Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
The Five Points of Calvinism
An apologetic and explanatory note about this post. I made a major blogging boo-boo on this post. I started it this morning and had to go attend to some things around the house. So, I set it to post sometime around 6:00pm or so, thinking that I would get back to it in the afternoon and have it all finished up by 6:00 and there would be no problem. Lo and behold, I didn't get back home till 10:00pm tonight and got online and realized I hadn't made the proper adjustments. Thus, a half-done post hit at 6:00pm. I have come back now and finished the post. My apologies to those of you who have commented already on this (Donal, Mark O, David M. and Tim) as, due to my negligence you have commented on a half done post. Anyway, it is now about 11:15pm on Friday evening and the post is done and in its final form. The rest of the post is that which follows the paragraph that ends as follows:
I've written on this before, but I'll repeat my assertion that freedom is always circumscribed in some way. Our freedom is always bound by our nature.
In my last post on total depravity I mentioned that I wanted to do a post on how this relates to the subject of free will - so, here it is.
I fear that what I have to say here will probably not be accepted very well by Calvinists or their opponents, but hopefully it will give both something to think about.
First of all, I want to address a comment that is commonly made in evangelical circles. The comment goes something like this "God is a gentleman and there is one thing He will never do - He will never violate a person's free will." I've heard variations on this in many places and I have to admit that I think it is one of the most ludicrous things that a Christian could say.
Anyone who has ever prayed for God to change a person's heart has prayed that God would "violate" that person's free will. Which parent, who has a child who is walking away from the faith really wants God to not interfere with that child's will.
Certainly we have biblical examples like God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the proverbial statement that the heart of the king is in the hands of the Lord, and He turns it whatever way He wishes.
But having said that, all of the questions are not answered. We Calvinists affirm that man has a free will. The question gets into just what does do the effects total depravity (or radical corruption as I like to call it) do to a person's will and how does God apply His will to our will.
I'll speak more about that in my post on irresistible grace, but for now I want to address a particular issue that comes up more from the Calvinistic side. On another blog I shared a few of my thoughts on this in a comment, and there were some who took issue with my position. They seemed to think my view of sovereignty was a little weak. From what I gathered, I think they didn't think that my view did justice to the principle of the kings heart being in the hand of the Lord, that the Lord might turn it whatever way He chooses. I think my critics on that blog have the impression that we are puppets on a string, and not only does God control our every action, but even the thoughts and intentions of our hearts.
To me, this is a level of determinism that approaches fatalism and goes beyond what even the historic Calvnistic creeds would affirm. I see that view as a hyper-Calvinistic view that most Calvinists wouldn't affirm.
When I was at Columbia Biblical Seminary Robertson McQuilkin was the President and he was famous for saying that we must always remain in the center of biblical tension. I am sure he would never say that the bible contradicts itself, but he acknowledged that there were seeming polarities in Scripture. This would be one area - it seems that the bible affirms human freedom and God's absolute sovereignty. President McQuilkin said that we need to stay in the center of biblical tension on this regard. I am pretty sure I know what he means and that I would be pretty much in agreement with him. However, such a statement could mean that you take the biblical statements on human freedom and the statements on God's sovereignty and pick a mediating position between the two.
This is in error. While we do our best to seek to harmonize all of the biblical data on a particular subject, we have to harmonize it in such a way that we don't denude it of all meaning.
So, in this regard, biblically, we have to affirm human freedom and God's sovereignty. This may sound like I am giving away the farm and basically taking a non-Calvinist view. However, I would ask the non-Calvinists to carefully consider how they define human freedom. I've written on this before, but I'll repeat my assertion that freedom is always circumscribed in some way. Our freedom is always bound by our nature.
This is a real conundrum for Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. If the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, is the Lord controlling His every thought in an immediate fashion? I think this is what some Calvinists believe and there is a set of biblical data that, taken to its logical conclusion, would lead us to believe that.
But, the bible clear in saying that God is not the author of evil. The locus classicus in the Scripture for this thought is James 1:13-15:
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
In that passage, we see that God specifically distances Himself from the evil intents of a man’s heart.
