Is Grace Resistible? Sure it is!

The following quotation was found in a recent post on a popular Arminian blog. It is by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, and purports to put the whole controversy between Calvinists and Arminians into perspective by getting down to the root issue:

The representations of grace that the scriptures contain, are such as describe it capable of “being resisted,” (Acts 7:51) and “received in vain” (2 Cor 6:1), and that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it and refuse all cooperation with it (Heb 12:15, Matt 23:37, Luke 7:30).  While, on the contrary, this [Calvinist] Predestination affirms that grace is a certain irresistible force and operation.

************

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good.  To such an extent do I carry its influence that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, or do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation , without this preventing [i.e. preceding] and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.

From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free will.  For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’  That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not.  With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. (From Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God, ed. John Wagner, pp. 45, 69)

Resistance is Futile.

If I was an Arminian I would avoid presenting this quotation, for it only proves that Arminius did not understand the teachings of Calvinism on this subject. We do not teach, "Grace is Irresistible," and just leave the statement there as if it was an absolute fact in all cases. On the contrary, we teach that "Grace is Irresistible when it Works to Effect the Salvation of the Elect." We name this working of grace the Effectual Call because it consists in both the outward and inward call of the Gospel, which, working in combination, bring us out of our blind rebellion and into genuine faith. We call it "saving grace" simply because its effect is to save. Grace is extended and offered to the non-elect as well, but it does not result in salvation. Thus it is not called "saving grace" and it is not irresistible. The person effectively (and voluntarily) resists this grace that could have saved him, had he not resisted. Arminius thoroughly misreads the Calvinist's view.

Scripture is clear regarding the fact that grace is resisted by unbelievers:

Jonah 2:8 Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
Isaiah 26:10 If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the LORD.

Calvinists actually affirm, with these and other statements of Scripture, that grace is resisted continually by the non-elect--and by the elect themselves prior to their conversion. This is mankind's default mode under Adam. The obvious question is: what could ever be so powerful as to turn a person from this self-destructive course? Well . . . nothing but the irresistible saving grace of a Sovereign God!

It has been said that the real divide between Calvinists and Arminians lies in this question: Whose will is ultimately decisive in salvation: my will, or God's? Both wills are clearly involved; but which one is ultimately decisive? Those who say "God's will" are monergists of one sort or another; those Christians who say "my will" are synergists of some kind (and badly mistaken, I might add). Calvinists are among those who joyously declare, "God's will was ultimately decisive! He chose to save me when, otherwise, I would only have resisted Him forever." And they thank Him for turning their stubborn hearts, granting repentance, bestowing faith in Christ, and bringing them from death to life.

They know it was not their will, but His mercy, that accomplished their salvation. They know because they remember how utterly lost they were when they themselves resisted that mercy.

Here is a song by Sovereign Grace Music that sums it all up very well:



10/13/13 Addendum 
An Arminian commenter has insisted that Arminius actually did understand the Calvinistic teaching on Irresistible Grace, and has asked that I amend my post to reflect this. So noted. I may have misread Arminius (which seems easy to do, since his writings are not as clear as, say, Calvin's, or even Wesley's). In any case, I believe Arminius is now in heaven with the Lord, so he certainly understands the whole truth today, including Irresistible Grace, and likely thanks God for it on a regular basis. Perhaps he is even singing the song in the video above right at this moment!

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. 

Marveling at the Gospel (Re-Post)

The incomprehensible God united Himself incomprehensibly with humanity, 

to die under the incomprehensible suffering 

generated by His just and incomprehensible wrath, 

paying an incomprehensible price to redeem incomprehensibly sinful sinners

through His incomprehensible grace, 

rising again by His incomprehensible power, 

showing His incomprehensible love, 

displaying His incomprehensible wisdom, 

revealing His incomprehensible glory.

I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Ephesians 1:16-21

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 19 - ESV Study Bible on Acts 13:48

The ESV Study Bible's note on Acts 13:48 says it perfectly:

Throughout Acts, Luke affirms the sovereignty of God over all of life while at the same time affirming the significance of human activity, as evidenced by the remarkable human effort and sacrifice involved in proclaiming the gospel. Thus Luke, without contradiction, maintains a dual emphasis on divine election ("appointed") and on human response ("believed") ... The emphasis here in 13:48 is on the way in which divine sovereignty (appointment) results in the belief of the Gentiles, demonstrating that their belief was due to God's grace alone.

That's good stuff. THEOparadox approved!

Big Shoes, Small Minds (or "Sovereignty and Freedom in Perspective")

So ... I believe that God, who created the world and everything else that exists, exercises absolute, meticulous and exhaustive sovereignty over all events, including every thought, word and deed of mankind, through His definite predestination and continual providence. I also happen to believe that human beings make real, significant, voluntary and uncoerced choices for which they are morally responsible in a just economy.


