Calvinism Defended
by
John Orlando
The First E-mail
From: Bill
To: John
I have been reading your articles on divine predestination or that God has
decreed and caused everything for His glory.
If what you say is true then God has decreed, predestined, and caused me to
believe that I have the freewill. The freewill to reject God's grace or
yield to God's grace. And all of this for God's glory!
I believe that there is a fatal logical flaw in the predestinationism of
Manicheans/Augustine/Calvin and many Godly people have rejected this
teaching.
As a student of history you must know that Augustinianism/Calvinism only
succeeded when Augustinians/Calvinists gained political power to imprison,
torture, and execute their enemies...Calvinistic Switzerland, Netherlands,
and South Africa, and Cromwell's England, and Puritan New England. As soon
as Calvinists lose political power, it withers away under the liberating
power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Bill
My Response
From: John
To: Bill
Greetings Bill,
With reference to your e-mail, I have decided to respond to it “piecemeal” so to speak. So, below you will find your comments in bold print, with my comments underneath in regular font. I’m not sure where you are theologically (though it seemed apparent that you are not a Calvinist J), so I am proceeding on that basis.
Please know that I appreciate your comments, and I certainly understand the difficulty that many have when they examine the Doctrines of Grace. With reference to things I say in my response, please do not mistake any thing I say as me trying to demean you, etc. I can assure you that my tone is one of love, gentleness, and respect throughout.
The issues at hand are very important indeed, and so I do pray that you at least give careful consideration to the response. Well, with that, here is my response:
Bill
wrote: "John, I have been reading your articles on divine predestination or that God has
decreed and caused everything for His glory.
--
Great. I hope that something in those is of use.
Of course, your comments would indicate that there is not much use in
them. J
Bill wrote: "If what you say is true…
-- I know what you mean when you say, “if what you say is true…,” I just wanted to state in no uncertain terms that I am trying to accurately state what the Bible teaches regarding these matters. In other words, I’m not merely offering my opinion. I think you would agree that what I have to say, divorced from the infallible Truth of God and His Word is, let’s say…totally irrelevant. Obviously, the task of faithfully teaching what God Himself says about any matter is a task that is not to be taken lightly, for we are handling the very Word of God, and with regard to these issues, we are stating things that have a direct bearing on the very nature of God Himself.
Also, what article precisely did you read that I wrote? This would help me to understand and interact with your objections/concerns a little better. (Note to the reader: Bill responded that it was my article Of Calvinism and Arminianism).
Bill
wrote: "…then
God has decreed, predestined, and caused me to believe that I have the freewill.
The freewill to reject God's grace or yield to God's grace. And all of
this for God's glory!
-- As for God decreeing and causing you to believe that you have freewill, there are quite a few things that can be said:
1. First, I take this mean that you do not agree with what I have written concerning God’s sovereignty, etc. (That’s okay, I just want to make sure that I am following you here). If you do disagree, then I would respectfully ask that you point out some specifics about what you disagree with, and provide a biblical response (instead of a purely philosophical one) that:
a. Establishes and proves your understanding of the nature of God and the nature
man (i.e., his “freewill”),
b. Deals with the texts that might contradict your understanding (note, in dealing
with those texts, you must provide an accurate exegesis of those texts, i.e., one that is both faithful to what the passage teaches in context, and obviously does not contradict other passages).
c. Addresses and can demonstrate biblically where my position is unbiblical.
Note: obviously, I am assuming that you’re a Christian and that you believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. If these are not the case, then it will be impossible to do what I just mentioned above, for obvious reasons.
2. Bill, what do you mean by “freewill?” The reason I ask this is because most people when they speak on these issues really do not have an accurate understanding of what Reformed theology teaches about freewill. I have also discovered that very often, their view of freewill cannot be reconciled with truth of God’s absolute sovereignty and omniscience. Thus, I would respectfully ask you, what do you mean by freewill, and can you reconcile your notion of freewill with the testimony of Scripture regarding God’s absolute sovereignty and omniscience?
3. It must be admitted by every Christian, Reformed or not, who believes that God is indeed sovereign, and all knowing, that God has indeed ordained all things that come to pass, to include all of the sin and evil that we see. There are no maverick molecules or autonomous atoms running around in the universe (Matt 10:29-30; Acts 17:28). Every thing, from the smallest to grandest, is under the providential rule and ultimate control of an absolutely sovereign and omnipotent God who does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. If this were not the case, then God would not be sovereign in any meaningful sense, and He would in fact be completely powerless to bring about anything that He so desired (For example, take all of the prophetic statements in the Bible. How could God state that certain events would take place without fail if man’s will were absolutely free/autonomous? Obviously, God must be sovereign over and in the choices of men, otherwise, God’s eternal plan and purpose could and would be thwarted).