This is why I think the Westminster Confession is wise in defining free will in the following way in chapter 9, section 1:
God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil. (Matt. 17:12, James 1:14, Deut. 30:19)
Basically, it defines freedom as the ability to will and to choose apart from coercion.
The confession then goes on to describe the four-fold state of man (innocence, fallenness, grace, glory). I find it interesting that, in the most hopeless state – that of fallenness – the confession speaks of the will in the following way:
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, John 15:5) so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, (Rom. 3:10,12) and dead in sin, (Eph. 2:1,5, Col. 2:13) is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (John 6:44,65, Eph. 2:2–5, 1 Cor. 2:14, Tit. 3:3–5)
The thing that stands out to me the most in this statement is that the confession defines the loss of free will as a loss of the ability to convert himself, or “prepare himself thereunto.” This leaves open a great deal of freedom, while denying that this freedom encompasses an ability to believe in Christ, apart from regeneration.
So, to the hyper-Calvinist who hyperventilates every time someone speaks of human freedom needs to lighten up and see that the Westminster Confession itself has a very robust view of human freedom. We believe that each and every person has the power to will and to do whatever he or she wants to will and to do. To those who think that such a view minimizes God’s sovereignty, we need to remember that the Scripture forces us to this position. In James 1:13-15 God specifically disclaims responsibility for the evil in men’s hearts. Hyper-Calvinists, or those with such tendencies, think that such a statement impugns the sovereignty of God. If man can have a thought that is not controlled by God’s sovereignty they say, then God is not absolutely sovereign. This makes a good deal of logical sense. But it won’t wash with the totality of the Scriptural data.
I am suggesting that the fact that God disclaims responsibility for evil intentions does not negate his absolute sovereignty. Yet, even the evil of man is controlled by the will and plan of God. Can I reconcile such things? No, I can’t. Can I affirm that the bible affirms them? Yes.
Those who want a theological system that would make Aristotle proud by connecting all of the dots in a perfectly logical sequence, need to remember that the bible isn’t bound to the principles of Aristotelian logic. This doesn’t mean that the bible is illogical, it simply means that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man and transcends all human systems of thought.
To the non- or anti- Calvinist we say that you every man has absolute freedom to do what he wants to do, but due to the presence of sin, natural man will never want to believe in Christ unto salvation. That is the problem – we have a “wanter” that doesn’t want God. This is the real crux of the free will debate. Calvinists believe the bible teaches that man, in his natural state, just doesn’t want to believe savingly in Christ. And his “wanter” can only be changed by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
Man has a free will, but this freedom is dependent upon the sovereign grace of God. Yet God sovereignly orchestrates all of the events of this life, even the free choices of man according to His purposes. Even in our freedom, we have never willed or done anything that is not according to God’s purpose. Yet, the choices have been ours. The Westminster Confession chapter 5 on providence speaks of this:
Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; (Acts 2:23) yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. (Gen. 8:22, Jer. 31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, I Kings 22:28,34, Isa. 10:6–7)
Notice, that though God’s will is immutable and infallible, He causes things to come to pass according to the nature of second causes – necessarily, freely or contingently.
So, the whole point of all this is to say that Calvinists shouldn’t be afraid to admit that man has a free will. On the other hand, non-Calvinists need to understand that there is not a moment when, in their freedom, they are acting apart from or contrary to the will of God. And I hope that all of us would realize that the only reason that any of us can be saved His through a divine violation of our free will, in causing us to believe savingly on Christ.
In a chapel message at RTS Orlando several years ago Dr. Roger Nicole used Exodus 23:28 to illustrate how God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom work together. In that passage it says that God sent hornets to drive out the nations before
Israel
. Thus, God sovereignly decreed that the nations would leave the promised land and He caused them to leave. Yet, it is just as true to say that the nations chose to leave of their own free will. To those who disagree I offer this as an illustration, not a proof, and I know that this doesn’t answer every question that could be asked. But it gives an example of how God can be absolutely sovereign and we can be fee at the same time. The mechanics of how God works out His sovereign decree may be different in different situations. But God is absolutely sovereign and man is truly free.
The rest of the Five Points of Calvinism
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace
Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints
It depends a bit on what you mean by "free" when you say "free will". I have been arguing that for an atheist, a completely self-consistent materialist world-view robs you of morality and meaning in life. The arguments I've been making are tied to not having the ability to make choices.
