Following are responses to comments posted by a blogger on the SBCToday blog in response to my comments about his first responses regarding an article entitled A Better Gospel. The two previous articles include my original article, A Better Gospel and the first response to that article. The words “You said” refer to the comments of the blogger, and this is followed by my response.
You said, “Are you dealing with what Calvinists have claimed or with implications you see coming out of Calvinism? I believe that clearly you are dealing with the implications you see and not what Calvinists have actually said. Without a doubt you are dealing with the implications you see of Calvinism and not what Calvinists actually say. Do you agree?”
First, I note that you asked me a question, and then you quite appropriately answered it with your opinion. Then your answer was followed by, what appears to me to be, your unalterable answer for me to the question you asked me note the words “without a doubt. This seems to make my answer, well, rather inconsequential to your conversation since there remains no doubt as to what I was dealing with, but I will forgo prudence and loft my two cents into the mix. Second, if by “implications” you mean “entailments” i.e. inescapable realities of Calvinism, then yes that is, in part, what I am addressing. These are no less important (in other ways they are more important) to a belief system than what one unabashedly espouses; further, some Calvinists do, at times, articulate these as a part of their beliefs, which they should in fact do that is where I learned such things. Additionally, I am addressing the actual claims or stated beliefs of Calvinism, as stated by Calvinists (note the following italicized words); such as, “These differences are not tertiary as some claim,”, “Piper’s claim” and the differences that are espoused in interpreting “arguably the most well-known, lucid, humbling, awe inspiring verse regarding the gospel and mission of evangelizing (John 3:16).” Again, “Whereas the esoteric gospel according to Calvinism says everyone should come, but the secret is that while God has told Calvinists to tell the lost man to come, be forgiven, and flee the wrath to come, the inner circle Calvinists know that God has been pleased to exclude most individuals [unconditional election, total depravity, limited atonement, good faith offer] to whom the Calvinists present this truth.” These relate to inescapable realities of Calvinism, which may be unspoken entailments or the proclaimed tenets of Calvinism, e.g. TULIP, etc. My assumption is that you are a well-read Calvinist and therefore you are surely aware of such entailments and explicit claims in both articulating and defining Calvinism’s glorious beliefs.
In the article, as elsewhere, I am seeking to penetrate the double talk that obscures either actual beliefs or entailments, thereby clarifying the actualities of Calvinism as espoused by Calvinists themselves. I do this so that we can have meaningful and fruitful conversations about the various beliefs of Calvinism, Extensivism (my position), or Traditionalists, etc., so that all understand what we actually believe. Please tell me where, in seeking clarity of what Calvinism actually believes so that it can be understood by all, that I have misrepresented or failed to capture the essence of Calvinism and more clearly articulate it so that no listener could be misled about the actual beliefs of Calvinism.
For example, I think I conveyed the actual beliefs of Calvinism in this article better than my brother John Piper. Piper said, “God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to sinners.” I responded that he should have said, “God loves to exalt Himself by showing mercy to some sinners.” Now, please tell me which of those two statements is more precisely reflective of the actual teaching and beliefs of Calvinism? If the essence of Calvinism is that the gospel is only good news for some in any eternally meaningful way, e.g. the unconditionally elect then I have precisely captured it. If it is actually accessible to all who hear (so that anyone who hears can believe unto salvation) then I have missed it, but then I am left wondering why all the hoopla? Please tell me where I have erred in my understanding of actual Calvinism beliefs and entailments. Please tell me how I misrepresented Calvinism, John Piper, or did not better elucidate the reality of Calvinism.
You said, “By the way, I wonder if John Piper would say to you, “I go to great lengths to express the essence of [nonCalvinism] accurately, and I would appreciate the same consideration. “Then you said, “What is amazing to me is how much of the argument you use against me in your response could be turned around and used against you and your actual article here.”
Again, please identify where I inaccurately represent the actual beliefs of Calvinism when we strip away the double talk. If I have, I will gladly withdraw my statement and stand corrected. I have no desire to misrepresent Calvinism because Calvinists do not deserve that and misrepresenting Calvinism does not help people to properly evaluate all of the beliefs of Calvinism. I actually read, talk, and listen to Calvinists who candidly admit the very concepts I highlight. You see, I believe Calvinism’s greatest weakness is only apparent when one has a thorough understanding of Calvinism. In part, I am trying to bring into mainstream conversations the beliefs, disquieting realities, and double talk that I dealt with as a Calvinist, which were the cobblestones (so to speak) that paved the long road that led me away from Calvinism. One may doggedly believe them and unabashedly proclaim them, which is something I can respect and appreciate. What is not acceptable is to elide them or act as if they are not essential to Calvinism. Consequently, I do grow weary of some Calvinists’ persistent reticence to clarify these concepts in every forum so that all may really understand Calvinism.
