Michael I enjoy your articles on other topics, but Calvinism is something I have looked at for many years and I don't think it's defensible. I think your friends are right that you don't sound like a true Calvinist! 😀 Probably because you realize TULIP is a system or structure with issues.
The watershed for me is double predestination. And we know there is really no such thing as single predestination. If God is sovereignly choosing (apart from any merit) some to be saved, then He could have chosen to save all, and in actuality He is choosing not to save the others, which is sovereignly damning them. That is a logical contradiction to the just character of God. He can't say He desires all to be saved, and that He is being patient, and then turn around and *sovereignly* damn those same people. That is not God. But that is classic Calvinism. It certainly is not to God's glory to do that. So election means something different than that, and I know there is not space here for that.
It certainly takes grace from God to be saved, but I simply believe God sovereignly provides that grace in some way for everyone to have a chance to turn to Him away from sin. Whether by the preaching of the gospel by believers, or in some other way. John 1:9 seems to perhaps point to this.
God's sovereignty and man's free will I believe are like two sides of the same coin. As when Paul told Timothy to "rightly divide". Lit. "cutting straight". If you take away either side, you don't have a real coin. You have a caricature. Calvinism and Pelagianism are one-sided coins I think, each leaving off the other side properly understood.
These discussions have been going on for years of course 😀, but the issue of God's character and what really is to His glory is the key for me!
Randy, and I think that is the difference, is grace about creating the possibility for everyone to be saved, or ensure that an "elect" will definitely get saved. Is grace gracious because it is universal or because it is efficacious? That's the debate!
I do like the two sides of the coin, and in fact, I think Arminius and Amyraut were trying to point that out!
Mike, yes, I agree those perspectives on grace frame the debate. I do think grace is an offer as opposed to efficacious. Titus 2:11 relates grace to all people. So unless one is a universalist (I'm not) it would need to be an offer. And if one adds the "without excuse" of Romans 1, in response to seemingly only general revelation, free will seems to come into the picture even more.
Randy, your explanation of 2 sides of one coin were superb. Thank you.
But just a simple explantation of election I’ve found helpful to explain to people is: God chose a people- Israel- to bring His blessings to the whole world. He did not choose Israel to the exclusion of all the rest from his blessings. The same with His choosing of various people through the ages for particular tasks. Election is the same as me electing one of my children to pass out the chocolate-chip cookies to the others. Pure and simple. That’s all! This is the loving, giving character of our God and always has been.
Thanks for taking the time to answer public questions, I really appreciate your “eclectic” approach to Calvinism. Since you mentioned Servetus on your call for questions post I was really hoping you would discuss that. Any chance you have thoughts to share on the matter? I’m reposting my questions in case you do :-).
If Calvin did kill Servetus, so what? That’s not a dismissive “so what”, but genuinely curious what follows that conclusion. If Calvin’s responsibility for Servetus’ execution (even if shared with the Genevan consistory and council) is historical fact (my conclusion), how does that / should that shape our assessment not only of Calvin but of Calvinism? Is that a David with Bathsheba kind of sin that we acknowledge/lament but still treasure his legacy as a king and prophet? Or, related to my first question (Is there something about Calvinism in particular that creates/sustains a of culture of black and white certainty), does the Servetus scandal signal something baked in to Calvinism that continues to rear its ugly head (eg Aimee Bird etc)?
Aaron, Servetus was going to be executed whether by Catholic or Protestant authorities. Calvin apparently urged him to recant, but he refused. Yes, by our standards, the death penalty for heresy is a horrible thing. Yet it was normal back then. It was the city not Calvin himself who executed Servetus. So we look back in horror at it, but with awareness that we live in a different age.
Thanks for the post, and I appreciate your blog. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on Christian Universalism. I have begun studying it for the first time through David Artman's new-ish book and of course some from David Bentley Hart. In the past, I've scoffed and dismissed it without consideration - so I understand that reaction. But I'd love to hear any thoughts in a future blog post or Q&A like this one, if you have the opportunity!
My friend Robin Parry wrote a book called the evangelical universalist! I understand why people take this position, it has a long heritage, but I just can't square with God's justice and judgment. Maybe one day I should do a post/video on universalism! On DBH, he offers his own unique spin on an old question, but I'm just not convinced.
I’ve liked a lot of your other posts more, Mike. Too many common answers without following those ideas to their logical ends.
