Well, to start with, here are a few things we are not going to be talking about. We are not going to be talking about whether John Calvin was a great man, a brilliant theologian, a seminal thinker, or all of the above (since he was). We are not going to be talking about whether Calvinists, as a group of people who share a theological persuasion, have always been consistent, exegetically accurate, joyful or even nice (since they haven’t). We are not going to rehash the content of Mike Horton and Roger Olson’s recent books For Calvinism and Against Calvinism, partly because they talk past each other on methodology (exegesis for Horton, deeper presuppositions about goodness for Olson), partly because some of you may have read them already, and partly because if we were, it would be cheaper to get you all a copy of each, leave you in a room together, and put Mike Ovey back on the train to Cockfosters. Nor are we going to talk about whether we prefer missionaries, hymnwriters or preachers that are Calvinist, Arminian or neither.
Instead, we are going to discuss whether the school of thought known variously as “five-point Calvinism”, “federal Calvinism” or “high Calvinism” holds together exegetically and logically. There are various ways in which, it has been argued, it does not, and we will use some of these as a springboard for our discussions. Primarily:
1 - Is Calvinism consistent? Why are so many people Calvinist in exegesis, but Arminian in apologetics, and does it matter? It is my observation that, when faced with a question about genocide on an Alpha course, most Calvinists are likely to respond that God gives people free choices and they make bad ones; they are unlikely to say that God ordains those evil choices for his greater glory, even when that is what they apparently believe. Am I being fair? If so, is being Calvinist-in-practice-but-Arminian-in-theory a problem? Does it imply Calvinism is incoherent when it interacts with the real world?2 - Is five point Calvinism biblical? One of the charges frequently levelled at Calvinist thought is that it systematises to the point of creating doctrines which are not actually scriptural, and Limited Atonement is often cited as the classic example of an idea which is logically implied by Calvinist doctrine, but nowhere clearly taught in Scripture. Is there anywhere in the Bible where this idea is explicitly stated? If not, does it matter? And can Calvinism work without it?3 - Does God ordain all things, including sinful human choices? If so, what happens to theodicy? Roger Olson remarked a while ago that no theology should be believed which cannot be preached standing at the gates of Auschwitz, and that he found it reprehensible to believe in a God who had ordained the Holocaust from before all time and rendered it certain. Technically, this is just what high Calvinists believe (and some, such as John Piper, unashamedly say so, on the basis of Job 2:10, Lam 3:38, Amos 3:6 and so on), but it seems to many that this makes God both unloving and the author of all evil. Does this make the system logically incoherent?4 - Do the scriptures teach double predestination, and so what? The classic prooftext is Romans 9, but much recent scholarship on Romans has questioned whether the chapter actually concerns the predestination to destruction of all individuals, or whether it refers specifically to unbelieving first century Jews who have been hardened so that salvation might come to the Gentiles. If the latter is true, would double predestination survive? Or is it a logical corollary of single predestination anyway?5 - Does God change his mind? There are a number of scriptures that explicitly say he repents of, or regrets, something he has done, but there are also passages which say that he doesn’t. How are these texts to be held together, and what implications does this have for prayer, obedience and so on? And how does it fit with discussions about omniscience, foreknowledge, open theism and the like?
There should be plenty there to keep us going, I’d have thought ... If you still haven’t booked in, and would like to, there are a handful of spaces available here.
For some background on Calvin’s life and ministry, you may want to see the series on Calvinism by Andy Johnston.
———————————————————————————————
Andrew’s next book, If God Then What? Wondering Aloud about Truth, Origins and Redemption, will be released in April, published by IVP.
Church: King's Church Eastbourne
Church Website: www.kingschurch.eu
Comments
By LexCro on 27/01/2012 at 15:50
Andrew,
Great question! I do believe that Calvinism is grossly incoherent in the ways that your questions intimate. One of the many ways that this incoherence is displayed is in Calvinism’s creation of unbiblical doctrines to buttress its system (point #2 above). As you’ve said, limited/particular/peculiar atonement is one of these doctrines. The biblical authors are incredibly clear about the universal scope of Christ’s atonement (Jn. 1:29, 3:16; Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:14). Another would be regeneration before salvation. The Scriptures are clear that regeneration follows saving faith, not the other way around (Jn. 1:12, 3:15; Acts 16:31). There are many things that believers haggle about with respect to what Scripture is teaching. However, when any system/doctrine teaches the POLAR OPPOSITE of what Scripture is clear about, we’re in serious trouble. Calvinism does this.
Also, I’ll hasten to add that what we’ve come to know as Calvinism doesn’t rear its head in Church history until almost five centuries in. Prior to Augustine’s adoption of what would eventually morph into Calvinism, the early church fathers unilaterally took for granted God-given libertarian free will of persons, universal atonement, the possibility of apostasy for unrepentant believers, and conditional election. If what constitutes Calvinism was held by the biblical authors, then how did it completely vanish from the life of the Church (without incident, I might add) so swiftly after the original apostles? And how were such doctrines replaced by the polar opposites so swiftly and completely in the life of the Church?
By Andrew Wilson on 27/01/2012 at 19:29
@LexCro: I hope you’re coming! I suspect there will be many there who don’t think it’s quite as simple as that ...
By Michael Rundle on 27/01/2012 at 23:16
As a non-Calvinist [Uh Oh!] I’ll throw my hat in:
1. Does not matter in the sense of whether it’s actually true or not. However, it’s still an interesting point. If the five-point Calvinist [FPC] drops their doctrine practically speaking and in situations where apologetics take place then it’s worth asking the question.
2. I don’t think it is. All systematic theologies have been shown to be partly influenced by the reigning philosophies of their time [which does not necessarily make them wrong but raises important issues]. Five point Arminianism suffers the same criticism here as FPC too. Limited Atonement is a doctine which I think is completely absent from Scripture. But I also think that is true for ‘Unconditional Election’ as well.
3. I understand what Olson is saying here but, at the same time, there are always moments where preaching the truth rather than crying with someone and hugging them is simply inappropriate so I’m not as convinced as he that this is a good philosophical standard by which to judge truth. Perhaps more a test of how understanding you can be. We believe that there is purpose in the lives of everyone and yet saying that to a couple whose child has just died is not appropriate either but does not make it any less true.
4. Why would God, in his providence, hide such an important doctrine in such a difficult passage of the Scriptures and not make it much clearer?
5. That’s a much more difficult one. One which might be more linked to our wedding with neo-Platonism and Augustine than with Scripture. Even then I’m over-simplifying horribly.
PS. The recent book called ‘Four Views on Divine Providence’ with Helseth, Craig, Highfield and Boyd is interesting.
By Andrew T. on 30/01/2012 at 01:47
Drats! If this conference were in the States I would try to be there! Hopefully the conference mp3 recordings will be made available online.