(NOTE: All graphics are linked to articles by artist or their website.)
After an entire year of studies so far, many more to go, I have come to the conclusion that Calvinism teaches a different Gospel. In fact, Calvinism destroys the Gospel and makes good news into anything but.
Among other things TULIP / Calvinist Reformational thinking distorts or undermines:
- The Gospel
- Scripture
- Calvary
- SOLAS
- God’s Holiness / Glory
- Justice
- Sureness in Salvation
- The Coherence of God’s Word
- Etc.
The biggest issue however, that got me thinking differently on this issue a year ago was an article by Albert Mohler.
Here is the full Al Mohler article: “So… Why Did I Write This? The Delusion of Determinism“
The subversion of moral responsibility is one of the most significant developments of recent decades. Though this subversion was originally philosophical, more recent efforts have been based in biology and psychology. Various theorists have argued that our decisions and actions are determined by genetics, environmental factors, or other forces. Now, Scientific American is out with a report on a study linking determinism and moral responsibility.
The diverse theories of determinism propose that our choices and decisions are not an exercise of the will, but simply the inevitable outcome of factors outside our control. As Scientific American explains, determinists argue that “everything that happens is determined by what happened before — our actions are inevitable consequences of the events leading up to the action.”
In other words, free will doesn’t exist. Used in this sense, free will means the exercise of authentic moral choice and agency. We choose to take one action rather than the other, and must then take responsibility for that choice.
This link between moral choice and moral responsibility is virtually instinctive to humans. As a matter of fact, it is basic to our understanding of what it means to be human. We hold each other responsible for actions and choices. But if all of our choices are illusory — and everything is merely the “inevitable consequence” of something beyond our control, moral responsibility is an exercise in delusion.
Scientific American reports on a study performed by psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler. The psychologists found that individuals who were told that their moral choices were determined, rather than free, were also more likely to cheat on an experimental examination.
As Shaun Nichols reports:
The Western conception idea of free will seems bound up with our sense of moral responsibility, guilt for misdeads and pride in accomplishment. We hold ourselves responsible precisely when we think that our actions come from free will. In this light, it’s not surprising that people behave less morally as they become skeptical of free will. Further, the Vohs and Schooler result fits with the idea that people will behave less responsibly if they regard their actions as beyond their control. If I think that there’s no point in trying to be good, then I’m less likely to try.
Even if giving up on free will does have these deleterious effects, one might wonder how far they go. One question is whether the effects extend across the moral domain. Cheating in a psychology experiment doesn’t seem too terrible. Presumably the experiment didn’t also lead to a rash of criminal activity among those who read the anti-free will passage. Our moral revulsion at killing and hurting others is likely too strong to be dismantled by reflections about determinism. It might well turn out that other kinds of immoral behavior, like cheating in school, would be affected by the rejection of free will, however.
There are limitations to this kind of research, of course, but the report is both revealing and unsurprising. If we are not responsible for our actions, they why would people do the right thing? The most immediate result of such thinking is the subversion of moral accountability.
Of course, this pattern of thought also renders human existence irrational. How can we understand ourselves, our children, our spouses, our friends, or our neighbors if moral responsibility is undermined by determinism. Our legal system would completely collapse, as would the entire experience of relating to other human beings.
Shaun Nichols explains that “the Western conception of free will seems bound up with our sense of moral responsibility.” That “Western conception” is a product of the Christian inheritance and the biblical worldview. The Bible clearly presents human beings as morally responsible. Christians of virtually all theological traditions — including Reformed theology, Arminianism, and Catholicism — affirm moral and spiritual responsibility and the authenticity of the experience of choice.
As a matter of fact, this capacity and accountability is rooted in the biblical concept of the imago Dei — the image of God. Our Creator made us as moral creatures and planted within us the capacity of conscience. All this refutes the concept of moral determinism.
In its most modern forms, determinism is a product of naturalism — the belief that everything must be explained in purely natural terms. Naturalism explains the human mind (including the experience of moral choice) as a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, and nothing more.
Determinism is implied by naturalism and relieves human beings of moral responsibility. There is no moral revolt against the Creator, no Fall, and no need for the Gospel. This subversion of moral responsibility is both a delusion and a trap. And, as the Scientific American report indicates, even those who say they believe in moral determinism are unable to live consistently with this assumption. We know we are responsible.
If Mohler applies that to his own theological determinism, he would have to reject it. More here: Why Both Atheists and Christians Need to Believe in Free Will. It is this “Exhaustive Divine Determination [EDD]”, or theistic determinism, that really got me studying the issue. Because Calvinist apologists show the self-refuting nature of it when dissecting atheism, but they do not apply it to their determinism.
The implications of strict naturalism are grim or even counterintuitive. For example, Bertrand Russell affirmed that any philosophy hoping to stand must ultimately take for granted the (naturalistic) picture of unguided causes and accidental collocations of atoms and must be built on the “firm foundation of unyielding despair.” When it comes to naturalism’s implications for morality, naturalist Kai Nielsen contends that reason can’t bring us to morality; this picture ”is not a pleasant one,” and that reflecting on it ”depresses me.” When it comes to consciousness, naturalist Daniel Dennett considers it an illusion- -something fellow-atheist Thomas Nagel finds utterly confused:
- You may well ask how consciousness can be an illusion, since every illusion is itself a conscious experience …. So it cannot appear to me that I am conscious though I am not … the reality of my own consciousness is the one thing I cannot be deluded about …. The view [of Dennett] is so unnatural that it is hard to convey …. Dennett asks us to turn our backs on what is glaringly obvious. … And he asks us to do this because the reality of such phenomena is incompatible with the scientific materialism that in his view sets the outer bounds of reality. He is, in Aristotle’s words, ”maintaining a thesis at all costs.”
Jaegwon Kim acknowledges the stark picture painted by the naturalistic brush. Naturalism is ”imperialistic; it demands ‘full coverage’ … and exacts a terribly high ontological price.”
Paul Copan and Charles Taliaferro (editors), The Naturalness of Belief: New Essays on Theism’s Rationality (New York, NY: Lexington Books, 2019), viii
Let me restate that last sentence:
- Jaegwon Kim acknowledges the stark picture painted by the EDD adherent’s brush. EDD is ”imperialistic; it demands ‘full coverage’ … and exacts a terribly high ontological price.”
Yep.