To the extent that you have God take away a person's ability to make choices, I assert that you run into the same problem that the materialist does.
It is hard to see how God could hold someone responsible for her actions if she is born totally depraved and without the free- (or at least partly free-) will to choose otherwise. And if, as a Calvinist, we assert that God will either choose or not choose to take away her depravity, it is hard to see God as good if she is not chosen.
If I were a Calvinist, my axiomatic belief in God's Goodness would require me to be a Universalist.
Posted by: donalgrant | November 19, 2004 at 07:25 PM
You know, I may be a bit strange, but this is actually an issue I grappled with before becoming a Christian. My thought process, I think, went something like this: "I know that God exists (by this point, I was admitting that to myself; for a long time, I would deny this) and that he rules over everything. But if he rules over everything, how can I possibly have free will? And if I don't have free will, how can he hold me accountable for my choices?"
At that point, my answer ended up being this -- from my perspective, it would seem the same whether God already knows my actions in advance, or not. So I needn't concern myself with the philosophy of it.
Since becoming a Christian, I've put more thought into the matter, and studied what the Scripture says, so I have a more detailed understanding, I think. And I agree we need to stay between the two extremes (yes, God is sovereign, but yes, man is also responsible and accountable for his own actions). But I still think it's helpful to remember this: From my perspective, things look just the same no matter whether God knows my actions in advance or not. So it's unwise to argue: "Well, I don't feel like my actions are determined in advance, so God must not be absolutely sovereign".
Posted by: David M. | November 19, 2004 at 08:56 PM
donalgrant:
You said, "It is hard to see how God could hold someone responsible for her actions...."
I think an important point when we read the Scripture is that simply because something is "hard to see" does not make it impossible. It is hard to see how Christ could be fully God and fully man at the same time, and how God can be three persons and yet one God. This is one reason why I think it's so important to use our minds to try and understand what Scripture is teaching, rather than to use our minds to decide what Scripture must or must not mean.
Let me put that another way: I'm convinced that the Bible is God's Word, and is inerrant. Since this is the case, I ought to believe what the Bible teaches, no matter whether I can understand the details of "how" it all works out. The proper use of my intellect, then, is to understand the "how" whenever I can, but NOT to say, "This can't be true, since it doesn't make sense."
For those aware of the terms, I think these have been called magesterial versus ministerial use of reason. I should not use my reason to judge what can and can't be right about what Scripture says. I should use my reason to try and understand what Scripture is teaching, even when (as David Wayne points out) there's tension.
Posted by: David M. | November 19, 2004 at 09:04 PM
Over on Evangelical Outpost last week free will came up. I was arguing in comments with someone about the distinctions between between "real" free will and "perceived" free will are purely sophistry. That is, irrespective of God's actions or his Omniscience, since their is no way to distinguish between "real" and "perceived" free will, there truly is no true distinction.
I'm something of a tyro at this, but what would you say to that?
Posted by: Mark O | November 19, 2004 at 09:19 PM
I like the Piper/Edwards line on this. A person will always do what he desires most at any given moment. When faced with a decision he will always, always do what he desires most. Until God gives someone a desire to follow him, he will always follow his nature which takes him directly away from God.
Posted by: Tim | November 19, 2004 at 10:52 PM
Had a lively dialogue about this issue on a theology website....those of us who lean toward the freewill position struggle with how God & Jesus ask us too choose... choose this day whom ye will serve.... choose too follow & obey Him.... choose too answer Christ when He knocks at the door.... if God decides too save only the elect, whom He makes elect based on no reason other than He just chose too... that really strikes hard at the character of God & Christ who make the statements they love all..... like in John 3:16.... and how God desires 'all too come too repentance"... not just some special 'elect"....