This is not "hard" determinism or "soft" determinism, but FREE DETERMINISM.

Does this compatibilistic belief in FREE DETERMINISM strike you, upon reflection, as contradictory, irrational or illogical? Then I suggest you read the fifth word in the first sentence again. In case you have forgotten, we are speaking about GOD. My friend, have you come to to terms with the fact that the self-existent, eternal God created the world and everything else from exactly nothing? If you think it is impossible for Him to give His creatures genuine freedom without relinquishing His meticulous sovereignty, you may have never imagined a God big enough to wear His own shoes. You may be trying to fit Him into a small space that can't hold Him. That small space is the sum of what you consider logically conceivable. If God must fit into this space, then your mind's capacity, rather than His omnipotent ability, has become the measure of Truth. Yet Truth was there before your mind came into being; and Truth contains your mind within it, not the other way around.

While our minds can hold the knowledge of His greatness, they cannot hold His greatness. This is an important fact to remember when we feel we must tell God what He can and can't do. Indeed, you may not happen to believe that God employs FREE DETERMINISM in His administration of the universe. But if you don't think it is possible for Him to do so, it is possible that you may not actually believe in the Biblical God at all.

And if you go to the Bible with an open heart to find out how God actually administers His universe, you will find FREE DETERMINISM is the only real possibility.

St. Patrick's Confession (Video)

Here is a video featuring a professional reading of St. Patrick's "Confession," an autobiographical account written by the early Christian missionary and former slave who was used of God to win multitudes of converts in Ireland. This is well worth the 45 minutes. (I have no idea who the people in the photos are; perhaps they are related to the narrator).




Here is another video about St. Patrick. This one is quite a bit shorter, and also very well done (other than getting Patrick's birth date wrong by a few centuries!).



Obviously, there is much more to St. Patrick's Day than green beer . . .

Is Paradoxical Theology Irrational?

A recent visitor to this blog mistook our advocacy of paradoxes for an endorsement of irrationality. He is not alone; I have found this is often the initial response to any mention of theological paradox. The commonness of this response is perhaps a reflection of the inroads made by humanistic rationalism during the 20th century, and the influence it still holds over the minds of "deep thinkers." Nowadays, the prevailing philosophy held (perhaps unconsciously) by the average person in America has swung way over toward irrationalism. Our aim is to embrace neither of these extremes, and instead to hold up the Biblical balance of rationality without rationalism, and acceptance of paradox without irrationalism. 

Logic is a reliable tool, or framework, for interpreting knowledge, yet it is not in itself a "source" of knowledge. Like all tools, it has its usefulness and limits. Where would one be if one had only logic, but no other knowledge of any kind? Think about this for a moment! To even state the laws of logic, one has to start with something a priori. Just as nothing can be properly deduced apart from logic, nothing can be known in the first place apart from presupposition.

This reminds me of the old joke about the brilliant atheist whom God challenged to create life out of nothing. The atheist said, "Sure, no problem," and then reached down to pick up a handful of dirt. A thundering voice immediately said, "Hey, no cheating! Go make your own dirt!" If you think about it, this is actually two or three jokes in one.

When we realize that logic is a tool for working with the raw materials of knowledge that God has graciously provided, we find ourselves free from the need to reconcile everything with everything before we will believe anything. We still attempt to reconcile as much as possible. We don't even consider giving up on the practice of logical thinking. But at the same time, we don't elevate our proposed solutions to an authoritative level, and we don't refuse to believe the facts of divine revelation just because we fail to reconcile them. We don't make our ability to understand a matter the measure of its truthfulness. We start with Truth and then seek understanding.

My response to the commenter was as follows:

I certainly don't want to give the impression that irrationality is entailed in the type of theological paradox I embrace. Rather, my belief in paradox is built on the solid foundation of Scripture as the Word of God, and flows logically from my presuppositions, as illustrated in the following premises and conclusions: 

P1 The Bible is the highest and surest source of knowledge: inerrant, infallible, and authoritative.
P2 The Bible clearly (that is, perspicuously) teaches certain distinct doctrines which, when compared side by side, appear to human minds to be logically incoherent.
P3 The Bible does not explain in detail how all of these doctrines interrelate.
P4 The Bible does not imply that any of these doctrines actually contradict one another (and strongly implies the opposite).
P5 The Bible teaches that man has mental limitations due to creaturehood, depravity and incomplete information.
P6 The Bible teaches that God possesses perfect and exhaustive knowledge of all things, and no possibility of self-deception.
P7 Even with perfect logic, the reliability of one's logical conclusions is proportional to the amount of correct information one possesses (i.e., partial information easily leads to false conclusions). 

