By: Dominic Marketto
Until this past year or so, I proudly called myself a Calvinist. Today, I do not. It all started when I felt a small logical pain in my head, the loss of small theological motor function, and most of all a nagging sense of doubt prying through TULIP’s five points within my frontal lobe. The splinters of doubt slowly embedded themselves deeper and deeper into my theologically tuned brained, until I was left with no choice but to go on an exhaustive search to dig them out. Through the Word and through reason I dug, and to my dismay, what I pried out was not a splinter at all, but instead a metastasizing tumor that would eventually end the life of Calvinism within me.
In this essay, I will take you on the surgical journey I underwent and will reveal to you what made me a terminal Calvinist. I tried to hold on, I really did, but sometimes cancer overcomes in the toughest of fights. But lucky enough for me, after death comes new life. I suppose the one question I have yet to answer now is whether that “new life” is really a new life in any sense at all, or just a dream from which I will eventually wake up only to find myself accepting Calvinism all over again. It’s a tricky thing, because I don’t know that Christianity can so easily reject or embrace Calvinism. There are consequences for both, but I feel that the consequences of accepting Calvinism are simply too much to bear.
Chapter 1: The Seed of a Tulip
Martin Luther. Jean Cauvin (John Calvin). The Protestant Reformation. During perhaps one of the most religiously charged times in recent history, John Calvin published the immortalized Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin’s Institutes lay an apologetic defense of the rising separation from the Catholic Church—Protestantism. Calvin’s Institutes was the textbook of all reformed churches and directly influenced those church’s ideology and backbone. Albrecht Ritschl called it the “masterpiece of Protestant theology,” while some even dared to compare Calvin’s genius to that of Augustine, Shakespeare, and Plato.
What did Calvin say that caused one of the largest uprisings in infant protestant circles? I would argue that the answer to this question is reason. Logic. Taking a logical and reasonable stance and interpretation of Scripture instead of a heavily allegorical one like the church had been doing for hundreds of years up to that point. Calvin and what is today known as Calvinism (while not a carbon-copy of Calvin’s Institutes, essentially one and the same) offered a defendable position to the Christian faith, a personal approach to the interpretation of Scripture, and a convincing systematic theology.
Today, Calvinism is most widely known by its five main points that make up the acronym, “TULIP.”
T—Total Depravity
U—Unconditional Election
L—Limited Atonement
I—Irresistible Grace
P—Perseverance of the Saints
The following paragraphs’ description of Calvinism’s five points has been taken from calvinistcorner.com. They give a succinct description of each point in turn.
Total Depravity: Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin. The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, “In light of the Scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?” The answer is, “He cannot. Therefore God must predestine.” Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).
Unconditional Election: God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).
Limited Atonement: Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many’; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).
Irresistible Grace: When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that “it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy“; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
Perseverance of the Saints: You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.
Chapter 2: Splinters
In the next five sections, I will argue that there is one central theme that resonates throughout every petal of TULIP, and that without that theme, TULIP cannot stand. This theme is that of predestination and all of the relevant subjects upon which it is built—God’s sovereignty, God’s omniscience/omnipotence, and the nature of free will. For each petal I will show that this is the case and will then argue against the theme itself.
In addition to this undertaking, I will also touch on a few other objections I have that are specific to each petal. These will be few, however, and the bulk of my efforts will be directed towards Calvinism’s core.
Section A: Total Depravity
The doctrine of total depravity tends to go along with this line of thought: “In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?” The answer is, “He cannot. Therefore God must predestine.” There is a logical progression here. Scripture says that we cannot save ourselves. Since we cannot save ourselves, God must save us. Not only must he save us, he must choose us—we cannot choose him. To be totally deprived means to be totally incapable of choosing or desiring God.
If the Calvinist holds to this assertion, then how is it that we come to repentance? The only possible answer is that we cannot come to repentance on our own; God must bring us to repentance himself (hence, predestination). Without God’s action, we are unable to come to repentance. As can be seen, Total Depravity hinges upon God’s action of predestination. Without God’s action, Total Depravity cannot hold, because what follows is contradictory. Man cannot choose or desire God on his own, but in reality, man does seem to choose and desire God. But Calvinism asserts that only God can cause us to choose him. If he does not act in this way, then we are doomed to an eternal fate of complete separation from God. Therefore, predestination must be true if we truly cannot desire or choose God on our own.
