Clarity on Calvinism?
It seems that the age-old debate between Calvinists and Arminians, between the philosophies of predestination and free will, will still be age old ages from now. It is an enduring controversy.
I brought some points of this debate up to a very wise friend of mine recently, and he basically said it's best just to proclaim Christ and not worry about it, which I thought was a good piece of advice.
However, someone recently referred me to the website of John Piper, desiringgod.org, and it really put a spur under my saddle. Piper is probably one of the most influential extreme Calvinists in modern times. (Note: Before going any further, I want to make it emphatic that this is an argument among siblings. As much as I disagree with Piper's Calvinism, by no means do I think he's not a genuine Christian. And I hope he would have the same respect for his Armenian brothers and sisters. This is a point that can't be emphasized enough)
But even though many wise Christians don't get bogged down in this debate, and even though those on the wrong side of it are Christians nonetheless, I still couldn't help responding to Piper's teaching on the Calvinist doctrine of "Limited Atonement" posted on his site. My motivation for doing so is twofold. First, proposing things like "limited atonement"--proposing that what Christ offers is not intended for all people in the world--results in a confused and distorted picture of God. Secondly, no Christian leader/teacher with the renown and influence held by Piper should be able to get away with the type of sophistry he displays, even if he is well-meaning (and I believe he is). Christians have a responsibility to show the world that we value reason, and we should make every effort to exercise sound, honest reasoning even if doing so doesn't lend support to the traditions we hold dear.
__________________________________________________________________
The following is an excerpt from John Piper’s website desireinggod.org, in which he explains the Calvinist doctrine of “Limited Atonement.” (Piper's comments in blue):
"If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. "
Or in other words, the Atonement makes salvation available to all people, if they choose to accept it. What’s wrong with that?
"It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy—IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God."
This is a brazen straw man! What Christian who believes in genuine free will thinks that by believing in Christ we “accomplish our own new birth and bring ourselves to faith” without the grace of God? The false polarization here seems to be this: Calvinism must be right because our only two choices (which, I guess are not really choices?) are it and the evil Armenian view that we “accomplish our own new birth” and have no need for the grace of God. Who believes this?
Inherent in someone’s free choice in accepting the grace of God for salvation is the candid profession that we are helpless to save ourselves—that we are completely powerless. What an absurdity it would be for someone to think, “I’m completely helpless and dependant on the grace of God, so I choose Him instead of my own efforts. But then again I did make the right choice, so really I should get a lot of the credit?” Those who think they can do it themselves never become Christians to begin with.
It simply does not follow from the fact that we are helplessly dependant on grace, that we have no faculty of choice to accept that grace, or that God has not allowed us the will to resist his call.
"For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross."
Again, a straw man. How does admitting one is helplessly dependant upon the grace of God, and thus freely choosing to ask him for salvation, constitute “regenerating one’s self” and “bringing one’s self to faith”?
If my family is starving and I “purchase” enough food to feed all of them (perhaps giving my life to do so), and then place all the food in the kitchen at home, but only three out of the five of them eat the food because the other two had their own ambitions of being the bread winner and were too prideful, how does it follow from this that I did not really purchase the food for the three that ate it and were saved from starvation?
__________________________________________________________________
Piper and many other Calvinists often respond to criticisms of determinism by saying, “It may not always be easy to understand or accept what the Word of God says, but it is the Word of God and we must conform to it, not vise versa.” What many often fail to point out is that there are many verses/passages that, when taken by themselves, could support either side. For example, Romans 9 is often appealed to as an “enough-said” passage, winning the argument for Calvinism. But Romans 10 and 11 seem to be just as much in favor of free will, as do other passages like 2 Peter 3 and 1 Tim. 2:3-6, and the whole concept of Hosea.
Because scripture is some times ambiguous on this, we must consider other factors as well. For example, even though there are some individual passages that seem to suggest determinism (just as there are those that suggest free will), we must consider whether or not it is consistent with the over-all character of God as revealed in Christ that God would create beings who are born into sin, who have absolutely no choice but to sin—no ability whatsoever to do other wise—and then condemn those creatures to Hell for eternity for their sin? Somehow we have to reconcile the mutually exclulsive ideas of determinsim and moral accountability.
Is it true that the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the use today of rape as a weapon in the DR of the Congo to the point where many women suffer from perpetual incontinence, really exactly what God intended to happen? Or is it more consistent with the character of God to understand such heinous evil in the world as the result of human beings who have abused their God-given free will by giving in to temptations to evil instead of trusting Him?
At the end of the day, extreme Calvinists are left to face the idea that God and only God is the creator of evil.
Also, if we embrace the determinism that Piper proposes, we must face squarely the fact—as Piper has made clear in public debate about his own sons—that it may well be the case that any one or all of a person's children may have been created and predestined by God to spend eternity suffering in Hell, and that this, in someway, glorifies God.
