I Bless God

"I Bless God"

--By Richard Coords Sr.


Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless His Holy Name.

I bless the Arms of God that reached out to me during times of loneliness and despair.

I bless the Artistry of God for the beauty in nature and in every sunrise and sunset.

I bless the Authority of God that makes Him the great and undeniable, “I AM”.

I bless the Breath of God that gave life to all living creatures great and small.

I bless the Brightness of God that outshines the blinding brilliance of the sun.

I bless the Closeness of God that He regards me as His friend.

I bless the Compassion of God that looks beyond my faults as He continually cares for me.

I bless the Creativity of God for all creatures that walk, run, crawl, hop, swim, leap, jump, and fly.

I bless the Cross of Christ that assures the promise of eternal life to every believer.

I bless the Desire of God in that He wants me to be at one with Him forever.

I bless the Ears of God that listen and hear me and know my voice.

I bless the Existence of God that gives me absolute assurance of eternal security.

I bless the Eyes of God that look upon my heart and not my outward appearance.

I bless the Face of God that smiles upon me when I appreciate Him and give Him thanks.

I bless the Faithfulness of Christ that He will never leave me nor forsake me.

I bless the Fatherhood of God that leads me and teaches me and calls me His own.

I bless the Favor of God that provides all of my needs according to His unlimited riches.

I bless the Feet of Christ that walked on water and climbed the lonely hill to Calvary.

I bless the Foreknowledge of God that He knew me before I was even born.

I bless the Fragrance of God that is more pleasing than all the many flowers He created.

I bless the Friendship of Christ that keeps Him closer to me than a brother.

I bless the Generosity of God that He gave His only Son as payment for my sin.

I bless the Genius of God that architected the enormous and yet intricately balanced universe.

I bless the Glory of God that is more awesome and beautiful than every precious gem.

I bless the Goodness of God in that He is my provider and meets every one of my needs.

I bless the Grace of God that offers forgiveness for all sin even to those who despise Him.

I bless the Hands of God that formed man in His own image out of the dust of the ground.

I bless the Heart of God that will love me unconditionally forever.

I bless the Holiness of God as He is worshipped by men and angels everywhere, day and night.

I bless the Honesty of God that exposes my weaknesses and enables me to become stronger.

I bless the Hope of God that all would repent so that none need ever perish.

I bless the Humility of Christ that allowed Him to be a friend to blind and lame beggars.

I bless the Humor of God that provides me with the ability to enjoy laughter, even at myself.

I bless the Intellect of God that is the reason and purpose for my own human intellect.

I bless the Judgment of God that He counts my faith in Him as righteousness.

I bless the Kindness of God that He forgives my sins and remembers them no more.

I bless the Kingdom of God that will never be overthrown or defeated.

I bless the Kingship of God that He alone is worthy to be the Ruler of heaven and earth.

I bless the Laughter of God that is evoked when the plans of the unrighteous fail miserably.

I bless the Leadership of God as He leads me in the path of righteousness for His name sake.

I bless the Liberty of the Holy Spirit that allows me to be free from man made religious laws and rules.

I bless the Light of God that shines so brightly in a world filled with darkness.

I bless the Lips of God that can only speak Truth and that spoke entire galaxies into existence.

I bless the Love of God that is boundless, unconditional, and free to all who are willing to receive it.

I bless the Mercy of God that offers forgiveness that endures forever.

I bless the Might of God that controls the weather and the tides and the planets within their orbit.

I bless the Mind of God that designed a perfect plan for fallen man’s redemption.

I bless the Mouth of God that utters words of blessings, encouragement, and forgiveness.

I bless the Nail Scared hands and feet of Christ that bore the weight of all my sin.

I bless the Name of God that is above every name in heaven and on earth.

I bless the Nearness of God that He hears me every time I speak His name.

I bless the Nostrils of Christ that endured the stench of Golgotha as He hung upon a cross.

I bless the Omnipotence of God as I live under the might of His invincible power.

I bless the Omnipresence of God in that neither time nor distance confines Him.

I bless the Omniscience of God in that He alone is all knowing.

I bless the Patience of God in that He never ceases being a caring and loving Father.

I bless the Peace of God that provides comfort to me that surpasses all human understanding.

I bless the Perseverance of God in that He never slumbers nor sleeps.

I bless the Power of God that created the universe with its exponential billions of shining stars.

I bless the Presence of God in that He is never far from any one of us.

I bless the Promises of God that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I bless the Righteousness of God in that every knee will bow before Him.

I bless the Side of Christ that poured forth water and the blood that atoned for my sin.

I bless the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me while I was an enemy of God.

I bless the Soul of God that is the essence of boundless loving kindness forever and ever.

I bless the Sovereignty of God in that His word is and will forever be the final and everlasting word.

I bless the Spirit of God that teaches me, comforts me, and brings me liberty and peace.

I bless the Tenderness of God that planned that nursing babies would be held in their mother’s arms.

I bless the Thoughts of God that are more precious and higher than my thoughts will ever be.

I bless the Throne of God as He reigns from everlasting to everlasting without end.

I bless the Timing of God that is so perfect He can always be relied upon in time of need.

I bless the Touch of God that heals the sick, makes the lame walk and gives sight to the blind.

I bless the Truth of God that guarantees that He will always do that which He says He will do.

I bless the Understanding of God in that He knew I could never atone for my own sin.

I bless the Versatility of God that created the eagle, the dove, the lion, and the lamb.

I bless the Voice of God that one day will with a shout, call us to reign with Him forever.

I bless the Warmth of God that comforts me in a world that can be cold and uncaring.

I bless the Watchfulness of God that saw my hopeless condition and had pity on me.

I bless the Wealth of God in that He is the rightful owner of everything that exists.

I bless the Will of God that in everything I should give Him all thanks and honor.

I bless the Wisdom of God that He desires that I seek after His righteousness to obtain His wisdom.

I bless the Word of God that is from everlasting to everlasting and sharper than a two edged sword.

Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless His Holy Name.

Review of "Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport"

The motivation for this book is an attempt to recognize the way in which Calvinism connects with non-Calvinists, and why those who are Calvinists, do not run away in horror, but zealously embrace its theology. Author, Richard Mouw, recognizes that Calvinism does not always come across well, and best observes this in a movie entitled, Hardcore, in which a Calvinist elder, Jake, explains his TULIP theology to a curious lost woman in a Las Vegas airport, Niki, who in response to an explanation of TULIP Calvinism, exclaims: “I thought I was ****ed up.” (p.13)

Mouw writes: “I have been thinking about writing this book ever since I saw the film Hardcore. A movie with a title like that will not strike most folks as an obvious source of inspiration for some reflections on how to be a Calvinist in the twenty-first century, so I had better explain myself.” (p.11)

(The now Atheist director of Hardcore was raised as a Christian and graduated from Calvin College.)