4. As I read your statement, I thought of some things that I think your statement implies. It seems to me that (whether you meant to convey this or not, I don’t know, I’m just stating what I see as an implication of what you said) that your statement implies that since you believe that you have freewill (whatever that means), then according to what I believe about God’s absolute sovereignty, God would have decreed that you have that belief, which would mean, from my view, that God has decreed that you have a wrong belief about Him and freewill. And so, we could ask, how could God decree that I, you, or anyone else, have a wrong belief about something? Or, to put it in even stronger terms, how could God ordain that there be sin and evil? Now, I certainly am not trying to put words in your mouth. Again, I am just trying to state the things that came to my mind as read your comment.
Well, let’s assume for the moment that my understanding of “freewill” is incorrect. If I say something that is not correct about God, or man, or any other topic for that matter, then what have I done? I have sinned. I have given false testimony concerning a certain matter (in this case, the nature of “freewill,” and by extension, the nature of God). Now, the question is, did God ordain that to be the case? Absolutely. He has ordained all things that come to pass, even sin and evil, for His own purpose, and ultimately His own glory (Eph 1:11; Rom 9:22-23). I deal further with this issue in an article I wrote that is posted on my website entitled “How Do You Reconcile Divine Sovereignty With Human Free Will?” I also you refer you to an article written by Pastor, Rev. Robert Lotzer of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Abilene, Texas, concerning God’s sovereignty and evil: http://www.covopc.org/Problem_of_Evil.html
Maybe some more poignant examples would be those we see interacting with Jesus throughout His earthly ministry, such as the Pharisees and others who rejected Him, and His disciples.
If the Pharisees and others rejecting Jesus was due to the fact that no one knows the Father except Son, and the one to whom the Son will to reveal Him (see Matt 11:25-27), then how can it be said that they had the ability, by the power of their “freewill” to, as you say, “reject God's grace or yield to God's grace. And all of this for God's glory!” when in fact the only thing that they were capable of doing was rejecting God’s grace, and hence they were unable to yield to God’s grace? As a matter of fact, in that passage (Matt 11:25-27), Jesus says that God has hidden these things (referring to salvation) from some, and has revealed them to others, and, this was actually good in His sight. Here then we see that what glorifies God is not that we have the “freewill” to either reject or yield to God’s grace (because ultimately, the only thing that we can do by the power of our “freewill” is reject God’s grace), but that God has freely and sovereignly exercised His divine and sovereign rights and prerogatives as the Potter and is fashioning the clay as He sees fit (Rom 9:18-21), and has determined who it is that He is going to enable to “yield” to His grace. This is why we, as Calvinists, in accordance with the manifest testimony of Scripture, say that salvation is entirely of grace (undeserved favor), and that God receives all of the glory for it, because no flesh shall glory in His presence.
To illustrate this even further, in John 10, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees who have rejected Him, and He tells them first that He is the good shepherd who knows His sheep, and He is known by His own (John 10:14). He then tells them in verse 15 that He lays down His life for His sheep (not the goats), and that it is Christ Himself who must bring His sheep to Himself (John 10:16) (but, why must Christ bring them if they have the power by their freewill to either reject or yield to God’s grace?). After stating these things, the Pharisees begin to argue among themselves and finally they just ask Him if He is indeed the Christ (verses 19-24). Jesus’ response is most telling. He first tells them that despite His works which bear witness to the fact that Jesus was indeed the Christ, they nevertheless do not believe (verse 25). Why don’t they believe? Jesus says, “you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep…My sheep hear My voice…” (v. 26-27). Here we see the classic law of cause and effect dramatically illustrated. It’s not that a person believes (i.e., yield to God’s grace) in order to become a sheep. He or she believes precisely because they already are one of Christ’s sheep. The effect of believing is due to the cause of being a sheep, and a person is made a sheep by the sovereign election of God from the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4; John 6:37; John 17:2, etc., etc., etc.).
Not only did the Pharisees and others reject Christ, and handed Him over to be crucified, but this all took place by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God. If this was all according to the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, how can we then say that those who actually rejected Jesus (i.e., the Pharisees), betrayed Jesus (i.e., Judas), denied Jesus three times (i.e., Peter) had the freedom of will to do otherwise? The Scriptures declared the betrayal by Judas centuries before it happened. So, could Judas have done otherwise? Jesus told Peter that he would deny Christ three times before the cock crowed. So, could Peter have done otherwise? Obviously, the answer to those questions is no, and if that is the case, how can we say that man’s will is “free” in the sense that most people seem to think?
