I am an Arminian, but much of my theological training has been received from the hands of Reformed theologians. Indeed, many of the thinkers I read/follow are Reformed in their theology. My exposure to Reformed thinkers has broadened my understanding of Calvinism, corrected many of my misconceptions about Calvinism, and produced in me a real sense of appreciation for its exegetical basis. Indeed, sometimes I jokingly refer to myself as a “Calminian.” And yet, for all its strengths, I think there are fatal flaws in Calvinistic theology (which is part of the reason I remain relatively Arminian—I also see some real strengths in the Molinist explanation, so perhaps I am an “Cal-mol-inian”). In this post I will present what I believe to be one of the most fundamental challenges to Calvinistic theology.
Paul tells us that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). Theologians distinguish between two aspects of God’s will: His sovereign will, and His moral will. God’s moral will refers to that which He desires, but does not use His power to ensure that it comes to pass (e.g. God desires that all live holy, but allows people the choice to be unholy). God’s sovereign will refers to that which God desires and uses His power to ensure that it comes to pass (e.g. the death of Jesus or the destruction of Satan). Since all men are not saved, Paul must be referring to the moral will of God.
Typically, the reason God’s moral will is not fulfilled is because men refuse to fulfill it. In the case of salvation, however, Calvinists affirm that the fulfillment of God’s moral will is not contingent on human acts, but solely on God’s sovereign act of regeneration (monergism). The spiritual death from which humans suffer makes it impossible for them to respond positively to God apart from God acting sovereignly to regenerate their heart. Here is the problem: If God desires that all men are saved, and He alone possesses the power to save men, why doesn’t God save all men? If God has both the desire and ability to save all men, why would He only choose to save some?[1] Why is God’s sovereign will out of step with His moral will? Why does He exercise His sovereign will only to save part of those whom He wills to be saved? The partiality by which God distributes His grace should be questioned if it is inconsistent with His moral will.
Calvinists typically respond by defending the justice of God’s partiality. They argue that God would be entirely just if He chose not to save anyone, so surely He cannot be considered unjust or unloving simply because He chose not to save all. While I agree that God’s choice to save some but not others does not call his justice into question, this misses the point. As Reformed theologian Sam Storms notes, “It’s one thing to say God was under no obligation or necessity to elect all unto life. It’s another thing entirely to account for why he chose not to elect all unto life. Or again, it’s one thing to say he didn’t need to choose all. It’s something else entirely to say he didn’t want to choose all.”[2] The problem is in explaining why God would not save all when He has both the ability and desire to do so.
So why didn’t God act to save all those whom He desires to save? According to Calvinists it is because there is some higher good that is accomplished by only saving some—a purpose that could not be achieved if God had acted to save all. Sam Storms identifies the higher good as “the display of the glory of all his attributes for his delight and that of those whom he has chosen to share it,”[3] citing Romans 9:22-23 in support of his conclusion. Other Calvinists such as John Piper echo Storms’ explanation. God chooses not to save all because it brings Him glory (although I’ve never heard a good explanation as to how it brings Him glory).
What do you make of this explanation? Personally, I think it’s a hard pill to swallow. So does Steve Hays. His assessment is rather blunt:
If Calvinism, especially in its supralapsarian form—which argues that God foreordained the eternal fates of humans not yet created in a world not yet created, never mind fallen—is true, then most of us are lost, and not just because, in the words of Dirty Harry, we don’t feel particularly lucky, but because we are asked to love a monster. A deity who out Hitler’s Hitler in a blood-thirsty self-preening is too repellant to contemplate, never mind adore. Especially one whose obsession with his own glory reduces every person to nothing more than an adornment. If this is true, let’s please stop talking about the sanctity of human life. In this horrific scheme, there is nothing more expendable than a human being. “I need more glory—throw another baby on the barby!”[4]
While I do not agree with all of Hays’ rhetoric here, I think he does bring out the emotional horror conjured up by the thought of a God who is glorified by the eternal, conscious torment of those whom He loves; those who are made in His image. And yet, to be fair, all acknowledge that God received glory by exercising judgment on the Egyptians (Ex 14:4,17-18) when He could have chosen to spare them instead. Surely He did not elect the Israelites to “salvation” because of their righteousness! He elected them to salvation from the hands of the Egyptians because God elected Abraham and His descendents. I don’t know of too many Arminians who would characterize that event as Steve Hays characterized God’s decision to exercise judgment on sinners for eternity in hell. Can Arminians, then, object, in principle, to the Calvinist’s “for God’s glory” explanation?
