- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/11)
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/12)
A Portrayal of Calvinism
- 02/11/09
- 53
As you may know, I decided to read through both of the Finding God in The Shack books released this month (two books, two authors, one title). Last week I reviewed the first of these (see: Finding God in the Shack (1)) and in a day or two I will review the second. But first, I wanted to share a few quotes from the book.
It is not lost on me that the majority of the people who vocalized objections to The Shack were Calvinists (Al Mohler, Mark Driscoll, Yours Truly, etc). Randal Rauser and Roger Olson noted this as well and both make a point of refuting some components of Calvinistic theology in their books. Rauser, a Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary, touches on Calvinism several times, but does so primarily under the heading of “The Biggest Problem in the Universe”—a chapter that deals with theodicy (the justice and goodness of God in the face of suffering). This is, after all, one of the main themes of The Shack and one whose treatment offended many Calvinist readers. Unfortunately, Rauser’s portrayal of Calvinism is, in many ways, just plain wrong. It is offensive and almost libelous at times. I am a Calvinist and have been for many years. Never have I heard anyone claim what Rauser says to be true of Calvinism.
Here are a few examples. I have taken the liberty of bolding a few of the most outrageous statements.
*****
Our first pass at theodicy will consider the possibility that God is not all-loving. While this may come as a surprise to many Christians, this is the position of a major theological tradition called Calvinism. … To be more specific, Calvinists believe that God is perfect in his love, but he chooses not to show this love to all his creatures.
To begin with, the Calvinist believes that God controls all events perfectly, including free human choices. That is, God gives us the desires that we freely fulfill, both good and bad. (Other Christians disagree and think instead that while God can know what we will do in advance, he cannot make us do it if we are truly free.) As a result, Calvinists believe that God could have made the world such that Adam and Eve would never have fallen. It follows that Adam and Eve sinned because God gave them the free desires to sin. Likewise, the Little Ladykiller [the villain of The Shack] sinned because God gave him the will to sin. Everyone who sins does so because God has formed his or her character to do so. As Paul tersely put it, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:18). So the reason there is evil in the world is simple: though perfectly loving, God wants there to be some evil!
This Calvinist view raises an obvious question: why would a perfectly loving God desire evil in the world? In order to explain this, the Calvinist denies what many Christians assume: that God loves all his creatures equally. Rather, God’s ultimate concern is to manifest his glory most fully. Therefore, God is concerned to ensure that creation provides the best opportunity for God to display his magnificent attributes. … [A]dversity within creation provides an opportunity for God to display his leadership qualities.
In the midst of adversity God is able to manifest his mercy and love to those creatures he has decreed to choose the good. At the same time, he manifests his wrath and justice to those creatures he has decreed to choose the evil (Romans 9:22-23). Through all good and evil, God’s glory is more fully on display than if he had willed a creation where everyone did his will perfectly. One final point: the same reasoning that applies to the present age applies in eternity as well. There, too, rebellion must be present so God’s fullest display of attributes can be manifest. As such, Calvinists believe that God decrees that some people would reject the offer of salvation so God can rightly damn them eternally and thereby ensure that his perfect wrath and justice are both forever on display.
…
I confess that I am one of many people who find Calvinism not only unpalatable but nearly incomprehensible. Let’s start with God’s glory. I don’t accept that the only way to have a high appreciation of God’s glory is by seeing God crush human rebellion. There have been many great leaders in history who led their people in peacetime. Couldn’t God have fully displayed his attributes through peaceful rule as well? Indeed, Calvinism is in danger of Manichaeism, the view that good and evil are equal and necessary opposites so that good can only be known to the extent that evil exists. But my biggest problem is with Calvinism’s view of God’s love. Contrary to the Calvinist claim that God only loves some creatures and hates others, I believe that God loves all people (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
*****
My reaction when reading all of this was, if not anger, real frustration. I hate to think that thousands of people will read such an inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious view of Calvinism (and this by an author who has some credibility by virtue of his position as a Professor of Theology). Even where Rauser is correct, his words often lack the charitable nuance we might well hope for. But in so many ways he is really, really wrong. Not surprisingly, he does not quote any sources; I know of none that would support his statements.