Additionally, Piper argues vociferously and lengthily that the mission of the church is not to give everyone a chance to be saved, but rather to call out God’s unconditionally elect. He argues repeatedly and lengthily how words like “all” and “every” etc., do not mean every individual who hears the gospel, but represent people groups. I quote some of these in my book, and interact with them at length. These candid arguments can be found in every one of his books that I own as well as his other books, blog, etc. As a matter of fact, they can be found in every Calvinist’s theology that I own; consequently, I find any and all marginalizing, eschewals, or suggestions and implications of referring to such as misrepresentation “characterizations” as unhelpful and diversionary at best.
You said, “Therefore, in good turn, I did the same to you that you did to Calvinists. I addressed the implications that I see in your theology instead of addressing what you have actually said. That is apparently completely fair game.”
Again, true entailments are “fair game,” but something that one “sees” that may not exist is not. That is true for you and me. I do not read Calvinism’s beliefs through the lenses of one who holds to a different perspective. I actually read them within (through the lenses) the system of Calvinism. I respect Calvinists who are consistent in their beliefs and clear about them when they speak. That is what I am asking that we both do. If you do not, for whatever reason, consider others beliefs within the framework of their theological system, you will never be able to properly consider alternatives or even recognize the existence of such, i.e. the possibility or probability that yours (or mine) may be wrong.
You said, “I have expressed my belief in the total (extensive) depravity of man so that man cannot come nor will he even rightly seek God on his own. God is the initiator and even works throughout the entire salvific process.”
Yes and amen. I’m glad to hear you say this.
Am I wrong to infer that your gladness is due to being relieved that I am not promoting a man-centered theology? If I am wrong, please forgive me for being presumptuous. If I am right, I see this as a simple resistance, for whatever reason, to hear what others with whom you disagree are saying.
You rightly quoted me saying, “I believe the deciding factor of everything depends on God, e.g. whether there even is a gospel. This belief includes whether God would sovereignly decide to include other substantive factors or not, e.g. grace-enabled faith. To wit, a person can only be saved because God decided to offer that opportunity. A person can only be saved because God sovereignly chose to create man with otherwise choice (libertarian free will), and then sovereignly provided sufficient grace (convicting of the Holy Spirit, power of the gospel, etc.,) to enable the lost to either exercise faith in the gospel or not. Therefore, regardless of the salvific plan, if God sovereignly chose to set up the plan, He is the deciding factor.”
Then you said, “There’s that double talk I was talking about: man must use his otherwise choice ability to exercise faith or not, but God is the deciding factor. Certainly from you viewpoint, God is the original deciding factor in setting up “the plan,” but given what He’s already decided, it’s now up to the man, “grace-enabled” or not.”
First, it appears to me, though it may be entirely due to my obtuseness that you simply will not accept how I define and use the concept of double talk. Although I have repeatedly defined it both here and in other articles (which I know you read since you responded) with its stringent delimiters, you continue to misuse it. Double talk obscures the harsh reality such as, “whosoever will may come” which in Calvinism is only trivially true because the harsh reality is that only the unconditionally elect can and will come. It is plausible that Calvinism is true despite its cold harsh entailments (like the gospel is true even though it entails the harsh reality of eternal hell for the unsaved), but Calvinists are not justified in guardedly obscuring their real view of such truths anymore than I would be to elide hell.
Your example would be true if in my preaching and writing, I obscured man’s responsibility to repent and exercise faith, making clear that he can and should do so or suffer eternal hell, and that God gets all the glory since He is the benefactor and salvation is all an act of grace through faith. That you do not accept how both of those can be true is not the same as a disquieting reality obscured by double talk (disquieting realities are not just an understanding or personal perspective but an irremovable, essential component). When I point to double talk, it is language used to obscure an essential component of one’s belief and not merely what I think because I don’t get it. If I have stated something that is either not an explicit belief or inescapable entailment of Calvinism, please show me. That would be my misuse of the term as you have done; hence, your use is, once again, disanalogous and therefore invalid.