Mouw writes: “I don’t recommend Hardcore for people seeking spiritual edification. But there is one scene in the film that I have regularly pondered in my own theological reflections. Jake Van Dorn, a pious Calvinist elder played by George C. Scott, is sitting in the Las Vegas airport with a thoroughly pagan young woman named Niki. Jake's teenage daughter has run away to California and gotten involved in the pornography business, and he has set out to find her. His initial efforts thus far have failed, but he has managed to enlist the help of Niki, a young prostitute who knows his daughter. They have just followed a lead in Las Vegas, but having discovered that the wayward daughter is no longer there, they are moving on in their search. ” (p.12)

Mouw writes: “There is no question in my mind that Jake’s Hardcore conversation with Niki was a disaster. You don’t respond to Niki’s curiosity about religion with a mini-lecture about TULIP. But how do you respond?” (p.103)

Mouw laments that he wished the Calvinist character would have been portrayed more charitably, with instead, a “relational evangelism” (p.108), as opposed to just laying out a dry TULIP theology and just surmising that if God chooses to give her an irresistible grace, she will convert.

Mouw explains: “If anything like this is true of Niki’s story, then the worst thing for a Calvinist to do would be to begin by telling her she is a horrible sinner who must repent and straighten out her ways. And that would be the message conveyed by beginning with TULIP, which could easily send her the message that she is a horrible person who may already have been rejected by God from the very foundations of the world. To be sure, her patterns of behavior are grounded in her rebellion against the living God. But in this case that rebellion has produced a life in which there is much loneliness and pain. Rather than going straight to the rebellion, it is a good thing to identify the loneliness and pain in the deep places of her life. Instead of hitting Niki directly with the ‘high Calvinism’ of the TULIP doctrines, I would rather have her hear a compassionate word.” (p.109)

In support, Mouw cites Charles Spurgeon’s use of Invitations (p.46) and sympathetic pleas with the lost. (p.109)

Mouw is very open and honest, which makes the book pleasant to read. Mouw does not defer to Hard Determinism in order to resolve the origin of evil, and instead, frequently differs to Arminian-friendly words such as divine “patience” (p.69) and divine “permission” (p.51), that is, God’s permission of evil events, as opposed to immutably causing them (pp.50-51). As opposed to the idea that prayer changes nothing, but only brings us in line with God, Mouw argues that prayer “is doing something. It is petitioning the Ruler of the universe. It is making our case in the Final Court of Appeals.” (p.61) “We can complain to God rather vigorously about the things we have a hard time accepting.” (p.51) One area in which Mouw gets in trouble is by suggesting that those who perish, do so when they reject God’s “offer” of salvation (p.85), which makes no sense in light of his defense of the “L” in TULIP, which stands for “Limited Atonement.” (p.40) In other words, if Jesus didn’t die for all, but only for a limited number of a pre-selected “elect,” then exactly what is He offering everyone else? Some Calvinists resolve this by insisting that God never “offers” salvation, but simply commands repentance, and those who do so (by Election with Irresistible Grace), receive the benefits of repentance.

I admire Mouw’s perspective on labels. He does not believe in slick marketing by calling himself, “Reformed,” but agrees to the label, “Calvinist,” for distinction's sake. (pp.18-19). I also appreciate the way Mouw is candid about his confusion over apparently conflicting passages in Scripture, as it pertains to Calvinism and Arminianism: “I simply live with both sets of texts, refusing to resolve the tension between what looks like conflicting themes. This is not an altogether comfortable position for me. I would like to be much clearer on the subject, but I really do not know how to proceed further. I can honestly say I’ve made the effort.” (p.42)

It’s always easier to speak with someone who is honest about his own reservations. Nothing is uglier than pride. I recall two Calvinists having a discussion over “problem verses” related to Calvinism, and the one Calvinist insisted, “We have no problem verses.” The other Calvinist insisted that the other was simply in denial. Again, pride is ugly, and Mouw demonstrates strong character.

Mouw is not shy about pointing out the negative stereotypes of Calvinism: “They see this emphasis of God’s sovereign control over all things as encouraging a passive, fatalistic spirit.” (p.51) “There is no denying that a belief that we are predestined to eternal life can lead to a deterministic, even fatalistic, understanding of the Christian life. If it is God who does the choosing, then we may be tempted to think that our own choosing, our own responding to God, is a charade. It is all preprogrammed. But Calvinist theologians go out of their way to deny this implication.” (p.66) “The idea of Election has often been wedded to a belief in a remnant, a faithful minority—tied to a sense that God has bypassed the vast majority of the human race and bestowed his saving mercies on a small number. Often this perspective seems to be worn as a badge of honor—as though Calvinists have a right to take pride in the fact that God has chosen them over most other members of the human race.” (p.84) “Calvinists have certainly not stood out in the Christian community as especially pure people when it comes to the way they behave. They have frequently been intolerant, sometimes to the point of taking abusive and violent action toward people with whom they have disagreed. They have often promoted racist policies. And the fact that they have often defended these things by appealing directly to Calvinist teachings suggests that at least something in these patterns may be due to some weakness in the Calvinist perspective itself.” (pp.114-115) “But I also see tendencies in my own Calvinism that make me nervous. Christians who specialize in free-will-centered theologies, for example, typically do a much better job at evangelism than Calvinists do.” (p.119)

Mouw encourages tolerance and acceptance of non-Calvinist Christians when he states: “Rather than insisting that only Calvinists are genuine Christians, I prefer to think that Calvinism best captures experiences and concerns that are at work in the lives of everyone who knows what it’s like to plead for divine mercy out of a recognition of our own unworthiness.” (p.118)

However, if there was one thing that bothered me, it was the attempt to bring all Christians under the general banner of Calvinism. For instance, Mouw favorably presents the notion that all true Christians are Calvinists when they are on their knees in prayer, because they are depending on the mercy of God. I would argue that all true Christians are Arminians when they are on their knees in prayer, because they are petitioning God to change something, which something, Determinism says was immutably predetermined and can never be changed. Calvinists sometimes explain this as “the means,” but that is only providing a tiny bit of wiggle-room. The reality is that prayer defies fatalism. So you can argue it both ways, but I nevertheless cringe at the comments of some Calvinists who try to be charitable towards Arminians by suggesting that all Arminians who are genuine Christians are Calvinists whether they realize it or not, or that some day they will be convinced of Calvinism. What if we turned it around and said, “all Calvinists who are true Christians are Arminians whether they realize it or not”? Would any Calvinist find that to be charitable? Mouw recites the views of one Calvinist: “He was making a much more charitable point, namely, that all true Christians are, whether they know it or not, Calvinists at heart. A person, he says, ‘may not call himself a Calvinist; he may even resent being called by this name’—but that’s what he is ‘in the final analysis’ if he ‘lives in utter dependence upon God.’” (p.113) What if I said that all true Christians are, whether they know it or not, Arminians at heart, if in the final analysis, they believe that their sin is displeasing to God? Rather than Calvinists counting Arminians as Calvinists, it is better to maintain the distinctions, and simply find unity under the general banner of “Christian,” who likewise maintain the centrality of the Gospel, in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, with there being life in His name.