C1 (Based on P1, P2, P3, P4) All doctrines taught by the Bible are entirely true, compatible and non-contradictory, without regard to any human being's ability to explain their interrelations.
C2 (Based on P5, P6, P7) The Bible reflects the perfect logical conclusions of a perfectly logical God, even if no human being can explain the logic used to reach those conclusions. 

As you might guess, I am no formal logician or philosopher. Still, I think my crude attempt holds water.

In short, I would not say my theological system is based in any sense upon irrationalism. For further discussion of this topic, I recommend James Anderson's excellent quote found in the sidebar of this blog:

"By advocating paradox I don't want to give the impression that I'm giving a carte blanche to not think philosophically, to not think deeply, about these doctrines. Quite the opposite. . . . My position is that with each of these doctrines we reflect on them as hard as we can, we penetrate them as best we can based on the Scriptural data that we do have, but we also recognize that there are going to be limits, and that those limits are actually a positive thing and not a reflection of some inherent problem in the doctrines or in the process of theological reflection. . . . I think we can make progress, we can make considerable progress, in understanding these doctrines and resolving some of the . . . initial difficulties that we have with them, but at the same time recognizing that we're always only going to get so far and when we bump up against the limits of our capacity to formulate them in certain ways or to resolve certain difficulties in them, we shouldn't be too concerned about that. We certainly shouldn't say, 'Okay, we need to admit that Christians are ultimately irrationalists.' No. We don't need to say that at all. . . . It's a Biblically constrained rationality. It's a middle way between rationalism, of which I think [Gordon H.] Clark was a representative, and irrationalism, of which, to take an example I think the Neo-Orthodox - Karl Barth - would be an example, where you're saying that there are actual contradictions in there. So I think it's navigating a Biblical middle way between these two extremes: having too high a view of the human intellect, and perhaps too low a view of the intellect, of our ability to know the things of God."

That quote gives us essentially the same idea, but from a "real" philosopher!

An Arminian Deleted My Comments

UPDATES: I received a kind note from the individual referenced in this post, and decided to redact portions of this text as a result. He certainly has the right to manage his own blog as he sees fit, and sincerely believes his decisions are justified. I believe his chosen path is both unwise and unhelpful (I don't think all of my conduct has been spotless, either). At this time, I am extending a personal and public apology to Ben (aka "KangarooDort") for the harshness of some comments in this post (as originally published) and for the generally harsh tone I exhibited in writing it. I have removed selected portions, added a few additional comments, and retained only what seems most important. 

_____________________________________________________________

This post is going to be a little bit out of the norm. [REDACTED]

[I am going to re-post here a comment that was mostly blocked by the blog administrator at this post:]

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/sneaky-calvinism-calvinism-on-the-sly-in-action/

[It seems to me that] this individual has decided to set himself up as the judge and jury in a matter he knows [next to] nothing about. He has demanded that people explain themselves to his satisfaction and make themselves accountable to his scrutiny, [REDACTED].  Beginning with the [REDACTED] sentiments he attempted to leave at a post on this blog, he has [REDACTED] refused to accept the possibility that his pre-conceived perceptions might be misguided. When I responded [REDACTED] with the actual truth I learned from firsthand investigation, he decided to "edit out" most of my comment. [REDACTED]


I am now posting my full comments below in protest against the [REDACTED] approach taken by this [REDACTED] blogger. [REDACTED] This individual has been solemnly warned that he will have to answer to God for maligning a godly pastor.

[REDACTED]

Below is the comment I wrote, which [REDACTED] "KangarooDort" [REDACTED] decided to almost entirely censor. (Note that "Now Dimly" is the name of [another] commenter, to whom I addressed my opening lines).

Now Dimly, 

You bring up some interesting points that are worthy of discussion, and I thank you for your thoughtful questions. However, Ben has laid down the following mandate: 

"If you want to carefully explain what Blaine meant by his words and how exactly we have so badly misunderstood and misinterpreted what he said, you are welcome to comment further. If all you have to offer are more assertions that we are just supposed to accept because you say so, then please do not bother commenting further on this thread." 

So, it appears we are at an impasse unless I am willing to comply with Ben's demand for explanatory testimony. Dr. Wayman, on the other hand, says any further attempt to "defend" Blaine's actions only makes him look guilty. So in these hands we Calvinists are ________ if we do, and ________ if we don't. You can fill in the blanks with your favorite euphemism. 

All: 

This situation well illustrates the fact that the internet is indeed a kangaroo court and not the place to be airing disputes of this kind (unless sufficient charity and lack of hostility are present).
Someday, when the whole story is known (which will be in eternity, I suppose), some will be ashamed of their conduct in this matter. I do not happen to believe Blaine will be among them. Others may believe what they will. 