Is the “glory” explanation, then, a good explanation for why God’s sovereign will does not match His moral will? If so, what do we make of 1 Timothy 2:4? If God chooses not to save all men because He desires to be glorified in the judgment of some men, then does God really desire to save all men? It doesn’t seem to me that we can take this verse at face value, unless we say God has conflicting desires. On the one hand He really does desire to save all men, but on the other hand He also desires to be glorified, but His desire for glory supersedes His desire to save all men, and thus He does not save all men even though part of Him would like to.
What do you Arminians, Calvinists, Molinists, Calminians, and Calmolinians out there think about these things?
[1]This is not a case in which God simply fails to do something He is capable of doing (such as not creating space aliens), but a case in which God desires some state of affairs that can only obtain if He acts to instantiate it, and yet He does not act to instantiate it.
[2]Sam Storms, “Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?”; available from http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/01/why-doesnt-god-save-everyone-sam-storms; Internet; accessed 25 January 2011.
[3]Sam Storms, “Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?”; available from http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/01/why-doesnt-god-save-everyone-sam-storms; Internet; accessed 25 January 2011.
August 29, 2012 at 2:14 pm
You said, “It doesn’t seem to me that we can take this verse at face value, unless we say God has conflicting desires.”
I believe God is absolutely sovereign and that all actions of man are subordinate. But you’re right in pointing out that 1 Timothy 2:4 is problematic for those who believe both this AND everlasting torment.
I think it’s fair to say that God does have circumstantially conflicting desires, or put another way, two or more incommensurable interests. This is what allows for suffering in the first place.
But if God is benevolent, those troughs of suffering are only justified if they’re net profitable down the road. God’s interests might be circumstantially conflicting, but circumstances change, and any plan build to optimize a set of interests (however ultimately incommensurable) down the road would *never end negative.*
Everlasting torment, however, does! It’s a ceaseless plunge, a neverending demerit.
I’m somewhat convinced that “free will” theology comes not from any explicit Biblical advocacy, but from the inability to reconcile everlasting torment with a sovereign God. And the popular solution has not been to look critically at whether everlasting torment is Biblical, but rather to say that God’s sovereign ordination must be relaxed, the verses in support of it ignored or distorted, such that we can say “man damns himself.”
LikeLike
August 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm
1-If God is “absolutely sovereign” as Calvinists claim with absoluteness, how could he even have a “moral will” that is distinct from his “sovereign will” ? He could not have! 2-If God is absolutely sovereign, and in so being accomplishes all that he chose to accomplish, how then would this mean he COULD NOT have decided in his sovereignty to give man free will? 3-The term “absolutely sovereign ” is thus virtually meaningless. What the Calvinist really believes in ignoring the free will God sovereignly gave to man is that with respect to salvation God is utterly arbitrary.4- God s love AND his justice both join hands in utterly rejecting these Calvinist views.
LikeLike
August 29, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Great article.
God’s Glory: The Calvinist’s explanation of “electing many” and not all is also an issue of “mercy” they say. For one to understand mercy it is contingent on God also not giving it. In other words, for one to understand mercy there has to be some that don’t receive it. This is just another angle of the “glory” argument. To me this is flawed logic. If an airplane is going down, and everyone knows they will die, but the pilot miraculously (By God’s grace) pulls the plane up saving everyone, all the people would know their lives were spared mercifully. It is not like explaining the color blue to a person born blind, if God saves everyone. The fact that we did die spiritually, and all are shown mercy, can be logically understood by everyone being shown mercy.
To say that God needs to save some and not all for his glory makes his Glory contingent on him not saving all.
In my study of Molinism I had a hard time with God imagining many potential different worlds, with real families making real individual choices. To think I made a whole set of choices in a billions of different worlds, with different children, and different lives – is unthinkable. It is Open Theism played out in the mind of God, yet he settled on one that he liked. I think exhaustive foreknowledge has better answers IMHO.