Is it true that man cannot choose or desire God simply because man is a fallen creation? Is it true that man’s sin definitively renders his ability to desire or choose God as impossible? Consider the following analogous situation. Imagine a man whose face is deformed to the point of reaching the definition of “ugly” in a physical sense. His physical appearance is ghastly—one for which you or I would undoubtedly feel an immense amount of pity. Imagine this poor man gazing out his window, watching normal looking people go about their business in a crowded marketplace. Imagine that the most beautiful woman—a woman who has reached the definition of “beautiful” in a physical sense—walks by the ugly man’s window. Will this man desire her? Would he wish that he had that kind of beauty in a masculine sense? If given the opportunity in marriage, would he choose her?
We, as fallen creatures, tend to will in such a way (there is a difference between our “will” and “desires”) that our desire is not to be fallen creatures, but instead perfect creatures in whatever sense of the word perfect we can even comprehend. I do not think that sin renders it impossible for us to desire or choose God. It can certainly hinder desire, but I do not believe it can extinguish it.
An objection may be made that sin (ugliness in the analogy) actually blinds our eyes from seeing God (beauty in the analogy), but I do not think that point to be true, simply because that would imply that our minds could only comprehend up to the level of our own place on a theoretical “meter of perfection.” But we know this is not the case, because we can in fact imagine the “ideal person,” however that may look varying from person to person or situation to situation. Whether that “ideal person” is appropriately ideal in an objective sense doesn’t matter; it only matters that we can actually conceive of something greater/unattainable.
Section B: Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election further expands the idea of predestination to its logical end. The consequences of doing this will be explained in Chapter 3 at great length. For now, I will only describe the logical fluency Calvinism projects from predestination.
Calvinism proposes: Not only does God predestine certain individuals (the elect), he does not perform this action according to those individuals meriting such action. Since all people are equally damned, incapable of choosing God, and incapable of attaining righteousness on their own, merit cannot be the reason God predestines. All that can be drawn from this, therefore, is that God predestines according to his will and his will alone (Romans 9:11, 16). This also implies that God does not look into the future in order to see who would choose him if given the chance, because that would imply some sort of merit on the behalf of the individual in that they made a “correct decision.” Therefore, God wills in such a way that only some will be saved, and this is not of their own accord. God’s reasons are God’s reasons alone (if such reasons exist in the first place) and not for us to know.
Section C: Limited Atonement
Limited Atonement applies simple logic to the relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and predestination. Without predestination, the assertions cannot hold. The argument goes like this: The elect (those whom God has chosen) are the only ones who will be saved, because God’s election is the only path to salvation. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross secured the elect’s salvation. Because only the elect were predestined to be saved, Christ only bore the sins of the elect, and not the sins of others. Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all of mankind’s sin, but because all of mankind is not predestined to be saved, Christ really only died for the elect.
If God’s election (predestination) is removed from the preceding argument, the conclusions drawn cannot logically follow. If God did not predestine a select number of people to be saved, then Christ had to have died for all of mankind’s sin with a hope that all would come to salvation through him. Furthermore, if God does not predestine, anyone and everyone has an equal chance to choose Christ and therefore become saved. All sins are covered, but not all sins are atoned. This eliminates the possible contradiction arising from merit-based works and faith. Man’s choice of Christ’s atonement is not merit-based (Romans 9:30-33).
Section D: Irresistible Grace
Irresistible Grace also logically follows from predestination. If God has predestined certain individuals to be saved, then the grace of God cannot be resisted, because if it could, then God’s predestination would be neither absolute nor authoritative. Put plainly, when God’s grace is revealed to his elect, it is impossible to reject it because it has already been decided by God that they will accept it.
Without predestination, it is hard to maintain the idea that God’s grace cannot be rejected. If God does not predestine in the sense that Calvinists advocate, then God’s grace can just as easily be accepted as it can be rejected. This is because it would not be known ahead of time who would choose to come to repentance, and therefore those who do accept God’s grace would choose to accept it, and those who don’t accept God’s grace would choose not to. Calvinists may agree with this last statement, but would disagree with the implied idea that everyone can accept or reject God’s grace according to their own personal autonomy given to humanity by God. Irresistible Grace, therefore, is dependent upon the validity of predestination.
