Michael I am not a Calvinist. I'm a Wesleyan Arminian. I do however have a strong belief in the sovereignty of God. But I take issue with absolute divine determinism as it takes away all meaningful creaturely choice. I believe this eliminates all possibility of genuine love, which requires choice. The command to "love God" become ludicrous in this millieu. Of course prevenient grace is required with free will, but free will is still present. With divine determinism the concept of double predestination makes us nothing but a puppet world and puts God in the position of creating and then arbitrarily eternally damning some of His creatures according to only His choice. That is morally unacceptable according to the biblical revelation of God's character. Mystery or compatibilism are totally unacceptable answers to this. I have many Calvinist friends, and I enjoy your articles, but I could never accept the Calvinist world for myself. Often they will not bring it up when discussing with an unbeliever! That makes it sort of "secret knowledge", and difficult to explain "the reason for your hope". How would you respond? Thanks!
I should add, I think Romans 9-11, which always come up surrounding Calvinism, is clearly a discussion on God's sovereign purposes for Israel, and not a treatise on salvation. Hopefully you could address that also. Thanks!
I love you Mike, but I tapped out on Calvinism when I heard RC Sproul say “You shouldn’t tell people God loves them because God may, in fact, hate them because they may not be one of the elect!” That goes against 2 Peter 3:9 and everyone I believe about God. So, Mike, what say ye, should we tell people God loves them?
Is there something about Calvinism in particular that creates/sustains a of culture of black and white certainty?
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, does the Servetus scandal signal something baked in to Calvinism that continues to rear its ugly head (eg Aimee Bird etc)?
If God chooses who to save based solely on his sovereign choice and not due to any merit on the part of the person, why do Christian families seem to raise Christian children, and pastors/theologians tell Christian parents to have lots of kids and disciple them like crazy, as if the parent can have control over whether or not their child follows the Lord?
Most theologians believe infants and people with mental disability go to heaven, and believe in an “age of accountability.” These ideas point to people believing everyone deserves a chance to choose God, yet the ordo salutis shows it is impossible to choose God unless he first chooses us. Does everyone have an opportunity to choose God?
1. Predestination to election does seem comforting, but I can't square predestination to reprobation with a God of love. How can pre-planned exclusion from salvation through Christ genuinely be considered a "doctrine of grace?"
2. According to an article in Babylon Bee the 6th point of the TULIP is the need for a Calvinist to be a "condescending jerk." Any comment?
Is there a place for free will in Calvin’s? What makes many American Calvinist act like jerks? Could you please explain why you don’t subscribe to limited atonement
I struggle with calvinism. It’s always bothered me. Seems like God is callous in only picking some to be given grace.
Anyway you are my favorite Calvinist. You seem so thoughtful and nice!
Not sure where you wanted the question/s ... so this may duplicate
I would like your comments on two items that aggravate me...
1. How do you view imposing a Christoloogical grid on everything using Luke 24 as a crowbar "proof text"?
2. What about the new trend of using the term "Gospel" all the time in a generic way with no regard for context or the biblical history of the noun/verb. This is hard to describe unless you sit in a church and listen to a pastor who only reads Piper (?).
I would like your comments on two items that aggravate me...
1. How do you view imposing a Christoloogical grid on everything using Luke 24 as a crowbar "proof text"?
2. What about the new trend of using the term "Gospel" all the time in a generic way with no regard for context or the biblical history of the noun/verb. This is hard to describe unless you sit in a church and listen to a pastor who only reads Piper (?).
Michael I am not a Calvinist. I'm a Wesleyan Arminian. I do however have a strong belief in the sovereignty of God. But I take issue with absolute divine determinism as it takes away all meaningful creaturely choice. I believe this eliminates all possibility of genuine love, which requires choice. The command to "love God" become ludicrous in this millieu. Of course prevenient grace is required with free will, but free will is still present. With divine determinism the concept of double predestination makes us nothing but a puppet world and puts God in the position of creating and then arbitrarily eternally damning some of His creatures according to only His choice. That is morally unacceptable according to the biblical revelation of God's character. Mystery or compatibilism are totally unacceptable answers to this. I have many Calvinist friends, and I enjoy your articles, but I could never accept the Calvinist world for myself. Often they will not bring it up when discussing with an unbeliever! That makes it sort of "secret knowledge", and difficult to explain "the reason for your hope". How would you respond? Thanks!
