:11-12), it was unconditional. Since it was related to specific persons (Romans 9:7; 9:13; 9:17), it was not merely national in scope but was particular to the individual. Since Paul's discussion of this election includes descriptions of the "children of God" (Romans 9:8), the display of God's saving mercy (Romans 9:15-16), the call to faith (Romans 9:24), the people of God (Romans 9:25-26) and those who will "be saved" (Romans 9:27), it is clearly more than election to a task. It is election to salvation and righteousness by faith (9:30-33). Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 to support this unconditional, individual/national, salvation-focused election. Anticipating that some people will think this exercise of divine prerogatives is inherently unjust, Paul asks, "Is there injustice on God's part?" Then he answers, "By no means!" (Romans 9:14). And what is Paul's justification for this claim? He says God's sovereign election of persons and nations is not a question of justice, but of mercy (Romans 9:15), and he says that man is in no position to question God's right to make such choices (Romans 9:20-21). All of this accords perfectly with the teachings of mainstream Calvinism, especially the teaching that election is God's saving mercy toward hated sinners, His pre-determined plan to specially love them by satisfying the demands of justice on His own Son in their behalf. In terms of election, God pre-determined to give justice to Esau and saving mercy to Jacob.

To recap: in terms of Common Grace, God clearly loved both Esau and Jacob. In terms of election, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Both are true according to Scripture, and both are affirmed by Calvinism.

Thus Rauser's claim that Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3 contradict Calvinism is unfounded. These verses only contradict Rauser's mistaken understanding of Calvinism. Unfortunately, Rauser seems unwilling to correctly interpret the texts that would lead him inevitably to that beautiful system of Biblical paradox called "Calvinism."

Conclusion

This looks scary, but it's not the real thing.

It seems clear that Dr. Rauser is wrestling with a misunderstanding of Calvinism and not the genuine article. He is trying to address Calvinistic conceptions without fully grasping them. This leaves room for the hope that he may someday gain a better understanding of Calvinism, and embrace it with the same enthusiasm with which he now opposes it.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 1

For a textbook example of how the failure to apprehend Biblical paradox can lead to erroneous theological conclusions, check out Randal Rauser's article, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist."
 
First of all, I'd say every word of Scripture is of use to a Calvinist. But let's take a look at his arguments to see what's good and what's not so good, and whether he has a point.
 
Where Rauser Gets It Right
 
First, we should point out a couple of positive features.

1. He refreshingly notes that some Calvinists believe that "God loves all people but has a special love for the elect." Non-Calvinists often miss this point, but Rauser does not. The truth is, all mainstream Calvinists affirm this, while hypers deny it. 

2. He correctly notes that the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" compels us to place greater weight on the clear passages when we are examining less clear passages. That's a useful principle that no self-respecting Calvinist would argue against.

Pretty good so far.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

 
1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Non-Omnibenevolent Calvinism (NOBC): God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. 

Omnibenevolent Calvinism (OBC): God loves all people but has a special love for the elect.

Here's what he misses: Biblical Calvinism embraces the paradox of God's love and hatred for all unrepentant sinners. What Rauser terms OBC and NOBC are each essential components of mainstream Calvinism. In other words, there is a sense in which God loves all people, and there is a sense in which He hates all the wicked. He is nonetheless omnibenevolent. So, we have three apparently contradictory propositions:

• God loves all people, sinners included (Matthew 5:44-45, Luke 6:35)
• God hates all unregenerate sinners (Psalm 11:5)
• God has a special love for the elect (Ephesians 1:3-6)

These propositions are not actually contradictory or mutually exclusive. They appear to be, and yet they are not so hard to reconcile on Calvinistic terms. Different Calvinists resolve the paradox in different ways, but every mainstream Calvinist affirms these three undeniably Biblical truths. Rauser's artificial division of two separate Calvinisms - one affirming one truth of Scripture, and the other affirming another truth of Scripture - creates a false dilemma that is not applicable to mainstream Calvinism.
 
I don't believe Rauser purposely creates a straw man here; I think he is truly unaware of the beautiful Biblical paradox that Calvinism embraces (in fairness, this might partially result from the fact that most debating Calvinists are so zealous to get their point across that they fail to present a balanced perspective). However, Rauser's misunderstanding fatally clouds his analysis and renders his arguments invalid because he assumes that Calvinists believe God can only love or only hate a given class of persons. Scripture presents a more complex disposition, and most Calvinists are willing to accept this.
 