What are some of the imperialism in theistic determinism? Here is one:
- God works all things after the Council of His will. Even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so! And when He wants to, he orders those to commit adultery when he wants to! (See more: Is God the “devil” Behind Satan? | Sovereign Puppeteer)
And there is more:
The Origin of Evil… Calvinist’s Say God, Same as the Atheist
John Piper’s Theistic “Dust Particle” Determinism (Soto 101)
Is God the “devil” Behind Satan? | Sovereign Puppeteer (Updated)
Calvinism: God Meticulously Controls Everything | even this post
However, one of the best dealing with the topic can be found in in the book “Calvin’s Desperation: How John Calvin’s Unbiblical Divine Determinism Destroys the Credibility of the Christian Faith“
This video and the following chapter deal with another aspect of why this “new Calvinism” [really it’s old] is really a degradation of God’s character and trustworthiness. The below is an excerpt of the end of a longer video found over at IDOL KILLER. Here is that videos description:
Author, speaker, debater and self-confessed trouble-maker Phil Bair joins Idol Killer to discuss how to destroy Christian credibility. We discuss the various ways in which Theistic Determinism destroys God’s righteousness, human knowledge, and helps atheists justifiably reject Christian theism. We note how Theistic Determinism is not only in opposition to the Bible, but any reasonable world view and thus should be rejected.
Here is the chapter Phil Bair mentioned in the above video:
- To state the problem concisely, anyone who wants to grant God the type of sovereignty proposed by strong Calvinism, which is a causal account of human willing and acting, yet wants to say that the world is not as it should be (sin) is under a particular burden to explain how they can make these claims in conjunction with one another. —Jeremy Evans [245]
I referred earlier to the possibility of whether God can be divided within himself. Calvin is keenly aware of the problem that if God wills that which he condemns, he is indeed a divided being, and worse, is in conflict with himself. Calvin attempts to deal with this objection:
Their first objection—that if nothing happens without the will of God, he must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret counsel what he has openly forbidden in his law—is easily disposed of.[246]
How does he “easily dispose of” this objection? Like this:
Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretense of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing. Paul terms the calling of the Gentiles a hidden mystery, and shortly after adds, that therein was manifested the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10). Since, on account of the dullness of our sense, the wisdom of God seems manifold (or, as an old interpreter rendered it, multiform), are we, therefore, to dream of some variation in God, as if he either changed his counsel, or disagreed with himself?[247]
I have observed how Calvin expresses the contradictory postures he attributes to God. For example:
- It is God’s will that all come to repentance.
- It is God’s will that not all come to repentance.
The two propositions above are indisputably contradictory. Now, Calvin claims that the will of God is not at variance with itself. His will is “one and undivided.” It only “appears manifold” to us. But Calvin affirms both of the above propositions. Therefore he absolutely affirms that the will of God is at variance with itself despite his prior denial of the idea. The only way it isn’t is to define God’s will differently between the two propositions. Calvin alludes to this when he says, “we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.” Note the phrase “though after a different manner.” The obvious question is, how are the two “wills” different? If they are “after a different manner,” how does Calvin explain the two kinds of will, and how does he support that explanation? He doesn’t. Instead, he takes a hard left turn that we would never expect from a dignified biblical scholar. Since he denies that the will of God is “multiform” or “manifold,” and tells us that this perception on our part is due to the “feebleness of our intellect,” he has to explain how there aren’t multiple wills that “disagree with himself.”
But for the moment let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that the word “will” means something different between the two sides of the dilemma. What alternate definition of will might we apply to one or the other? Consider the first proposition 1 quoted above. It’s God’s will that all come to repentance. How do we justify the term will? Acts 17:30 is where it comes from. That verse reads:
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
So God commands all people everywhere to repent. If God commands something, is it not his will that the command is obeyed? Is this not intuitively obvious and clear to reason?
Consider the captain of a sea-going vessel. The captain issues a command for the first mate to set a course for the mainland. It’s the captain’s will that the first mate obey that command. But what if the first mate doesn’t obey? It would be a valid observation that the first mate did not do the will of his captain. Would it ever be the captain’s will that the first mate disobey his command? Not in this sense of the word. The captain has what we could call “sovereignty” over the crew. And in that sense, the word sovereignty means authority.[248] If the first mate disobeys the captain’s will (expressed by his commands), he has rebelled against the captain’s authority, and thus against his sovereignty.
In this case, the captain’s will does not causally determine the decisions and actions of the crew. But if the crew disobeys the captain’s will, there will be consequences. Why? Because the captain has the authority to impose those consequences on the disobedient.
Now consider an inventor who builds a ship and a dozen or so robots having the ability to be its pilots. Now suppose that the inventor puts on a captain’s uniform and issues a verbal command to the robot he designated as the first mate. The robot cannot “obey” the captain’s command. Obedience implies will, something a robot does not have. The robot will simply respond to the captain’s command because the captain programmed the robot in such a way that it will execute the captain’s orders and cannot do otherwise (assuming the captain’s engineering is flawless).
In the second case, the will of the captain is causal rather than authoritative. The robot will execute the captain’s command not because it chooses to obey, but because it is programmed that way. The captain could still be said to have “sovereignty” over the robots, but the meaning of the term would not be the same as it was in the first analogy. In this case, rather than authority or lordship, sovereignty means causality. The will of the captain is now the cause of everything the robots do, and in fact, the cause of everything that happens on the automated ship.
Do either of these definitions of will sound familiar? Recall Calvin’s fundamental axiom: the will of God is the sole determining cause of all things. Which of the definitions of will is he referring to? The second, obviously. Since Calvin, as I have frequently observed, routinely identifies God’s will as the cause of all things, does he have the luxury of using the term “God’s will” in the first sense? If God’s will is something that can be disobeyed, it cannot be causal; it must be authoritative. But Calvin rules this out. If a creature is able to disobey God’s will, only two possibilities exist: either the creature has a functioning will that can cause something (namely, the disobedience), or the creature is only doing what God has programmed it to do. And since for Calvin God’s will is the sole cause of all things, the first option must be discarded. This is because Calvin asks the rhetorical question “are we, therefore, to dream of some variation in God, as if he either changed his counsel, or disagreed with himself?”[249] To say we could only “dream of” such a variation seals off all exit routes and guarantees there is no “variation” in God’s will.
Where does this leave us? For Calvin, there can only be one kind of God’s will. That would be the causal kind. What does that do to Calvin’s phrase “though after a different manner?” It obliterates it. So he cannot invoke the idea of God’s will working itself out in a “different manner” since for Calvin there is only one species of God’s will: the causal one. This means that for Calvin, the phrase “he wills and wills not the very same thing” cannot be after a different manner but after the same manner, whether he realizes it or can face it or not. What does this mean? It means that Calvin’s conclusion that God “wills and wills not the very same thin, certified indisputable contradiction.
