Calvinism Defended:
The Problem of Evil, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, and Calvinism
By
This is the 18th section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected to Calvinism. Click here to go back to the table of contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
In this exchange, I responded to a comment Bill made in his first e-mail, where he linked the ancient heresy of Manichaeism with Calvinism. I challenged Bill to provide the hard proof of his claims. He simply responded by making more charges that Calvinism is nothing more than repackaged Manichaeism and Gnosticism, which, if the reader has any understanding at all of those things, will realize just how truly outrageous the charge is.
From Bill's First E-mail:
"I believe that there is a fatal
logical flaw in the predestinationism of Manicheans/ Augustine/Calvin and many
Godly people have rejected this teaching."
My Response to Bill's First E-mail: 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).
My
Response: Forgive
me Bill, but to classify Calvin and others as Gnostic is truly incredible.
I could spend an awful lot of time providing one quote after another that
would demonstrate that your accusations against both Augustine and Calvin are
not correct, but I’m starting to get the feeling that it wouldn’t matter.
You seem fixated on this line of argumentation, and it would seem that no amount
of proof that demonstrates otherwise would suffice.
Not
only that, but you seem to think that I believe the things that I do merely
because Augustine or Calvin taught them, as if I were holding them up as the
sole infallible rule for faith and practice.
I can assure you, nothing could be further from the truth.
As I state elsewhere, I embraced the doctrines of grace not because
Calvin taught them (as a matter of fact, I had never even read Calvin prior to
that point), but because I became convinced that God was indeed all-powerful and
all-knowing, and that nothing could ultimately thwart His plans and purposes
(which you yourself ironically acknowledge), and that I am absolutely helpless
in my estate to make even the smallest move to effect my salvation, but am
wholly dependent upon the grace of God for everything, to include my ability to
receive Christ. I became convinced
that Christ did not merely make salvation possible, but that He actually saved
people at the cross. His perfect
work of atonement was one that could not fail to secure the salvation of
everyone for whom it was intended (His sheep; see John 10).
You can read more about why I’m “Calvinist” here:
http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/whycalvinist.
If you want to believe that God cannot accomplish His purposes unless we
let him, and that Christ merely made salvation possible, and not actual, and if
you want to ascribe even the smallest part of your salvation to some inherent
power within you, that’ all on you. I
am exalting God and His power, and ascribing every bit of my salvation to the
sovereign grace of God alone, and to Him alone be all (not most, or some) of the
glory. In a nutshell Bill, that is
the decision we have to make.
1.
“Manichaeism expressed in poetic form is a revulsion from the material
world and became the rational for an ultra-ascetic morality.” (p. 12).
What is different here with what is found in most non-Reformed
fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox communities?
It was the Reformers who restored to the church the whole concept that
matter is not inherently evil, and that all of God’s creation, as He created, is
good. The impact that Reformed
theology had on the thought of man can be seen in the art that was produced from
that time period. Reformed theology
deals with the world as it really is: though
fallen, it is nevertheless beautiful, and all of creation declares the glory of
God. People are to be respected as
those who are indeed created in God’s image, and though that image has been
marred, he still retains that image. The
art produced prior to the Reformation represented a distorted view of the world.
Post Reformation art shows the world as it is, plants, trees, and people
that actually look like people, etc. Those of us who are Reformed do not tell our
folks to avoid the world, but to embrace it as those who have been redeemed by
the blood of Christ, and are not of world, but in it.
Want some wine for dinner? Drink
it. Want a beer with that piece of
Pizza? Drink it.
Want to listen to a good jazz piece?
Listen to it. All
things are in moderation, of course. J
2. “Absolute celibacy was required of…the Elect” (p.12). I find the exact opposite being taught by the Reformers. Both Luther and Calvin married, not to mention the thousands of Reformed pastors since them that have married as well.
3.
“Mani denied any authority to the Old Testament with its presupposition of the
goodness of the material order of things of its Maker.” (p. 13).
Far from denying the Old Testament, Luther, Calvin, and the other
Reformers affirmed it, as well as the fact that the original creation of God is
good.
4.