John Piper on the "drawing" of the Gospel of John

In John Piper's sermon on John 6:44, he also deals with the context at large, namely, as it spans from John chapter 5 to John chapter 12 (listen carefully to 26:40 through 29:52, especially the conclusion). Certainly, John Piper, as a Calvinist, espouses the traditional Calvinist interpretation of the drawing of John 6:44, but notice what he says about the "drawing," concluding at the 29:52 mark, because, surprisingly, that's actually the traditional Arminian interpretation. Piper mistakenly attributes the traditional Arminian interpretation of John 6:44 as God drawing everyone to His Son, which is simply not the case. Instead, and I recognize that there are exceptions, Arminians have predominantly interpreted the Father's drawing of John 6:44, as being the Father's drawing of those that were in covenant with Him, as the faithful remnant of Israel, whom the Father was, upon that transitional period, drawing to His Son, viz. if you love the Father, you will love the Son, who bears His message. Conversely, if you hate the Son, then that serves as evidence that you hate the Father as well. Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews that if God was their father, as the Jews had claimed, then they would have loved the Son, but as it was, they did not. What's interesting to note, is one Calvinist's agreement with the Arminians, whether conscious of it or not, that the drawing, or lack thereof, was in direct correlation to one's standing with the Father.
Piper explains: "I'm leaving you. You have resisted Me. I'm backing away from you. I'm not going to draw most of you."
In contextualizing John 12 in relation to the drawing, John Piper has brilliantly, albeit unwittingly, articulated the Arminian perspective, which gives hope that Calvinists and Arminians can have some sort of common ground. In other words, the Father's drawing of the Jewish people to His Son is a function of their belief or disbelief in Him. As such, the reason why the Father had not drawn many in Israel to His Son, and consequently, not counted them among His Son's flock, was because they had persistently rejected the Father, who had so often, spread out His arms to them. (Isaiah 65:2) That's typically how Arminians have interpreted the general setting of John chapter's 5 through 12, and John 6:45 has particular relevance to this concept, insomuch that those who have "heard and learned from the Father," that is, having been in covenant with Him, come to the Son. It's fairly natural, that if one had loved the Father, that for these, the Father was recognizably noticeable in the Son and His message. Again, it must be emphasized that a remnant of faithful Israel, who are in covenant with Him, were being drawn by the hand of the Father to His Son, in a transitional period, by the Spirit-filled Preparer, John the Baptist, who baptized in the name of the One who was to come after him.
The line of distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism over this passage is that with Calvinism, God is not drawing the faithful remnant of His covenant people, Israel, to His Son, but rather is drawing an unfaithful, unbelieving remnant of eternally pre-selected Covenant people to His Son, who through the Father's eternal giving and drawing, become faithful and believing, and hence come to Christ. Arminians contend that this is a dramatic case of eisegesis, that is, importing a concept that is totally foreign into the text at hand. But what about the Arminian interpretation? Does that amount to reading something foreign into the text? On the basis of John 6:45, I don't see how such a claim could stand. It's fairly clear that those who have heard and learned from the Father, i.e. those in covenant relationship with Him, come to the Son. Thinking out loud, if what Arminians are saying is true, would Calvinists still have a work-around? Conceivably, I suppose that a Calvinist could theoretically argue that a person would become part of the Old Testament faithful by ordinary Calvinistic means, i.e. through "sovereign grace" (effectual grace, irresistible grace, regeneration, which Calvinists infer from Romans 11:2-5), and as result, in this setting, God draws His own to follow His Son. Nevertheless, my argument was silent on the particulars of just how people became part of the Old Testament faithful, and simply took them as they were, which as such, were drawn by the Father to His Son. But again, according to the traditional Calvinist model of the drawing, God draws unbelievers, not believers (which according to Calvinism, could not otherwise be believers, since they are totally unable to believe apart from an effectual drawing), and hence by said drawing, become believers. But again, Piper's exegesis of John 12 betrays such a view by contextualizing the nature and purpose of the drawing, in making it a correlation of belief or unbelief, which is the exact opposite of what traditional Calvinism teaches about the drawing.

Clarification on "Chilling Quotes"

The Society of Evangelical Arminians [SEA] did an article on “Chilling Quotes” from John Calvin, based upon some quotes that I had provided. This article drew a response from Colin Maxwell to which I owe an explanation:

Quotes 1 & 2

John Calvin: “Elsewhere I deny that any injury is done the reprobate, for they deserve destruction. Here Pighius spreads his wings and noisily exults, that in this case I neither understand myself nor remember what I previously said. But it does not seem to me worth while to say many words in my own defence, and I am displeased at having to use even a few. When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity. It is therefore wrong to say that the reprobate are worthy of eternal destruction. If in the former case no comparison is made between men themselves, and worthiness has no relation to the reward of life, so in the second case the equal condition of all is not proved. Add to this that Augustine writes in one place that salvation never lacked to anyone worthy of it, but qualifies the statement in the Retractions so as to exclude works and to refer acceptable worthiness to the gratuitous calling of God. But Pighius presses on. If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction. I reply that three things must here be considered. First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined. Secondly, Adam himself, on account of his defection, is appointed to death. Lastly, in his person now fallen and lost, all his offspring is condemned in such a way that God deems worthy of the honour of adoption those whom He gratuitously elects out of it. I neither dream nor fabricate anything of this. Nor am I called on in the present instance to prove each particular, because I fancy I have done this already. But I must dispose of this calumny of Pighuis who proudly triumphs over me as though I were vanquished ten times, for the reason that these things are quite inconsistent. When predestination is discussed, it is from the start to be constantly maintained, as I today teach, that all the reprobate are justly left in death, for in Adam they are dead and condemned. Those justly perish who are by nature children of wrath. Thus, no one has cause to complain of the too great severity of God, seeing that all carry in themselves inclusive liability. As to the first man, we must hold he was created perfectly righteous and fell by his own will; and hence it comes about that by his own fault he brought destruction on himself and on all his race. Adam fell, though not without God’s knowledge and ordination, and destroyed himself and his posterity; yet this neither mitigates his guilt nor involves God in any blame. For we must always remember that he voluntarily deprived himself of the rectitude he had received from God, voluntarily gave himself to the service of sin and Satan, and voluntarily precipitated himself into destruction. One excuse is suggested, that he could not evade what God had decreed. But his voluntary transgression is enough and more than enough to establish his guilt. For the proper and genuine cause of sin is not God’s hidden counsel but the evident will of man.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, Westminster John Knox Press, 1997, pp.121-122, emphasis mine)

With my edition, it is clear that there is no “scandalous tampering,” but I can hardly fault you since I did not include the edition for you to cross reference. What happened is that I had simply misinterpreted as belonging to Calvin, what Calvin was instead highlighting as being Pighuis’ inference. To that, I am in error, and my website at http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/ has been updated. Clearly, in context, John Calvin flatly denies the charge that he teaches that the “Reprobate” are unconditionally condemned, but rather are conditionally condemned on account of “inclusive liability.” Perhaps I was overly focused on the part which states: “If what I teach” while missing the part which says, “I reply.” That was sloppy on my part, and for that, I owe SEA and its readers an apology. But there is more to this story.