Posted by: robert | November 19, 2004 at 11:21 PM
"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb 1:3a)
I take that to mean that our very material existence depends on God's will, and that the consistent physical laws we see in the universe are a testimony to he perfection. To me the analogy of man without free will to a puppet is too loose, as if we were dangling and somehow apart from the master. God's control over our lives is much more than that. "In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:10). And it is not just at the spiritual level, "Yet, O LORD , you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand." (Isiah 64:8)
So the scripture is very clear that God's impact in our lives is initimate and total. That does not make us just puppets however. We are spritual beings being prepared for an eternal life. "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Rom 8:20)
Until then, God is presenting us with a fallen and depraved world that we are an integral part of. In this world, the elect among us are given faith and serve God patiently in suffering during a time that seems long, but is just an instant in comparision to eternity. During our time on this Earth we are presented with choices. Those choices are difficult for us, as we struggle to discern what is God's will for us. Ultimately however, God places in our consciousness the next step in his plan for us. Where else do we think the decisions we make come from? Scientists think they can measure the activation potential before we become conscience of a thought. To me that is God acting on us through the material world, just as creates storms in the sky.
Of course the Bible is filled with admonitions to choose this or that according to God's command, so why are those instructions needed if he is the one making all the decisions anyway? I think it is part of his preparing us for the glorious freedom that awaits us. We are being presented with life lessons for when we will be entrusted with real decision making from our will, after we have been purified. The rewards and punishments in this life that we are so obsessed with are just part of the physical world that would vanish into a void in a single instant if God so declared. In fact we are told the world will come to a fiery end, when he rescues us.
"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him." (2 Pet 3:14). Where the hyper-Calvinist goes wrong is in not making that effort. Tough decisions require faith, and courage, and love. God wants us to experience those the way they were meant to be, so that they can be cherished. Only by our fully living such a life can he show his full glory to us. The decisions, emotions, and effort we experience first hand, but the final outcome is predestined. "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." (Rom 8:20)
Posted by: Jon Cohen | November 19, 2004 at 11:56 PM
I think Augustine said: "You can do whatever you want; you just can't choose what you want". Indeed, it seems that God does control our desires, of which our will is the most loyal servant, always acting out our greatest desire.
If God is "at work IN YOU to will and to do" (Phil. 2:12), along with Pharaoh, and kings hearts like rivers, etc., the question isn't, whether God controls our desires, but how can He control the desires that are sinful and yet not be tempting us to sin (James 1:12). This seems to me to be the Biblical tension.
Posted by: Bill | November 20, 2004 at 01:22 AM
Robert, the Calvinist believes everything you just said except that they refuse to impugn God's motives through a disjunction of two options, bith of which fall short of scripture without the other.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce | November 20, 2004 at 09:56 AM
It would seem tht total depravity and free will are only in conflict if we start with thinking that total depravity is some sort of moral category -- that my actions are depraved. But the theological truth is something different from this popular conception: my actions will not, cannot lift me to God.
That pretty well comports with our experience, too.
The self aware life know that even at its best we come short of our own ideals; we begin to understand that our actions are not only ours but swept along by social forces we have little say over. Repeatedly I betray my self, others. Against this inward struggle, there is also the sense that something else is at work, some other goodness I seek but which always lies outside of me -- it astounds me when it shows up and I count myself blessed when it does.
I act freely in this world, but no amount of action, no amount of discipline seems to place me any closer to that Goodness which keeps shining through.
Total depravity tells me that the Goodness I long for is outside of me, it is alien; what I experience here is a shadow of something Other. Total depravity reminds me that the goodness I experience is incomplete.
As to free will, beloved as it is in a North American context (is this a piece of syncretism, of folk religion? just wondering), what is this but the elevation of ego? Examine your life and you will see that your decisions are not only yours but rest on a host of externalities, large and small that constrain your choice. I am of a certain age, born of certain parents, educated in a nice school, etc and more: Total Depravity gives me the freedom to accept this, because it reminds me that, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, "I am not my own..."
Posted by: Harris | November 20, 2004 at 10:06 AM
It would seem tht total depravity and free will are only in conflict if we start with thinking that total depravity is some sort of moral category -- that my actions are depraved. But the theological truth is something different from this popular conception: my actions will not, cannot lift me to God.
That pretty well comports with our experience, too.
The self aware life know that even at its best we come short of our own ideals; we begin to understand that our actions are not only ours but swept along by social forces we have little say over. Repeatedly I betray my self, others. Against this inward struggle, there is also the sense that something else is at work, some other goodness I seek but which always lies outside of me -- it astounds me when it shows up and I count myself blessed when it does.
