I spent most of this year at Biola, reading (and reading and reading...), writing, and discussing all of those books. What amazing works they are!
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion definitely caught my attention. I had read sections of it before, and was surprised by how much I actually agreed with his doctrines. A similar experience arose this time around, but his section on predestination really stuck in my craw. What irked me the most, though, was that from one point of view, his arguments made perfect sense! I found myself being afraid that I would have to become Calvinist because of his logical soundness.
I do not want to hold to my Arminism simply out of fear of something else. The idea that man can indeed do some things of his own volition - whether they be the will of God or no - coincides so well with other spiritual teachings I hold to, and a worldview that has proven itself biblically sound. And so, I wrote the following short essay to spell out my thoughts and the areas in which Calvin may have made the wrong assumptions. It has not quelled all my concerns, but it did help me clarify my thoughts and - quite frankly - comfort my terrorized belief system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Calvin understands the fact that God’s sovereignty is indisputable and evident throughout history. Paul lays out the logic for how Gentiles are grafted in as Children of Abraham, which serves as the foundation for Calvin’s position regarding God’s predestining of mankind. On the whole, he explains and extrapolates from Paul’s themes, elaborating or clarifying what Paul argues.
With his articles on the difference between “election and foreknowledge of merits,” the fact that those chosen are “elected to be holy, not because [they are] already holy,” and “the case of Jacob and Esau refut[ing] the argument from works,” Calvin solidifies the glory of God’s power and foreknowledge. He makes clear the concept that God is limited by nothing. He chose “the elect,” not because He knew they would do great things, but instead chose the vessels that would carry out His will: “In love He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will” (Eph 1:5).
In his analysis of the workings of God’s election, however, Calvin seems to overstate one side in contrast to the other. In addressing the primary objections to the doctrine of election, he – in my opinion – creates a rather artificial solution. He recognizes that “free will” is a biblical concept but nearly castrates it in favor of a strong predestination-focused viewpoint. Another interpretation that could reconcile the two concepts would be one that states firmly that God’s will shall indeed come to pass as He preordains it, and that He has a purpose predestined for each human; this human-level plan, however, may be delayed or negated by the individual’s rejecting the opportunity for salvation. Calvin claims a line of argument similar to this is wrong, but I would dare to disagree.
In reading Ephesians and Romans, could he not possibly allow that since Paul is writing to Christians – the elect – he is speaking to the people who responded to the Spirit’s prompting? Granted, God quite plainly states that He loved Jacob and “hated” Esau. That case, as with Abraham, provides proof of His undeniable authority in human matters. He chose Jacob, but – to be ornery for a moment – could Jacob have perhaps had the opportunity or choice to say “no”? Could the fact that not all of God’s Chosen People were in fact “chosen,” be attributed to their individual choice to reject Him, and not His rejection of them? Calvin argues against ideas like that using sophisticated logic, but is it possible that a simple explanation – based on the evidence resting on how often mankind’s will is appealed to – and common sense could indeed be valid?
I would propose that Calvin makes too much of an assumption regarding God’s predestining the elect. He chose us before the beginning of the world, but that fact does not negate the fact that He may have chosen those whom He knew would choose Him. Additionally, Scripture indicates – both subtly and clearly – that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (II Pet. 3:9). This same God would not, while intentionally consigning specific image-bearers to the torments of Hell.
No comments:
Post a Comment