This is the only way Calvin can say that “the will of God is not at varia with itself.” Notice this refers to the “will” (singular) of God, not being variance “with itself” (singular). Calvin believes, and has always believe that there is only one version of God’s will—the causal one. This is the only kind he can deal with. Any other kind introduces the potential condition that God’s will is not the sole cause of all things, and for Cal vi this is too terrifying to conceive. So even the possibility that we could come up with more varieties of God’s will does not solve the problem. if they are not causal, they have to be ruled out. If they are causal, in terms of their outcomes they are ultimately no different from the first variety.
Now Calvin has a serious problem. He denies what he implies in various places: that there is a secret counsel in God’s will that is beyond the reach of human intellect where he wills that which he condemns. There is no such secret counsel. For if indeed the thesis that “the will of God is not at variance with itself” is true, God’s will must be uniform and undivided.
To put it another way, Calvin has two options:
- God’s will is at variance with itself. For Calvin affirms both propositions above. They contradict each other, which is the same thing as variance. Yet Calvin denies this So this option doesn’t work.
- God’s will is not at variance with itself, which means that the two contradictory propositions must both be true at the same time and in the same way. For Calvin has no choice but to affirm that it is God’s will that all come to repentance (because the Word of God, namely, Acts 17:30, compels him to affirm this), and in the same way it’s God’s will that not all come to repentance (because according to Calvin God causally determines certain specific individuals of his choosing not to repent, and thus defy his will that they must). It’s God’s will that men must not commit murder, but it’s God’s will that certain men commit murder so as to carry out God’s purposes.[250]
The first option is unreasonable and unacceptable. Why? Because it would mean Calvin is wrong when he says God’s will is not at variance with itself. Calvin can’t admit he’s wrong here or his entire deterministic narrative collapses.
This means Calvin must accept the second option. (There is no third option because of the law of excluded middle.) But accepting the second option means affirming various pairs of propositions that contradict each other. As soon as he writes the words “God’s will is not at variance with itself when he wills and wills not the very same thing,” he is suddenly painfully aware that he has fallen into a trap of his own making. How does he deal with this logical train wreck?
It doesn’t take long to realize that at this point, Calvin has become desperate. He has no choice but to accept a glaring contradiction he can’t pretend isn’t there. His entire ideology has led up to this climax, even though he deals with it in the middle of his Institutes. That doesn’t matter. Two opposing locomotives of thought have been carrying him along the tracks of his thinking and brought him to a point where their hundreds of tons of steel are now fiercely racing toward each other at breakneck speed on the same track. This impending calamity haunts Calvin, knowing that what he is looking at is like the nightmare of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. Sooner or later there will be a violent earth-shaking collision. It is only a matter of time.
There is an episode in the original Star Trek series (1966) where Mr. Spock, the champion of logic who has completely suppressed all emotion and passion, finds himself in an impossible situation. He is the pilot of a shuttle craft that has just lifted off to escape a hostile planet. They are in orbit—for now. There is a small handful of passengers On board, all of which know they are doomed. For you see, the ship’s fuel supply is almost gone, the orbit is decaying, and help is nowhere in sight. The situation is hopeless. So Spock makes a decision that defies logic, and the members of the crew are stunned at his irrationality. He jettisons the fuel and ignites it, causing a long luminous trail of burning plasma shooting out of the rear of the shuttle craft. Now they are out of fuel—completely. The shuttle plunges into the atmosphere and begins to incinerate. The cabin fills with toxic smoke and the occupants are choking on it. The dialogue at that moment goes like this:
Doctor McCoy: It may be the last action you’ll ever take, Mister Spock, but it was all human.
Spock: Totally illogical. There was no chance.
McCoy: That’s exactly what I mean.
At the last minute, they are transported out of the shuttle craft and aboard the Enterprise just in the nick of time, where Captain Kirk eventually queries Mr. Spock on the rationale behind his decision:
Kirk: I don’t understand all this, and maybe you can explain, logically of course. When you jettisoned the fuel and ignited it, you knew there was virtually no chance of being seen, and yet you did it anyhow. And that would seem to me to be an act of desperation.
Spock: Quite correct, Captain.
Kirk: Now we all know, and I’m sure the doctor would agree with me, that desperation is a highly emotional state of mind. How does your well-known logic explain that?
Spock: Quite simply, Captain. I examined the problem from all angles, and it was plainly hopeless. Logic informed me that under the circumstances, the only possible action would have to be one of desperation. Logical decision, logically arrived at.
Kirk: Aha. You mean you reasoned that it was time for an emotional outburst.
Spock: Well, I wouldn’t put it in exactly those terms, Captain, but those are essentially the facts.
Kirk: You’re not going to admit that for the first time in your life you committed a purely human, emotional act?
Spock: No, sir.
Kirk: Mr. Spock, you’re a stubborn man.
Spock: Yes, sir.[251]
When you combine desperation with stubbornness, it does not end well. You make decisions that baffle your colleagues (or should), and those who see clearly what is really going on lose all remaining respect they ever had for you. In the Star Trek story, the shuttle craft crew is rescued just before their time runs out. There is no such happy ending for Calvin, who will stubbornly cling to his deterministic ideology until it blasts him into catastrophic rational oblivion. His orbit is definitely decaying, and there is no chance of a rescue. He will never give up his self-inflicted deterministic ruin, because he sincerely believes that to do so will rupture his faulty concept of God’s sovereignty.
Calvin is projecting his own insecurity on God himself, and God does not come off very well as a result. Calvin cannot live with the damage he thinks human libertarian free will inflicts on God’s sovereignty. But neither can he live with the loss of God’s righteousness. He therefore denies that God’s goodness dies of a thousand cuts from how he directly perpetrates the multitudes of evil choices and actions of man. But the only way to deny this is to abandon rationality itself and push the issue into the obfuscating obscurity of the “secret counsel” of God. Calvin must either divide God’s will in two, or divide God’s mind in two. Those are the only choices left, and the first one is unthinkable since it incinerates The Precious: Calvin’s unrelenting deterministic worldview. The following is the ultimate expression of Calvin’s overwhelming desperation:
Nay, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause termed inaccessible (1 Tim. 6:16), because shrouded in darkness.[252]
This is the point where the two locomotives of God’s will have their ear-bleeding crash. How can God will (i.e. cause) to be done that which he forbids us to do? Multiple scholars and thinkers have attempted to reconcile these contradictory trains of thought, and many still believe this is possible. But Calvin knew beyond any doubt that they couldn’t. If they could, he would not have had to resort to his irrational desperate maneuver of running away[253] and hiding behind “our imbecility.” This is the only option left, and no one knows this better than Calvin.