Section E: Perseverance of the Saints
The idea of “once saved, always saved” as Calvinists propose it is contingent upon predestination, but the doctrine can still theoretically be held even if predestination is not true. The Calvinist’s argument for the Perseverance of the Saints is that since predestination is absolutely authoritative, it would be impossible for a member of the elect to “leave” the elect. If it seemed like someone was a member of the elect, but later denounced Christianity and died a self-proclaimed atheist, the Calvinist would likely argue that the individual was never truly saved (a member of the elect) in the first place. Predestination, therefore, directly implies that once someone is saved, they cannot lose their salvation.
The Perseverance of the Saints can also be held, however, even if predestination is not true. This belief would be formulated in the following way: Once someone accepts Christ’s atonement for their sin, his or her past, present, and future sins have been permanently washed away. Since Christ died for all sin, even the later rejection of Christ is atoned for. Therefore, that individual’s salvation is still intact.
The non-predestination advocate of the Perseverance of the Saints can also hold to the common Calvinistic argument of someone “not being saved in the first place” line of thought. While this may seem like a cop-out upon surface inspection, it is still an important point to consider for both parties. The non-predestination advocate, unlike the Calvinist, does have to account for verses like Matthew 12:31.
In this essay, I will not be arguing either against or on the side of the non-predestination advocate of Perseverance of the Saints, but will only focus on the Calvinist’s interpretation of the doctrine from a logical point of view. Since Calvinism’s form of the Perseverance of the Saints is contingent upon predestination, it is here I will focus my argument.
Chapter 3: Calvinism’s Dangerous Idea
The philosopher Daniel Dennett is the author of a book entitled, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, in which he goes into great detail about Darwin’s theory of evolution and how it offers an explanation to the foundations of humanity and the search for philosophical sense of subjects such as the origins of knowledge, intelligence, and what it means to be human. What follows from his argument is a set of consequences—ones that must follow if evolution is true. Dennett describes the logical flow of Darwinism when he says, “I think many people are terribly afraid of being demoted by the Darwinian scheme from the role of authors and creators in their own right into being just places where things happen in the universe.”
I bring Dennett’s book up not to draw a correlation between evolution and Calvinism, but instead to offer a correlation between a theory and its consequences. Every theory about subjects like theology and philosophy has consequences that must follow if the theory is true. Calvinism is no different. In the remainder of this section, I will present the severe consequences of predestination (which has been shown above to be an indispensable part of TULIP), how these consequences are applied to TULIP, and will respond to possible objections to these consequences.
Section A: Free Will Defined
The first problem that arises when addressing predestination is its apparent confliction with free will. When discussing the paradox of predestination and free will, the first of many questions that has plagued Calvinists asks, “If God predestines people’s salvation, can it truly be said that those people freely accept God’s gift of salvation as an act of their own free will?” In order to adequately answer this question, it is necessary to first define what it means to have “free will.”
Free will, as it applies to the human experience, can be defined in one of two ways. The first is “choosing or doing what you want to do.” If a young boy walks into an ice cream parlor and looks at all of the different flavors of the frozen treat he could possibly have and eventually tells the clerk he wants to have a chocolate mint double-scoop waffle cone, then it can be said that the boy exercised a free choice. But if his mother told him that he could not get an ice-cream cone because it would spoil his dinner, then the boy is obviously not exercising a free choice by not eating the ice cream.
Now, it would seem that under this definition of free will, predestination and man’s free will are not at odds. While God pre-ordained for me to accept his gift of salvation, I also, at that moment in time, wanted to accept his free gift of salvation and chose it. Whether God pre-ordained the event does not change the fact that I wanted to choose in the way I did. Under the above definition of free will, there seems to be no immediate conflict, but is the definition provided above the correct definition of free will? Consider the following example that is similar to one the philosopher John Locke proposed in the 17th century.
Imagine that a group of women decide to go see a movie at a local movie theater. The women take their seats in front of the large screen, and talk amongst themselves before the movie begins. But just before the movie starts, and unbeknownst to the women, the theater’s manager bolts all of the doors shut to the theater so that it is impossible to escape. The movie comes on, the women sit and watch the movie, laugh and enjoy themselves, and none decide that they want to leave, but instead that they want to stay and watch the movie.