If you are saying, (i.e. no Calvinist word maneuvers, which present people like me as really glorifying man and not God like humble Calvinists) and really only mean that I believe a man is, because of the love and mercy of our great and mighty God, provided with every essential pre, present, and post-conversional element to enable faith (so that nothing is arising from man apart from God’s gracious intent) then of course I believe that man will only be saved by exercising that faith! Thank you Jesus! I do everything I can in every message, writing, etc. to make that unmistakably clear. This is what Scripture consistently, ubiquitously, and explicitly portrays, so I certainly believe that. Most assuredly, I believe that salvation is available to anyone who hears the gospel and every hearer can by simple faith be saved, and without such they will not be saved no secret list, etc. I hope others are reading your critique, so they can see that the only reason you have a problem with such a clear teaching of such is that Calvinism rejects this simple truth of biblical theology as seen ubiquitously in Scripture.
Moreover, I will go so far as to say that I believe that if one doffs the spectacles of Calvinism, with its view of sovereignty that can only exist in determinism, secret will, secret list, etc., he will see this truth as well. I believe if you and I were reading countless of the clearest verses in the Bible regarding the gospel, and we only considered the straight forward message (i.e. unencumbered by theological commitments), we would both believe that any and every man can be saved by exercising faith (which he should do). This shift in accepting the simple message of the gospel was part of the process that led me out of Calvinism. I believe a fatal flaw of Calvinism is that while it seeks to deal with the perplexities of Scripture (which it is to be commended for), it does so in such a way that unnecessarily (meaning there is a better way to deal with the complexities without this liability) complicates and contorts the clear words of the most lucid salvific passages as, as well as any passages addressing man as a responsible being.
You said, based upon the above quote of my position, “Please stop giving God all the credit when it’s up to man to close the deal now according to your theology.”
Ben, this is a lucid example of the communication problem. For me, this draws attention to why I can discuss such matters with some Calvinists, and we can lovingly and respectfully disagree about the merits of our systems of belief while knowing that neither man would hold to a belief that distributes salvational credit to all participants. It seems to me, based upon your words above, that we are now getting to the essence of what you believe about those who reject Calvinism’s assumption that man’s decision to believe or disbelieve is nothing more than a subsequent cog in a predetermined unalterable sequence. It seems that you believe that man choosing between accessible options (regardless of how that might happen) and not being actually predetermined to be able to only respond in a predetermined and unalterable way, which in fact man had nothing to do with, is irreconcilable with God getting all of the credit for salvation. Am I wrong, and if so how?
Would I be wrong in inferring that you believe that God does not have the ability to create man with otherwise choice and offer salvation conditioned upon (grace-enabled) faith (the common sequence, words, and portrayal in Scripture) without compromising His sovereignty and gracious provision of salvation, of which He alone deserves thanks and glory? Note, I am not suggesting or asking if you agree with such an idea, which obviously you do not, but rather do you believe the concept is possible? If you think that it is possible, then I believe you should desist from such portrayals and requests. If you do not think it is possible for God to accomplish such, then I find that to be a problem for Calvinism’s limited view of God’s power and sovereignty rather than a problem for those with whom you disagree.
I can fully understand how God could have created/redeemed according to Calvinism (compatibilist determinism). Within your Calvinism it fits. The same is true for Extensivism (Incompatibilism libertarian). Therefore, I cannot, nor should I, accommodate your request.
Let me illustrate how inaccurate your understanding seems to me. It is like when I hear people say that Calvinists believe you can be saved apart from faith. Of course, you and I know that although we disagree about the significance and sequence regarding faith, that is not a true reflection of either the beliefs or entailments of Calvinism. Now, sometimes, regardless how hard I try to explain that to some of my brothers and sisters, they simply see it as bafflegab I am protecting the Calvinists. That is the way I view this conversation with you although that may not be your intention. You continue to state this juxtaposition without granting due acknowledgement to how this can be and God still get all the glory. Your now explicitly stated request is reflective of what was always precisely implicit in your manner of framing your questions and statements regarding this juxtaposition; hence, my guardedness in responding to you. Now we can all see that my guardedness was not in vain. Therefore, as I believe the problem lies with those who will not accept the essential role of faith in salvation according to Calvinism, I similarly believe that this unwillingness on your part is actually your problem and not mine.
