Wir sind bettler. Hoc est verum.

17 Comments for this entry

• 

  Tim
  June 13th, 2010 on 3:18 am

  Hi, when you say that one is either a 5-point Calvinist or a zero-point Calvinist, it seems to me you might mean one of two claims, and I’m not certain which it is. Please correct me if I’ve mischaracterized your thesis. One read of your claim is that the truth of any one of the doctrines logically implies the truth of the others (and the falsity of any one implies the falsity of the others). An alternate reading of your claim is NOT that the doctrines each logically imply one another, but instead, that to be counted a Calvinist one must hold to all 5 doctrines. Given the surrounding context, I take it that the your thesis is more like the first than the second, but would you clarify which yours is, if not something else altogether?
• 

  coramdeo
  June 14th, 2010 on 11:00 am

  Tim,

  Thanks for such a thoughtful and clarifying response. I was vague in a few things in order to keep the post length more acceptable. I do not think it is either or, for your categories are two different things. One is dealing with logical consistency, while the other is dealing with a system of theological thought.

  I would make my points 3 fold:

  1. The 5 points of Calvinism are Biblical, some are just more clear from the Bible then others, meaning some require inference from the text, others are explicit.

  2. The 5 points of Calvinism are Logical. Biblical truth cannot be self-contradictory, thus Biblical truth will agree with itself. So Logic is a negative test for truth, it doesn’t prove something is necessarily true, however, it can help us prove that something cannot be true. I would argue that the 5 points are Logically sound, thus it is not proven to be false from the outset. A smaller point to this would be that they are also logically connected, that is to say one is false, one would logically have to deny at least another, which then would lead to deny another and in the end to deny one is to deny all.

  3. Calvinism is a historical theological system, and I would argue that to deny key parts of it, would cause one to no longer be a Calvinist. Just like denying Jesus’ bodily resurrection would cause one to no longer be a Christian. Thus I would argue that the 5 points are very important to the system of Calvinism, although they aren’t the only part of it, so to deny 1 or more of the points is really to put ones self outside the Calvinist faith.

  Please note however, I do not like the term Calvinism, and only use it with hopes that it creates a common concept of the view, the problem with using it means that the view might not be common. So, I am assuming my reader has a similar view of what I mean by Calvinism. I would prefer to be able to define all major aspects and skip using a term. I would rather use Reformed, or Reformation theology, because at least that doesn’t refer to just one person, but a whole group of people over a span of many continents.

  Anyways thanks for the question and I hope I have provided more clarity, although I do admit that my responses are very brief on a very large subject. If you want more detail we can talk more, and I can recommend some further reading for you as well.

  What are your thoughts on the subject?

  Coram Deo
• 

  Tim
  June 20th, 2010 on 4:02 pm

  CD,

  Thanks for your reply. Indeed, you are right that my question does not require that you must have meant one of the two options I suggested; there is “logical space” for other options. I just wasn’t clear and those seemed the two most plausible readings. In fact, it turns out that, among the other things you affirm, you do in fact hold that the five points logically imply one another.

  But surely that is false: certain of the doctrines could be true and others false (of course, this is just what it is for logical implication to not hold). To take one example, one may consistently hold to perseverance of the saints all the while denying irresistible grace. The former does not imply the latter, though the latter probably does imply the former. Or one might hold to perseverance and radical corruption all the while denying irresistible grace.

  Interestingly, I can think of at least one Arminian theologian who will agree with your claim that the doctrines imply one another–that there is no way to hold to even a single point of RUPEP (as some have said) without holding to all. Obviously, I would disagree with them, too.

  How would you defend the claim that they imply one another? (just to make sure the question is clear, this is a different question from asking how one would defend whether any of the points are true).

  With all best wishes,
  Tim
• 

  coramdeo
  June 21st, 2010 on 1:46 pm

  Tim,
  Again thanks for the concise and thoughtful response. I hope that I can demonstrate how they are connected logically. However, I think the logical argument is helpful although not primary. I do think all 5 are correct based on Scripture not logic, it just is nice to know they also are logical. Again logic isn’t a positive test for truth as much as it is a negative test. There are untruthful propositions that are logical, but no truthful proposition can be illogical. Namely I am thinking of the primary law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. So basically I am stating that no truthful proposition can be contradictory. Ok that aside allow me to attempt to demonstrate the logically connectivity of TULIP.

  A quick aside the logical connectedness of these points is assuming that each separate premise is true, thus my job isn’t to prove each one as true, but just to demonstrate that some rely upon the ideas expounded in others.

  The first statement I will make, is that each point isn’t necessarily equally connected to the other 5 points. So perseverance may not be as reliant upon total depravity as unconditional election is. So, the diagram of logical connection isn’t a spiders web but more like a wall where the bricks may touch one or two others but not all of them at the same time. So, to correctly build the logical relationship, we more stack them on top of each other than we show how each is connected. Of course to do that we must start with 2 premises that are assumed before hand, but are unstated directly in TULIP.