Colin, perhaps you would be willing to also comment on the following from Calvin, to see if I have inferred of Calvin correctly, which ultimately works back to the initial quotes 1 & 2:

John Calvin: “They again object, Were not men predestinated by the ordination of God to that corruption which is now held forth as the cause of condemnation? If so, when they perish in their corruptions they do nothing else than suffer punishment for that calamity, into which, by the predestination of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his posterity headlong with him. Is not he, therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his creatures? I admit that by the will of God all the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved; and this is just what I said at the first, that we must always return to the mere pleasure of the divine will, the cause of which is hidden in himself. But it does not forthwith follow that God lies open to this charge.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, section 4, emphasis mine)

John Calvin: “They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all?” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, section 7, emphasis mine)

John Calvin: “Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself—viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, section 8, emphasis mine)

My comment: In other words, Adam and Eve fell by the “pleasure of the divine will.” As such, God has a set script for His noblest creature, man, and that if any such creature were to script his own ways, according to the desert of his libertarian freedom, then God could not simultaneously be omnipotent.

John Calvin: “The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, section 7, emphasis mine)

My comment: John Calvin indeed believes that the Fall was divinely “arranged,” and also “dreadful.” Of course, if you are on the losing end of the arrangement, it is dreadful indeed. Now we return back to John Calvin’s comments in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God:

John Calvin: “To this opinion of this holy man I subscribe: in sinning, they did what God did not will in order that God through their evil will might do what He willed.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.123, emphasis mine)

John Calvin: “If anyone object that this is beyond his comprehension, I confess it. But what wonder if the immense and incomprehensible majesty of God exceed the limits of our intellect? I am so far from undertaking the explanation of this sublime, hidden secret, that I wish what I said at the beginning to be remembered, that those who seek to know more than God has revealed are crazy. Therefore let us be pleased with instructed ignorance rather than with the intemperate and inquisitive intoxication of wanting to know more than God allows.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.123, emphasis mine)

John Calvin: “But now, removing from God all proximate causation of the act, I at the same time remove from Him all guilt and leave man alone liable. It is therefore wicked and calumnious to say that I make the fall of man one of the works of God. But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.123-124, emphasis mine)

Understood, but when you go back to my initial quote, in which I mistakenly inferred of John Calvin, what was actually instead John Calvin’s summarization of Pighuis’ inference of Calvin, how would Pighuis’ inference not, in fact, be indicative of Calvin, since it appears to be so well congruent? In other words, if God’s choosing of some for the purpose of destruction, in no way depends upon His permission of their voluntary defection and the “desert” of their libertarian freedom, but instead depends solely upon a divine “arrangement” according to the “pleasure of God’s will” for His “noblest creation,” then how can we not say that Pighuis’ inference is absolutely spot on? Simply to “confess ignorance” as to how determinism and liberty fits together, does not suit his defense against Pighuis’ inference very well.

Quote 3

John Calvin: “Paul does not inform us that the ruin of the ungodly is foreseen by the Lord, but that it is ordained by His counsel and will. Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing (Prov. 16.4).” (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, William B. Erdman’s Publishing Company, 1995, pp.207-208, emphasis mine)

Colin, you say that we should not overlook the significance of the word “ungodly,” in terms of “their responsibility,” but are you not simultaneously overlooking the point of Calvinism’s objectors, who like me, highlight Calvin’s use of, “created”? In fact, does that not seem perfectly congruent with the inference of Pighuis, in that these are not merely found, but made, according to divine arrangement, according to divine purpose, and according to the pleasure of the divine will, to be born into this world as “ungodly” for a set purpose and perish as such? Surely you can see the unconditional nature of that, as per the doctrine of Unconditional Reprobation.

John Calvin: “Conceited men are resentful, because, in admitting that men are rejected or chosen by the secret counsel of God, Paul offers no explanation, as though the Spirit of God were silent for want of reason, and does not rather warn us by His silence—a mystery which our minds do not comprehend, but which we ought to adore with reverence.” (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, William B. Erdman’s Publishing Company, 1995, p.209, emphasis mine)

John Calvin: “There are some, too, who allege that God is greatly dishonored if such arbitrary power is bestowed on Him. But does their distaste make them better theologians than Paul, who has laid it down as the rule of humility for the believers, that they should look up to the sovereignty of God and not evaluate it by their own judgment?” (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, William B. Erdman’s Publishing Company, 1995, pp.209-210, emphasis mine)

Again, where is the disharmony from the inference of Pighuis, in that these are not found but made worthy of condemnation by the “arbitrary power” of a “sovereign God”?

In Summary, here is how Calvin’s defense works:

Assert that since “A” is true, and that “B” is true, we do not need to explain how they work together, but merely that they are true, and the rest will sort itself out. Fully executed, here is how it appears:

We know that “Hard Determinism” is true, and we know that “human responsibility” is true, therefore we do not need to intrude upon the secret workings of God in order to figure out how they are both true, but only to recognize that they are both true, and let God sort out the mystery in His own due time. The problem, of course, is that we do not all recognize Hard Determinism as true, and therefore we can substitute a more *friendly* word such as “Sovereign.” With the substitution, here is how it appears:

We know that God is “Sovereign” (insert smily face) and we know that “man is responsible,” therefore we do not need to know how they work together, but only that they are, in fact, true and God can sort out the mystery in His own due time. Obviously, when dissected, Calvin’s defense is nothing more than Circular Logic, by simply presuming Hard Determinism (which is step 1 in his two-step defense, as shown in the initial quote where I have bolded the words “First” and “Secondly”), which is why Pighuis’ inference seems valid.

New Book: John Calvin Goes to Berkeley

What happens when a dogmatic Calvinist attempts “Reformation” within an on-campus, Christian organization of college students, who are relatively inexperienced in the Free Will vs. Predestination controversy? What happens when the dogmatic Calvinist becomes even more vigilant, when pressured by his aggressive Calvinist Pastor, using the threat of withholding his recommendation for admission to the Calvinistic, Westminster Theological Seminary? What happens when the inexperienced, non-Calvinist students take up the noble challenge of believing in God for an answer to the age old mystery on Predestination? What happens when the pressures of college life gets in the way of their research? What if that college is the University of California at Berkeley, or more affectionately known as “Beserkeley”? Find out, in the new book, “John Calvin Goes To Berkeley”?

Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good

A dissertation was written to explore the potential Gnostic influence on Augustine’s (354-430) doctrine of Predestination. John Calvin (1509-1564) admits that his theology was already developed by Augustine, so the question is then: How did Augustine arrive at his view of Predestination, which is quite the opposite of what was publicly taught within the church for the first 300 years of early church history. It should be noted that Augustine was himself a Gnostic Manichaean for nearly a decade before converting to Catholicism. Generally, it is thought that Augustine developed his theology on predestination after debating with Pelagius (354-420/440), but Kam-lun E. Lee suggests that it was developed from Augustine’s debates with the Manichaeans, in terms of the inevitability of personal evil and divine cosmic ordering (or divine sovereignty, if you will).