I have tried to make a few substantive points, as follows: 

1. Blaine has been misinterpreted and badly judged (no one else has to believe this, though I happen to know it is true)
2. Given the fact that someone has looked into the matter and drawn this conclusion, others ought to be charitable in their response to something they know very little about.
3. Blaine may or may not want to comment/defend/explain, but no one here has the right to subpoena him, condemn him, or call him to resign if he doesn't choose to do that.
4. Deciding not to respond to questions people ask you on the internet is no admission of guilt.
5. The Assemblies of God leaves plenty of room for Blaine's teachings and actions, though the teaching may be outside the mainstream for that denomination. By and large, A/G men are mature and well able to handle some disagreement on minor points. Blaine's pastoral and personal associates are well aware of his theological leanings and know that he actually did nothing "sneaky," "sly," deceitful, harmful, or even slightly worthy of concern. If anyone in Blaine's life has a right to demand explanation, by now they probably have, and have been more than satisfied by the full story. 

Ben said: "I mean really, if he communicated that poorly about things on Derek’s blog, should he really be in the business of communicating God’s word and challenging theological concepts to HS students?" 

I suppose the person who has never miscommunicated in a blog comment can cast the first stone. By your standards, I shouldn't be preaching or teaching, either, as I have often communicated poorly in the combox. Would you be this hard on a fellow Arminian? 

So now, since I have likely stepped over the line of Ben's mandate, and because I respect his rights as a blog administrator, and because I doubt there is much profit in continued wrangling over this, I will join Blaine in his judicious silence and, saying nothing more, let this be my final comment here. 

Blessings to all men of peace. 

Derek

As an addendum, here are comments I left at another blog post covering the same topic:

As the erstwhile "defender" of the dreaded "sneaky Calvinist," I find it rather unbecoming for the Arminian apologist to set himself up as judge and jury in this grand kangaroo court called "the internet," particularly when he has been reassured that he misinterpreted the account.
I would like to be a "fly on the wall" when he calls that District Superintendent, who, if he is like every other A/G Superintendent I have ever met, will be a mature, humble and godly man who is all too aware of the trouble and divisiveness that can be caused when people jump to conclusions and remove attention from the simple preaching and teaching of the Bible because they would rather engage in attack politics. He won't be shocked to find out that there is a minister in his district who, while agreeing with every major tenet of the denomination's theology, might have a quibble or two with their lead theologians over what are considered "minor points." I have personally known A/G pastors with all sorts of interesting theological stances and disagreements on minor issues. It was no secret, and it did not hinder fellowship. And to think that this might actually enter into those pastors' teaching when supported by the passage they happen to be studying ... well, who would be surprised! I am certain that a District Superintendent has better things to do than chase down Internet misinterpretations of a godly shepherd's methodology in interpreting Scripture that addresses sincerely held minor disagreements. Especially when that pastor sums up his teaching on the subject with a humble admission that the whole matter is surrounded in mystery. Not exactly a militant approach!

Given my A/G background, I enjoy fellowship with some fine Arminian brothers. They are tough in debate, let me tell you. But they don't waste time griping about things as inconsequential as all this, or making mountains out of molehills. I learned much about the difference between "real life" Arminians and certain Internet Arminians as a result of this exchange. The two are strangely dissimilar, despite the labels and general theological agreement. 

In my experience, most A/G pastors are "real life" Arminians who aren't going to be freaked out in any way by this. (More here: http://www.contemporarycalvinist.com/2013/03/this-week-in-calvinism-march-1-2013.html)

[REDACTED] I sincerely hope this individual will [turn from] the [REDACTED] approach he has chosen in this matter. Friends, let us love one another, and let us speak the truth in love.

[And be willing to change our approach if warranted.]

Arminian Election: An Unbiblical Paradox?

Lately I have had a lot of interesting discussion with Arminians. The following came to mind while considering some of their arguments:

Arminians have classically advanced the idea that election is based on God's foreknowledge of our future choices. Let's assume for a moment that this view is true. Under this scenario, God elected a person not because God chose of His own free will to save them, but because He foresaw that they would choose to be saved.

How, then, did God treat those He knew would believe for a time and then apostatize? Would such people be considered elect or non-elect? Were they termporarily elect during the time they were "saved"? If God elected a person from eternity based on the person's foreseen faith, did He un-elect them from eternity based on their foreseen apostasy? Are such people considered to be both elect and non-elect?

Perhaps Arminians would call this a paradox, or relegate it to the "mystery" of foreknowledge. But I wonder where the Biblical basis for such a supposed paradox could be derived?

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.

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