  Premise one is that God is Sovereign, and premise two is that man is sinful. Now we can build TULIP. (Please note I am being very simplistic for the sake of the medium and time). TULIP starts with declaring how sinful man really is, Totally Depraved, RC Sproul says this is better communicated as Radical Corruption. The idea is that sin affects every part of us, although we are not as sinful as we could be; there is no island of righteousness within us, hiding out. Well then the question is, if men are Radically corrupt how can they be saved? Well they surely do not choose God, nor can save themselves, thus God must choose them (unconditional election), and must save them (irresistible grace). You see here if we remove Total Depravity, men then have at least an island of righteousness (making election conditional). (Please note that I am leaving out many proofs – ie why a Totally Depraved sinner cannot choose God or save himself.) The idea is if men do have an island of righteousness then God must consider it in his decision to elect (conditional on the saint accepting salvation and persevering in salvation, can they be truly elected if they become saved then fall away and lose it in the end?). So if T falls, then there is no need for U.

  Now we have seen that to remove T necessitates the removal of U. But if we remove U, then it means men are elected (if at all) based on conditions, and these conditions must reside in the man not God. Another word for those conditions is basically righteousness. Thus, grace must be able to be resisted if man’s righteousness is a consideration in is own salvation. The idea is that if God conditionally elects people, then some part of his election is based on the man himself. We know that some men are not saved, and thus they are not elect, which means they did something to not be elected (usually considered to be a rejection of God’s grace towards them). In other words, God gives his grace to everyone, some reject, and thus are not saved (nor elected). If God’s grace is rejected, then it is not irresistible. So if U falls then I falls as well.

  If God’s grace is resistible, then it also flows backwards, that election cannot be unconditional. Also if God’s grace is resistible (basically saying that God can be resisted by men), then there is no hope of perseverance of the saints, because it means that even the saints can resist God and fall away if they so choose. So, to lose I, we also lose U and lose P. But we already know that if we lose U, we also lose I. They are connected to each other in a life line.

  Now let us not ignore poor L. If grace is resistible, then it must be offered (like I said before) to every person, thus it makes sense that the work of Christ on the Cross was for every person, it is just that some resist it. Thus for I to fall L must fall as well. Remember I said if U fails, it could also be stated that there is no election (this is actually my view, if election is conditional, I don’t think you can really consider it election anymore), then it follows if there is no election then Christ had no idea whom he would actually save on the cross, thus the atonement must be universal. So both I and U falling means that L must fall as well. But lets also work backwards, what happens if we take away L? Well again by the same logic, if the atonement is universal, and not everyone is saved, it must mean that grace is resistible, and either that election doesn’t exist or is conditional.

  What about lonely P? Well as we saw if grace is resistible, then God must be resistible, then the saints really have no hope that God can keep them from resisting, so P falls. But what if we take away P? Well if saints do not persevere, then it must mean that grace is resistible, and for people to resist grace, they cannot be unconditionally elected. So if P falls I and U fall.

  Allow me to explain this a little farther. Remember my first 2 premises that God must be sovereign and man sinful? Well if God can be resisted when he doesnt want to be can he still be sovereign? A God who doesn’t elect anyone, who tried to save everyone at the cross, who’s work to save and grace is resisted, and who cannot keep his sheep, his sheep isn’t a very sovereign God. So, truly the issue of TULIP really helps decide how sovereign (if at all) our God really is.

  In conclusion I think quite simply it follows that: If Man isn’t totally depraved, then election is conditional (if at all), if election is conditional, grace isn’t irresistible nor is the atonement limited, if grace isn’t irresistible then saints have no hope in perseverance nor can election be unconditional, nor can the atonement be limited, if the atonement isn’t limited then election cannot be unconditional nor grace irresistible, if the saints do not persevere, then election is conditional, grace is resistible, and the atonement attempts to be universal (although not effective in saving everyone).

  The logic connectedness of the 5 points I think is clear (even if I am not always that clear). It seems to me that if you deny one of them, at least one other of them comes into question as well. The good thing for me is that I think Scripture is our greatest proof for all of this and not the logic.

  It seems pretty clear to me that from Scripture: Man is radically corrupt and has no island of righteousness (Rom 3, John 6), God elects from Eternity past (Rom 9, Eph 1), Jesus knew whom he was dieing for on the cross (John 16-17), God cannot be resisted when he doesn’t want to be (Rom 9), and God loses none of his Sheep (John 6). (there are numerous other verses I just gave a few here).

  Anyways I hope that helps a bit in maybe understanding how each fits, I know in how short this is, that many questions can still arise. There are many good books on the subject of Systematic Theology as a whole, perhaps (if you haven’t) you should pick up and read some / all of Louis Berkof’s Systematic Theology

  Coram Deo
• 

  Tim
  June 23rd, 2010 on 8:22 pm

  Hi CD,

  I’m not sure I understand what you mean by a proposition being logical or illogical, or by logic being a positive, but not a negative, test for truth. I’m also not sure I follow why you mention the law of non-contradiction in our discussion. I, too, think the law of non-contradiction is true, but that doesn’t seem to have any special relevance to the outcome of our discussion.

  There’s a lot in your post. I’ll restrict my rebuttals to what seem the most significant points. Of minor importance for present purposes is that you seem to be either conflating certain of the TULIP/RUPEP doctrines with doctrines tangential to them, or wrongly claiming that particular doctrines logically imply certain RUPEP doctrines. Here’s one example: that Jesus’s knowledge of who he died for to requires the truth of limited atonement. But that’s just false: the atonement could have failed to be limited and yet Jesus still known on the cross whom he is dying for. Interestingly, both in your original post and in your post prior to this one, your argument for the truth of L appears to depend on this very claim. If limited atonement were true, it wouldn’t be required by the doctrine of divine omniscience, and therefore, whatever other reasons you might appeal to in support of L, an argument from omniscience ought not be one of them.