I thought of writing an article to refute some of the worst of these statements. But then I found myself thinking about R.C. Sproul’s book Getting the Gospel Right. Here Sproul exhorts Christians to be careful in the way they portray what other people believe. The context of the book is a defense of the gospel against Catholicism and he says, rightly I think, that Christians often caricature Roman Catholic theology, not taking the time to find what the Church really teaches. It is too simplistic to say “Protestantism is about grace and Catholicism is about works.” I know I’ve been guilty of this myself. Sometimes it is easier to take the little tidbits we have heard from others, assume they are fact, and build a case. But I think we owe it to others to truly understand before we determine that we know the facts.
So when I saw this nonsense that Rauser had passed off as fact, I guess I saw an opportunity to ensure that when I speak out against Arminianism or Open Theism or Catholicism or any other area of poor or false theology, I do so with grace and I do so only after ensuring that I know what I am speaking about. There have been too many times when I’ve failed to do just that.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (53)
You quoted him as saying, “I confess that I am one of many people who find Calvinism not only unpalatable but nearly incomprehensible.” If that is true, if he finds Calvinism ‘incompehensible’ then why would he even bring it up since in his own words he does not understand it. Sadly, his incomprehension comes through loud and clear in the caricature of Calvinism he puts forward. Worse yet, it has bits and pieces of real Calvinism in it, enough at least to all the other points to muddy the waters as to what Calvinists really believe and put it in a very bad light.
BTW, I see no problem in responding to such caricatures as long as it is done in the sense of presenting the actual view Calvinists hold to rather than attacking his views, unless you have a very good understand of his views. He would probably have done well to just leave the whole Calvinist part out, or simply make the point that most of those who criticize The Shack are Calvinists and let people research it themselves. I know in today’s mentality most people would not, but it would be better than giving such a horrible misrepresentation which in the end only makes him look like a second rate theologian.
This is not to say I have not done the same thing in the past, but I sincerely try to understand those I disagree with so I can know why they have come to the conclusions they have. Sometimes I succeed, other times not so much. In this case it seems he has not even really tried.
If I could come to your defense Tim, keep up the good work…..Christ Himself would have been perceived by not speaking “with grace” to the Pharisees and religious leadership who were clearly abusing the Scriptures.
We treat those who do not believe with respect and speak the truth in love. We bring down holy heat on the heads of those like Rauser and Olson. Keep bringing the heat.
By the way, my brother is named Randall, and isn’t it irritating when parents name a common name with an uncommon spelling? Perhaps that’s the reason for Randal’s angst? I digress, apologies.
“I know of none that would support his statements.”
Spend some time around some young Calvinists; you’ll find plenty.
It is sad that so many of my generations (younger) Calvinists do not season their correct Theological stances with the grace that you mention. It is also sad that Armenians always build this straw-man argument about Reformed Theology, i.e.: not knowing what their talking about. That being said, the Armenian view of God in The Shack is just one of many errors in the book.
Preach the Word!
Finding God in any book is not about what theology is absolutely correct. Frankly, there is not a “5-point” explanation for Him.
I haven’t read The Shack, but from what I hear it’s not theologically sound in any form of the definition.
Being one of those young Calvinists…I’d like to hear your refutation. I hear these statements all the time.
Thanks for your, er, review, although I didn’t actually hear a counterpoint to the passages quoted. Here is the central difficulty as I see it. To begin with, Calvinism depends upon a compatibilist theory of free will according to which a person can be free and determined by God. Jonathan Edwards set the standard in arguing philosophically for this view. Fair enough. But on the compatibilist view God could have determined all his creatures to love him, that is he could have elected all to salvation, and yet he chose not to. So why is it that God elected to save only some? Why is it that the God, who is supposed to be more loving than any conceivable being, expresses his love by electing some creatures to choose him and thereby experience inexpressible bliss, while electing other creatures to reject him and thereby experience unimaginable torment? Rather than all the bluster about how shocked you are at my portrayal of Calvinism, I’d appreciate an answer to this simple question.
Randal,
Thanks for the comment.
The purpose of my post was not to defend Calvinist theology. Rather, it was to show how we can inadvertently (hopefully) slander others by offering uninformed or untrue summaries of what they believe. This is something I’ve done in the past with Roman Catholicism; this is something you’ve done with Calvinism.
Therefore, I’m not sure that this is the best forum to answer your question. I think your question is designed to elicit a particular answer (or a particular type of answer). Kind of like “Are you still beating your wife?” I think the better place to begin is with this: do those people who face an eternity in hell deserve this punishment? And in this case I think we both have to say that they do. From there we can look back and ask why God would create a person who, of his own free will, would reject God. But this is something a non-Calvinist must wrestle with, too. If God knows all that will take place, whether you are Calvinist or not, God will be creating people who will inevitably end up in hell. Really, only the Open Theist has a “humanly-satisfying” answer to this by removing God’s omniscience.