As I have already said, there are some “reformed” theologians who will tell us that the solution to the problem is quite simple: there are two aspects of God’s will—his decretive will and his preceptive (or prescriptive) will. But if this was such an obvious and simple solution, why didn’t Calvin ultimately invoke it? It would have saved him one horrific train wreck. As we saw before, Calvin tried, but knew it doesn’t work, which is why he had to resort to such desperate measures. If it worked, he would have adopted it as his grand solution, and presto: problem solved. After all, appealing to two aspects of God’s will is quite easy, and presumably removes the necessity to drag our “imbecility” into the formula to solve the problem. But no. Lest we forget, he, like the preponderance of the “reformed” theologians following in his footsteps, is a determinist. There is nothing more central and all-encompassing in his theology than exhaustive divine determinism. It looms over the entire landscape of his thinking like a solar eclipse. If there’s such a thing as man’s libertarian free will, it has the capacity to be causal, and Calvin loses his mind. The appeal to mystery, which is ultimately what Calvin did, and ultimately what his disciples who truly understand the dilemma do, would not be necessary if the contradiction was not real. Since it is unquestionably real, the “solution” mentioned above is no solution at all. It’s nothing more than a theological game all self-respecting theologians should refuse to play.
To review and recap to settle the matter once and for all, if there’s a separate aspect of God’s will one could call preceptive or prescriptive (as opposed to decretive), the possibility that man could obey it or disobey it based on his own volition suddenly appears on the radar, and Calvin has no choice but to hunt it down and torpedo it. Why? Because it introduces additional causality, and therefore blunts God’s causal sovereignty in the caverns of Calvin’s calculus. Even if a case could be made for the “preceptive” will of God, it must also be causal in order to satisfy the demands of determinism. If it’s not causal, but something that can be obeyed or disobeyed by free agents other than God, something could be “left to fortune” and the world “moves at random,” which causes Calvin’s head to explode. It must therefore be sacrificed to the pagan god EDD, lest it get in the way of Calvin’s desperate maneuver and what
subsequently has become a tragically deformed theology.
That Calvin himself ultimately rejected the possibility that there actually are two species of God’s will is decisively settled by reference to his commentary on Matthew:
if it be objected, that it is absurd to suppose the existence of two wills in God, I reply, we fully believe that his will is simple and one; but as our minds do not fathom the deep abyss of secret election, in accommodation to the capacity of our weakness, the will of God is exhibited to us in two ways.[254]
This excerpt from Calvin’s commentary puts the final seal on the issue: God’s will is “simple and one.” It is not divided, and this ontological split of God’s will into two different halves is a myth. It only seems to us that there are “two wills in God.” It is the same will “exhibited to us in two ways” because “our minds do not fathom the deep abyss of secret election” (a restatement of his never-ending fallacy of begging the question).
But suppose we ignore for the moment Calvin’s indisputable affirmation that God’s will is unquestionably simple and one, and that the concept of two versions of God’s will is a fable. If the preceptive will of God is not causal, the decretive will of God, as I stated earlier, still remains the sole determining cause of all things, including the fact of man’s disobedience to God’s moral and soteriological imperatives. In other words, God’s decretive will is directly and unalterably causing man’s disobedience to his “preceptive will,” removing man from the whole equation entirely. So again, adding an additional species of God’s will changes nothing. And if the preceptive will is causal, we are right back where we started—the entire effort to differentiate between the two is futile, and the rational dilemma remains. Therefore the paltry attempt to split God’s will in half like this is a dead end. Calvin would rather take the option of trashing reason than allow his deterministic ideology to disintegrate as he stares down the barrel of a devastating contradiction.
But how valid is this option? Recall my earlier treatment of the cognitive barrier. We saw that the border between God’s intellect and man’s does not lie along the contours of the laws of logic, but between the limits of man’s comprehension and God’s infinite wisdom. But what Calvin is attempting here is to say that God can reconcile a hard logical contradiction behind the curtain of his “inaccessible” intellect ‑- inaccessible because it is “shrouded in darkness.”[255] This means that Calvin rejects the idea that the cognitive barrier is not located where the laws of logic prevail. He thinks logic is the very locus of the cognitive barrier. Beyond the barrier, God can violate the laws of logic to his heart’s content, expressing the agenda of his dark irrational alter ego lurking somewhere in the godhead, ready to burst into the light whenever some confused theologian somewhere feels the need to embrace abject imbecility.
If we recall the discussion of what happens if God or creation can vitiate rationality, I said there was a reason for bringing it up. If there is a part of God’s mind that can circumvent the laws of logic, the door is open to all sorts of contradictions of the central principles of the nature of reality, the relationship between God and creation, and the reliability of revelation. By embracing the concept of God’s dual mental cavities where one is rational and the other is anti-rational, Calvin has opened this door, and released a panoply of disasters from which there is no recovery. Once this door is open, it can never be closed. The entire superstructure of Christian theism completely breaks down.
Most criminals are desperate, and Calvin’s desperation has driven him to commit the perfect rational crime. He breaks the laws of logic by affirming two contradictory propositions, and demands that God cover for him—giving him a bullet-proof alibi: we puny humans are just too stupid to understand how these contradictory propositions can all be true. But God is so brilliant that he can resolve the unresolvable conundrum on Calvin’s behalf. And since the solution God is expected to provide to bail Calvin out of logic jail is allegedly beyond the cognitive barrier, Calvin doesn’t even have to explain how it works. It’s God’s problem now—if you have an objection, talk to him. Of course, if you do, based on Calvin’s misplacement of the boundaries of the cognitive barrier, no one can guarantee which of the divine schizophrenic personalities you’ll be addressing. In this context, Calvin has just removed himself from the category of serious biblical scholar and his move toward a disappointing form of anti-intellectualism is complete.
But desperate times call for desperate measures. I have seen a similar pattern where some theologians (who consider themselves “reformed”) embrace a bewildering array of irrational and mutually contradictory positions that reveal a disturbing trend that is emblematic of a growing contempt for sound philosophical principles within the orbit of hermeneutics and exegesis. What the Body of Christ needs right now is a renewed recognition that the Word of God is never philosophically inept, the protests of certain anti-philosophical debating opponents notwithstanding. / would strongly suggest that there are some aspects of what is called “reformed” theology that are in dire need of reform. To take what is irrational and correct its incoherent errors is one of the highest expressions of reform we can achieve. I must also restate the fundamental principle I articulated earlier in this volume: anything that violates basic rationality by affirming two contradictory propositions is automatically at war with God’s divine Logos.