  A more significant criticism is that there are clearly some doctrines in the TULIP/RUPEP that don’t imply the others. For instance, P can be true and yet I false. Perseverance of the saints does not require irresistible grace. Or P can be true yet U be false. Still another, T can be true and U false. Nothing about the former (in conjunction with the rest of Christian theology) in any of these cases depends on the truth of the latter.

  All the best,
  Tim
• 

  Tim
  June 23rd, 2010 on 10:46 pm

  CD,

  I should add that I welcome more interaction on this. If you are interested in keeping the discussion going, at some point, I’d be curious to hear if you’re familiar with (and your evaluation of) the arguments for truth of P without I, P without U, or T without U (or others that I didn’t mention…I don’t think ALL of the TULIP/RUPEP points are logically disconnected). If you’re like me, posting is a free time type of activity, of which I don’t have much. This is a fairly thinking intensive activity for most, and if you don’t have time for that, I do understand.

  And thank you for the reading recommendations.

  Tim
• 

  coramdeo
  June 27th, 2010 on 7:47 pm

  Thanks Tim again for keeping your posts shorter than mine and to the point, I hope to learn from you in this regard

  Yes, it is a side thing for me as well, I understand the time it takes, please feel free to respond at your leisure.

  I am curious what you think Limited atonement vs Universal atonement means if not the definition I provided. More specifically, how is it that Christ can be atoning for everyone (paying for everyone’s sins) and at the same time only saving a few of them (whom he knew before hand)? If your sins are paid for, are you not saved then? What is the difference between those atoned for and not saved and those atoned for and saved, and where does Scripture teach such a concept? In other words does it make sense that God would know whom Jesus would save, and yet still have him die for people whom he wasn’t going to save, isn’t this a waste in some sort of way?

  Limited atonement traditionally has been taught that Jesus only died for the elect, yet his sacrifice was sufficient to save everyone if God so desired to. Meaning Jesus only died for those He intended to save, but if He intended to save the whole world, surely His work was sufficient to do even that.

  It seems to me that the issue people have with this doctrine is really an issue with God’s Sovereignty. But instead of debating that issue, I have tried to show that if you believe in the 4 other points, you cannot be consistent and deny Limited Atonement.

  As to your other quick points:

  I brought up logic because I argued that Logic was the 2nd proof to all of this, but it is only a proof in the negative sense. Meaning it doesn’t give us positive proof that TULIP is correct, it just allows us to demonstrate that it isn’t false Logically, and thus it doesn’t fail the logic test. I am thusly arguing that to hold TUUIP (2nd U being Universal Atonement) is logically false.

  As to the correlation, I thought I mentioned that not all of them are connected to every other one, perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was. Again P might be attached to U but that doesn’t mean it is attached to any others, or T is attached to U, but not P. My goal wasn’t to show all the connections both positive and negative, but to show that there is at least one connection between everyone of them. That is (just for example not meant to prove these connections) P might be connected to L, L is connected to U, U is connected to T, and T is connected to I. So if you take away I, then T fails, and if T fails, then U fails, and if U fails then L fails and if L fails then P fails. That is the kind of thing I am attempting to show. Again those connections are necessarily the correct ones, I just made them up for the point. In other words think of TULIP as a logical statement. If one premise in a Logical Statement is shown to be false, ultimately the whole statement is false.

  Again my goal is to be clear and have us understand, not necessarily agree. If I can get you to understand my view, and I your view, then I have succeeded. It is ok if we always disagree on certain things. My goal isn’t to make “little me’s” but to have others think clearly, understand me, and me them. I am a “Calvinist” if there is no better term for it, and I think “Calvinism” has gotten a bad rap from many people who do not understand what it actually teaches.

  I have read a few “anti Calvinist” books and all of them created a straw man of Calvinism (totally misunderstood what is taught under such a system) which they then destroyed. I have grown up in a church that was anti-calvinist, and all the arguments I used to use, and my friends still use, I find to be straw men. So one of my goals in life is to help people to understand what Calvinism really teaches (what I think the Bible really teaches to be frank), not to necessarily get a bunch of converts (although I think that they would end up better off as Christians being Calvinists than any other view – if I may be so bold to say).

  I would rather people not be Calvinists because they reject the actual teachings of the system, not straw men of it. Just like I would rather non-christians reject true Christianity not the pop-culture, 5pm news version.