I should add, I think Romans 9-11, which always come up surrounding Calvinism, is clearly a discussion on God's sovereign purposes for Israel, and not a treatise on salvation. Hopefully you could address that also. Thanks!
Well said
I love you Mike, but I tapped out on Calvinism when I heard RC Sproul say “You shouldn’t tell people God loves them because God may, in fact, hate them because they may not be one of the elect!” That goes against 2 Peter 3:9 and everyone I believe about God. So, Mike, what say ye, should we tell people God loves them?
Is there something about Calvinism in particular that creates/sustains a of culture of black and white certainty?
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, does the Servetus scandal signal something baked in to Calvinism that continues to rear its ugly head (eg Aimee Bird etc)?
A Calvinist, a Neo-Calvinist and an Arminian walk into a bar. Which one ordered a coffee?
If God chooses who to save based solely on his sovereign choice and not due to any merit on the part of the person, why do Christian families seem to raise Christian children, and pastors/theologians tell Christian parents to have lots of kids and disciple them like crazy, as if the parent can have control over whether or not their child follows the Lord?
Most theologians believe infants and people with mental disability go to heaven, and believe in an “age of accountability.” These ideas point to people believing everyone deserves a chance to choose God, yet the ordo salutis shows it is impossible to choose God unless he first chooses us. Does everyone have an opportunity to choose God?
What did Calvin actually teach concerning predestination?
Why are so many Calvinists guilt-ridden when justification by faith, which they teach so clearly, is and should be a tremendous remedy against guilt?
If everything I do is predetermined, how come I'm still held personally responsible for my actions?
I've never been able to get my head around this; what am I missing?
In general, what do you think the New Calvinism emphasizes rightly and where do you see blind spots or over/under emphasis in theology or practice?
1. Predestination to election does seem comforting, but I can't square predestination to reprobation with a God of love. How can pre-planned exclusion from salvation through Christ genuinely be considered a "doctrine of grace?"
2. According to an article in Babylon Bee the 6th point of the TULIP is the need for a Calvinist to be a "condescending jerk." Any comment?
How do you balance unconditional election with unlimited atonement?
Was Calvin wrong in establishing a theocracy of sorts in Geneva?
What is the most important contribution of the New Calvinism?
Is there a place for free will in Calvin’s? What makes many American Calvinist act like jerks? Could you please explain why you don’t subscribe to limited atonement
I struggle with calvinism. It’s always bothered me. Seems like God is callous in only picking some to be given grace.
Anyway you are my favorite Calvinist. You seem so thoughtful and nice!
Zach, John Murray has an interesting article on "Free Will" in his Collected Writings...well worth reading.
You said it, Mike: Calvin and Predestination (and where does "free will" belong?)
What do you think Calvinism emphasizes too much? What do you think it emphasizes too little?
Not sure where you wanted the question/s ... so this may duplicate
I would like your comments on two items that aggravate me...
1. How do you view imposing a Christoloogical grid on everything using Luke 24 as a crowbar "proof text"?
2. What about the new trend of using the term "Gospel" all the time in a generic way with no regard for context or the biblical history of the noun/verb. This is hard to describe unless you sit in a church and listen to a pastor who only reads Piper (?).
I would like your comments on two items that aggravate me...
1. How do you view imposing a Christoloogical grid on everything using Luke 24 as a crowbar "proof text"?
2. What about the new trend of using the term "Gospel" all the time in a generic way with no regard for context or the biblical history of the noun/verb. This is hard to describe unless you sit in a church and listen to a pastor who only reads Piper (?).