Dane
LikeLike
August 29, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Stan,
If I’m not mistaken, you seem to give a Universalist response. Free will is not an issue of God’s sovereignty, but of God’s construct of a loving free relationship with him. For a real relationship to exist, one needs to be able to make a contrary choice. Henry Ford said if you were to buy his Model T you could choose, “any color you want as long as it is black”. This is not a choice at all. Eternal torment is not a byproduct of God’s sovereignty, but of God’s holy nature and a willful broken relationship. For our will’s to be “subordinate to God”, as you say, has God literally controlling everything, including the rape and torment of a 5 year old. This in not “incommensurable”, this makes God, as Wesley put it, a “Moral Monster”.
Dane
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 7:37 am
Dane,
I prefered exhaustive foreknowledge but now I’m not so sure, it doesn’t explain God changing his mind/repenting in time. How can God when something actually happens become genuinely angry with sinners if he already foreknew it was going to happen? Wouldn’t it have to be more like play acting than true anger? Or when God said to Abraham “Now, I know…” (Gen 22:12), did he say that because his foreknowledge was not certain? If God foresaw that Abraham would obey him and sacrifice Isaac then why did he say “NOW, I know” which implies that God wasn’t certain that Abraham would obey him. If exhaustive foreknowledge is the case, shouldn’t God have said “I knew that you feared me and would offer your son”? The open view at least allows for possibilities which makes God’s expressions of anger, or of changing his mind, or of uncertainty genuine instead of contrived, imo.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 9:24 am
[…] I am an Arminian, but much of my theological training has been received from the hands of Reformed theologians. Indeed, many of the thinkers I read/follow are Reformed in their theology. My exposure to Reformed thinkers … […]
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 5:06 am
Jason,
I’ve been thinking about this recently and it is a problem on both sides is it not? as we are totally depraved (I believe Arminians hold this belief also?).
In overcoming this arbritary grace that God provides, I have decided that God will regenerate all men to the point where they can accept the gospel. It is then down to the man to accept it and freely choose to go the whole way thus bringing redemption a two-way transaction.
The other option is that if God knows all of eternity, then He will know who will freely love Him for that eternity and regenerate only those who will do so. This would go somewhat to affirming the “Elect” principle.
CarolJean,
Having an open-theist for a brother, we have had multiple conversations about this and there are problems on both sides. My main problem with an open view is that there are verses that show God does know the future. The best one I’ve found is at the Abrahamic covenant where God foretells that Abraham’s descendants will be in captivity for 400 years (Egypt). There are no conditions given. If God did not know the future, He would have to enforce the nation to sin in order to act out the punishment. Verses detailing with God’s apparent lack of knowledge can be explained by the “humanising” of God for our sakes.
My personal view is that the Father does know the future, but Christ doesn’t. Fits in ok with my Trinitarian view, so I’m ok 🙂 Other than that, the “middle knowledge” view of William Lane Craig is a strong view, but that may be because he’s a brilliant debator!!
LikeLike
September 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Scott,
What you are calling regeneration is usually referred to as prevenient grace in Arminianism. Regeneration is something that happens after prevenient grace has been extended, and a person responds positively to God.
The other option you described is sort of a hybrid between Calvinism and Molinism.
While you made the statement to CarolJean about Christ not knowing the future whereas the Father does, I wanted to respond. You said this fits with your Trinitarian view. I just wanted to point out that this also fits with a Oneness view. Since Jesus was truly human, His knowledge was limited to that of an ordinary human being. All “divine” knowledge He possessed He possessed because the Father revealed it to Him. And so long as Jesus remains human—and He will for all eternity—His knowledge will remain limited. See my article on this at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/presentknowledge.htm
Jason
LikeLike
December 26, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Jason,
This article posits a good challenge to the doctrine of Calvinism.
It perplexes me to think that calvinists can believe in St John 3: 16, which puts the onus of believing on the Son on the “whosoever” and claim that God will judge those who He arbitrarily chose not to save.
If salvation (or the lack thereof) has everything to do with God compelling man to be a saint or a rebrobate, in either case, the man is made obedient against his will since in Calvinist theology, the will of fallen man is not free. If so, why would God punish an obedient servant if ultimately, all men (both righteous and unrighteous) obey him by compulsion? How could a man be blamed for disobedience if it’s really not his choice?