So here the Bible is silent (as it is in other areas where we wish God would answer). We could guess or conjecture, but I do not think we would ever come up with a firmly black and white biblical answer. Why does God create people when he knows that those people will go to hell? We just don’t know anymore than we know why he allowed sin to enter the world in the first place.
Anyways, I’d like to challenge you to point to one credible source for any of those statements I put in bold. How about just the ones in the second paragraph? Please point me to the writings or sermons of a Calvinist (a credible one who is in some way representative) you could use to prove this.
Randal, you comments are man-centered and take the Fall far too lightly.
“So why is it that God elected to save only some?” - In view of His incredible grace to any, you’re complaining?
I was recently booted off of a discussion board for defending Calvinism. I admit that I got a little carried away but some of the points that were being made on the board got under my skin.
I try to be charitable but once you come to the conclusion, as you did, that this is “nonsense” that pretty much sets the stage for what is to follow.
We could simply ignore this nonsense but as you suggest, the propagators of this error have a wide sphere of influence and something needs to be said to counter their extremes.
Good post.
Randal: I’m as curious about your style as your theology, and wonder whether abandoning evidence for argument is to appeal to the populist reader who is more persuaded by good feelings than logical process. Perhaps this was an editorial decision.
Whatever the case, more and more Arminianists promote the “failure of Calvinism,” as if the incantation will make it real. The populist view has always been at the core of rebellion from God. The case against God at Massah & Meribah brought by the Israelites is a good example. Did God break his covenant? No, but the people, in their self interest, were sure He had. “Bad ol’ God.” Sound familiar?
Is God on trial again? Will popular opinion matter this time? God’s response now and since eternity past is that he will save some at the cost of his Son, though none deserve it. He is the propitiation of his own wrath - we got nothin’. That is God’s graceful solution to the “biggest problem.” That is love.
Tim,
You said: “I think the better place to begin is with this: do those people who face an eternity in hell deserve this punishment? And in this case I think we both have to say that they do..”
I hate to say this, but this is an evasion of a very serious question (not a complex question—the fallacy you cite). The reason it is “the better place” to begin with because it is the place where the free will defense starts. The problem with Calvinism is that it does NOT start there. It starts in God’s eternal decree. God actually decress that there be sin and brings it about by ways of causal determinism that are assumed to be compatible with human freedom. That is much different than the idea of God decreeing a possible world where agents endowed with libertarian freedom choose their own fall.
The difference in expanations given by both systems as to why God creates a world he knows will be fallen are different too. In Calvinism, it is to display his glory. You only need to read Jonathan Edwards or John Piper’s books to get a sense of this. In Arminianism “free will theism,” as some call it, it would be to have real relationships or the possibility of love. Whether we think these are “humanly satisfying” or not it does not matter—they are still vastly different.
Randal: I’m as curious about your style as your theology, and wonder whether abandoning evidence for argument is to appeal to the populist reader who is more persuaded by good feelings than logical process. Perhaps this was an editorial decision.
Whatever the case, more and more Arminianists promote the “failure of Calvinism,” as if the incantation will make it real. The populist view has always been at the core of rebellion from God. The case against God at Massah & Meribah brought by the Israelites is a good example. Did God break his covenant? No, but the people, in their self interest, were sure He had. “Bad ol’ God.” Sound familiar?
Is God on trial again? Will popular opinion matter this time? God’s response now and since eternity past is that he will save some at the cost of his Son, though none deserve it. He is the propitiation of his own wrath - we got nothin’. That is God’s graceful solution to the “biggest problem.” That is love.
Sorry for the server issues. There have been all kinds of ugly server problems lately. Bear with them for another few days and they should disappear (says he optimistically).
Tim
“In order to explain this, the Calvinist denies what many Christians assume: that God loves all his creatures equally.”
So God has to love everyone the same? Do you love all women the same? I hope you love your wife far more. Do you love all children the same? I hope you would have the greatest of all affections for your very own.
God is not boxed in, and has to love the way our human finite minds want Him to.
Surely God hates. The Bible is clear that He does.
Does God love differently? Absolutely.
Tim’s response was excellent. BTW.