The Manichaeans represent the Persian branch of Gnosticism, and they taught both determinism and total depravity. However, their determinism was based upon dualistic mythology (p.128, 209), and also maintained a carnal outlook on bodily pleasure.

Lee writes: “It is evident that the preceding discourse reflects Augustine’s conscious effort to seek an alternative explanation of the phenomenon of what the Manichees believe to be caused by a metaphysical evil principle (xxiii.44), and only in De uera religione has he embarked on developing a full theory.” (p.117)

The determistic Manichaeans had a dualistic view of the origin of sin, while Augustinian determinism had a monistic view of the origin of sin. Therefore, determinism is the common root between Gnosticism and Augustinianism.

Lee writes: “[The] concept of the inevitability of personal evil is fundamental to the development of his doctrine of predestination. Therefore, from this consideration, we may say that Manichaeism has contributed to the doctrine by drawing Augustine to wrestle with the issue of the evil principle in the context of the Manichaean concept of the Good as the Beautiful.” (p.139)

Lee writes: “We will show that Augustine’s consideration of cosmic order as beautiful is his address to the Manichaean view of the universe.” (p.140)

Lee writes: “The notion of cosmic order is actually the framework of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, and is his response to the Manichaean view of the universe as a mixture of good and evil.” (p.144)

Lee writes: “...Augustine’s concern is to affirm the initiative of God, the summe esse, to preserve the existence of the universe by maintaining its proper order.” (p.147)

Lee writes: “Manichaeism, as understood by Augustine, seeks to answer the question unde sit malum? (mor. II.ii.2) and arrives at a dualistic solution well reflected in its cosmogony which is constituted in three Moments: the pristine universe, the present world order, and the eschatological restoration.” (p.149)

Lee writes: “...the Manichees arrive at the conclusion that the present universe is a mixture of both good and evil. Augustine, reasoning along similar lines, concludes differently. He argues that an individual creature is good because of the harmonious congruence of its parts, just as the universe is good by reason of its harmonious order (mon. II.v.7-ix.18).” (p.153)

Lee writes: “But since, according to Augustine, God is good and he is the only ground of existence, then how can something evil come out of the good God? In the affirmation of a Trinitarian monism, Augustine is faced with the challenge of explaining the total goodness of the universe despite the presence of evil in it. To put it in Manichaean terms, Augustine must show that the universe is wholly beautiful.” (p.154)

Is the origin of evil, one’s voluntary defection from God? Or, is the origin of evil, God’s pre-determination that evil is a creation of God that is to be manifested, in order for God to display the sum total of His various attributes?

Lee writes: “In the preceding discussion, we have shown the first part of Manichaean influence on Augustine’s doctrine of predestination by demonstrating that the doctrine assumes a two-tiered framework of cosmic order, which is his response to the Manichaean view of the universe. While the Manichees believe that the universe is an admixture of both good and evil, Augustine thinks that it is good, therefore beautiful, as a whole.” (p.163)

So what should we say, it’s all good, because it comes from God?

Lee writes: “[Augustine] draws on the Manichees for insights of experience of personal evil, borrowing from them the double notion of ‘wickedness’ and ‘mortality,’ although he has substantially transformed these simplistic ideas into an elaborate theory that eventually does away with dualism.” (p.169)

Lee writes: “It is recognized that in Contra Fortunatum (392) Augustine, due to Fortunatus’ invocation of Pualine support for the notion of the inevitability of evil, is forced to focus on Paul’s notion of the flesh as an intrinsic principle rebellious to what is instituted by God.” (p.172)

Fortunatus was a Manichaean Gnostic, with whom Augustine had been debating, and Fortunatus had appealed to the writings of the Apostle Paul. But the Gnostics did not correctly teach Pauline theology. So what exactly did Augustine learn from them?

Lee writes: “As Augustine focuses more on the Pauline writings, the shift of attention from consuetudo to concupiscentia hinted at in De sermone domine in monte I becomes more apparent in his first systematic commentary on the Book of Romans.” (p.177)

So what other biblical proof-texts did Augustine witness of the Gnostics in their debates? Virtually all of the familiar proof-texts evident in the Calvinist vs. Arminianism debates of today, were present in Augustine’s fully developed view of predestination.

Lee writes: “...Augustine’s emphasis on the hiddenness of divine ordering at this point signals a gradual shift toward a more predestinarian view. The idea of hiddenness of divine judgment indeed reflects his attempt to incorporate the notion of election into the hidden divine operation of the cosmic order. The fact that Augustine is giving up his theory of election by divine foreknowledge is also reflected in his explanation of selective calling.” (p.189)

Lee writes: “...as soon as Augustine is convinced of the total inability of the human initiative and the total hiddenness of divine judgment, the formulation of his mature view is just a matter of time.” (p.190)

Lee writes: “...the only other factor needed besides the notion of concupiscentia for Augustine to arrive at his mature view of grace is the notion of limited salvation....” (p.191)

Lee writes: “The final transition to the mature view is marked by the phasing out of the idea of election by foreknowledge. ... As Augustine diminishes the place of human initiative, increasingly he ascribes election to the hiddenness of divine judgment.” (p.194)

Lee writes: “Thus, considered psychologically, the human will is free, but the outcome of the willing is divinely arranged and therefore guaranteed.” (p.198)

Lee writes: “But for a solution as to why one is chosen and another not, Augustine has to appeal to God’s secret arrangement....” (p.198)

Lee writes: “From Augustine’s perspective, God’s administering of his hidden arrangement to confer grace and pass judgment is an ordering of good and evil (Faus. XXI.2-3). It then seems logical for him to make God’s secret administration of salvation part of the grand cosmic order....” (p.199)

Lee writes: “While the outcome of the individual salvation in the former case is not predetermined, the latter case reflects the determinism that is inherent in the notion of effectual calling.” (p.200)

Lee writes: “...by grace, some are set apart from rest of the sinful mass...whom God has already secretly called at the beginning of the world...each one’s destiny is fixed in the eternal plan of God...which could well be a part of the cosmic ordering.” (p.202)

Lee writes: “As such, the determinism inspired by the Manichaean notion of the Good in terms of the concepts of consuetudo and concupiscentia, under the aspect of limited salvation, is brought to its logical conclusion.” (p.204)

In summary, Lee writes: “Augustine borrowed from the Manichees their dual notion of evil as ‘wickedness’ and as ‘mortality.’ These were considered evil because they are the antithesis of tranquil pleasure at the spiritual and the physical levels of existence. He shared with the Manichees the view that these aspects of evil are inevitable so long as life is lived in this world. Together, these borrowed approaches to evil helped Augustine to formulate an alterative explanation of the principle of personal evil....” (p.205)

Lee writes: “...the framework of cosmic order within which Augustine developed his doctrine is a result of his response to the Manichaean view of the universe as a mixture of good and evil. In this response, he again employs the Manichaean idea of the Good to affirm that the whole universe is beautiful despite the presence of evil. So long as evil is put in its proper place, the cosmic harmony is preserved.” (p.206)