The question that arises now is, “Are the women making a free decision to stay and watch the movie? What if one of them needed to use the restroom and tried to leave—only to find that she could not? Does the nature of free will in this situation change? After all, the only thing that can be done is to remain in the theater. They cannot choose to leave.
Free will, in light of this situation, must be defined as, “a decision made where the power to do otherwise is held.” This definition, made famous by John Locke, fully encompasses all dilemmas within the realm of free decision. When applied to the boy in the ice cream store, the boy had the power to choose vanilla as opposed to chocolate-mint, but did not. However, if his mom did not allow him to have ice cream, then it is not in his power to choose otherwise. When applied to the women in the theater, they did not freely choose to stay in the theater, because they did not have the power to do otherwise. It can now be seen that it is this second definition of “free will” that must be used when discussing such matters, and it is precisely this definition that creates a dilemma between predestination and man’s free will.
Section B: Consequences of Predestination
Consequences 1 and 2: Predestined Damnation, Man is not free
The first consequence for which I will argue is if God predestines the elect, then God also predestines the damned. This is possibly the most popular objection to predestination, but must follow if predestination is to be accepted. According to Calvinism, only the elect are/will be saved and will enter into heaven. By consequence, those who are not members of the elect enter into Hell. But God has only predestined the elect. Therefore, God did not predestine everyone else—who will spend eternity in Hell.
A Calvinist may object to this consequence by saying, “God did not predestine those people to go to Hell, they chose that path by not freely accepting God’s gift of salvation, just as God predestined the elect to freely choose salvation.” This may seem like a plausible escape from the first consequence, but at a second glance, it is completely contradictory.
If God’s predestination is absolute (the Calvinist asserts this), then the only thing an individual can do is accept salvation—they cannot choose otherwise. At the same time, no one can choose salvation who is not predestined. By consequence, the only option for the elect to choose is salvation, and the only option for the non-elect to choose is damnation. Therefore, man does not have free will according to predestination. This is the second consequence of Calvinism.
An objection that may be made here is in regard to the two definitions of “free will” given at the beginning of this chapter. The Calvinist may claim, “Yes, the damned could not choose otherwise, but they still wanted to choose in that way—God did not force that decision. The same is true for the elect.” This attempt to avoid a contradiction by adopting the first definition of free will given in Part A unfortunately collapses. It may fairly be asked of this person, if God had not predestined salvation in the first place, would the former elect still want to accept salvation, and would the formerly damned still choose damnation? If answered with yes, then it must be conceded that God’s predestination is pointless in that it has no effect on the outcome of man’s salvation or damnation. If answered with no, then it must be the case that God’s predestination actually forces people’s wills, and therefore man does not have free will, because if God had not predestined, then people’s decisions would have been different. God’s act of predestination in this case does have a bearing on man’s choice. If the Calvinist would still like to maintain that God does in fact predestine, then he or she must concede that God predestines in two ways, and that man does not have free will (with regards to salvation).
After being faced with the preceding arguments, the Calvinist may want to concede that God does predestine in two ways, but that humanity still exercises free will. “Yes, God predestines people for Heaven and Hell alike, but we still freely choose that fate somehow.”
In order to align this claim with a reasonable explanation and to avoid a direct contradiction between God’s action and our alleged free will, the Calvinist must equivocate on the definition of “free will.” We cannot be predestined to act in one way, yet freely choose it at the same time. If it is said that our free will is different than God’s, however, this may be avoided altogether.
The problem with this proposition is I don’t know that there can be two types of free will in the first place, lest we consider one to be completely free, and the other to be only partially free. A “partially free” will does not seem to be free in the first place, and I don’t suspect many would argue for equivocal terms for freedom. The partially free will would have to be restricted when it comes to salvation, and this is really the only relevant part of freedom when addressing predestination. It should be noted that I am not advocating that God has predestined every choice we make, only the choice to accept salvation, for this is what predestination advocates. When I make the claim that predestination makes it so that we do not have free will, I am saying that we are not completely free if predestination is true. In order to have free will, one must be completely free. To describe predestination as leaving someone with a partially free will slants into a contradiction of terms.