I have not minced words about my utter rejection of Calvinism’s reliance upon compatibilism. I do believe that Adam could have chosen not to sin in the garden, which Calvinism does not believe; further, Calvinists should be far more forthcoming about this belief in public writing and speaking, but then I believe this would irreparably tarnish the glow of Calvinism for many; hence, the problem with double talk. Further, relying upon the idea of soft determinism (William James introduced the ideas of hard and soft) does nothing to minimize the reality of compatibilism’s inviolable determinism misunderstandings about this on both sides notwithstanding. Regardless if it is hard or soft, both believe that every time a person chooses, it is an unalterable act (set by determinative antecedents, e.g. voluntarian but no origination) and, therefore, utterly without a choice to do anything else. Consequently, according to consistent compatibilism, you do not have a choice, nor do I, about what we are writing. Compatibilism just seeks to argue that determinism and moral responsibility are compatible (something which both pure determinists and Libertarians reject, i.e. they are both incompatibilists); thus, according to compatibilism, as long as a person acts voluntarily (no gun to the head) it is a free act. I desire for more people to understand this Calvinistic distinction in the use of such concepts as “free choice,” “responsibility,” etc.
Therefore it is still as deterministic as determinism soft/hard distinctions notwithstanding. Consequently, when one looks at anything within a Calvinistic perspective, immediate responsibility for actions may be argued to rest with the individual (then only in the sense of the voluntarian principle and not the origination principle) but ultimate responsibility for everything is found in God, i.e. trace the causal chain back to the ultimate determinative antecedent that determined every other determinative antecedent. Also, you may need to go back further than God if you strap Him with a compatible nature as well. To wit, He could only choose to create redeem certain ones and not redeem others, etc., ad infinitum. I find this to be both biblically and intellectually wanting.
You quoted me saying, “You insist that Calvinists stop presenting ‘the gospel in such a way that hearers believe it is for everyone when it is in fact not according to Calvinism.’ Then you said, ‘Sorry, I’ll continue to present it like it is for everyone *because it is for everyone.*'”
Ben, really! For one who is so doggedly dedicated to refuting those of us who reject Calvinism’s determinism (irresistible grace, unconditional election, faith as a predetermined free act subsequent to regeneration), unceasingly seeking to correct us, and tirelessly working to defend Calvinism, I am astonished that such clarity is not as tenaciously pursued in presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ so that everyone is unmistakably clear about what you mean by what you say. You know that the gospel according to Calvinism is emphatically not for everyone in any meaningful sense. Please explain to me how the gospel is in any eternally meaningful sense “for everyone” if unconditional election is true. If you cannot, then you have provided yet another unambiguous and unsettling example of double talk. If you do not know what I mean by double talk, read your own statement in light of the actual teachings of Calvinism. I pray that you reconsider. To quote a Scripture, or command in Scripture to share the gospel, indiscriminately is not an answer because that is the biblical command, which is not the same as Calvinism.
If it were, we would not be having these discussions. As long as some Calvinists continue to do as you have said you are going to do, I will seek to enlighten people to the actual beliefs of consistent Calvinism so that presentations like yours will not leave them believing Calvinism teaches what it emphatically does not and we both know that it does not. I must say, I find such a conscious obscuration of such to be unconscionable; hence, my migration from Calvinism. I assume that you do not find it to be so.
I do view this Calvinistic practice by some Calvinists as not only a biblical problem for Calvinism, but an ethical one for Calvinists as well. For anyone to intentionally speak or write so that listeners will believe what the presenter’s belief system resolutely and undeniably denies is inexcusable. That goes for me too! This would be true of me if I preached the gospel without clearly articulating the reality of hell. Fortunately, some of your Calvinists brothers do try to make what they so stanchly believe, and look down on us who do not, explicit when they share the gospel so that people are not confused. I respect and applaud them for doing so.
You said, “Regardless of your uncharitable characterization of your Calvinistic brothers and sisters. Nobody is saved unless they hear the gospel and believe. Therefore, I’ll gladly preach until the Lord comes, ‘Come to Jesus, and be saved!’ to every person indiscriminately and pray that God sovereignly brings about salvation, and I’ll gladly cooperate with those that do the same.”
I believe you take my insistence upon bringing to light the essence of Calvinism as an “uncharitable characterization,” which it is not. Please explain to me how I am wrong in my understanding of the actual beliefs and entailments of Calvinism.