Properly speaking, God loves and hates all of the unconverted, including the unconverted elect who are under His wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The non-elect are loved through Common Grace, while the elect are loved with Saving Grace. Unconditional Election means God has chosen to show saving mercy to a subset of sinners who are chosen beforehand according to His own wise counsels. Reprobation means that God has chosen to allow some sinners to go on in their natural course of rebellion and receive the just punishment they are due. Even so, the reprobate are extended much mercy and patience throughout their earthly lives (Romans 9:22, Romans 11:32, Psalm 145, 15-17). There is nothing to prevent God from saving them if they are willing to be saved. No one suffering in hell can deny that God showed love to him, that God was kind to him, that God was patient with him, that God was willing to save him on condition of repentance, or that God treated him justly. No one suffering in hell can say that God somehow prevented him from repenting; all who are there know that they were unable to repent simply because they were unwilling - and that they remain unwilling in spite of their sufferings. Esau included. 
 
That is the ugly face of human sin. No wonder God condemns it.
 
To the elect, God grants a willingness to be saved; yet for His own part He is always willing and ready to save all who come to Him. He is truly omnibenevolent! Jacob and Esau were both loved and hated in various ways, but Esau was not loved with electing love, while Jacob was. Thus we conclude, in opposition to Rauser: the phrase, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," is of great use to the Calvinist because it highlights the electing love of God. Yet it does not diminish His general love for all people, or His general hatred for all the wicked. 
 
All the words of Scripture are useful to the Calvinist because he strives to take all of them together, as the whole counsel of God, and hold them in their proper balance.
 
In part 2, we will examine Rauser's hermeneutical arguments and support our thesis with a study of the Biblical texts themselves.

Election and Atonement - A Few Key Differences

A recent article by David Ponter got me thinking about some of the differences between election and atonement in God's sovereign plan of salvation. Here are a few important distinctions that came to mind . . .


Time

Election is supra-historical (it took place outside of time as we know it, or what we call "history"). 

Atonement is a historical event (it happened at a specific time in history)

Place

Election happened outside the world, in eternity, before the creation of the world. 

Atonement happened in the world.

Role in Salvation

Election is essentially a plan and a decision to save

Atonement is the means by which the plan is executed

Relation to Sin
Election does not prevent sins or remove guilt
Atonement is the remedy for sin that has been committed (or will be committed) and the means of removing the resulting guilt.

Visibility

Election took place in secret and outside the possibilities of empirical verification

Atonement took place in public and was verifiably witnessed

Human Involvement
Election is totally free of human involvement, being God's choice alone
Atonement occurred through a compatibilistic action of God's will through the sinful choices of fallen humans, and by the righteous act of the incarnate God-Man.


Relation to the Incarnation
Election occurred independent of the incarnation, however it rendered the incarnation necessary
Atonement could not occur apart from the incarnation

Beneficiaries

Election only benefits believers

Atonement benefits everyone, and especially believers

Intended Audience
Election is preached primarily to believers
Atonement is preached to everyone


Intended Effect of Preaching
The preaching of election is meant to encourage, edify and comfort believers
The preaching of the atonement is meant to induce initial repentance in unbelievers, and to edify believers


Primary Revelatory Purpose
Election reassures believers of God's eternal love
Atonement tells the whole world of God's love and justice


Relation to Human Will
Election is not offered, but decreed from eternity, and cannot be accepted or rejected
Atonement is offered to all people, to be accepted or rejected.
*Note that apart from the effectual call, the offered atonement is always rejected.


Relation to the General Call of the Gospel
Election has no bearing on the the general call of the Gospel, except that it guarantees that call will reach all of the elect
Atonement is the essential subject matter of the general call


Relation to the Effectual Call
Election determines who will receive an effectual call, and thus respond to the general call
Atonement is the essential subject matter of the effectual call, the fountain of irresistible grace


Relation to God's Will (Part A)
Election reflects God's specific choice to save particular sinners
Atonement reveals God's general desire to save sinners, by telling all sinners a way has been made for their salvation, yet it is also the means by which His particular will to save the elect is put in to effect


Relation to God's Will (Part B)
Election is a hidden decree of God
Atonement expresses God's revealed will to offer salvation to all, and is the means by which He fulfills His hidden decree to actually save some.


God is perfect in planning and in executing the plan.

Is There a Viable Non-Calvinist Interpretation for this?

Try as I might, I can't see any way to explain the following passage apart from Unconditional Election and the Effectual Call. No Arminian or Open Theist interpretation seems possible, let alone plausible. Maybe I've just been a Calvinist for too long, and have forgotten how to think the other way.

I Corinthians 1:26-31 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

What does Paul mean by "calling", if not the divinely orchestrated Effectual Call? How does one explain, "God chose A [to have a particular effect upon] B", apart from Unconditional Election? What does Paul mean by, "because of Him you are in Christ Jesus", if not the monergistic action of God in saving His elect? And what prevents me from boasting, if salvation ultimately depends more on my own "free choice" than on God's?

John Wesley himself seems to have temporarily become a Calvinist in his notes on the passage:

I Cor. 1:26 Behold your calling - What manner of men they are whom God calls. That not many wise men after the flesh - In the account of the world. Not many mighty - Men of power and authority.