A common surrendering statement is, “We do freely choose for or against God, and God does predestine. This seems to be a contradiction, but God is quite mysterious and incomprehensible, completely other than us. Therefore, we cannot understand, but must have faith that it is true.”
The problem with saying this is that if the above statement is true, then the Calvinist is abandoning all of her beliefs with regards to free will and predestination in that she is claiming an agnostic position. It is agnostic from the standpoint that the Calvinist does not know the reasons why she believes what she believes. At the same time, however, it is rooted in belief/conviction from the standpoint that the Calvinist still maintains TULIP’s assertions about free will and predestination. The faith exercised here is blind in every sense of the word, because a reason for the belief is absent.
The second thing the Calvinist is doing in this case is trying to make the claim that God can create logical contradictions. Being omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything (including making logical contradictions somehow true), but instead that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot create a round square, make 2 + 2 = 5, or as the Calvinist says in this case, predestine and also maintain our freedom.
Consequence 3: God is an evil puppeteer.
It can now be deduced from the preceding argument that if God predestines, then God predestines people for both Heaven and Hell. The third consequence I will argue for illuminates what follows from the second type of predestination—predestination for Hell. If God predestines people for an eternity spent in Hell, then God is an evil puppeteer.
This consequence immediately brings up a storming debate amongst both theologians and philosophers about a loving God and the existence of evil. The purpose of this essay is not to explore this matter, but it is necessary to draw upon the issue in order to adequately address whether God is an evil puppeteer. The Calvinist (as well as every other Christian) denies the proposition that God is evil or does evil acts. So in order to cope with something that appears to be evil (predestining a person for Hell), alternative explanations must be made.
The first explanation is that God’s predestined damnation must be used to accomplish a greater good in weight. The immediate problem with this assertion is the dichotomy between God’s allowance and God’s direct action. Predestination is an action (lest it have no bearing on the outcome of salvation—rendering it as pointless and powerless), and allowance is indirect action. In all truthfulness, I have no problem with this argument in principle. C.S. Lewis does a very good job in parts of his The Problem of Pain in explaining why God allows evil things to happen in order to accomplish a greater good. My problem comes not from the argument itself, but from the application of the argument to the topic of predestined damnation. Simply stated, I do not think that God’s direct action of placing someone in Hell for eternity when it was impossible for the person to receive salvation in the first place can be reconciled with a greater good. Eternal suffering can only be matched with eternal pleasure (Heaven), so it must be that God’s predestined damnation causes, for instance, two people’s eternal pleasure. I will certainly concede that this may in fact be the case, but I feel that this paints God as a utilitarian of sorts—a being bound by the eternal adding and subtracting of suffering from pleasure. If God is bound by the necessity of evil for the existence of good, then the only way in which it can be claimed that God is supremely good is if there is a supremely evil being that is equal in magnitude to God. In other words, “goodness” can only be “good” insofar as there is a certain amount of evil for comparison.
The second explanation given for predestined damnation is that it is not evil, it is just. My refutation of this proposition is simple. Damnation results from sin. All of mankind is sinful. The only way to escape damnation is through the acceptance of Christ’s gift on the cross as payment for one’s sins, thus leading to one’s righteousness. It logically follows, then, that damnation ultimately results from the neglection of God’s free gift of salvation, because salvation is the only way for man to be made righteous. Under the doctrine of predestined damnation, the damned are completely unable to choose God’s salvation, and are therefore unable to be made righteous. If an individual is completely unable to choose salvation/be made righteous, then God’s judgment is not just, because he is in turn judging his own action (It is God’s action that caused the judgment/necessary damnation in the first place). Put another way, God is judging himself.