But was this kind of “cosmic order” in support of, or in contradiction to, the theology of the first 300 years of church history? “...the theological climate in Augustine’s time fostered free will and responsibility. Determinism would have gone against the tide.” (p.207)

Lee writes: “The Manichaean explanation for the cause of personal evil is relatively straightforward. One cannot escape from moral evil because there is a metaphysical evil principle at work behind the soul. In other words, one sins involuntarily. Considered cosmologically, the human soul is thrown into the predicament of constant struggle with evil not by its own choice but by the determination of an external factor. According to the Manichaean myth, this factor is the good principle or the God who sends the good soul to be mixed with evil in order to block the invasion of an advancing enemy (mor. II.xii.25; Faus XX.17, XXII.22; Fort. 7; nat. bon. xlii).” (pp.208-209)

Lee writes: “...once he began responding to the Manichaean view regarding the macrocosm, he could not avoid the issue of determinism. In his alternative proposal, divine cosmic ordering, Augustine had to address the question of what ultimately determines an individual’s place in the universal order. Since the more deeply one is bonded to evil, the less one is able to control one’s destiny, the belief in the inevitability of personal evil would then imply a view that the determination is made by the God who orders the cosmos. Expressed in the language of predestination, this view means that God has the power to elect from the massa damnata those who receive salvation and to leave the rest in damnation.” (p.210)

So the question is this: Did Augustine take the mythology of Gnostic determism, and bring it under the pale of Christian orthodoxy, simply by tinkering with it, by removing the mythological, dualistic component, and making the cause of evil, entirely the product of monistic, divine cosmic ordering, or otherwise stated, divine sovereignty? Is Augustinian predestination the “Christian” link to Gnosticism? Insofar as theological determinism, that appears to be the case. Who among the early Church theologians, prior to Augustine, taught Augustinian predestination? It appears to be a theology that was born out of Augustine’s research of Gnosticism.

Norman Geisler & Unconditional Election

Norman Geisler writes: “…God is the unconditional source of the election, and that election is done with full foreknowledge of all things. But we have demonstrated that the elect will freely choose to believe. Election is not based on or dependent on foreknowledge. Rather, it is merely in accord with it (see chapter 3).” (Chosen But Free, p.69)

Geisler presents an analogy to help clarify his proposed distinction.

Geisler continues: “An illustration is in order. Suppose a young man (whom we will call Jim) is contemplating marriage, and knows two young ladies (whom we will call Joan and Betty), either of whom would make a good wife for him. As a Christian, he has three basic choices: (1) to propose to neither of them; (2) to propose to Joan; or (3) to propose to Betty. Bear in mind that the young man is under no compulsion. There is nothing outside his own will that places demands on him to choose any one of the three options (or any other one). Suppose further that the young man happens to know that if he proposes to Joan she will say yes and if he proposes to Betty she will say no. Suppose, then in accordance with this foreknowledge of how she will freely respond, that Jim chooses to propose to Joan. Suppose even that he knew she would be reluctant at first but with persistent and loving persuasion she would eventually—freely—accept his offer. The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based on anything outside himself. But it was also a decision that was with full knowledge of the response and which respected the free choice of the person to whom he decided to propose. This is analogous to what moderate Calvinists believe about God’s unconditional election.” (Chosen But Free, pp.69-70)

It seems evident that Jim chose to propose to Joan (as opposed to Betty) because he knew that he could get a yes from her. So why couldn’t you say that he chose her “based upon” and “dependent on” his special knowledge of her response? In other words, I’m simply not understanding Geisler’s asserted dichotomy.

Geisler adds: “It is clear, of course, that God chose us before we chose to accept Him. And our decision to accept His offer of salvation is not the basis for His choice of us. We did not choose Him--either first or as the basis of His choice of us.” (Chosen But Free, p.74)

I simply do not understand how the illustration has clarified the distinction between “based on” vs. “in accord with.”

Why Is Calvin Controversial?

Doug Wilson, Mark Talbot, and Sam Storms are 3 speakers at the upcoming, Desiring God Conference, and each answer the question, "Why was Calvin controversial?"

Here is the link to the videos.

I'll admit. I was stunned by these three interviews. I think that the problem is that they were each presented with a complex question, and simply shot from the hip, and the result was quite astounding.

Doug Wilson: “Calvin is associated with so much controversy because he was a good man and a faithful servant.”

If you asked the current Watchtower, Mormon or Seven Day Adventist leadership, about why their cult leaders were controversial, would you expect them to answer differently?

Doug Wilson: “Calvin is an object of controversy for the same reason that…the apostle Paul was, for the same reason that the prophets in the Old Testament were. He was a faithful servant in a fallen world, and there is no way that you can open fire on the devil in such a way that he will not fire back. If you become a threat to the devil, he will try to take you out, and that is why Calvin is controversial.”

So where does this leave the Arminian? “Fallen” servants of the devil, doing the bidding of their master, the devil, who is “firing back”? Where is this line of reasoning going? Also, would a cultist answer that question any differently? Certainly the Watchtower would say that Charles Taze Russell was controversial because he was a good man, faithfully preaching the truth to a fallen world, receiving opposition from the devil. I don’t understand how Wilson’s explanation is in the slightest way distinguishable from cultism in general.

Mark Talbot: “I think Calvin is associated with a lot of controversy, primarily because any time you clearly speak the Christian truth, you are going to be controversial. The fact is that there are only two kinds of people in the world…those who are unregenerate and those who are regenerate. If you speak the Christian message clearly, then you are necessarily going to arouse opposition among those people whose hearts have not yet been regenerated by God.”

So John Calvin is controversial because you’re an unsaved, unregenerate child of the devil who is lashing back? (Notice at the 0:50 mark where Talbot flashes a smile.)

Mark Talbot: Concerning Servetus, “Calvin lived in a different time, and we now are culturally, in quite a different spot.”

Product of his time? That should absolutely never be how we measure Christian conduct.

Mark Talbot: “We don’t put Calvin within his context, and understand that within his context, he was actually quite moderate about the ways that he thought about things such as heresy.”

“Quite moderate”? John Calvin was known as the “Genevese Dictator.” He had all sorts of enforced moral crimes in his attempt to establish a Utopian Society. Vance’s book outlines these in detail (shown below). Calvin was intolerant of dissenting views and was surprisingly abusive in his writings, especially, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Attempts to soften his image, seem to be little more than revisionism.

Sam Storms: “The question is why Calvin is associated with so much controversy, and he is, and I think that it’s due to several factors. Certainly his theology. People instinctively and naturally do not embrace such a high emphasis on the sovereignty of God.”

Finally, yes, theology is indeed at the heart of Calvin’s controversy. However, it should be pointed out that while the “high emphasis” on the “sovereignty of God” is the primary selling point of Calvinism, the reality of the controversy of Calvin’s theology, is that it naturally makes God the “author of sin,” which is something that the Neo-Platonic philosopher, Florinus (180), asserted in favor of, and which the Gnostic Manichaeans also asserted, but which Irenaeus (130-200), an early church father, rejected, by citing Matthew 23:37.