  Anyways please keep asking for clarity, and let me know what you think Limited atonement really teaches, your problems with it, and what you think the Biblical alternative is. I am curious to know, perhaps we agree on more than you think

  Coram Deo
• 

  Tim
  July 2nd, 2010 on 3:59 am

  Hi CD,

  I have objected to the claim I took you to have been making, namely, that the TULIP doctrines stand or fall together. I said they do not. Now, to be fair, you say in your most recent post (which is evidently also the thesis of your original post) only that if one holds T-U-I-P, then, to be consistent, they must hold L . That, of course, is a much more modest thesis than the TULIP doctrines standing or falling together (in which case any one of the doctrines would wind up implying all the others!). I might be willing to grant the former, but the latter is almost certainly false. Talk of logical connections, positive and negative, has not been the most illuminating to me on this issue, as that’s a fairly nonstandard way of referring to logical relations. What I’d been wondering was whether, with respect to any of the TULIP doctrines, you take a given TULIP doctrine to be a necessary condition for some other, a sufficient condition for some other, or both. These three (necessity, sufficiency, and both) exhaust the possibilities of logical connections that can hold between the doctrines, but I’m not sure what, say, your brick wall analogy several posts ago, corresponds to.

  Now, to my claim about limited atonement, I said you mischaracterized it. My aim in bringing that up was not to make the case for limited versus unlimited atonement, but rather to point out that you’ve misunderstood limited atonement if you think it’s required in order to consistently affirm divine omniscience – a point which I took you to be making much hay of in your original post.

  You and I have very different personal histories with respect to exposure to Calvinism. I have been a Calvinist most of my life, being raised in Calvinist churches well-regarded (and for the most part, rightly so, I should add) for their solid training in theology. Over many years, I was fortunate enough to become familiar with most of the standard arguments for Calvinist distinctive, and in their best incarnations, so I cannot identify with your experience of attending an anti-Calvinist church or with hearing strawman arguments against it. I was blessed enough to get it from the horse’s mouth, as it were. I submit that my objections to certain Calvinist disctinctives are not due to failing to understand Calvinism and the best arguments in its favor, but rather because I do understand it, at least reasonably well, and have taken the time to appraise it (and its best pro-arguments) carefully and fairly. Interestingly, with only a very few exceptions (sadly, including seminary professors), I have found that Calvinists themselves are not at all appraised of the objections to their view. I know I never was, though there was plenty of strawmanning–no doubt unintentional–of anti-Calvinist arguments.

  Your post isn’t intended to be a wholesale defense of TULIP, but I’m wondering if you’ve been a casualty of this sort of phenomenon, or instead, if you’re familiar with the best arguments against certain Calvinist distinctives (I assume already, perhaps wrongly, that you’re familiar with the best arguments FOR it).

  I’m sure we do agree on much more than we disagree on theologically, but I take Calvinism to not only be false, but, that to bite the bullet and be consistent in holding it is downright harmful to one’s soul.

  Best,
  Tim
• 

  Tim
  July 2nd, 2010 on 9:22 am

  Correction in second paragraph of my previous post:
  “…My aim in bringing that up was not to make the case for UNLIMITED versus LIMITED atonement,”

  And Glen, I would like to place an order of pills, please.
• 

  Tim
  July 3rd, 2010 on 5:31 pm

  Hi again CD,

  I wanted to clarify that in our discussion here, despite my rebuttals and disagreements, my intent is not to pick a fight, but like you, to get clarity on an important issue. As I’m sure you likewise think, debates can be vigorous without being ungracious. You have seemed that to me and that is my intent toward you and those with whom i disagree. Just wanted to get that straight as sometimes print communication can come off in ways not intended.

  All best,
  Tim
• 

  coramdeo
  July 6th, 2010 on 4:25 pm

  Tim,

  I agree and my goal is: vigorous yet gracious debate. I can tell you are a very thoughtful and well learned individual. As I am sure you can tell, my educational background isn’t as sophisticated. This can be good and bad. I have done lots of study, informal mostly (but some formal), and even more just thinking and pondering. This can be good and bad. The good is often I think outside the box, or think about things from a slightly different perspective, or come to the same conclusions by a different road. The bad is often I waste time reinventing the wheel, so to speak, or often fall into error in which I am not aware of until enlightened. Yet, in both I am learning, which I think is the most important part.

  Allow me to quickly address some of your points:

  1. As to my logical connectivity (thanks for the excellent clarification on how things logically interrelate) I was attempting to quickly and simply make the point that there is a connection between all the 5 points, although not all of them necessarily to every other one. As another clarification (I know you get it now, but for anyone else who might be confused) lets just number them 1-5 (just as an analogy not to be confused with the actual 5 points). My point is that 1 might be connected (in some way) to 4, so if 4 falls 1 falls as well. But 2 might be also connected to 4, but not to 1 directly. If 2 falls, 1 wont fall directly, but since 4 falls when 2 falls, then 1 will fall because 4 falls. So, my point is some are directly connected, while all are indirectly connected. The point with the bricks vs. the spider web was to point this out. If you have 3 bricks stacked on each other, brick 1 and 3 are not directly touching, but are indirectly touching through 2. If 2 is taken away, the relationship between 1 and 3 is broken, and damage will occur. The illustration has its limitations, but is meant to gruffly make a point.

  2. So, you grew up Calvinist and reject it now because you have tried it and found it wanting? Curious that I came from the opposite direction. I guess God wanted us to meet so we can better understand Him by challenging each other to grow closer to the truth. I am curious what are the main arguments (scripture) that persuaded you to abandon Calvinism.

  3. I am always open to new challenges, I am sure I have not heard all the arguments for or against Calvinism, I am always open to learning more. I want to believe what Scripture teaches period, no matter if I like it or not.