“[Mani] generously acknowledged truth in all religious systems, and
rejected orthodox catholic Christianity for being too exclusive and negative
towards other religious myths.” I
think it is safe to say that the Reformers were anything but “Manichean”
here. As a matter of fact, you
would seem to have more in common with Mani here, as evidence by your concern
that Calvinists are “myopic” in their view.
But you know what Bill, even though you may have a similar understanding
here as Mani did, I will not charge you with being a Manichean.
5.
“The crucifixion [to Mani] was no kind of actuality but a mere
symbol…” This is exactly the
view that is held outright by all who do not hold to the vicarious, penal
substitutionary view of the atonement, which, by the way, can only logically be
held by those who are Reformed.
6.
“The force of good and evil in the world have strengths and weaknesses
such that neither side can vanquish the other.” (p. 13)
This sounds very much like the conception of many non-Reformed
Christians. God is basically on the
outside looking in, seemingly pacing the halls of heaven hoping that somehow,
someway His plans and purposes would not be thwarted, hoping that somehow these
sinful creatures would somehow find it in the goodness of their heart to
“accept” Him.
7.
“Little fragments of God, or Soul, have become scattered throughout the
world in all living things, including animals and plants.” (p. 13)
Except for the animals and plants part, this sounds very similar in many
respects to what the Greek church fathers and modern day Eastern orthodoxy
teaches.
8.
“…supreme and infallible teaching office was located for his [Mani’s]
community not in Jesus nor in the old Jewish books but in Mani himself.”
This is the direct opposite teaching of the Reformers, but is in
principle the view of Rome, and the Eastern orthodox.
9.
“Evil was an ineradicable force inherent in the physicality of the
material world. No one could
plausibly hold that the ultimate author of so uncomfortable a world could be
both omnipotent and truly good. If the argument was to be coherent, either the omnipotence or
the goodness must be sacrificed.” (p. 14).
First, for the Reformed, evil is not an ineradicable force; rather, God
has a morally sufficient reason for ordaining evil, and He is causing all things (that
would include evil) to work together for the good to those who love and are the
called according to His purpose. By
the way, please note the personal pronouns in Romans 8:28 and following.
Larry: So, why all of this suffering and evil in the world?
The non-Reformed Pastor: Well Larry, you see, God has given man free will, so that's why there's evil and suffering in the world.
Larry: But God is omnipotent and good, right?
The non-Reformed Pastor: Yes, that's right Larry.
Larry: So, why doesn't He stop it or prevent the evil.
The non-Reformed Pastor: Well, Larry, He doesn't want to violate our free will.
Larry: So then how does God defeat evil, and what's the purpose for suffering and evil. How can a good simply allow an innocent baby to be murdered?
The non-Reformed Pastor: You know Larry, these are really good questions, and we simply do not have all of the answers. We just know that He brings good out of all of the evil that happens, and that one day He has a plan to eradicate evil.
Larry: What good can be brought out of a baby being murdered, or the terrorists who blow up buildings and kill thousands of innocent people. Would you, if you had the power, at least try to prevent those things?
The non-Reformed Pastor: Well Larry, God doesn't like what is happening, but He determined to create us with a free will, and we are not little robots, and all of the evil and suffering we see is because of our free will.
When I hear stuff like this, I am just grieved. Here is a how a Reformed Pastor might respond:
Larry: So, why all of this suffering and evil in the world?
Reformed Pastor: "Well Larry, God has ordained all things that come to pass, even the evil and suffering in the world, ultimately for His own glory. We may not understand all of the reasons why He ordained such things, but we do know that God is infinitely wise, and He has morally sufficient reasons for ordaining all that transpires. And, Larry, at the heart of that morally sufficient reason is the cross of Christ. The Bible says we have a High Priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses, because He was tempted in all points, yet without sin. He then ordained the most evil act in all of history, when He allowed Himself to be afflicted by evil by being unjustly condemned as a criminal, and then He bore the penalty for all of the evil deeds ever committed by those He was sent to save. God isn't up in Heaven reading the newspaper. He is the Lord of history, and all things that transpires in space and time, even evil, was ordained by God from all eternity and redounds ultimately to His glory."
Larry: But God is omnipotent and good, right?
The Reformed Pastor: Yes, that's right Larry.
Larry: So, why doesn't He stop it or prevent the evil.