In his book The God Who Is There, Francis Schaeffer defends his fundamental thesis that the current gap between the generations is caused by a shift in the concept of truth.[256] Prior to the advent of the gap, almost everyone in our society remained loyal to the law of non-contradiction: that A cannot be non-A at the same time in the same way. But since then, the concept of truth has undergone a fundamental transformation. This is partly due to the influence of the dialectic methodology[257] for arriving at what’s true and false—an approach that finds its roots in the ideas of German philosopher GWF Hegel. Hegel influenced Karl Marx, who influenced the West—and especially the modern-day West—to the point where truth and rationality have become so severely weakened that they have almost reached the point of extinction.
On its face, it is difficult to comprehend the widespread popularity of John Calvin’s incoherent deterministic philosophy. I believe the deterioration of the concept of truth in the West that Schaeffer articulated could be a significant part of the answer. How else can we account for the propensity of so many people of faith to swallow the self‑
contradictory sophistry of Calvinism? If truth is no longer truth in the classical sense, the abandonment of the very categories of true and false is not far behind. I am not suggesting that Calvin was influenced by this shift—it occurred long after he departed this vale of tears. He didn’t accept his contradictions because of the modern erosion of the concept of truth. He accepted them for a different reason: misguided as he was, he sincerely believed God could clean up his reckless logical wet spill with divine brute force and mystery. But this recent emergence of postmodernism could easily be part of the reason why his self-contradictory doctrines find so much sympathy in today’s world. For Calvin, to squander the rules of inference grounded in the divine mind can be justified by appealing to the “secret counsel” of God—which here means cheating while no one is looking. For too many souls in our century, it’s not even called cheating any more.
FOOTNOTES
[245] Jeremy A. Evans, Whosoever Will, 266.
[246] Calvin, Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 3, Paragraph 2.
[247] Ibid.
[248] Or lordship.
[249] Calvin, Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 3, Paragraph 2.
[250] There may be a temptation to challenge this narrative by saying God occasionally commands his people to kill other human beings within the context of God’s judgment against them. But this is not an example of murder. It is therefore irrelevant to the present discussion.
[251] Star Trek, The Galileo Seven (1967).
[252] Calvin, Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 3, Paragraph 2, emphasis mine.
[253] Calvin’s maneuver is a sad reminder of the strategy of the cowardly knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “RUN AWAY!”
[254] John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, 631.
[255] And all along we’ve been led to believe that God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).
[256] Francis Schaeffer, The Cod Who Is There, 33.
[257] The Socratic Method is often referred to in the literature as the “dialectic method.” This is not what I am referring to here.
Calvinism makes the Word of God null and void through this determinism:
I worked with CHATGPT to redesign this next “Calvinist Toon”
This next section is from Ronnie W. Rogers, Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist: The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism (Bloomington, IL: WestBow Press, 2016), 86-97. [Chpt 13, “Preaching of the Gospel” | PDF]
As a pastor, I am intensely concerned with what is included in preaching of the gospel. I realize that all Christians are concerned, and rightly so, but because I do this week in and week out, it is of utmost importance not only to understand the gospel, but to articulate the gospel message in such a way that it clearly reflects what the Scripture teaches and what I believe. I offer the following to elucidate my understanding of the call to preach the gospel.
- I affirm the mandate to preach the gospel to everyone (John 6:44, 12:32; Revelation 22:17); that “God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21). Further, I affirm that the proclamation of the gospel that appeals to the heart and mind in persuasiveness, aided by divine enablements of grace, may result in salvation for anyone who hears.
The means of this grace enablement include but are not limited to: Gods’ salvific love for all (John 3:16), God’s manifestation of His power so that all may know He is the Sovereign (Isaiah 45:21-22) and Creator (Romans 1:18-20), which assures that everyone has opportunity to know about Him. Christ paying for all sins (John 1:29), conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11), working of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:1-6), enlightening of the Son (John 1:9), God’s teaching (John 6:4S), God opening hearts (Acts 16:14), and the power of the gospel (Romans 1:16), without such redemptive grace, no one seeks or comes to God (Romans 3:11). Further, I believe that man, because of these gracious provisions and workings of God, can choose to seek and find God (Jeremiah 29:13; Acts 17:11-12). Moreover, no one can come to God without God drawing (John 6:44), and that God is drawing all men, individuals (John 12:32). The same Greek word for draw, helkuo, is used in both verses.” About 115 passages condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.”[96]Other grace enablements may include providential workings in and through other people, situations, and timing or circumstances that are a part of grace to provide an opportunity for every individual to choose to follow Christ.
John Piper asked the question, “What message would missionaries rather take than the message: Be glad in God! Rejoice in God! Sing for joy in God! …God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to sinners.”[97] My answer to this question, the truth that when anyone hears this glorious message, is that same someone has a chance, by the grace and mercy of God, to receive the truth of the message by faith. Further, without opportunity for all sinners to accept, that message should be changed to say, “some can be glad in God if He predestined you” or “God loves to exalt Himself by showing mercy to some sinners.” This is the actual message of Calvinism, a disquieting reality, and I would appreciate their due diligence always to make that clear.
I affirm that a truly good faith offer seems to necessitate a willingness to tell a person that Christ died for them. For example, Paul said to the Corinthians, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-3). Thus, he told them Christ died for “our” sins when they were lost. Peter preached to the Jews saying, “For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:26). The blessing is the “turning every one of you from your wicked ways,” i.e. salvation. Notice that the blessing is not corporate—Israel—but for “every one” who turns from wickedness, which clearly implies that they can and should. In addition, our Lord said concerning His blood, “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20, italics added). When He said that, Judas was sitting there, verse 21.
Commenting on Acts 3:26, John MacArthur says, “All the rich blessings of salvation and all the covenant promises were available. Peter’s hearers could only obtain them, however, by turning from their wicked ways. Repentance was the key that unlocked everything. Peter had clearly shown that the claims of Jesus were consistent with Old Testament prophecy, so that it was a compelling case for his hearers to respond in repentance and belief Tragically, most of Peter’s audience refused to repent. Like their fathers before them, they hardened their hearts and failed to enter God’s rest (Hebrews 3:8; 4:3). As a result, within the lifetime of many in the audience the nation would be destroyed. And those who refused to turn from their sins would find themselves ‘cast out into the outer darkness’ (Matthew 8:12), where they will `pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power’ (2 Thessalonians 1:9). Such a fate awaits all those in every age and place who refuse to repent and receive God’s gracious offer of salvation in Jesus Christ.”[98] (italics added)
Now I unconditionally agree with MacArthur’s explanation of this verse; however, his Calvinism turns the otherwise precise interpretation of this verse into double-talk. His comments give every appearance that he believes that, as this Scripture clearly teaches, “All the rich blessings of Salvation…were available” and these could and should repent, but they did not because “[they] refused to repent …. [and] they hardened their hearts.” He deems their refusal to be a tragedy.