God has mercy on whom He wills. Our free will is not sovereign, but God is.
Adam sinned, and fell. God cursed him, and so all makind is cursed, and we all deserve God’s wrath and judgment. I know I do. I have always resisted the truth, and always would have, BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy, and with His great love saved me by His pure grace, His graciousness and through His Son, Jesus Christ, who was made a curse “for me”.
What a Savior! What a God!
@Preach the Word: There’s a big difference between Armenians and Arminians. Armenians are from Armenia, a region where eastern Europe and southern Asia meet. Arminians are followers of a theological system that’s named after Jacobus Arminius.
I think the way Prof. Rauser uses Romans 9:18 is interesting. He uses it to support the Calvinist’s position.
He says, “Everyone who sins does so because God has formed his or her character to do so. As Paul tersely put it, “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:18). So the reason there is evil in the world is simple: though perfectly loving, God wants there to be some evil!”
I don’t understand? Is he just dismissing it because Paul is being terse? So, how does he interpret Romans 9?
I personally think this fellow is a perfect example of why there is such a strong reaction against Calvinism by non-Calvinists. They misrepresent & misunderstand it because they’ve never really studied the subject &/or they have had it misrepresented to them by someone they respect who doesn’t understand it himself. My church regrettably recently installed a man as interim pastor who fits this bill. He makes sweeping statements about Calvinism & about what God would or wouldn’t do, obviously not knowing what he is talking about because of misuse of vocabulary. He almost never backs his claims up with Scripture or logic. When I challenge him & am able to back up my statements it reminds me of the computer in Star Trek who is asked to calculate pi to the last digit which then essentially locks up.
I heard a Piper sermon just yesterday in which he specifically said God does not love everyone equally. It got my attention. He cited John 17:9 “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.”
Just yesterday I heard a Piper sermon in which he stated God does not love everyone the same. He cited John 17:9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.”
Could somebody please correct me if I’m wrong? I though free will was lost after the Fall, and since then we are enslaved to sin, and already condemned, so only the power of God through Jesus Christ can make us free.
Derick: I find Calvinism somewhat repugnant and contrary to what I understand to be the nature of God, and that view isn’t based off descriptions like Rauser’s. As far as I’m concerned, Calvin himself is an argument against Calvinism.
Tim: What would be interesting to see is a review of The Shack from a strictly Arminian point of view. Does it just run afoul of reformed theology, or is it flawed regardless?
When you only consider a book from the reformed perspective, it becomes tempting for a non-reformed person to dismiss your critique as being purely the result of your reformed theology. One might say, “Challies just hates it because he’s a Calvinist and the book presupposes Arminianism. So it’s no wonder he finds it blatantly unbiblical.”
So when a book has theological flaws that both Calvinists and Arminians can agree on, which I’m guessing “The Shack” does, it might be helpful to point those out separately from the ways in which the book violates a specific reformed theology.
The purpose of my post was not to defend Calvinist theology. Rather, it was to show how we can inadvertently (hopefully) slander others by offering uninformed or untrue summaries of what they believe.
But you don’t do this. In fact, you slander Rauser by accusing him of slander without substantiating your accusation of slander. You merely assert that he is creating a caricature without providing the slightest of evidence that this is the case. I wouldn’t, and I’m sure Professor Rauser wouldn’t mind one bit if you were to respond to his criticism of Calvinism and would not find it ungraceful in the least. Refusing to respond to Rauser’s critique is not graceful - it is mere obfuscation.
“his words often lack the charitable nuance we might well hope for”
I loved that phrase. Good writers can spend days, weeks or months trying to come up with something that descriptive.
“In the midst of adversity God is able to manifest his mercy and love to those creatures he has decreed to choose the good. At the same time, he manifests his wrath and justice to those creatures he has decreed to choose the evil (Romans 9:22-23).”
Jesus says, “you did not choose Me, but I chose you.” The Lord does the electing of dead sinners by His great mercy. None who deserve His mercy, and surely do not deserve to be elected by the Lord.All of us, Tim, Randal Rauser, every commentor here, and especially me, deserve to be judged by the Lord, and here the words, “Depart from Me, you lawless sinners!”
However, Jesus will say to these same people, I never knew you. But to the elect, he foreknew, and so predestined, and so called, and so justified, and so glorified.
What a great Savior!
I don’t know if this Randal Rauser slandered Calvinists, like me, but he sure used manipulative words to make us seem like we are nuts. In my humble opinion, and not so humble opinion, to be honest.