Wesley can't possibly mean the general call of the Gospel is kept from those who are wise and mighty after the flesh, can he? Does he believe in a special call? Based on these notes, he seems to.

I Cor. 1:27 [No entry exists in John Wesley's Notes for this verse]

Shocking!

I Cor. 1:28 Things that are not - The Jews frequently called the gentiles, "Them that are not," 2 Esdras vi. 56, 57. In so supreme contempt did they hold them. The things that are - In high esteem.

That's an interesting detail. Wesley is worth reading.

I Cor. 1:29 That no flesh - A fit appellation. Flesh is fair, but withering as grass. May glory before God - In God we ought to glory. 

Another good thought. I have nothing against Wesley, just his errors.

I Cor. 1:30 Of him - Out of his free grace and mercy. Are ye Engrafted into Christ Jesus, who is made unto us that believe wisdom, who were before utterly foolish and ignorant. Righteousness - The sole ground of our justification, who were before under the wrath and curse of God. Sanctification - A principle of universal holiness, whereas before we were altogether dead in sin. And redemption - That is, complete deliverance from all evil, and eternal bliss both of soul and body. 

Is God "free" to bestow His grace and engraft us into Christ when, where, and how He Himself wills? Does Wesley affirm man's total moral inability when he says we were "altogether dead in sin"?

I Cor. 1:31 Let him glory in the Lord - Not in himself, not in the flesh, not in the world. Jeremiah 9:23-24

Is there an Arminian, Open Theist, or other advocate of "free will" out there who can provide a more satisfying explanation for his passage? One that is faithful to Sola Scripture and the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

Three Good Reads in Reformed Theology

I've been enjoying these and finding them very beneficial.

#1 The first "good read" is this group of extended quotations from some leading theologians regarding the secret and revealed will of God. This is direct source material, so you can get it from the proverbial horse's mouth. I like this bit from Calvin:

"In fine, give up all fondness for your puerile dilemma, for the Scriptures assure me of the secret will of God; asserting what I have learned from them I do speak of an ascertained truth; but because I do not reach so great a height, I reverently adore with fear and trembling what is too sublime for the angels themselves. Often therefore in my writings I admonish my readers, that on this subject nothing is better than a learned ignorance; for those rave like madmen who arrogate to know more about it than is fit."

And this one from Jonathan Edwards caught my attention:

"... all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Apparently Edwards never met an open theist! God alone knows if Edwards will ever meet one in the future (think about it).

_____________________________________________________________

#2 A second "good read" is Paul Manata's Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - A Contemporary Introduction. Lots of deep philosophical stuff here. Manata has a gift, and I am grateful that he uses it to advance good theology! He argues that Reformed Theology is, by definition, both deterministic and compatibilistic, and decidedly unaffirming of libertarian free will. It's all worth reading and considering, and well documented, too.

_____________________________________________________________

#3  The third "good read" is David Ponter's response to James Anderson's attempt to reconcile the Free Offer of the Gospel with a provisionally Limited Atonement using Newcomb's Paradox (see here and here). It's a deeply complicated argument, but worth thinking about. To me, this is a little bit like Gandalf vs. Saruman (I won't say which one is which). Although James Anderson is a personal hero for expounding so brilliantly on theological paradox, in this case I concur with Ponter (also a personal hero for expounding brilliantly on historic Moderate Calvinism) in his closing remarks:

"Anderson wants to argue that if a moderate Calvinist insists that limited atonement precludes a sincere offer, he must accept that election likewise precludes a sincere offer, for the same reasons. However, a proper rebuttal rejects the assumed univocal relationship between limited atonement and election in relation to the sincere offer, such that one can counter that limited atonement is incompatible with the free offer, while election is not. The only avenue Anderson can have, as I see it, is to attempt to claim that we should see election as equally incompatible with a sincere offer (given our assumptions?). But on what grounds could he suggest that? and does he really want to argue that in the first place? Perhaps Anderson might say both election and limited atonement bare a paradoxical relationship to the sincere offer. My reply would be limited atonement and the sincere free offer entail a contradiction (you cannot offer what you are not able to give), while election and the free offer entail a paradox (one offers, by revealed will, what one does not intend to give, by secret will). We would say we are warranted in rejecting the contradiction, while retaining the paradox. Anderson could only claim that one can indeed sincerely offer what one is not able to give."

The issues in these three "good reads" are tied together, and each of them has bearing on both hyper Calvinism and Arminianism (mind you, I'm not saying any of the people mentioned in this post are hyper Calvinists - far from it - only that the issues covered have direct bearing on refuting that error). To be balanced, I believe we must hold to the paradox of God's revealed and secret wills which are united perfectly in the glorious mystery of His eternal wisdom; we must hold to the paradox of compatibilism so that man is responsible for his actions under the total sovereignty of God; and we must hold to the Free Offer of the Gospel backed up by an infinitely powerful atonement, which, paradoxically, is not intended to save all people. Thank God it saves some!