From a non-Calvinist interpretation, it is indeed an eternal tragedy, but from a Calvinist perspective, it is not. Because according to Calvinism’s unconditional election, irresistible selective regeneration, and monergistic salvation, their non-repentance was exactly what God desired and predetermined that they could only do; they will spend eternity in torment, as He also desired. They will serve as predetermined monuments of His wrath. Furthermore, they did not refuse to repent, in any sense of being able to have chosen to do otherwise. As an incontrovertible fact of Calvinism, they did the only thing they could do; thereby proving they were not the elect. Moreover, everyone of God’s elect who heard this was selectively regenerated against his will so that he would unavoidably believe in the Messiah. From his Calvinism, there can be nothing tragic about this event, for everything went according to God’s plan, a disquieting reality, whereas, from a non-Calvinist perspective, it is tragic indeed, and heart wrenchingly so. For they have truly rejected “the rich blessings of salvation” which God had made available through grace-enabled faith.
- I disaffirm that while I am commanded to preach the power of the gospel—the good news—to the entire world, God has predetermined to make that power unavailable to the entire audience of the message and has limited it to only those chosen by God apart from faith (Acts 16:3132, Romans 10:13). It seems that the message to the Philippian jailer, if Paul were a Calvinist, should have been, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the only thing you can do if you have been selected and the one thing you cannot do if you have not been selectively regenerated; consequently, while belief is necessary for salvation, it is not for you to worry about; you should worry about things you can do something about.” Apart from mere obedience and process, the underlying message of Calvinism allows no room for urgency or passionate and emotional pleading either toward or with the unsaved to repent, because all who are predestined to repent will and those who are not cannot repent, i.e., irresistible grace. This is a disquieting reality.
Calvinism is not devoid of passion for seeing the lost come to Christ. Nevertheless, if logic prevails, it is only a vertical passion. That is to say, it is a passion to carry out the mandate of God, to be used by God to gather His elect. It cannot be a Holy Spirit led horizontal passion, which is a burden, love and hurt for all of the lost of the world, or even each particular individual, to come to know Christ. For God, according to Calvinism, does not even have such passion. A consistent Calvinist’s passion is not actually toward the individual but always toward God, which some Calvinists would revel in as vindicating Calvinism; however, that is only true if the Scripture supports such, and I do not think it does. Further, if Calvinism is true, unless the Calvinist knows that God has truly drawn him to one of His elect—which seems impossible to objectively know—the Calvinist needs to refuse to give in to horizontal passion because it can only be mere human sentiment or satanic influence, both of which would actually be contrary to God’s passion.
Paul clearly had a vertical passion for God, but equally clear was his horizontal passion for the lost. He said, “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (Romans 9:1-4a).
Paul’s passion for his fellow Jews who were rejecting Christ and therefore headed for hell was inconsolable. Although he knew that he could not relinquish his salvation, and even if he did that would not cause others to receive salvation, he did actually love them so deeply and hurt so profoundly for them that he would have surrendered his own salvation and home in heaven for an eternity in the hollows of hell for their sake. This is truly the love of God ( John 3:16) and of Jesus who died willingly for all (John 1:29). Paul’s love for his lost countrymen was of the sacrificial quality that is seen in God who loved the fallen and rebellious human race and therefore, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all (Romans 8:32). It is seen in Jesus “who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6), and therefore sacrificed everything that was rightfully His for this same undeserving humanity. And it is seen in Paul in that he would willingly give up the greatest love and future ever known for his countrymen.
This kind of passion and desire for the lost is exceedingly convicting and constantly challenges me to unreservedly disdain and resist excusing my own jejune love for the lost. Of course, if God has elected only some of the Jews for whom Paul so passionately grieved, then Paul’s passion and burden seem at best nothing more than a misdirected human sentimentalism that is quite contrary to the heart and love of God; possibly even the sin of arrogance. For how can Paul be led by the Holy Spirit who, according to Calvinism, cares not one whit about the final destiny of some of those Paul is so deeply concerned about.
Calvinism’s passion cannot logically, being consistent with Calvinism, be toward the lost in the same way as the simple reading of the Scripture conveys God’s, Christ’s, Paul’s or others’ passion toward all, each person, the lost of the world. If a Calvinist is so disposed, it is an inconsistency with Calvinism rather than a corollary of Calvinism. This is a disquieting reality. As a Calvinist, I would have denied—double-talked my way out of—the truthfulness of this conclusion, but as a disenchanted Calvinist, its undeniableness is indubitable.
This is not to say that Calvinists do not claim to be justified in having passion for the lost and a sense of urgency in reaching them. Regarding God’s secret will to deliver some by unconditional election, J.I. Packer says, “But this does not help us to determine the nature of the evangelistic task, nor does it affect our duty to evangelize universally and indiscriminately. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty in grace has no bearing on these things.” [99] (italics added)
The proposition that either God loves every individual and grace enables each person with an opportunity to receive forgiveness or that God only loves some enough to unconditionally elect them to salvation and loves the rest of the world to hell, and then saying that this has “no bearing” on evangelism is the apotheosis of double-talk. Furthermore, “indiscriminately” intimating or telling people that God loves them and desires for them to be saved is not a message sanctioned by God, according to Calvinism, since He does not so love everyone. They may well seek to justify their doing so, but they cannot claim that God is leading them to do so.
With regard to urgency, Packer says, “the belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the urgency of evangelism …. And we who are Christ’s are sent to tell them of the One—the only One—who can save them from perishing. Is not their need urgent? …. If you knew that a man was asleep in a blazing building, you would think it a matter of urgency to try and get to him, and wake him up, and bring him out. The world is full of people who are unaware that they stand under the wrath of God: is it not similarly a matter of urgency that we should go to them, and try to arouse them, and show them the way of escape?”[100]
My heart is truly saddened each time I read such double-talk. First, if truth prevails, the Calvinist must not only tell the lost that Christ is the only One who can save them from perishing, but also the devastating news that the “only One” may have been more pleased to damn them to hell—time will tell, i.e. que sera sera. Second, I agree that their need is urgent, perilously so, and that it is the good and loving thing to rescue sleeping men from blazing buildings, and analogically to arouse the lost who stand under the wrath of God by showing them the way of escape. However, that is not the gospel of Calvinism because according to Calvinism, God does not love everyone that much. How can the Calvinist be so deluded, or believe we are so credulous, to believe that he can love more than God? All the Calvinist can honestly say is, here is the way of escape for some and the rest must burn. It is indeed odd and misleading for Calvinists to attribute a greater passion to themselves for rescuing people who are perishing than they claim for God.