Thank you for all your great insight. Stay faithful to the Word.I’m looking forward to seeing you speak this Friday. God bless!!
I have said this before and I will say it again. I am a Calvinist, but I have yet to find an Arminian who has a major problem with the Trinity as it is presented in ‘The Shack’.This is the aspect that really confuses me and I don’t know what to make of it.
I am a new reader of this site, but have found the topics interesting. But I am confused.com over todays article. Am I being thick?
Is the writer A Calvinist, or an Arminian, or neither?
I have read every debate going about Calvinism & I just don’t buy this God wants to glorify himself & it matters not about people. It is not the God I feel I have come to know, or would want to know frankly. If it is the only option, then stoke the fires, it seems I am heading South!
This whole conversation usually bums me out. Not so much because people don’t agree; but because a winsome civility is usually the first thing to go. I’m thankful for those examples which help me grow in grace to that end.
Gary,I hope I read your question correctly asking if the writer of The Shack was Calvinist, or an Arminian, or neither?The author, William P. Young, has stated that he is a Universalist and wants to share his theological views with as many people as possible. I am not very familiar with htis view but I think it centers around “Everybody gets saved in the end”.Also, and I hope I am not reading too much in to your comments, but how you ‘feel’ about God and who God actually is may be worlds apart (may be, since I do not know you).
Grace and Peace to you, Michael
I do not know many details about brussel sprouts. I do know that I do not like them. That being said, I hope no one bases their “brussel sprout” theology on my opinion; for once I make statements such as ” I don’t like” or “I cannot accept” we are into the realm of personal preference. Personal preference does not change the facts of what brussel sprouts are or what their nutritional value is. So, if I am to write a book/paper/paragraph on the “cons” of brussel sprouts (beyond my opinion), i better understand the “pros”. That will take time and effort in research. I’d go back to the Book of Brussel Sprouts and learn all I could about the little green monsters! (oops, there’s personal opinion again!) By reading and studying the Book, and not focusing on my feelings/experiences or those of others; who knows, I may even learn to like them!
Thanks for the tip, Tim — it provides a real balance to my experience. Generally, when others tell me what I believe, they are professing Calvinists. It’s interesting to know that there are Arminians out there who also take on the role of God.
I have to admit to being embarrassed to be a Calvinist at times. It’s helpful (but saddening) to know that we’re not the only ones capable of outright blasphemy.
Popular Arminianism impatiently seeks to apprehend God. No one is capable of apprehending God. God apprehends us and does so on His terms - in Christ alone.
Our examples of God’s sovereignty are drawn from the life of Christ and the types of Christ as revealed in Scripture. The Babel tower, for instance, is an example of Man’s impatience and subsequent determination to storm God’s castle - to make God dwell with us on our terms. Jacob’s ladder, on the other hand, is the type of Christ that demonstrates God’s graceful condescension - His dwelling with us on His terms, including all aspects of its outworking - who, when, how and so on.
God respects no persons. He doesn’t change. He creates and re-creates for His pleasure. He saves those He chooses. This is the hard learning that ultimately begets soft hearts.
randal: i think a very good book for you to read is Easy Chairs Hard Words by Douglas Wilson. Here is a description of the book from the canon press website:
“Easy Chairs, Hard Words: Conversations on the Liberty of GodTherefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?Romans 9:18-20aHard words, indeed. But they remain, for all our explanations, God’s words.Easy Chairs, Hard Words offers an honest look at many such difficult passages in Scripture. Presented as a series of fictional conversations between a curious young Christian and a seasoned pastor, these dialogues speak with clarity to those new to the Reformed faith. They begin with the question, “Can salvation be lost?” and from there wrestle with other hard-to-swallow doctrines, including the freedom of the will, election, and original sin.Hard words, and yet the understanding given these passages is thoughtful and gentle. For our God—the God of hard words—is a merciful and loving Father, slow to wrath and quick to pardon, a triune God who graciously rescues men from death and brings them into everlasting life.”
This book really helped me understand on a basic level what reformed theology was all about.
Good thoughts, and having read widely in Greg Boyd, I find encouragement in Jonathan Edwards’ exhortation: “Seek not to grow in knowledge chiefly for the sake of applause, and to enable you to dispute with others; but seek it for the benefit of your souls, and in order to practice … Practice according to what knowledge you have.”