Sam Storms: “You mention ‘Geneva’ in the 16th century to people today, and they think ‘Theocracy’ and this heavy-handed, legalistic, oppression of the people, and that was not the case. … And I think that people have this idea that Calvin wanted to impose some kind of theocratic rule on the people of God, and he didn’t.”

Is this Conference going to be dedicated to revisionist propaganda?

Sam Storms: “One reason why he is associated with controversy is because of us [meaning other Calvinists]. … We need to try to be winsome and loving in our presentation of what we perceive to be the truth.”

Is one way to go about it, by asserting that Calvin is right and the devil is mad, and naturally “unregenerate” people have become aroused? ...because that seems to be the Calvinist message in the videos.

Why is John Calvin controversial?

It’s due to his theology and his personal conduct as the leader of Geneva.

In terms of personal conduct, the historcal background is that John Calvin was initially banished from his role in Geneva in 1538 and then recalled in 1541. Here are some quotes....

Laurence Vance: “Boettner, although trying to defend Calvin, nevertheless explains the reason why: ‘Due to an attempt of Calvin and Farel to enforce a too severe system of discipline in Geneva, it became necessary for them to leave the city temporarily.’” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.81)

Laurence Vance: “The rejection of popery by the city of Geneva did not necessarily mean that all of its citizens were now model Christians. Many simply went along with the Reformation for political reasons. The evils of a united Church and State—Catholic or Protestant—were not yet recognized. Consequently, ‘a set of severe regulations’ were introduced, even before Calvin arrived in the city. There were laws governing dress, music, games, church attendance, dancing, blasphemy, and oaths. Education became free but compulsory. One citizen who refused to attend sermons was imprisoned, forced to go hear sermons, and finally banished from the city. Naturally, there were many residents of Geneva who rebelled against the strict system of discipline. A hair-dresser was imprisoned for two days for arranging a bride’s hair in an unseemly manner. Two Anabaptists were banished from the city on account of their theological views. Penalties were assessed for making noise or laughing during church. A gambler was publicly punished. Many of the leaders of the opposition to Calvin were among those who at first supported the reform efforts. Thus, Calvin’s ‘reign’ in Geneva was doomed to failure.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, pp.83-84)

Laurence Vance: “We are told by Calvinists that ‘Calvin envisioned a model Christian community based upon the Bible and patterned after the early church.’ This has been variously termed a theocracy, a biblocracy, a clerocracy, and a christocracy.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.84)

Laurence Vance: “The rules and regulations introduced in Geneva during Calvin’s ministry left no area of life untouched. This is why Calvin has frequently been labeled ‘the Genevese dictator’ who ‘would tolerate in Geneva the opinions of only one person, his own.’ Besides the usual laws against dancing, profanity, gambling, and immodesty, the number of dishes eaten at a meal was regulated. Attendance at public worship was made mandatory and watchmen were directed to see that people went to church. Press censorship was instituted and books judged to be heretical or immoral were banned. Interest on loans was capped at 5 percent. The naming of children was regulated. Naming a child after a Catholic saint was a penal offense. During an outbreak if the plague in 1545, over twenty persons were burnt alive for witchcraft, and Calvin himself was involved in the prosecutions. From 1542 to 1546, fifty-eight people were executed and seventy-six exiled from Geneva. Torture was freely used to extract confessions. The Calvinist John McNeil admits that ‘in Calvin’s later years, and under his influence, the laws of Geneva became more detailed and more stringent.’ Calvin was involved in every conceivable aspect of city life: safety regulations to protect children, laws against recruiting mercenaries, new inventions, the introduction of cloth manufacturing, and even dentistry. He was consulted not only on all important state affairs, but only the supervision of the markets and assistance for the poor. Calvin was especially severe with incorrigible adulterers—he favored the death penalty. Those guilty of fornication or adultery were fined and imprisoned. Nevertheless, these laws did not stamp out adultery, for Calvin’s own sister-in-law and stepdaughter were found guilty. Calvin’s theory of a theocracy is professed to be based on the Holy Scriptures, but as Schaff astutely observes: ‘It is impossible to deny that this kind of legislation savors more of the austerity of old heathen Rome and the Levitical code than of the gospel of Christ, and that the actual exercise of discipline was often petty, pedantic, and unnecessarily severe.’” (The Other Side of Calvinism, pp.84-85)

In terms of the controversy of John Calvin in the matter of theology…

Laurence Vance: “There was also some opposition in Geneva to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. In 1551 a medical doctor named Jerome Bolsec (c. 1520-1584) questioned Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. After merely being reprimanded in May, Bolsec was arrested in October for affirming that ‘those who posit an eternal decree in God by which he has ordained some to life and the rest to death make of Him a tyrant, and in fact an idol, as the pagans made of Jupiter.’ For this he was banished from the city in December and threatened with the whip if he returned. The next year, Jean Trolliet, a city notary whom Calvin had previously rejected as a minister, attached Calvin’s view of predestination for making God the author of sin. Calvin appealed to the city council and they ruled in his favor, declaring that ‘Calvin’s book of the Institutes was a good and godly composition, that its doctrine was godly doctrine, that he was esteemed as a good and true minister of this city, and that thenceforward no one should dare to speak against this book and its doctrine.’” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.86)

Vances notes the following positive aspect of Calvin’s reign.

Laurence Vance: Ironically, Geneva became a haven for those who fled their native land due to religious persecution. … Geneva was also a home to exiles from England during the reign of Bloody Mary (1553-1558).” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.87)

Vance explains the account of Servetus on pp.89-100.

This information should at least provide some background information on why both Calvin’s personal conduct and theological teachings contributed to him being controversial.

Book Study at SEA

SEA, the Society of Evangelical Arminians, is currently undertaking a book review with its author, Roger E. Olson, who is also a fellow member of SEA. I have the pleasure of participation in this study, as each week, we study one chapter at a time, and then discuss it, together with the feedback of the book's author. Very nice!

I would like to review chapter 1, including the Introduction.

Olson: “The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is often said to be based on a disagreement about predestination and free will. That is the common, almost folkloric myth about this entire subject.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.19)

I certainly agree.