The Reformed Pastor: Well, Larry, I just stated that the evil, far from taking God by surprise, is something that God actually ordained to take place, and the Scripture maintains that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God and are the called according to His purpose. The ultimate purpose stated in that passage is that God's people would be conformed to the image of Christ. Far from stopping or preventing the evil, God uses the evil to accomplish far great purposes.
Larry: So then how does God defeat evil, and what's the purpose for suffering and evil. How can a good God simply allow an innocent baby to be murdered?
The Reformed Pastor: I've already answered what the purpose of suffering and evil is. Another thing to consider to though is that without evil, there would not be an opportunity for such things as compassion, forgiveness, mercy, unconditional love, and a host of other attributes that we find to be admirable. If there was no evil, there would be no need for grace, justice, and ultimately, there would be no need for salvation. As for how God defeats evil, He has defeated evil in the Person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ, by His perfect life, death, and resurrection from the dead, and He is bringing all of history to its consummation, when one day He will eradicate all evil by creating a new heavens and a new earth, wherein there will be no more suffering, pain, or tears. As for how a good God can allow an innocent baby to be murdered, I will simply ask you the same question the Apostle Paul asks all those who would question the wisdom of God: Who are you oh man to reply against God? Or, I will refer you to the book of Job, who made similar inquiries of God in that he wanted to know why God ordained all of the evil that befell him and his family. God responded by making Job aware that Job is not God, God is. Where were you Job when I created the heavens?
Larry: What good can be brought out of a baby being murdered, or the terrorists who blow up buildings and kill thousands of innocent people. Would you, if you had the power, at least try to prevent those things?
The Reformed Pastor: Well Larry, from the human perspective, there is no good brought about by the evil and suffering that occurs for those who do not love God and are not the called according to His purpose. From God's perspective again, everything that transpires ultimately redounds to God's glory. You and I may not full understand all of the complexities of that, but God, who is eternal, infinite, and wise, does, and He has told us the facts as they are. Man may not like the answer, but God is under no obligation to explain anything to us, and we are certainly in position to point our puny, sinful fingers in the face of God and impugn His judgement and wisdom.
Larry: What about free will?
The Reformed Pastor: What about it?
Larry: How does that factor into the equation?
The Reformed Pastor: God has ordained all things that come to pass, and He is sovereign over and in the choices of men.
Larry: So, you mean that we are robots.
The Reformed Pastor: No. I mean that we all makes choices according to the strongest desire that we have at the moment, and those choices are made in accordance with our nature. But, God is in control, and He directs men where He wills. He is the Potter, and we are the clay, and He does with us and directs us as He sees fit.
Larry: So, how can God hold us accountable?
The Reformed Pastor:
Larry, let me just quote for you the apostle Paul in Romans 9:14-21:
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 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." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 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." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 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?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
Obviously, this is what I
would like to say, but, when a person is on the hot seat, sometimes the answers
aren't quite as tidy :-) The point is that the Reformed response
will always emphasize God and His work, and it does not attempt to
"bail" God out of anything by pointing to free will as a defense
(which is really nothing more than a cop out, and no real defense at all).
God doesn't need us to get Him off of the hook, He just calls us to trust in His
sovereignty and wisdom. This is why I say that the absolute sovereignty of
God compels us to trust God absolutely. We must defer to God's sovereignty
and wisdom, and not undermine those things by superficial and unbiblical
responses such as the free will defense.
10.
“Mani…asserted that the supremely good Light-power was weak and
impotent in conflict with the Dark…” (p.15).
This is the exact opposite of what Reformed theology teaches. While Mani
teaches God’s weakness and impotence, Reformed theology rejoices in God’s
Almighty power. As a matter of
fact, I would argue that Mani’s view is quite close to those who are not
Reformed, because non-Reformed folks render God completely powerless unless man
lets Him. God is wholly unable to
infringe upon the sovereign will of the creature.
Again, while I see similarities in your view of God and man as that of
the Manicheans, I will not brand you as a Manichean.
11.
“The Elect claimed sinless perfection.” (p. 15) Not so in Reformed
theology. Who can forget Luther’s
words, “simul ejustus et pecator” (at the same time just and sinner)?
Only those who deny Reformed theology ever embrace this teaching of
sinless perfection (Wesleyans, Methodists, and many of your comments, Bill, seem
to strongly imply that you also believe in this error).