FB
LikeLike
December 28, 2012 at 12:37 am
FB, actually, on Calvinism there is no compulsion involved. Those who are disobedient choose to be disobedient of their own accord, and will be punished accordingly. Those who are the elect are not compelled to be obedient and to choose Christ, but rather have their spiritual condition changed such that it is possible to choose Christ. Because they clearly see how great Christ is, they will not choose to reject Him.
It’s like a man who is blind and cannot see that a mountain of gold is piled next to him. But as soon as he is made able to see, he is free to choose to use the gold. On Calvinism we choose according to our nature. Fallen man is only capable of choosing sin. But for the elect, God gives them a new nature so that they are capable of choosing the greatest good. And because it is so glorious, no man will choose to reject it in favor of sin.
Jason
LikeLike
January 1, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Thanks Jason,
I was of the view that “irresistible grace” meant that the recipient could not resist (implying some sort of compulsion) Based on what you’re saying, it’s a matter of the recipient’s choices being widened and the option of salvation is so awesome that no man in his right mind would refuse it.
I’m still having an issue with the disobedient choosing to be disobedient under the calvinist model. If the option to be obedient is available only when God provides the grace for it, then how can those who are not elect be judged as disobedient if they were never given a choice to be obedient? The terms obedience/disobedience imply the ability to choose to obey/disobey a standard.
If a rational child breaks glasses repeatedly after being clearly instructed not
to do so, the child is disobedient because he could choose to be obedient but does otherwise. If the child is insane and breaks glasses, the problem is more than simply an obedience problem. The behaviour is the same but the underlying issue is different.
Could you bring further clarity on the matter?
Thanks.
FB
LikeLike
January 9, 2013 at 10:51 am
FB, that is indeed what “irresistable grace” sounds like. It’s simply a poor label for describing Calvinistic theology on this point.
As for obedience, Calvinists do not claim that no one can ever obey God without first being regenerated. That would mean that everyone who is not saved only sins and never does righteousness. We know from experience that this is not true. Neither do they claim that regeneration makes it impossible to disobey God. Clearly believers still sin, although not as much as they did prior to salvation. We will only be able to obey God fully when we are glorified in the resurrection. So regarding the non-elect, they will be judged for the wrong that they have chosen to do. While their fallen nature inclines them more toward the evil than to the good, when they commit evil it will always be because they chose to do so (of course, some versions of Calvinists will say that humans have no freedom, and all that we do has been decreed by God, which I think makes God the author of sin…but I am addressing what I consider to be the more palatable form of Calvinism).
Jason
LikeLike
January 9, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Jason said…
“FB, actually, on Calvinism there is no compulsion involved. Those who are disobedient choose to be disobedient of their own accord, and will be punished accordingly. Those who are the elect are not compelled to be obedient and to choose Christ, but rather have their spiritual condition changed such that it is possible to choose Christ. Because they clearly see how great Christ is, they will not choose to reject Him.
It’s like a man who is blind and cannot see that a mountain of gold is piled next to him. But as soon as he is made able to see, he is free to choose to use the gold. On Calvinism we choose according to our nature. Fallen man is only capable of choosing sin. But for the elect, God gives them a new nature so that they are capable of choosing the greatest good. And because it is so glorious, no man will choose to reject it in favor of sin.”
Jason,
I know you are not stating the above from what you believe, but what Calvinism teaches….Here is the problem with Calvinism’s irresistible grace.
You stated that, “God gives them a new nature so that they are capable of choosing the greatest good. And because it is so glorious, no man will choose to reject it in favor of sin.”
The problem is that this new nature is also competing with the old nature, unless the Calvinist will argue that God suspends for a moment the old nature. Even then, if there is no old nature (for a moment), so they can choose the “sweetness of Christ”, how does this guarantee everyone will choose Christ every time? Explain Adam’s choice to resist God’s grace in the garden (who’s nature was perfect), to freely disobey God’s declared will?
Back to the point: There is no logical way theologically to explain irresistible grace after regeneration when there are competing natures, or a least a conflict within the new nature. Why did Adam not choose the pile of Gold, and instead, choose to sin? Yet, how can we who have a fallen nature, even after regeneration, choose 100% of the time the “sweetness of Christ”? Then, after regeneration the only irresistible grace is to choose Christ, after that, we resist God’s grace in word though and deed every day. Does God then pull his irresistible grace in favor of earning our sanctification?