Anyway, the fact that God has determined all things, whether it was the wrong thinking of the Pharisees, Judas, Peter, or my own wrong thinking, does not contradict the fact that God is indeed the ultimate cause of all things, including my wrong thinking about Him and about my view of freewill. So, when you state, “If what you say is true, then God has decreed, predestined, and caused me to believe that I have the freewill. The freewill to reject God's grace or yield to God's grace. And all of this for God's glory!”, that does not refute in any way the fact that God has indeed “decreed, predestined, and caused” you, me, the Pharisees, Judas, Peter, Satan, et al, to believe what they do or do not believe. It actually proves the point. Since nothing takes place in space-time that God has not decreed and determined, then obviously my wrong thinking, or your wrong thinking, etc., was decreed by Him, for His own purpose, and ultimately His own glory. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
Also,
if you take the time to fully understand the Calvinistic position, you will
discover that we do not deny that people make choices that are said to be
“free.” As a matter of fact, it is only in the Calvinistic (Biblical)
understanding of the will that any choice can truly be said to be free, because
we maintain that choices are made in accordance with our nature.
In other words, we all get precisely what we want.
You can read the article I wrote linked above in regards to that, or any
or all of the articles at this link: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/freewill.html
Bill wrote: "I believe that there is a fatal logical flaw in the predestinationism of
Manicheans/ Augustine/Calvin and many Godly people have rejected this teaching."
-- It is quite a distortion and misrepresentation to lump the Manicheans with Augustine and Calvin. It is true that Augustine embraced Manichean teaching prior to his conversion. But to then imply that he simply imported his thoughts on doctrine from the Manicheans is in deep error (with that in mind, I’m sure you aware that Augustine was an opponent of Manichean teaching and wrote strongly against it—see his debate with Faustus as one example).
While the Manichaean’s may have used some Christian terminology, etc., in stating their beliefs, their understanding, definition, and use of the terms were radically different than what Augustine or any other Christian teacher taught. Also, I’m not quite sure how you suppose that the Manicheans were predestinarians in the Augustinian (Biblical) sense. Manichaeism taught a strict dualism, with the Good and the Evil having equal power. With that being the case, how can the Good ordain or predestinate anything, if the opposing evil force is not subject to that ordination, and in fact has the power to overthrow the will and intentions of the Good? As a matter of fact, I would argue that in that sense, “freewill” theology has more in common with Manichean dualism that it does with Biblical Christianity, because to them, there are in fact two independent principles absolutely opposed to each other, and the outcome of events is ultimately unknown. Man, by the so-called power of his independent and sovereign freewill is able to thwart, over and over again, the will of the previously thought to be sovereign and omnipotent ruler of the universe, the Lord God “Almighty.”
As for your statement that there is a “major logical flaw” in Augustine and Calvin’s view of predestination and freewill, there is much to say:
1. If you are going to equate Augustine and Calvin with Manichaeism, you must substantiate your claims by accurately stating what each one believed and taught concerning predestination and freewill, and then show how they are the same. If you cannot do that, then you cannot equate them.
2. Your equating Manichaeism with the teaching of Augustine and Calvin contains a number of logical fallacies:
a. Universal generalization – “A” is observed to be “X”, Therefore all “A” is “X.” Here, in your case, you suppose that “A” (Augustinianism/Calvinism) is observed to be “X” (Manichaeism) because, you claim, they both taught the same doctrine of predestination and denied freewill, therefore, all Augustinian/Calvinistic teaching on those matters is nothing more than Manichaeism. Quite unfair, and quite a stretch, I hope you will come to agree.
b. Hasty Induction – basing a conclusion on insufficient number of premises or
observations.
c. Ad Hominen argumentation (specifically here, the genetic fallacy). Instead of
dealing the merits of the arguments presented by Augustine and Calvin (and all of the Protestant Reformers for that matter), you try to discredit them out of hand by connecting them with a heretic.
d. Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the crowd, where one tries to strengthen
their claim by an emotional appeal to the passions and prejudices of the listener: Mani is a heretic who denied freewill. Augustine and Calvin denied freewill, therefore, one should not listen to Augustine and Calvin).
f. False Cause – Identifying one thing as the cause of another merely on the
grounds that the one thing occurred before the other, etc. Since Mani preceded Augustine, and since the Manicheans denied freewill as did Augustine, then Augustine’s view of freewill was derived (caused) by Manichean teaching.
3. As for your assertion that Augustine and Calvin’s view has a major logical flaw:
A. Where precisely is the major logical flaw? In order to determine this, you
must interact with what they taught regarding these things, demonstrate where the exegesis of the Biblical text from where their position is drawn is incorrect, and then provided a Biblical exposition that both demonstrates your view, and also disproves theirs.
B. The only evidence you give that they have a major logical flaw is because
“many godly people have rejected this teaching.” This is spurious argumentation for a number of reasons:
1) The determining factor of whether something is true or not is not
whether or not “many godly” people accept it as true. The sole infallible rule for faith and practice is the Word of God, not the beliefs of fallible men and women.