I act freely in this world, but no amount of action, no amount of discipline seems to place me any closer to that Goodness which keeps shining through.
Total depravity tells me that the Goodness I long for is outside of me, it is alien; what I experience here is a shadow of something Other. Total depravity reminds me that the goodness I experience is incomplete.
As to free will, beloved as it is in a North American context (is this a piece of syncretism, of folk religion? just wondering), what is this but the elevation of ego? Examine your life and you will see that your decisions are not only yours but rest on a host of externalities, large and small that constrain your choice. I am of a certain age, born of certain parents, educated in a nice school, etc and more: Total Depravity gives me the freedom to accept this, because it reminds me that, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, "I am not my own..."
Posted by: Harris | November 20, 2004 at 10:06 AM
David, would you please clarify this line found near the end or your article: "And I hope that all of us would realize that the only reason that any of us can be saved His through a divine violation of our free will, in causing us to believe savingly on Christ." It sounds like something is missing or misarranged. Thanks.
Posted by: Barry Wallace | November 20, 2004 at 10:13 AM
David,
Time for one of our "gentlemanly debates" I feel. I beg to differ, and believe that you have contradicted yourself. I for one dont believe that our wills are "totally free", and I dont think you really do either. So, I know it may delay you further but do pop by to my blog and address my thoughts on this.....
Posted by: Adrian Warnock | November 20, 2004 at 10:36 AM
I've given you an enthusiastic review at my blog, if you're interested.
Posted by: mark mc | November 20, 2004 at 12:39 PM
Let me see if I have this right from the post and several comments. In reality God doesn't give us free will because He puts in us desires that we ultimately will (or should the word here be "must?") do. That could be a whole study in itself--is it will do or must do?
But in most of our minds, we think it is our desire and therefore we are making the choice. Am I getting close?..LOL.
Oh by the way David.....I can't wait to hear how you answer donalgrant on the Universalism theme.
And David, there was an interesting article in this month's issue of Charisma magazine on Purpose that I think I'm going to send to you via email.
Posted by: Diane R | November 20, 2004 at 01:54 PM
Thanks, David -- this helps clarify some of the concerns I had with respect to your total depravity post. I think you're taking Packer's position in "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" that God's sovereignty and man's free will are an antinomy. I agree. Scripture clearly teaches both, and we can't reconcile them, nor should we try. It's one of those mysteries we just have to accept.
Posted by: dopderbeck | November 20, 2004 at 02:41 PM
Jolly,
Superb post! I appreciate the time you spent in tackling such a difficult topic. However, I couldn't help but feel disappointed with your post because it failed to define a couple things.
Our "free will" is not truly free if we cannot make any choice we want. Do we truly know what we are saying when we use the term "free will"? As David and I have been discussing, if you take the term literally, a "free will" is a choice which was made in which no other inclinations were present. In layman's terms, a free choice is a spontaneous decision without any outside variables; a choice simply upon my will without any outside influence.
Even though it seems that this was the case in making our decisions, this is not the real truth behind the matter. When a choice is made by a person, there are inclinations or motives that lead us to make that choice and deliver an effect. After all, without a cause, there is no effect. In otherwords, without a motive or inclination, no effect can be produced. That goes for every decision made on the planet. For example, in choosing to read Jolly's blog, there were many motives that could have influenced your decision. Whether it be interest in the topic or your arrival here by accident, there was a motive in your arrival here. Thus, the motives actually determined your choice to do so.
In short, I despise the term "free will" as it tends to lead individuals to believe that our choices were made without any outside factors or influence. Thus, I think "inclined will" is a more accurate term to be used in this context.
In the context of salvation, as long as the Holy Spirit indwells within the person, man has the ability to choose good over evil, but only with the Holy Spirit's aid in providing the motives and inclinations of our will.