If we can freely resist his grace to grow in sanctification, so when we choose his grace to grow, is this earning our sanctification (synergism)? Then if being able to resist his grace toward sanctification is not earning our sanctification, why can’t God’s grace be resistible in salvation?
Dane
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 3:51 pm
So JAson you are not ONeness but Arminian?
You don’t trace your ideas through Oneness but a Trinitarian following group of the Rather late Protestant revolution?
You don’t follow Bible but a Group who espouses one error and rejected Calvinism!
Do you feel the predecessors of Arminianism are Oneness or we are holding them makes us termed Arminians?
LikeLike
May 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Dane,
Right. Calvinists believe that humans retain the old nature. That is why we will continue to struggle with sin. But the new nature allows us to choose Christ, and given how glorious Christ is, it is certain that we will choose Christ in the same way that if I gave everyone a choice between eating dog poop and eating steak, everyone will choose steak.
So what about Adam? He’s no different than ourselves. Though we are in relationship with God, and choose God, we still have the ability to sin. Adam was in a relationship with God, but chose to sin.
Irresistable grace does not mean that one can never sin, but rather than no one who has experienced regeneration will reject God’s salvation.
Jason
LikeLike
May 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Aaron,
Do you know what “Arminian” means? There is no dichotomy between Arminianism and Trinitarianism. They are about completely separate issues. The former concerns the relationship between God’s act and man’s acts in salvation, while the latter refers to the nature of God. There is no relationship or conflict between these two theological positions. Indeed, most Oneness Pentecostals are Arminian in their soteriology.
Jason
LikeLike
May 9, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Two things – Are you saying a person is regenerated first without faith? Second, I would not compare temptation, or an honest offer of salvation, with the option you gave – that is – Dog poop vs. steak 🙂 There is the other option of just not eating, because our old nature (that does not check out) does not see it as dog poop, but as taking its position, just as Adam did not see the fruit as dog poop. So I do not see how this can be 100% guarantee, without God actually pulling the “will” trigger for us in a determinative way. In your belief, in this position of grace after regeneration – this person has the ability of contrary choice, but they can’t take it? If a person has two natures, or one nature initially regenerated yet corrupt, what keeps people from resisting their corrupt nature 100% of the time in receiving the offer of salvation? Yet, then after this, resistance to God’s grace happens all the time. Do people have a two natures or one? A 50/50 nature of new and old? Do they have a 25/75 old to new ratio? I know this is too simplistic, but in Compatibilism, the person acts according to their nature, so if the nature is regenerated, yet still retains the corrupt nature, how does this work in Compatibilism? Romans 7
Do you view Adams sin as breaking the relationship with God (sin=separation=death), vs. just a believer giving into temptation – yet covered? I can read what you wrote as problematic, but I don’t think you meant this the way it sounds, as if Adam just sinned (as a believer) yet still has a relationship with God. Adam did completely and totally break relationship with God because of his choice to resist God’s grace, or Man need not a savior. Your second paragraph does not seem to address my point then.
Dane
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Dane,
Yes, most Calvinists teach that regeneration precedes faith. Remember, in their theology salvation is monergistic, meaning that God alone sovereignly acts to save a person. According to Calvinism, none of us are capable of choosing God in our fallen state because we are spiritually dead, and dead people cannot do anything about their own condition. So God makes their spirit alive again (regeneration), and once they are alive again, then they are able to trust in Christ.
Don’t take the dog poop analogy too far! The point is to show the stark contrast between our sinful condition and the judgment that follows it, and the offer of forgiveness and eternal life. We must choose one or the other, and all who are given that choice (once they are capable of choosing because they have been regenerated) will always choose Christ.
Yes, the saved have two natures. And they war against one another. But the offer of salvation is so compelling that, as Calvinists say, a person is compelled to faith, and yet not against their will, but in accordance with their will because now they have the eyes of faith to see.
I’m not sure I understand the question in your last paragraph about Adam. Yes, his sin separated him from God, but I have no reason to think he did not continue to have a relationship with God. Presumably he repented of his sin. In that he is no different than any of us. We all sin, and yet we continue to have a relationship with God. Our relationship is based on our trust in Christ’s atoning death and righteousness.
Jason
LikeLike
July 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm
[…] – because it teaches that God has only chosen to save some human beings even though He has the power to save all. This seems unfair. It makes God’s will seem arbitrary. After all, why would He choose to […]
LikeLike