  4. You are correct my goal was not to wholesale defend TULIP. My only goal was to challenge people who are so called 4 pointers, and who think they can consistently hold to 4 of the 5 and namely reject Limited Atonement and think they are being consistent. I am sad that I haven’t persuaded you of my thinking here, perhaps it is because of my lack of sophistication in communication, or perhaps my ideas are flawed to begin with. If you have a great argument why all 5 are not at least indirectly connected, if you can show how at least 2 are not even connected in the slightest, I would be curious to hear.

  5. Personally this last point is the one I would really like to dig into. You say that you think Calvinism does great harm to one’s soul if rightly understood, believed and followed. I am curious if you could spell this out for me more. If you are correct in this regard I want to reject such and abomination as quickly and as far as I can throw a grenade. Can you list for me the 5 greatest reasons why you think Calvinism is harmful to souls?

  6. As to the last point, it has been my experience that Calvinism is the greatest system in church history for benefiting men’s souls. As I list in bullet a few reasons why, perhaps you could respond with your own positive list and maybe counter my list as well:

  1. Calvinism rightly esteems God above man to his rightful place as God of the universe. True worship can only happen when God and man are in the proper relationship.
  2. Calvinism rightly places man as the creature, subservient to God, fallen in sin. True culture and right living cannot happen apart from a true understanding of the glory of man and his fallenness from this glory.
  3. Calvinism rightly understands God’s Love in relation to his Justice, Grace, and Mercy.
  4. Calvinism rightly understands the way of Salvation, the gospel, and how men are saved.
  5. Calvinism rightly understands the calling of men in their creation to work and thus provides dignity in work and a right foundation to charity, evangelism, missions.

  I would argue that without Calvinism one cannot worship God to one’s greatest potential (not saying Christians don’t or cant worship God if they are not Calvinists, I just don’t think they can to the depth God created them to). I would argue that one cannot rightly understand their own sin, or dignity from which they fell, apart from Calvinism. Also Calvinism protects from men wrongly understanding the relationship of God’s love to his justice. As well as Calvinism is the basis for true evangelism, charity, and mission work, including the right understanding of the Gospel of Christ. (You do know that many of the greatest missionaries, evangelists, as well as the top Schools, and Hospitals were all Calvinists or created by Calvinists right?)(Remember Calvinism has only been called such since Calvin, however the teachings go back to Augustine and dare I say Paul).

  Anyways there are some of my quick points, bones without flesh, following your responses, concerns, and points, I foresee having to put flesh on these. As I said before please put your 5. Then we can pick one at a time to go through and give our reasons why we think our, dare I say, “system” better benefits men’s souls. Again the 5 points I quickly jotted down are attempts to address the 5 most important area’s of our lives: God, our identity, our calling (mission), our worship (relationship to God), and our salvation. If you can think of 5 more pressing or important issues please clarify them for me. I do confess these 5 were off the top of my head.

  May God bless you in your pursuit of knowledge of Him

  Coram Deo.
• 

  Tim
  July 13th, 2010 on 3:04 am

  CD,

  Humility is a virtue and you seem to embody it well. I’m sure your speech and attitude is a blessing to those you know.

  Let me reply briefly to those points that seem important. I’ll use your numbering system so you know what I’m replying to.
  1. On logical connectivity, thanks for clarifying the web/wall analogy. The thing to note is that the rules of logical inference. If the points of the TULIP stand or fall together as you said earlier,

  2. Yes, I grew up Calvinist and now reject some, but not all, of the TULIP points. I reject those points for several reasons. First, I do not think Scripture teaches them. Second, I think those points imply certain false philosophical commitments, particularly with regard to free will, specifically, that compatibilism is true. Third, and perhaps worst, it implies that God is the cause of everything, including evil.

  5. You ask for five ways in which Calvinism is harmful to one’s soul. Off the top of my head, I’m not sure I have five, but I’ll give you what comes to mind. First, because TULIP-style Calvinism implies that God is the cause of evil, it presents a false view of God, to say nothing of lacking a solution to the problem of evil; it thus also leads to incorrect views of certain divine attributes, especially divine love and justice. Second, as you might imagine, such a view of God undermines any justification for worship, discipleship, or evangelism. Third, because of the commitments it makes about the human will, it lacks the resources to offer an accurate account of how sanctification works and our role in the process, leaving believers in a pickle. Fourth, and maybe marginally less serious, these commitments about the will also make for an implausible account of the role of prayer. Note that I’m not saying that Calvinists necessarily fall prey to these. Indeed, there are many Calvinists with rich relationships with the Lord. Rather, I’m saying that insofar as one is consistent as a TULIP-style Calvinist, one has no rationale to resist these problems.

  6. Regarding your list of subpoints 1-6, I agree that those are all properties I’d want in a theological system. It’s just that Calvinism isn’t necessary to get all of 1-6, and in fact, I think that Calvinism is completely at odds with certain of points 1-6. My reasons for making such claims can be found in what I said earlier about Calvinism’s problems.

  Good talking with you here.
  Tim
• 

  Tim
  July 13th, 2010 on 3:09 am

  Oops…I meant to go back and edit my first point before I posted. I’ll not add to it here unless you’d like to talk about logic. I enjoy that kind of thing, but I think for now that that would take the discussion along two different tracks, one on logical relations between the TULIP doctrines and the other on the truth/falsity of the TULIP doctrines.
• 

  coramdeo
  July 13th, 2010 on 11:31 am

  Tim you are too kind. I am hopefully growing in grace, but still have much work to do.