Packer argues that their being the non-elect “should make no difference in our actions. In the first place, it is always wrong to abstain from doing good for fear that it might not be appreciated …. our calling as Christians is not to love God’s elect, and them only, but to love our neighbor, irrespective of whether he is elect or not. Now, the nature of love is to do good and to relieve need. If, then, our neighbor is unconverted, we are to show love to him as best we can by seeking to share with him the good news without which he must needs perish.”[101] (italics added) That there are non-elect and elect must make a difference in actions if one is going to be led by the Holy Spirit who does not love everyone enough to offer salvation that can be accepted by all. I agree “the nature of love is to do good and to relieve need.” However, the Calvinist cannot claim that it is showing our unconverted neighbors love to share the gospel since God, who is love, does not and actually withholds the very love and deliverance some of our neighbors need. Moreover, the Calvinist gospel is definitely not good news to the non-elect, and no amount of double-talk can make it so, a disquieting reality.
He further claims, “The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the genuineness of the gospel invitations, or the truth of the gospel promises. Whatever we may believe about election, and, for that matter, about the extent of the atonement, the fact remains that God in the gospel really does offer Christ and promise justification and life to ‘whosoever will’. `Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”[102] Actually God, according to Calvinism, does not offer Christ and a genuine promise of justification and life to whosoever because only some whosoevers can actually believe. Moreover, in what meaningful sense can an offer that has been sovereignly predetermined to be absolutely unavailable to some who hear be touted as real and genuine? To do so is to egregiously transmogrify those words into the bafflegab of all bafflegab; therefore, to the non-elect, it is neither a genuine or real offer, but rather a crushing illusion and a disquieting reality.
Piper says, “The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills.”[103] It is vitally important to recognize that the Calvinist, as well as Piper’s position, is actually stronger than this with regard to salvation. Their position is that not only does the doctrine of irresistible grace mean that God can overcome, but it actually means He will or must. And later in the same document Piper says, “Irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will ….On the contrary, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching and witnessing that tries to persuade people to do what is reasonable and what will accord with their own best interests.”[104] With all due respect to Piper, this is the very kind of obfuscating verbal gymnastics that causes such confusion about the harsh realities of Calvinism. This is a disquieting reality.
Of course, technically speaking, Piper is correct. God does not force faith upon anyone, and I have never contended that Calvinism teaches that He does. However, He does in fact, according to the doctrine of irresistible grace, invincibly impose a new nature upon the elect against their will by means of “irresistible grace” so they will necessarily choose to believe. Furthermore, persuasion, prayers, preaching, etc., have nothing to do with assuring, aiding or impeding the imposition of a new nature because it is a sovereign monergistic act of God, irrespective of anything done by humans or angels. The Calvinist’s response that what they do is a part of the process, or obedience, does not change the nature of the irresistible imposition of a new nature. Steve Lemke comments, “The Synod of Dort insisted that such attempts at moral persuasion of unsaved persons was wasted time.”[105]
When Calvinists respond that witnessing, praying, persuasion, etc., are a part of the process of God bringing people to salvation, they do not mean the same thing as a disenchanted or non-Calvinist saying that God uses such because we mean that they are actual substantive and integral parts of enabling grace. In contrast, according to Calvinism’s soteriology, nothing contributes one whit to the change of the elect’s nature except the monergistic, selective, irresistible, regenerative act of God. Therefore, as far as the process for what leads up to that act, God could have replaced whatever did happen with having His chosen Calvinists to recite the code of Hammurabi in tongues backwards or the national anthem of Bangladesh in Swahili, because nothing actually substantively matters except unconditional election, followed by irresistible grace in selective regeneration. That is a disquieting reality.
I am well aware of the answers to this by Calvinism, but is it not a little disingenuous to proclaim the message without telling the listeners the all too often undisclosed truth of Calvinism? If I preached to the jailer and said Paul’s words, underlying that message would be the truth that the jailer, or any jailer who heard the message, should and could repent, and that is what I believe Paul clearly believed and meant. However, if a Calvinist said it, the underlying message would be that “although I told you to believe you can’t until you are regenerated and if you are regenerated you will believe” and that is a quite different gospel.[106] This is a disquieting reality.
Again, my concern here has nothing to do with whether someone believes it is a good faith offer on the part of the Calvinist, but whether the person hearing it has a real chance to be saved or not. That is to say, if all of the Scriptures that seem to indicate God really wants everyone to be saved and has provided for that possibility are what they appear to be, and if Calvinists really believe what they say, which is that He really does not want everyone saved because according to irresistible grace, if He did, they would be; they should make sure their message makes that clear because it is an extraordinarily important and an indispensable component of their belief and message. Thus, I am satisfied that Calvinists may possibly make a good faith offer because they do not know who the elect are, and that is not my concern here. I am concerned with the idea that some believe that claim exonerates God from appearing to make a real offer because He does know. Therefore, while it is crucial that my offer of the gospel is in good faith, it is infinitely more vital that God’s offer of the gospel is one of good faith as well.
I further disaffirm that God wants the gospel presented to all, and calls on all to repent, but has no intention of those offers of the gospel being real chances for salvation except for some.[107] I believe we should replace the term general call with the more biblically coherent term sufficient call. The sufficient call, along with God’s grace enablement, is sufficient for anyone and everyone to receive salvation. The sufficient call is simply the proclamation of the good news to the world. It is the call of God on men and women everywhere to heed the call to repent and believe the gospel before it is everlasting too late (Acts 17:30-31). It is the call of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). It is the message preached by Jesus and His disciples (Mark 6:12, 8:35; Luke 3:18, 4:18; Acts 8:12, 8:37, 13:32, 13:38-40, 16:10, 21:28; Romans 1:16, 10:8; Revelation 22:17). Whereas, the efficacious call is received after the sufficient call is heeded, resulting in regeneration and consummating in salvation for those whom God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorifies (Romans 8:28-30).
The means of this grace enablement include but are not limited to: Gods’ salvific love for all (John 3:16), God’s manifestation of His power so that all may know He is the Sovereign (Isaiah 45:21-22) and Creator (Romans 1:18-20), which assures that everyone has opportunity to know about Him. Christ paying for all sins (John 1:29), conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11), working of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:1-6), enlightening of the Son (John 1:9), God’s teaching ( John 6:45), God opening hearts (Acts 16:14), and the power of the gospel (Romans 1:16), without such redemptive grace, no one seeks or comes to God (Romans 3:11). Further, I believe that man, because of these gracious provisions and workings of God, can choose to seek and find God (Jeremiah 29:13; Acts 17:11-12). Moreover, no one can come to God without God drawing (John 6:44), and that God is drawing all men, individuals (John 12:32). The same Greek word for draw, helkuo, is used in both verses.” About 115 passages condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.”[108] Other grace enablements may include providential workings in and through other people, situations, and timing or circumstances that are a part of grace to provide an opportunity for every individual to choose to follow Christ.