Sidestepped the reprobation question entirely (totally understand why you’d want to). The idea of the “nice” Calvinists who say “God doesn’t condemn anyone- He just ‘passes over’ them and leaves them to their just desserts.” I reckon Jesus kind of looked down on that view of “passing over” a needy person in the Good Samaritan parable. Yet some Calvinists seem to think that sort of behaviour is ok for God even though Jesus, the image of God, condemned it. I’m glad to say it’s not in the Bible, as far as I’ve seen.
Your assertion that “no one desires God” (therefore free will will be useless to bring us to God)- I assume is taken from Rom 3:10-11. And surrounding verses showing a whole lot of really depraved actions. Obviously not every person is always deceiving people or shedding blood. David himself says he trusted in God while He was still a baby (Ps 22:9). Many people desire God from childhood, even if that wasn’t your experience. I did. I have children who did and are still believing adults now. I’ve known many people like that. I see these Rom 1-3 passages as one way to live, but there is another in 1:17- that the just live by faith. Two ways to live. Either you live by faith in God or you do all this other bad stuff. Clearly we all sin, but not everyone sins in the same ways and not everyone fails to desire God. I guess a Calvinist would say such people are the ‘elect’ but that’s reading something into the text, I think.
Anyway, it’s too big a topic for a 25 min video. Better to do a debate with Leighton Flowers over at Soteriology 101. Where you could really get into the nitty gritty.
I like your other thought-provoking posts a lot better.
Mary, oh me, there's so many things we could discuss, reprobation, Acts 13.47, Ephesians 1, Romans 9, the nature of grace, etc. Let me say this, I'm convinced that God is at least as nice as Jesus!
Thanks Michael, for your reply. I quite agree- you opened a can of worms and it takes more than 25 mins to try and get them all back into that can! I am very aware of those 3 passages, I’ve read your Sys theol,, Romans commentary and many other commentaries on these passages but see them differently to where you’ve landed. I have very carefully thought through your views plus those of Sproul, Piper, macArthur and other Calvinist ‘lights’. As well as Witherington, Olson, Wesley and Flowers. Certainly huge things to think about. Appreciate the topics you bring up on this substack.
Thank you, Dr. Bird, for your answers! they were helpful and stimulating.
Michael I enjoy your articles on other topics, but Calvinism is something I have looked at for many years and I don't think it's defensible. I think your friends are right that you don't sound like a true Calvinist! 😀 Probably because you realize TULIP is a system or structure with issues.
The watershed for me is double predestination. And we know there is really no such thing as single predestination. If God is sovereignly choosing (apart from any merit) some to be saved, then He could have chosen to save all, and in actuality He is choosing not to save the others, which is sovereignly damning them. That is a logical contradiction to the just character of God. He can't say He desires all to be saved, and that He is being patient, and then turn around and *sovereignly* damn those same people. That is not God. But that is classic Calvinism. It certainly is not to God's glory to do that. So election means something different than that, and I know there is not space here for that.
It certainly takes grace from God to be saved, but I simply believe God sovereignly provides that grace in some way for everyone to have a chance to turn to Him away from sin. Whether by the preaching of the gospel by believers, or in some other way. John 1:9 seems to perhaps point to this.
God's sovereignty and man's free will I believe are like two sides of the same coin. As when Paul told Timothy to "rightly divide". Lit. "cutting straight". If you take away either side, you don't have a real coin. You have a caricature. Calvinism and Pelagianism are one-sided coins I think, each leaving off the other side properly understood.
These discussions have been going on for years of course 😀, but the issue of God's character and what really is to His glory is the key for me!
Randy, and I think that is the difference, is grace about creating the possibility for everyone to be saved, or ensure that an "elect" will definitely get saved. Is grace gracious because it is universal or because it is efficacious? That's the debate!
I do like the two sides of the coin, and in fact, I think Arminius and Amyraut were trying to point that out!
Mike, yes, I agree those perspectives on grace frame the debate. I do think grace is an offer as opposed to efficacious. Titus 2:11 relates grace to all people. So unless one is a universalist (I'm not) it would need to be an offer. And if one adds the "without excuse" of Romans 1, in response to seemingly only general revelation, free will seems to come into the picture even more.
Thanks for the discussion!
Randy, your explanation of 2 sides of one coin were superb. Thank you.
But just a simple explantation of election I’ve found helpful to explain to people is: God chose a people- Israel- to bring His blessings to the whole world. He did not choose Israel to the exclusion of all the rest from his blessings. The same with His choosing of various people through the ages for particular tasks. Election is the same as me electing one of my children to pass out the chocolate-chip cookies to the others. Pure and simple. That’s all! This is the loving, giving character of our God and always has been.