  In order to be brief I would simply argue that, no offense, you truly do not understand TULIP or Calvinism; perhaps you were never taught the historical view, or your models of it were very ignorant and poor models there of. It is your comments that make me think this or something like this is true. Of course my judgment could be wrong, and I am sure you would exclaim “Yes it is!”

  Allow me a quick point in case:

  Calvinism, like Christianity, often gets a bad rap from people who claim to be apart of the community, but who actually are not, or at least are, but who incorrectly understand it and wrongly apply (live) it. And thus they give “outsiders” the wrong impression of it, but a closer examination of what they believe and practice, and what the founding “fathers” believed and practiced will demonstrate that they are merely wolves in sheep clothing.

  I would argue that history also negates your argument, unless you are arguing that you better understand Calvinism than the thousands (millions) who have changed the world believing it.

  My question to you would be: Do you think you understand Calvinism and what it actually teaches over:

  1. George Whitfield? Who is considered one of the greatest evangelists to have ever existed.
  2. Jonathan Edwards? Whose commitment to holiness and prayer is surpassed by maybe the Apostle Paul, and who had a huge hand in the first great awakening.
  3. Spurgeon? Who was greatly committed to prayer and evangelism.
  4. Luther and Calvin? Who both brought about the greatest revival in the church since the Apostles.
  5. Piper? Who’s passion for world mission is seconded by very few who is also committed to prayer.
  6. Sproul? Whose ministry to the church and teachings are inspirations to hundreds of thousands if not millions of christians every month, and in his teachings he is very committed to mission, prayer, and loving God and neighbor.

  I will stop with just that few (notice I didn’t include many of the great missionaries, like David Brainard). My dear friend, history just doesn’t back your statements / beliefs. It seems those who, I will argue, best understand Calvinism are the most committed to Prayer, personal Holiness, evangelism, loving their neighbor, working hard etc. History affirms this statement. Many of the greatest missionaries, preachers, prayer warriors, builders of hospitals etc. were all Calvinists.

  Now I will allow you to attempt to defeat my statement by saying that all of them really didn’t believe in “true” Calvinism as you know it to be, but rather wrongly thought themselves Calvinists. Perhaps this is true, perhaps you, and those you follow actually understand Calvinism “correctly” and they / we do not. Perhaps, but it seems very unlikely especially when in our list is the very people through whom the system is named, and I think a brief study of their teachings would demonstrate the consistency of later teachers with the “original”; although I would argue that one can trace what Calvin taught to Augustine and Paul.

  My point is that historically Calvinists do not believe or live like you claim they do or should (if according to you, they were consistent).

  I do sympathize greatly with you. As I once believed the same way. Remember it is easy to believe the lies about something you don’t like than it is to believe the truth (if the truth affirms the goodness of what we hate). Lets use for an example, George Bush our last president. If you liked him, you found it hard to believe the bad things said about him, but if you hated him, you found it hard to believe the good things said about him. Make sense?

  So often it is without Theology. We like certain theology, and so we villianize that which opposes, and often we even refuse to allow it to have any “truth” or “goodness” in it.

  Calvinism used to be the majority belief among protestants, but now it is the whipping boy that no one likes or believes that any good can come from.

  Now I do admit that my comments lack the sophistication of argumentation that I am sure you would rather see, and more border on rhetoric than “cold hard facts”, although I would argue that history is a fact hard to refute.

  Of course you may have other reasons to think Calvinism is wrong Scripturally, but I just wanted to point out that your claims about the end result of it, just don’t seem to hold up to historical scrutiny.

  Perhaps you haven’t read Calvin or Luther, I recommend that you do.

  One other error I would hope you would avoid, is thinking that the 5 points is central to Calvinism and from which all other doctrine arises, this is simply not true. Although the 5 points are part of it, Calvinism is so much more broad than them, and I think if you study it, you will see that Calvinsim has good answers as to why God isn’t the creator of Evil, why we worship and pray, why we evangelize etc. and then in history you will see that those who are Calvinists often are the greatest hymn writers (John Newton), or prayer warriors (Spurgeon), or evangelists (Whitfield).

  No doubt the bulk of your response to my history lesson is to list your own, “Calvinists” who displayed the list of poor behavior / beliefs you previously listed.

  Allow me to pre-respond to this supposed response: Do you my dear friend, give any weight to the non-christian who lists all the “evils” done in the name of Christianity as disproving it’s truth? Would you not respond to that poor soul with: “my dear sir, many sins have been done in the name of Christianity, but none were done based on its true teaching”?

  So to you my dear friend, I would say, that many false teachings and practices have been done in the name of Calvinism, but they were not based on its true teaching or understanding. I hope that History and the reformers themselves argue this case for me.

  As to Calvinism being Scriptural, well that is another debate all together.

  Sincerely your brother in Christ,

  Ryan

  Coram Deo
• 

  Tim
  July 13th, 2010 on 7:23 pm

  Hi, Ryan,

  In order to limit misunderstandings going forward, let me clarify that I agree that Calvinism is a larger tradition than that codified in the TULIP. In our discussion, I’m only objecting to certain aspects of that tradition, namely, certain doctrines in the TULIP I take to be false. When I use the word ‘Calvinism’ here, that’s what I mean.