All this said, God is certainly sovereign over all things. He ordains all that comes to pass, especially our redemption. At the same time, man has an inclined will to choose, but he is at the mercy of his darkened heart and will only choose "evil continually." Salvation is, as Edwards often stated, the "holy rape of the soul;" an act of violence on the will of man. The Holy Spirit's role in our decisions does not end there, he is constantly active in conforming us to Christ, restoring the "imago dei." How does this jive with our "inclined will"? To be honest, I don't know. I perceive the relationship of God's sovereignty and man's "inclined will" to be a paradox - a perceived contradiction. However, I tend to err on the side of the behaviorist when it comes to this discussion; yes, man has an "inclined will," but man's decisions are limited to our general surroundings, e.g. a mugger puts a gun to your head and gives you two options: your money or your life. My choices are limited to two: (1) an empty wallet, (2) my brains on the sidewalk. Get my drift?
This said, man still keeps his "precious" will, while God ordains control. I might be speaking heresy here. Someone help me!!!
Posted by: Colin Rowley | November 20, 2004 at 03:56 PM
jeremy- excellent comments and I applaud the graciousness of the entire dialogue, excellent discourse Jolly!! My point is that God created us as free beings... free to love Him or too disobey.... obviously the fall shows we chose too sin... scripture is replete with examples of God displaying His Divine love mercy and grace to His creation who have rejected Him or show rebelliousness... look at the history of israel.. my contention is the idea of there being a certain "elect" who are thus for no reason other than God casually decides ok,,, i pick you and you,,,, simply because He is creator & can do as He wills...to me this cuts at the heart of His character in that grace is His umnerited favor too His creation who dont deserve & can never earn it...if all along He has preselected the 'elect", where is the grace??? I see Scripture as showing His elect are those who choose Christ... and He draws & enables them too choose, but because He wants them too choose freely out of love He allows His Word and the Holy Spirit too enable the choice too believe & obey.... does this make sense???
Posted by: robert | November 20, 2004 at 10:45 PM
Robert, Calvinism doesn't insist that God's choice is purely arbitrary, just that nothing earns God's choice. Most Calvinists see the Arminian view as denying that, because God looks to the future and picks someone based merely on the fact that he sees the person choosing God. That's merit-based choice. Calvinism insists that nothing can earn God's election, but it still might be based on what that person does (but keep in mind that Calvinists also believe God ordains what that person will do).
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce | November 21, 2004 at 07:27 AM
I am going to be quite interested in your response to donalgrant and the universalism comment::).
Posted by: Diane R | November 21, 2004 at 12:34 PM
Colin -- I don't really think the average person thinks "utterly unconstrained choice" when using the term "free will." Everyone recognizes that circumstances constrain choice to some extent (as I said over at Adrian's site, for example, no matter how much I "will" to grow wings and fly, it ain't happening).
Yet that doesn't mean my choices are as constrained as those of a mugging victim with a gun to his head. I have a multitude of very real, very different choices within the range ordinarily presented to finite human beings, including whether to accept the gift of salvation. That's at least what I mean by "free will."
Posted by: dopderbeck | November 21, 2004 at 04:46 PM
Diane R,
We could easily ask why a Calvinist's axiomatic belief in God's Justice wouldn't require believing that all people go to hell. The problem with both stances is that they both ignore one of God's attributes.
Posted by: Macht | November 21, 2004 at 06:41 PM
I would say that those arguments, rather than ignoring one of God's attributes, instead redefine one of the two attributes so as to preclude the other. Universal salvationists define mercy as all-encompassing and inconsistent with the kind of justice the Bible attributes to God. Universal damnationists define justice as all-encompassing and inconsistent with the kind of mercy the Bible attributes to God. Both make God in human image, because only we have such diminished justice as to be without possibility of mercy, and only we have such diminished mercy as to be without possibility of justice.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce | November 21, 2004 at 09:27 PM
I've never been much of a Calvinist, but if Calvinism acknowledges the existence of free will as you suggest, then I'm all for it.
If we don't have free will, it seems that we are on the same level of an animal that can't deviate from its instincts. No one one would say a squirrel, forced to follow his instincts, is depraved, no matter how much bird food he stole.
Posted by: invadesoda | November 23, 2004 at 12:52 AM
To some of the commenters: is there really no middle ground between God's absolute free will and no free will at all?
Posted by: invadesoda | November 23, 2004 at 12:55 AM