One other thing, Tim, I don’t believe the Bible is as silent regarding God’s decrees and ordinations as you make out in your comment to Rauser. No doubt you’ve read Edwards’ “Treatise Concerning the End for Which God Created the World,” but it seems clear that the Bible gives us some wisdom as to why God has ordained that evil and sin exist.
Michael,
Thank you for your replie(s) :-)My question was concerning Tim the author of this site actually. From my reading of his article I could not see if he was critical of Calvinism, Arminian views, both or neither. In part this will be due to the fact that I am new here!
Your reply was very gracious too. So thank you.
I am a Christ Follower of some 16 years now. I have been a commited Evangelist, and a frutful Worship Leader in large Church settings. I consider myself a mature Christian with a real heart toward God & His purposes. I am currently dismayed & dissilusioned by Church, and not sure how most Churches I encounter have got the slightest thing to do with what I see as true Christianity.
At present my wife & I are Pilgrims. Wondering where we might find God at work. Most Churches seem to be run by raving Calvinists (well they preach Calvinist Docrtine, but in private discussion don’t seem to believe it). Pews & Chairs are almost exclusively full of Arminians, who don’t seem to understand the difference between the two!
The end result is an odd landscape where I have become increasingly uncomfortable. Christians behaving in ways that Christ would seem to say will lead to death & separation from Him, whilst clinging to the certainty of salvation that comes with the Calvinist badge they comfort themselves with.
Rightly or wrongly I cannot stomach it.
I am, as I said before, a bit confused at present.
Gary:
Unfortunately, it sounds like you have been exposed to some preachers who are talking the talk, but not walking the walk. If they’re not themselves bowing down in humility before our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, then they shouldn’t be calling themselves “Calvinist,” “Reformed,” or anything else of that nature, since above all else, reformed theology emphasizes that we are sinners who deserve nothing from God but eternal perdition, and that we cannot do anything to be reconciled with God, except by His Grace, and what His Son has done on the Cross! If someone calls himself “Calvinist” or “Reformed” and isn’t utterly humbled by that and driven to repent and run to the Cross, then He’s got a serious problem. If someone is calling himself that and not living a life of obedience and service to Christ out of gratitude for what He has done—Who came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many—Who laid down His very life for us—then he has a serious problem.
For an example of humble and compassionate teaching from a Calvinistic perspective—for what small-r reformed preaching *should* be—Charles Spurgeon would probably be a better place than any to start.
Regardless of what label it assigns to itself, I pray that you and your wife find a church that worships the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in humility with fear and reverence, anchored in the authoritative Word of God.
When I wrote,
“If someone calls himself ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Reformed’ and isn’t utterly humbled by that and driven to repent and run to the Cross, then he’s got a serious problem.”
That “he’s” at the end should be lower “he’s,” not upper-case “He’s”! It’s not God’s problem if we’re disobedient—it’s our problem!
Ooops!Having explored the site a little more (I was lazy should have done that first) I see that it is site dedicated to reformed theology & that of course Tim is a Calvinist. A bit flippin’ obvious when you take the trouble to read a little.
So my comments are probably akin to a man running into a synagogue, and shouting “anyone for a Bacon sandwich!”
Please forgive me all of you. I was attracted by one article i read on Mark Driscoll that i enjoyed ( I love & loathe Marks teaching, and seemingly apparent lack of grace at times! :-) ) Then got sucked in on the old Calvinism chestnut.
This is clearly not the place for a disheartened soul to bare his troubles. I will shut up & just enjoy the insightful & words & wisdom, and keep silent. Heck, I might even become a Calvinist if I hang around long enough. :-)
… and as it is actually 10 minutes before 1am here in the UK I am off to bed! :-)
GaryI would like to recommend a DVD called ‘Amazing Grace the History and theology of Calvinism’.The reason why I am recommending this DVD to you is because to me it is one of the best tools I know of that explains Calvinism. You may or may not become convinced, but never the less I have no doubt that it will make you think.
I had a friend who I was trying to tell why I believe that Calvinism is biblical. However the more I talked to him, it became obvious that he just didn’t understand all the issues. I was praying about this issue and remembered I had this DVD, so my friend and I over a few weeks viewed this DVD together. During the viewing I could tell that lights were coming on and he was getting it.That DVD made him dive into some of the issues in a way that he had never done before. In his case, he ended up a Calvinist.You can find out more about this DVD at: http://www.amazinggracedvd.com
Gary:
I would also recommend to you Charles Spurgeon’s All of Grace. Although he wrote it as an evangelistic tract, it teaches the “doctrines of grace” (the principles underlying reformed theology) as they are taught in Scripture, but is written from a pastoral (not theologian’s) point of view, for lay readers. It has been of great help to me as a believer, as well.