In the end, God controls who goes to Heaven and Hell—this is not up to anyone but him. If God predestines someone for an eternity of suffering, it is strictly because God wills it. God’s will is subject to nothing but his desires, lest he be bound by certain platonic form-like paragons and subject to a morality other than himself. The only way that a person can deny that God is not evil in this case is by saying that God is the ultimate standard of good and evil. What God does is good, and what God forbids is evil. Anything God disapproves of is evil. God is not bound by “the good,” but actually creates “the good.” In this way, God’s predestined damnation is not evil, because God not only approves of it, he wills it. Now, this may be the case, and I actually think this final explanation bears some weight. The only problem I have with this plausible explanation is that I see no reason why God wouldn’t let a rational human being understand such action as being good. It certainly seems that undeserved (in the sense that God simply chooses, the individual has nothing to do with the decision and therefore cannot be held accountable) eternal suffering is evil. Why God would create us with faculties that falsely recognize good as evil or evil as good in some or all instances seems to be perplexing to the point of describing God as Descartes’ “evil genius.”
Consequence 4: Fatalism
The fourth consequence can be stated in the following way: If God predestines salvation, there is no reason to evangelize, pray for the salvation of others, or do anything in order to spread God’s love and truth to all people, because salvation has already been pre-ordained.
At the center of this argument is the nature of the authority of God’s alleged predestination. If God’s predestination is absolute, then nothing we do can change the outcome of anyone’s eternal fate. If God’s predestination is not absolute, then it has limited power, and therefore the “elect” becomes a pointless and inaccurate term within the doctrine. Calvinism does not endorse the latter of these statements, so I will only focus on the former.
Consider my originally posed question about trying to influence the salvation of others. It can be rephrased through asking the following questions: Why should I attempt to thwart the binding power of God’s predestination by trying to evangelize to an individual if God has already determined that they are not to be a member of the elect? If what I do does not ultimately matter with regards to salvation, then why do it? There are really only two possible explanations for this problem—either God uses our evangelism to accomplish his predestined salvation, or we are supposed to evangelize simply because God has commanded it.
If we accept the first explanation regarding God’s use of people to accomplish his ends (something certainly endorsed by both Calvinists and other Christians), then we still get nowhere, because any given individual’s obligation to evangelize does not matter. My original question still remains when applied to individual persons. Consider this line of thought by Agent X. “I should go tell Agent Y about Christ’s forgiveness. She needs to hear about his love. I know God predestines and that he uses people to accomplish his predestination. Since this is the case, I will just let someone else do the witnessing. After all, if she is predestined for salvation, she will become saved one way or another.”
This line of thinking does not lead to an immediate dilemma for the Calvinist, but a problem does arise if one applies this to all persons. If every Christian thought and acted in this way, then God’s predestination would have to be separate from mankind’s efforts. Now, this is a prime example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, because it is not the case that all Christians think in this way, but I argue that Agent X is still justified in his assertion that what he does ultimately has no effect on Agent Y’s fate if God’s predestination is absolute, because what he says is both true and predestined by God.
The objection is quickly made at this point that Agent X’s thinking may be justified, but the original proposition regarding God’s usage of moral agents to accomplish his goals is not directly dismissed. Everyone does not act or think in the way Agent X does, people seem to be both obligated and compelled to evangelize and do evangelize.
The problem with this objection is that if it is the case that God uses moral agents to accomplish salvation, then the moral agents God uses are nothing more than tools without free will. The original dilemma between free will and God’s action of predestination once again arises in that if God’s predestination is absolute (and if God uses moral agents to accomplish predestination), then the moral agents in question cannot freely choose not to evangelize. If they could choose not to in the way that Agent X chose, then God’s predestination is not absolute, and is ultimately contingent upon human exertion. Furthermore, if God’s predestination depends on human exertion (through a truly free will), then God’s predestination is ultimately pointless in the same way expounded upon at the beginning of the chapter. It cannot be avoided that free will must be infringed upon in one way or another if God’s predestination is absolute. Because of this, it cannot be validly claimed that moral agents are obligated or compelled to evangelize, because God’s action is that obligation or compulsion, not a mere influence giving rise to it. In order for there to be obligation, there must be autonomy.
The final objection to this fourth consequence is that we are to evangelize simply because God commands it. Whether we have any effect on the outcome of someone’s salvation is irrelevant.
My refutation of this final objection is short: If God commands us to spread the good news of his salvation throughout the world even though it cannot affect any individual’s fate, then it is the same as if a king commands his subjects to reverse the law of gravity. In other words, if what we do with regards to salvation does not ultimately affect others’ salvation, then God’s command is nothing more than an attempt to incite obedience for the sake of obedience alone. But once again, if that obedience does lead to salvation (which it would have to in some instances if this is God’s mechanism of predestination), then it cannot truly be said that a person’s obedience is really obedience at all, but instead a mere involuntary action controlled by God. “Obedience,” then, is the absurd idea of God obeying himself.