  As for whether I’m strawmanning, don’t let superficial resemblances in form between my reply and the reply of so-called “ex-Christians” fool you. As I said earlier, my objections are not based on ignorance or a caricature of Calvinism, or just failing to understand the real deal (or failure to have read Calvin, Luther, Augustine, or historical theology in general); they occur rather precisely because I do understand it and the arguments for it fairly well. I also know the standard arguments and the Calvinist replies against it modestly well, too. I also think I have an unbiased take on things here: I don’t object to it because I don’t like it (though I think it is potentially harmful to one’s soul), I object because I think it false.

  You point to the great goods Calvinists have done, and the great examples in church history they have been. I agree with your estimation. It’s my view, too. But the arguments against Calvinism depend on no claim about the goods Calvinists have actually done or the wonderful people they’ve been. History doesn’t lie, to paraphrase you, but it’s not relevant here since we’re talking about whether Calvinism is true.

  You ask whether I know Calvinism better than these men. Note that I never claimed Calvinism or any Calvinist taught the implications I attribute to Calvinism! Indeed, if they did, they would have abandoned it! Rather, I claim that those horrible things are logical implications of the TULIP. But to answer your question, insofar as I’m aware of these implications and they were not, then with respect to at least these implications (assuming they are indeed implications), yes, it follows that I know it better than these men. (You can know these things, too…this is nothing special about me!)

  Finally, you say
  “Allow me to pre-respond to this supposed response: Do you my dear friend, give any weight to the non-christian who lists all the “evils” done in the name of Christianity as disproving it’s truth? Would you not respond to that poor soul with: “my dear sir, many sins have been done in the name of Christianity, but none were done based on its true teaching”?
  So to you my dear friend, I would say, that many false teachings and practices have been done in the name of Calvinism, but they were not based on its true teaching or understanding. I hope that History and the reformers themselves argue this case for me.”

  If someone offers you an argument like this against Calvinism, or against anything, you are right to reject it. It’s plainly fallacious. But for this reason I do not make this argument.

  The implications I list are indeed well-recognized implications. What is your reply to them?
• 

  coramdeo
  July 14th, 2010 on 6:32 pm

  Great reply Tim, thanks for narrowing the conversation.

  So, if I understand your position it is thus:

  1. Some (all?) of TULIP is unbiblical and wrong.
  2. TULIP logically results in:Less prayer by the believer, less evangelism, a wrong teaching that God causes evil, and just plain wrong teaching about God.

  I haven’t dealt with number 1 yet, rather I have addressed other issues that you have put up first.

  My main point in addressing number 2, is that this just doesn’t seem to be the case considering history. It seems from history that the greatest believers in Calvinism actually prayed more, evangelized more, and were some of the greatest proponents of the Attributes of God, and in spreading the Christian faith.

  So, according to your number 2 claim, we really only have 2 options. 1. Either you are correct and the greatest Reformed thinkers were all ignorant of the implications of their teaching, and in fact all of them inconstantly applied their own teaching, and the teaching of their brothers in Christ. or 2. You are wrong, and in fact they consistently taught /lived their views, and correctly understood the logical implications of their views. And thus the reason they lived as good Christians was because their views were actually biblical.

  Just based on probability, the weight lies in the Reformers being correct and you wrong, of course probability has nothing really to do ultimately with truth, since it is very improbable that anyone would rise from the dead, and yet we know Jesus did. All improbability does is give us pause and make us have to be very sure that our facts are straight.

  To your implications point, frankly I think you are wrongly deducing your implications. Meaning the implications are simply not there, the reformers nor their students didn’t see it cause it wasn’t there. My claim is that you see them because, in-spite of your denial, you actually do not understand what is taught by Calvinism, or else you wrongly deduce from the correct teaching. Of course this is just long-hand for saying: I think your view is wrong either in it’s premise or conclusions, you are claiming mine is wrong in its premise, and thus my conclusions are false because my premise is false. But this really doesn’t get us anywhere but to narrow the discussion to the main issues, and so that is where I would like to start.

  Now a preamble before my main point.

  I know you know that TULIP is not the central position of Calvinism, thus it is fallacious for you to argue thus: – the logical conclusions of TULIP are unbiblical in and of themselves. – The reason is thus, TULIP is a shorthand response error and is not intended to be all inclusive theology. In fact it is intended that it not stand alone, alone, but rather is assisted by the whole of Calvinistic doctrine. That is, if TULIP by itself is inadequate to deal with the origin of evil, that doesn’t mean that Calvinism as a whole is inadequate (note TULIP was never designed to deal with that particular problem). Now I am sure you will claim that Calvinism as a whole is inadaquate, but you cannot use TULIP as your case in point.

  Ok now to my main point. Let us deal with these issues one at a time, both in a negative fashion and a positive fashion. It is not fair for one side to do all the arguing or defending, if you are to tear down a view, you must present an alternative.

  So let us deal with your first main concern:

  Dealing with TULIP first, which ones if any do you believe that Scripture doesn’t support. And for those you think that Scripture doesn’t support, what do you actually think Scripture teaches in their place? Please provide a few verses for each of your positive points (or negative if they are obviously contradictory).