2) This is a sword you may want to think twice about wielding, for it cuts
far more sharply against those who oppose Augustine and Calvin’s view, for many godly people have embraced these teachings. It was these teachings that launched the Reformation, and made it possible for you and I to do what most take for granted today: read the Bible in our own language. Were it not for people that held to the view of God’ absolutely sovereignty and grace espoused by Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, etc., suffice to say, we would still be attempting to read the Bible in Latin (and in point of fact, we would not be permitted to even do that much, because the Roman Church forbade the “common man” from reading Scripture).
3) In line with the previous point, if I were to list the people from church
history who held to the Augustinian view, it would be littered with the names of those who have come to be known as the giants of the Christian faith. The names on the side that opposed this view, however, would be filled with the names of those who, let’s just say in the interest of Christian charity, were not quite as theologically astute as the others. As a matter of fact, the list would contain a number of heretics: Pelagius, Socinus, Finney, and the entire modern-day movement of Word of Faith teachers, not to mention that it has historically been the catalyst that launched theological liberalism in all of its forms.
C. What is the fatal logical flaw? Either God is absolutely sovereign, or He isn’t.
Either He has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, or He doesn’t. The only thing needed to demonstrate that the opposing view of freewill is incorrect is to assert what the Lord Himself asserts: “For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who shall disannul it? His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:27), and again, “Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.” (Isa 46:9-11).
Many, many more passages could be cited. If you could provide an exegetical response concerning just those 2 passages that is faithful to your idea of “freewill,” I’d be most interested in hearing it.
4. Finally, just because the Manicheans denied freewill does not mean that they were wrong in denying freewill per se. In every heretical sect, there are things that can be found that are indeed true. For example, the Jehovah Witnesses believe that there is one God. Does this mean that every Christian teacher who affirms that there is but one God is wrong, merely because the Jehovah Witnesses also teach the same thing? Obviously not. Now, when we begin to explore more about what Jehovah Witnesses believe about the one true God, as compared with what Christians teach about the one true God, we begin to see vast differences. This equally applies to the Manichean/Augustine/Calvin comparison that you have advanced
Bill wrote: "As a student of history you must know that Augustinism/Calvinism only succeeded when Augustinians/Calvinists gained political power to imprison, torture, and execute their enemies...Calvinistic Switzerland, Netherlands, and South Africa, and Cromwell's England, and Puritan New England. As soon as Calvinists lose political power, it withers away under the liberating power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
-- I would not agree with your extremely biased (and largely inaccurate) broad brush of history. After the church universal sided with Augustine against Pelagius, it wasn’t long before the false gospel of Pelagius crept back into the church, and as a result we were thrust into the Dark Ages and the radical abuses of the Roman Church as the pure Gospel of grace was buried more and more under an avalanche of traditionalism and corruption, until it reached its climax in the 16th century when that false church declared through the mouth of Tetzel, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs!”
It was an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther, who having himself discovered what the Bible actually said with regard to the nature of God, man, and the Gospel, reacted and nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg. From that time on Martin Luther, as well as those who followed in his train (i.e., Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, etc.) found themselves as marked men. It was Augustinianism that resulted in the recovering of the Gospel to the church at the Reformation. Hence, if that which is the purest expression of the Gospel Jesus Christ withers away, then what replaces it is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but is in fact the false gospel of humanistic philosophy dressed up in the garb of Biblical Christianity that exalts man and his “power,” dishonors and robs God of all the glory for His work in our salvation, and produces bondage. And, it wasn’t long after the Reformation and Calvin that the error of Pelagius once again crept back into the church with the advent of the Remonstrance in the Netherlands.
Your remarks also convey a complete misapprehension, if not ignorance, of the incredible fruit produced by those who held to these principles, and the true nature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I will simply refer you to something I wrote with regard to that: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/fruit.
I would also point out that the moral failings of Calvinists, or non-Calvinists, is wholly irrelevant to the issue. The issue has to do the exposition of Scripture. As for the character of Calvin, I will refer you to the work of noted church historian Philip Schaff (who in his volume actually criticizes Calvinistic teaching) who provides testimony after testimony, from both friend and foe alike, concerning the godly character of Calvin.
Much, much more could be said, but I fear I have already written way too much in terms of a reply to your short e-mail.
In closing, again, I hope that nothing that I said was taken in a way that it
was not
intended. My intention was to present the truth in love, and to respectfully point out where I disagreed with your position.
May God continue to richly bless you and yours by His amazing grace,
Yours In Christ,
John Orlando
Click here to go to the second e-mail exchange (Bill's response, and my counter response).