Those whom God foreknew would, once graciously enabled to exercise faith or not exercise faith in Christ, trust His salvation message, quite unlike Adam did in the garden, receive the efficacious call that consummates His gracious and genuine offer of salvation. That God foreknows and predestines those whom He foreknows “to be conformed to the image of His Son” is not a point of contention. Neither is the reality that God efficaciously calls those He predestined to “be conformed to the image of His Son” by sanctification, justification, and glorification because salvation requires not only enabling grace, but also sustaining and completing grace. The point of disagreement with my Calvinist friends is whether foreknowledge means, “to know beforehand” or “determine”. I believe that the evidence points to it meaning to know beforehand rather than to determine beforehand. Further, to use verses such as Romans 8:28 or 1 Corinthians 1:24 in order to prove that the effectual call of God is as the Calvinist explains it is to read into the text more than is warranted. They simply assume their answer rather than prove it.
Thus, in contradistinction to Calvinism, I maintain that God made salvation available to everyone through His grace enablements via the sufficient call of the gospel. As a result, because of God’s grace enablements, anyone can accept by faith the sufficient call or reject it. If a person accepts the sufficient call, he receives the efficacious call that consummates salvation. Therefore, the efficacious call is the consummation of salvation for all who believe rather than the initiation in order for some to believe. God sovereignly determined the order and purpose of the two calls. Consequently, being predestined to salvation is not a requirement for receiving the sufficient call of the gospel; it is a requirement for receiving the efficient call of the gospel.
I also disaffirm that the whole mission enterprise is merely obedience, an endeavor that has no real effect upon anyone’s opportunity to receive or reject the gospel and salvation. This disaffirmation is in direct contrast with Calvinism because from a Calvinist view, it does not matter if anyone ever witnesses—beyond being merely a part of the salvific process or only an act of obedience. Moreover, I disaffirm that the Calvinist’s answer that preaching the gospel is the means by which God saves is either satisfactory or adequate if, as the Calvinist believes, salvation is monergistic, and prior to monergistic regeneration, any and every appeal to the heart and mind is meaningless to the person addressed by the Calvinist. Regeneration is an act totally against the person’s will, mind and heart regardless of what he hears or has not heard. This is a disquieting reality.
The Calvinist is right to say that a person is not forced to trust God against his will because according to the doctrine of “irresistible grace”, along with a compatibilist view of free will, God changes the nature of a person by regenerating him, and the changed person then freely chooses to believe in Christ. However, the irresistible change of the nature via regeneration, which results in the free exercise of faith, is an act that is invincibly forced upon the unsaved. Thus, since regeneration is a part of salvation, and according to Calvinism, regeneration is imposed against the will of the unsaved prior to faith; Calvinists err in saying or implying that salvation is by faith alone. This is a disquieting reality. This is a subtle but crucial distinction in understanding how Calvinists feel free to say that a person freely exercises faith in Christ even though he is also irresistibly drawn. When these two essential components of Calvinism’s salvific process are fully understood, the heraldic sign “saved by faith” becomes tarnished. This is a disquieting reality.
I disaffirm that any person cannot repent, or by the grace of God, answer the call of the gospel, which is in fact the ultimate meaning of Calvinism because Calvinists believe that prior to regeneration a person cannot repent and after regeneration they cannot not repent. Further, I disaffirm that preaching out of mere obedience to God is the picture presented in Scripture, where Jesus (Matthew 23:37-39) and Paul (Acts 17:4, 18:4, 18:13; 2 Corinthians 5:11) passionately sought to persuade and were emotional because they spoke to people who would not repent or might not repent. Their passionate appeals seem disingenuous if they actually knew certain ones could come and they would, and certain ones could not come and they would not, and nothing could ever change that or even affect it in the most infinitesimal degree. Moreover, I disaffirm that it is an escapable reality of Calvinism that God must desire those who go to hell to be in hell because everyone He regenerates is saved from hell and the ones He chooses not to regenerate must go to hell. This is a disquieting reality. I wish they would preach this more often so that it could be compared to the quite contrary picture of God in the Scripture.
Why don’t all true Calvinists regularly stand in the pulpit and celebrate their doctrine that selective regeneration precedes faith by saying repeatedly to those who are listening that you cannot be saved unless God regenerates you: if He does you will be saved, if He doesn’t you will not, and nothing can change that or add to it? To preach repent and believe in any way that steers one away from the aforementioned truth of Calvinism is, at best misleading, and at times even deceptive because people cannot believe prior to regeneration and if they are regenerated, they will believe. This is a disquieting reality.
The Calvinist may answer, “We preach believe and repent because we are commanded to.” I would agree, but God also commands us to “speak the truth in love.” Therefore, Calvinists should tell everything they really believe and guard against misleading people to think that Christ loves all of them and they can really receive salvation. They should at least do this as fiercely as they guard their understanding of God’s sovereignty or the TULIP. Some Calvinists do this, and I appreciate and respect them for doing so. I am not referring to them. That the Scripture says to preach the gospel is true, but it does not affirm irresistible grace or the experience of the new birth prior to exercising faith.
FOOTNOTES
[96] Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. VII, 273-274.
[97] Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad, 33.
[98] John MacArthur, Acts (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994, c1996), 123.
[99] J.I Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL., InterVarsity Press, 1961), 97.
[100] Ibid., 98-99.
[101] Ibid., 99.
[102] Ibid., 100.
[103] J. Piper and the Bethlehem Baptist Church staff, “What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism,” as quoted in Allen and Lemke, Whosoever Will, 112. [RPT: the full fifth chapter is here for an excellent read.]
[104] Ibid.
[105] Allen and Lemke, Whosoever Will, 113.
[106] I am not making a reference to Galatians 1:6, nor implying heresy in the Calvinist message. I simply mean that some can be saved and some cannot, in contrast with the message that everyone can be saved by faith, is a very different message.
[107] Thomas R. Edgar has written an extensive article on this issue which is worth reading: THE MEANING OF PROGINWSKW (“FOREKNOWLEDGE”). Found at Chafer Theological Seminary | and at Evangelical Arminians | as well as RPT.
[108] Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. VII, 273-274.