  Now let us set a ground rule, our job first and foremost isn’t to prove “who’s” doctrine is correct, but rather what does Scripture teach. After we come to understand what Scripture says, then we can look back at our systems and see which one, if any, agrees with Scripture. Also let us deal with the clear teachings of Scripture and avoid the unclear, most of the time the unclear teachings of Scripture come to only promote speculation which is usually relent upon our prior theological commitments. We are only starting with TULIP because it gives us a conversation starter as to what topics to deal with first.

  Since you are declaring that TULIP (or part there-of) is wrong, please start with the first point you think is, what you think Calvinism means by it, and why you think it is wrong, and what you think the right view is. To that I will respond. In order to keep the responses shorter, lets stick with one at a time.

  I look forward to growing in the Knowledge of God, for after all the only point of Theology is to know God better, not to lord our knowledge over others.

  Shalom,

  Coram Deo
• 

  Tim
  July 15th, 2010 on 1:17 am

  Hi Ryan,

  It appears to me you’ve significantly misunderstood at least some of what I’m arguing. Maybe a brief recap is in order.

  I have claimed:
  (1) that certain TULIP doctrines logically imply falsehoods. We can get to specifics soon, but just to be clear, anything that implies a falsehood is itself false.
  (2) that in addition to being false, Calvinism is not merely benign, but rather can be harmful to one’s soul insofar as one acts consistently with its commitments.
  (3) that the points of the TULIP do not stand or fall together.

  And I have denied:
  (4) that the “TULIP logically results in:Less prayer by the believer, less evangelism.” and I have never denied that “the greatest believers in Calvinism actually prayed more, evangelized more, and were some of the greatest proponents of the Attributes of God, and in spreading the Christian faith.” Nothing in my argument has to do with those things.

  Some comments on each:
  On (1), since these putative falsehoods are, as I claim, logical implications of the TULIP, appealing to the rest of the Calvinist system will be of no help. Why? Because if P implies Q, and P is true, Q is true, and it’s true whether or not some other things, like A or B or C, are true. There’s no fallacy at all in my reasoning, Ryan: if the TULIP implies that God is the cause of evil, it implies it regardless of whatever the rest of the Calvinist system is committed to. That is a problem.

  On (2), I have figured (1) is a big enough topic and have tabled this point at present, though we can discuss it. I have taken the same attitude with point (3), though I should say that briefly, my reply is that there are no such things as direct and indirect logical relations, and therefore, there is no such thing as standing/falling together indirectly versus directly–there’s just standing/falling together full stop, and I denied that they stand/fall together.

  Now, to methodology: you say that if one tears down a view, one needs to present an alternative. But why think that? We can find the problems with a given view without knowing what to believe in its place. In such cases, we’d just be left agnostic until we find a view to replace it with. I do in fact have a view in the place of Calvinism, and I’m happy to talk about it, but let’s wait a bit, if that’s alright. One thing at a time. If my view has problems, they’ll still be waiting for us when we get to it.

  As to our job, our job actually is to find out what is true (doing so in a gracious manner, etc.). To be sure, a part of that job is finding out what Scripture teaches insofar as Scripture teaches on it. But part of it will depend upon philosophical reflection on the nature of freedom (among other things), and, as we’ve seen already, upon the rules of logic. In short, philosophical reflection helps in part by working like this: find a contradiction and you know that you’ve got the wrong answer.

  To the historical point, the greatest Reformed thinkers were generally aware of the charges I’m making that the TULIP makes God the cause of evil. They’d attempt to resist it by adopting a certain model of free will. The problem is that that model of free will is now widely recognized to have dim prospects. It is here where I humbly submit the discussion needs to be taken.

  Forgive me if I did not reply to everything or what you took to be most important. I was hoping to do regain focus and clear up at least one obvious misunderstanding. I enjoy our discussion. I pray that it sharpens us both and honors our Lord.
  Tim

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks for this entry

• GLEN
  July 2nd, 2010 on 2:47 am

  
  

  PillSpot.org. Canadian Health&Care.No prescription online pharmacy.Special Internet Prices.Best quality drugs. No prescription pills. Order pills online…

  Buy:Cialis Professional.VPXL.Viagra Soft Tabs.Levitra.Cialis Super Active+.Propecia.Viagra Super Force.Zithromax.Cialis.Viagra.Tramadol.Super Active ED Pack.Cialis Soft Tabs.Maxaman.Viagra Professional.Viagra Super Active+.Soma….

• Inspired By Nature
  October 18th, 2011 on 11:14 am

  Sources…

  [...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]…

• "We are beggars. This is true"

  Martin Luther's last written words. This is a blog dedicated to life and thoughts about its joy, pain, depth, and humor.

• Categories

  • Blog
  • Church
  • Culture
  • Holidays
  • Humor
  • Life Philosophy
  • Philosophy
  • Religion
  • Science
  • Thoughts
  • Uncategorized

• Recent Posts

  • Why All Good Stories Must Have A Happy Ending
  • The Battle of the Twins: Religion and Science
  • Quenching The Spirit
  • The Third Sacrament
  • Exegetical Worship

• Archives

  • August 2011
  • June 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008

• Be a Friend!

• Comments

• Site Activity