Sorr, I forgot to include the link! Here it is: All of Grace.
Thanks guys. I hasve risen early and just listened to Mark Driscoll shout at his Congregation last Sunday, “You must respond!!, your hearts must respond!! your wallets must respond!! etc etc. begging his people to respond to the message he has preached on regeneration. As a good Calvinist surely he knows that there are a veery specific number of individuals in his flock & listening who are already saved, justified, sanctified, and all checked into eternity with Christ, and that no amount of shouting wil, change it. Seems barmy to me???
I logged on to ask you guys for any resources to try to understand your view better. And ………….. you beat me to it.
I will track down those resources today. Thank you.
Among the many responses to this thread, Darrin’s caught my eye for clearly typifying some common problems with Calvinism. To begin with, Darrin avers that my “comments are man-centered and take the Fall far too lightly.” Inresponse I would note the vacuous nature of the unfortunate slur “man-centered”. It is akin to calling someone a “fundamentalist”, an epithet which typically means little more than “someone to the right of me”. In this case “man-centered” perhaps means “someone whose doctrine of God’s providence is less controlling than mine.” But by that token a theologian like Nicolas Malebranche would have called Darrin’s theology man-centered (I am assuming Darrin is not an occasionalist) since Malebranche was an omnnicausalist for the sake of God’s divine glory. In other words, everybody has a man-centered theology relative to somebody else’s theology. So perhaps we can get beyond the name calling and argue the theology.Next, consider the nature of Darin’s argument. When I enquired as to why a God who decreed all to fall only elected some for salvation, Darrin responds with the righteous indignation of the tent revivalist): “In view of His incredible grace to any, you’re complaining?” But of course this misses the point, for according to Calvinism God is the one who first decreed that all would fall and then decreed that only some would be saved. If that doesn’t puzzle Darrin, perhaps an analogy will help. Imagine a nephew who, for some inexplicable reason, greases the two bathtubs in the house so that when his grannies have a bath, they will not be able to get out and will eventually drown. Sure enough, both his grannies get in but fail to get out. And then the nephew saves Granny Agnes but allows Granny Beatrice to drown. When Granny Agnes inquires as to why the nephew only saved her, Darrin pipes up indignantly: “In view of His incredible grace to any, you’re complaining?” But it seems to me that Agnes has a good question. (Incidentally, if you think the absence of a reference to free will makes the thought experiment importantly disanalogous - though it does not - you can readily tweak it so that the nephew determines the grannies free will to stay in the tubs until they drown and then alters Agnes’ free will to save her.)
Randal,May I suggest that you actually deal with real Calvinism and what it really teaches instead of (admittedly) finding the weakest defense possible and attacking that.Proving that the most fallacious representation of a given theology is wrong is a waste of everyone’s time. Even Calvinists repudiate much of what you repudiate.You comments would be much better spent being directed at a real representation of that which you claim to not believe.
I guess my comment to Randal and others who question Calvinism for whatever reason is this:
What do the scriptures say?
Jesus Himself, explaining the unbelief of those following Him
John 6:36 But I told you that you have seen me and still do not believe.
Why?
John 6:37-44Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me,
Does that not speak of irresistible grace?It doesn’t say “might come if he wants to.”
and the one who comes to me I will never send away.
So God draws them, and they WILL COME and when they do…Jesus will not fail as a perfect savior. Does this not speak of perseverance of the saints?
For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
Now this is the will of the one who sent me - that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day.
For this is the will of my Father - for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
that would seem really clear no?Might I say before the “whosoever will” crowd pops upthat this is not a general offer right here but instead speaks specifically of a certain group: “the believing ones” in Greek.
Then after they grumble Jesus says again:
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
So when the subject at hand is salvation and why some believe and some do not the words of scripture are clear.
Later on in John we read:
So Jesus added, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.”
And again:
John 10:25-26Jesus replied, “I told you and you do not believe. The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me. But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep.
Jesus Himself, point blank. The reason that they do not believe is that they are not in a certain group. What group is that?
His Sheep.
The sheep he came to save.