Thanks. Yes, I agree. Romans 9-11 is all about Israel IMO, not salvation.
Thank you, Dr Bird! Where can I get the article on God being active, interactive, and reactive? Thanks.
Graham A. Cole, "The living God: anthropomorphic or anthropopathic?" The Reformed Theological Review 59.1 (April 2000): 16-27.
Thanks for taking the time to answer public questions, I really appreciate your “eclectic” approach to Calvinism. Since you mentioned Servetus on your call for questions post I was really hoping you would discuss that. Any chance you have thoughts to share on the matter? I’m reposting my questions in case you do :-).
If Calvin did kill Servetus, so what? That’s not a dismissive “so what”, but genuinely curious what follows that conclusion. If Calvin’s responsibility for Servetus’ execution (even if shared with the Genevan consistory and council) is historical fact (my conclusion), how does that / should that shape our assessment not only of Calvin but of Calvinism? Is that a David with Bathsheba kind of sin that we acknowledge/lament but still treasure his legacy as a king and prophet? Or, related to my first question (Is there something about Calvinism in particular that creates/sustains a of culture of black and white certainty), does the Servetus scandal signal something baked in to Calvinism that continues to rear its ugly head (eg Aimee Bird etc)?
Aaron, Servetus was going to be executed whether by Catholic or Protestant authorities. Calvin apparently urged him to recant, but he refused. Yes, by our standards, the death penalty for heresy is a horrible thing. Yet it was normal back then. It was the city not Calvin himself who executed Servetus. So we look back in horror at it, but with awareness that we live in a different age.
Thanks for the post, and I appreciate your blog. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on Christian Universalism. I have begun studying it for the first time through David Artman's new-ish book and of course some from David Bentley Hart. In the past, I've scoffed and dismissed it without consideration - so I understand that reaction. But I'd love to hear any thoughts in a future blog post or Q&A like this one, if you have the opportunity!
My friend Robin Parry wrote a book called the evangelical universalist! I understand why people take this position, it has a long heritage, but I just can't square with God's justice and judgment. Maybe one day I should do a post/video on universalism! On DBH, he offers his own unique spin on an old question, but I'm just not convinced.
Thanks so much for the reply - I respect your perspective and opinion. I'll check out Robin Parry's book, as I continue exploring this position.
I’ve liked a lot of your other posts more, Mike. Too many common answers without following those ideas to their logical ends.
Sidestepped the reprobation question entirely (totally understand why you’d want to). The idea of the “nice” Calvinists who say “God doesn’t condemn anyone- He just ‘passes over’ them and leaves them to their just desserts.” I reckon Jesus kind of looked down on that view of “passing over” a needy person in the Good Samaritan parable. Yet some Calvinists seem to think that sort of behaviour is ok for God even though Jesus, the image of God, condemned it. I’m glad to say it’s not in the Bible, as far as I’ve seen.
Your assertion that “no one desires God” (therefore free will will be useless to bring us to God)- I assume is taken from Rom 3:10-11. And surrounding verses showing a whole lot of really depraved actions. Obviously not every person is always deceiving people or shedding blood. David himself says he trusted in God while He was still a baby (Ps 22:9). Many people desire God from childhood, even if that wasn’t your experience. I did. I have children who did and are still believing adults now. I’ve known many people like that. I see these Rom 1-3 passages as one way to live, but there is another in 1:17- that the just live by faith. Two ways to live. Either you live by faith in God or you do all this other bad stuff. Clearly we all sin, but not everyone sins in the same ways and not everyone fails to desire God. I guess a Calvinist would say such people are the ‘elect’ but that’s reading something into the text, I think.
Anyway, it’s too big a topic for a 25 min video. Better to do a debate with Leighton Flowers over at Soteriology 101. Where you could really get into the nitty gritty.
I like your other thought-provoking posts a lot better.
Mary, oh me, there's so many things we could discuss, reprobation, Acts 13.47, Ephesians 1, Romans 9, the nature of grace, etc. Let me say this, I'm convinced that God is at least as nice as Jesus!
Thanks Michael, for your reply. I quite agree- you opened a can of worms and it takes more than 25 mins to try and get them all back into that can! I am very aware of those 3 passages, I’ve read your Sys theol,, Romans commentary and many other commentaries on these passages but see them differently to where you’ve landed. I have very carefully thought through your views plus those of Sproul, Piper, macArthur and other Calvinist ‘lights’. As well as Witherington, Olson, Wesley and Flowers. Certainly huge things to think about. Appreciate the topics you bring up on this substack.