MM
PSBen Witherington has what I think is a great article on Calvinism called “What is the Character of God” on his blog, linked on this page. (There’s also some great debate for and against in the comments section)
posted by Mike Mitchell at 1:36 PM
5 Comments:
Mike,
I wish I could offer more on this topic, but I am not as familiar with Calvinism and Armenians as I should be. I see the arguments that you make and I do not see where I would disagree with your rebuttals to Pipers remarks. I do think it is to us to examine the thoughts of each brother or sister in Christ and not to assume that all have put everything together in the same way. With my thoughts on education and the way people learn I would go as far as to argue that no two people have put things together (constructed) in the same way even though we sometimes think we have. I think if we dig deep enough we will find these differences and through exposing them we can only grow through spirited debate. If you were going to define each, Calvinism and Armenians, how would you do it?
In clarifying what I meant by ""I do think it is to us to examine the thoughts of each brother or sister in Christ and not to assume that all having put everything together in the same way." I am basing this on a constructivist perspective of learning and perhaps a constructionist epistemology meaning that what we think is influenced not only by what we read or observe, but also those around us and our personal experiences that have lead us to the point of the observation. Neurological research explains (although in an of itself tentative and a human endeavor) that our brains are made of neurons (brain cells) these brain cells make connections with other brain cells based on what we hear, read, and experience. If I was raised in North Carolina and grew up in a Baptist Church, my brain has a lifetime of making connections based on this sensory input. There are other things that influence it, what I am interested in, what my parents emphasize, etc. but all of these work to train or make connections within our brains. When I made the statement earlier, I meant that even though we think we are in agreement, I think this is based on the (I would argue) inaccurate assumption that others have put things together as we have (their brain cells are connecting differently or have developed through differing connections). In the end I think that God created this elaborate system of human thought and provided us with guidance through his word, but in that he is also allowing us to see what it means to learn and what it means to be influenced by our surroundings through advances in our understanding (progress in research). I have been accused on liberal thinking and am sure that my beliefs are more against determinism as I believe that God is sovereign and loving and in that offers his love to all with a choice for all to accept. With this said, I also want to convey my constant desire to remind myself that what someone says or writes has meaning to that person that I may not accurately interpret. I grew up in the right and wrong world of “it says it, so it’s a fact”. “It” may say something, but our personal faculties influence what we take from what "it" says.
Your (todd's) proposition of a constructivist epistemology is very limited. It's a fairly obvious thing that we are conditioned in many ways by our surroundings, especially in the formative years of childhood and adolescence. But in my view the factors of our social conditioning by no means weigh out over the centrality of critical thinking, honesty, and the will to know the truth.
For example, I was raised in the Deep South, in circles where racism was often seen as socially acceptable and sometimes morally praiseworthy. But this by no means shapes my views on this issue today.
Also, how far do we take your suggestion that perceptions of agreements are often made on the inaccurate assumption that we all put things together in the same way? This thinking seems like it would quickly turn to solpsism if applied to the realm of morality. Do we trully agree on the fact that the idea that some races are inherently superior to others is an evil one, (or that God does give us genuine freedom)or are our concepts of evil differentiated by our social conditioning to the point where true agreement is not possible.
I don't think this is what you're arguing, but your premise seems like it could easily go in that direction.
Mike,
I would argue that your experiences in the past and since have shaped your views on racism as much as mine have. I have seen acts that I can't condone and don't want part of and in some sense in the last point, I am sure that my concept of evil is different than yours and that the concepts of evil held by our church members are all in some ways different. I am not suggesting that some have the right answer and the others need to line up. I don't think this means that we can't see some act in our community as a church and say "that’s morally wrong", but I do think that my Christian brothers and sisters do each hold differing ideas about say alcohol consumption (evil? Some might say?). I also think that the body that will some day find itself united in God's kingdom also differ greatly in their ideas about politics and on some level evil. Do we rank evil? We can say we don't but I think on some fronts we all do and I think these rankings for all at some level differ.
I do think we choose that which we decide to engage, but I don't think that we go uninfluenced by the environment that has nurtured us.
I think this should provide enough fuel for an explosion-go
To your (Todd's) point about Christians differing on views on alcohol consumption, I agree, but this is at a much different level than what I was pointing to.
Maybe there's a semantic gap in our argument. When I say evil, I mean true evil (e.g. genocide, rape, deliberate exploitation of the poor and weak). If these are debatable matters, on the same level with alcohol consumption, then it necessarily follows that there ultimately is no real basis for morality. In this case morality would be subjective in essence, and thus the words evil and good would lose all meaning--and to quote C.S. Lewis' book title on this subject, the wide-scale acceptance of such a philosophy would result in "The Abolition of Man."
In any case, it looks as if we were arguing on two different levels.
Post a Comment
<< Home