I guess I’m at a loss how you specifically explain these scriptures (and others that donsands posted) away?
Is there any exegetical reason that these aren’t supporting the doctrines of Grace?
I realize that this is not a thread about Calvinism and it’s defense, but this kind of thing irks me.
You don’t like the doctrines of Grace?
Fine
Prove it from scripture. Anything less is just smokescreen.
So, Randal, are you going to answer Tim’s challenge in his last post directed to you?
Many decades ago, one of my seminary professors said “I am afraid of people who have all the answers—I wonder if they really know all the questions”. I would love to discuss that which has been discussed ad nauseum here—and for several centuries—especially in regards to the limited atonement. I have many more questions than I do answers. For the present, however, I would be interested in a Reformed perspective on John 12:32—a text which has been problematic for this old country preacher. If all are not drawn to the crucified Christ, why not? Our Savior used the same verb in John 6:44 (I see this referred to often in Reformed circles) and he also used it in John 21:6 (the net was only “drawn” successfully after the Savior’s command in verse 10 to bring the fish). IF all are not drawn to the Savior as John 12:32 indicates they WERE, is Grace truly irrestible? IF all are drawn to the Savior, is the doctrine of the predestined elect valid? Dare I, a 5th generation Southern Baptist, even mention the prospect of implied universalism in this text? It would seem that “to draw”, particularly, if the Sovereign Savior is doing the drawing, would indicate that the “unconditional” drawing spoken of here would be effectual FOR ALL and predicated on “nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness”!
Seeking a clean heart and a right spirit,Old Country Preacher
@Randall,
I think Granny Agnes has a good question.
I think, though, that God is nothing like the rotten nephew cum grandson. God didn’t grease the tubs.
The grannies’ ancestors greased the tubs long before the grannies were born. Then God sent someone to scour some of the tubs with his blood.
One of the grannies’ tubs was scoured. So both grannies looked at the tubs and fought over who got to have the greasy one. We all know that greasy tubs are so much more fun. Who wants to get into the blood scoured tub? That’s boring and stupid and doesn’t allow for all that slippery fun one gets in the greasy tub.
They both jumped into the greasy tub and spent days and weeks and months and years, paddling around, sliding along the slippery slope, and thoroughly enjoying themselves.
Time passed and they grew old and weak. Many passersby in the bathroom called to the grannies urging them to climb out of the tub. They wouldn’t. They couldn’t, but they didn’t know that because they didn’t even try.
The man who scours tubs with his blood held out his hands to them, bidding the grannies to take hold of him and let him pull them out, but they laughed at him and spat on him and called him names.
One day the Spirit of the man with the blood opened Granny Agnes’ eyes so she could see how much the man with the blood loved her and she could see how mean she’d been to him all those years. She said to the man with the blood, “I’m sorry I hated you,” and she reached up and took his hands and he pulled her out of the greasy tub and put her in the clean tub.
She looked at him with love in her eyes and said, “Thanks, Man. You saved my life. I was stuck in that greasy tub and I couldn’t get out. Shoot, I was so blind I didn’t even know I needed to get out.until your Spirit came and showed me how ugly and pitiful my tub was.”
And he said, “My pleasure. I have loved you from before the foundation of the world. I’m glad to have you here in the clean tub.”
And then she said, “What about Granny Beatrice?”
He said, “Go and tell her about how I cleaned you up and tell her to take hold of my hand.”
But the Spirit never opened Granny Beatrice’s eyes and she never did take hold of the man’s hand. She died in her greasy tub.
And Granny Agnes said to the Spirit, “Why didn’t you open up Granny Beatrice’s eyes the way you opened mine?”
And he said, “She wasn’t chosen.”
And Granny Agnes said, “I don’t understand, but thanks to that book you gave me to read—that one you wrote for me—I understand some things. I understand that your ways are higher than my ways. I understand that you have the right to make from the same lump of clay some grannies that will remain in the greased up tubs of their choosing and some that will go in the clean tub of your choosing. I know you chose me and you love me and you will never drop me. I am part of your chosen generation and I have a place in the body of Christ. You are knitting that body together exactly the way you want it and it is fearfully and wonderfully made. That’s enough for me. I know you well enough to know you have a good reason for everything you do. I know full well that you’re smarter than I am and more loving than I am. So I can rest in that knowledge that you are putting the people you want into the body of Christ and when you are done with the creation of that body, you will call it very good and it will be very good.”
And they both lived happily ever after.