The next quote fascinates me, in terms of the historical perspective:

Olson: “Arminius did not believe he was introducing anything new to Christian theology. Whether he in fact did is debatable. He explicitly appealed to the early church fathers, used medieval theological methods and conclusions, and pointed to Protestant synergists before himself.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.22)

Olson next discusses a myth concerning Arminian theology: “One of the most prevalent myths spread by some Calvinists about Arminianism is that it is the most popular type of theology in evangelical pulpits and pews. My experience contradicts this belief. Much depends on how we regard Arminian theology. The Calvinist critics would be correct if Arminianism were semi-Pelagianism. But it is not so, as I hope to show. The gospel preached and the doctrine of salvation taught in most evangelical pulpits and lecterns, and believed in most evangelical pews, is not classical Arminianism but semi-Pelagianism if not outright Pelagianism.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.30)

This is key. Arminians attempt to distance themselves from Pelagians by focusing on the necessity of intervening, preceding grace, Prevenient Grace, whereas the latter states that fallen man has, of himself, sufficient power to initiate salvation, irrespective of a “divine appointment” of grace. Of course, Pelagians may wish to dispute such a remark in their own book, Pelagian Theology: Myths and Realities. Of course, I haven’t seen such a book yet. Nevertheless, Calvinists are aware of this distinction, and make very little of it. Here is an excerpt from Calvinist, R.C. Sproul:

Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, writes: “Semi-Pelagianism salutes the necessity of grace, but under close scrutiny one wonders if the difference between Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism is a distinction without a difference.” (What is Reformed Theology?, p.187)

The basis for this charge is because although God takes the first step in seeking, convicting, knocking and opening hearts to receive Him, “this step is not decisive, and can be thwarted by the sinner. If the sinner refuses to cooperate with or assent to this proffered grace, then grace is to no avail.” (What is Reformed Theology?, p.187)

So in other words, according to Calvinism, any theology whereby God sovereignly gives a person a genuine opportunity to respond to grace, is still Pelagian, as long as the offered grace does not conclusively determine action, but leaves the decision to the sinner to decide for himself:

Sproul continues: “The problem is this: If grace is necessary but not effectual, what makes it work? ... Why does one sinner respond to the offer of grace positively and the other negatively?” (What is Reformed Theology?, p.187)

In other words, if one person receives Christ, but another does not, what makes the difference? (To the Calvinist, God is the decisive difference, regenerating the one but not the other. To the Arminian, God makes the decisive difference, insomuch that reception of God’s grace is the act of non-resistance).

Sproul writes: “Does grace assist the sinner in cooperating with grace, or does the sinner cooperate by the power of the flesh alone? If the latter, it is unvarnished Pelagianism. If the former, it is still Pelagianism in that grace merely facilitates regeneration and salvation.” (What is Reformed Theology?, pp.187-188)

In other words, according to Sproul, any decision left to man, either to accept or reject, is still fundamentally Pelagian, whether grace facilitates the decision or is absent altogether. That is a fairly hard-line standard, to which Olson has taken exception:

Olson: “I’ve been fighting this battle, to clear the good name of Arminian theology (by showing how it different from Semi-Pelagianism) for years now with very limited success. I find that most of the people doing the misrepresenting of Arminianism and aggressively asserting the sole theological correctness of Reformed theology (their version of it) have little or no interest in being educated about real Arminian theology. Their minds are already made up; don’t confuse them with the facts. Every year I have a group of Calvinist pastors from a local Reformed church come to my class and speak. One of them started out by saying “Arminianism is just Pelagianism.” After several such unfortunate encounters I gave them copies of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities on the condition they read it. To the best of my knowledge they never have.” (SEA)

Olson also makes one statement that I wish to follow-up upon: “It is also the Arminian interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10, which indicates two salvations through Christ: one universal for all people and one especially for all who believe.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.33)

Where in the context is Paul speaking of Jesus as a temporal Savior vs. an eternal Savior? My thought is that this is speaking of Jesus as Savior in the eternal sense alone, and that “especially” signifies the sole beneficiaries of the universal atonement. Obviously this is not Universalism, but that will do little to hinder the Calvinist chickens with their theological heads cut off. They want the only alternative to their interpretation to be Universalism, so that they can paint the opposition as heretics.

Olson: “A crucial Arminain doctrine is prevenient grace, which Calvinists also believe, but Arminians interpret it differently. Prevenient grace is simply the convicting, calling, enlightening and enabling grace of God that goes before conversion and makes repentance and faith possible. Calvinists interpret it as irresistible and effectual; the person in whom I works will repent and believe unto salvation. Arminians interpret it as resistible; people are always able to resist the grace of God, as Scripture warns (Acts 7:51).” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.35)

I found this to be a good point. The issue is not whether Prevenient Grace is exclusively an Arminian concept, but how it is understood by Calvinists and Arminians, whether the enablement thereof is resistible or irresistible.

A very significant issue to Olson, in rejecting Calvinism, is over the Problem of Evil:

Olson: “The issue is most emphatically not a humanistic vision of autonomous free will, as if Arminians were in love with free agency for its own sake. Any fair-minded reading of Arminius, Wesley or any other classical Arminian will reveal that this is not so. Rather, the issue is the character of God and the nature of personal relationship.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.38)

Olson: “Arminians affirm that God is in charge of nature and history but deny that God controls every event. Arminians deny that God ‘hides a smiling face’ behind the horrors of history. The devil is not ‘God’s devil’ or even an instrument of God’s providential self-glorification. The Fall was not foreordained by God for some secret purpose.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.38)

The following is an excellent statement made by Olson, explaining how Calvinists, Arminians, and for that matter, any Christian theologian, is to engage polemics:

Olson: “Before you disagree make sure you understand. In other words, we must make sure that we can describe another’s theological position as he or she would describe it before we criticize or condemn.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.41)

Olson: “Much of the harsh polemics of traditional Calvinist-Arminian debate could and should be overcome simply by understanding each others’ real theological positions.” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.59)

Now, of course, a Calvinist may charge you with failure to meet the standard set forth above, but make sure that you request specifics, otherwise consider the source, as the Calvinist may simply be slinging mud.

Speaking on Election, Olson states: “Election is corporate--God's determination of Christ to be the Savior of that group of people who repent and believe (Eph 1); predestination is individual--God's foreknowledge of those who will repent and believe (Rom 8:29).” (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p.37)

Let me come right out and say that this statement isn't strong enough. Let me explain why, by providing a quote from a Calvinist:

Speaking on Arminianism, Calvinist Ron Rhodes writes: “This view says that God used His foreknowledge to look down the corridors of time to see who would respond favorably to His gospel message, and on that basis He decreed certain persons to salvation.” (Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses, p.269)

That is an Arminian Myth that Roger Olson doesn't refute (at least, not yet in this chapter). In constrast, the Arminian perspective on Election is that God the Father has decreed salvation for those in Christ. John Gill famously asked if God perceives people receiving Christ, what point would there be in electing thusly. The problem is that Calvinist election focuses on getting people in Christ, whereas Arminian election deals with people from the standpoint of already being in Christ, and what they are predestined, corporately, to receive, on that basis.

“Giant Sale! All merchandise half price”

---

Dave Hunt illustrates:

“A merchant advertises, ‘Giant Sale! All merchandise half price.’ Eager customers, however, discover that certain items are excluded from the sale. When they complain that the ad read all merchandise, the merchant says, ‘I didn’t mean all “without exception,” but all “without distinction.” All kinds of products are indeed on sale, but not every item of every kind.’ This would be misleading advertising, and customers would have a legitimate complaint. Yet the Calvinist insists that God uses this same kind of deception in offering salvation to ‘whosoever will.’” (What Love is This?, pp.319-320)