Section C: Objection from Foreknowledge
Some Calvinists hold to the belief that predestination does not necessarily involve God’s direct action, but only necessitates a divine foreknowledge of salvation. Instead of directly saving only certain individuals, God only knows who will choose him. His knowledge, therefore, does not infringe upon our free will.
It should be noted before I begin my thoughts on this objection that most Calvinists do not stop at the belief of foreknowledge. While foreknowledge is something Calvinists believe God has, most Calvinists take the step of direct action when it comes to predestination. Nevertheless, I feel that divine foreknowledge should be addressed because of its intimate connection with both predestination and free will.
I have two problems with the objection from divine foreknowledge. The first is that if God knows the fate of everyone before they were born, then God creates people knowing they will not choose him. Therefore, he is indirectly causing them to go to Hell, because God did have the choice not to create the individual. While this point may be conceded, free will is still intact. The individual did in fact choose salvation under the definition of free will, yet God also had foreknowledge of such a choice. Yes, this view may be compatible with our free will, but there still seems to be a problem with God creating people with the knowledge that they will spend eternity in Hell. Nonetheless, it is unnecessary to delve further into this possible problem, because my next objection dismisses its implications, as well as the word, “foreknowledge.”
To say that God has “foreknowledge” of events that have not yet occurred (drawing from his omniscience) is to imply that God exists in what finite beings have labeled “time.” God, by definition is eternal. In order to be eternal, a being must be outside of/independent of the law of time. Foreknowledge implies a specific position in time—present knowledge of things in the future. But if God is eternal and therefore wholly separate from the law of time, then God cannot have foreknowledge, but simply infinite knowledge. One famous Christian apologist to endorse this view was Thomas Aquinas. He famously argued nothing that happens in time is unknown to God, but God does know of events in the way in which we know of them—restricted by time. In this sense, God still knows everything that we categorize into the past, present, and future strictly from a “presently” oriented position (Hence, the name I Am).
I think this view of foreknowledge is a promising one for Christianity to embrace, as it preserves the compatibility of God’s omniscience and our free will. I do not think, however, that it is compatible with Calvinism. The principle reason for this is that Calvinism deeply emphasizes God’s direct action, as opposed to something distant like foreknowledge. He chooses, he does not merely know. He works, he does not merely have knowledge. He has mercy on whom he has mercy, he does not merely know who will ask for such mercy. If someone is to hold to divine foreknowledge as a means to explain predestination, then that person does not understand what predestination is according to Calvinism. Divine foreknowledge (a technical contradiction in and of itself according to God’s timeless nature) does not justify predestination, it only preserves omniscience.
Chapter 4: Scripture
The driving force behind Calvinism is basic logic applied to a very literal interpretation of certain scriptures. We Christians rightly claim that God’s Word is true, and apply this truth to the formations of our doctrines, creeds, and daily lives. In this chapter, I will first offer some of the most famous verses that proponents of predestination have used to support their beliefs, and will in turn offer ones that seem to challenge those beliefs.
Section A: Literal Interpretation
Ephesians 1:4,5,11b
“…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
2 Timothy 1:9
“…who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.”
Galatians 1:15
“But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace…”
(Others: John 15:16, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:16-18, Romans 5:19, Romans 9:19-24)
After applying a literal interpretation to these verses, there certainly seems to be the implication of the doctrine of predestination as Calvinists have proposed. Now, apply this same literal translation to the following verses that seem to indicate something contrary to predestination and the elect.
1 John 2:1-2
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Literal translation: God died for the sins of the whole world, not just a select few (the elect).
Hebrews 2:9
“But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
Literal translation: God tasted death for everyone, not just the elect.
2 Corinthians 5:14
“For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all…”
Literal translation: Christ died for all people, not just the elect.
1 Timothy 4:10
“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”
Literal translation: God is the savior of all people—not just those who believe.
2 Peter 2:1
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
Literal translation: Christ died for those who reject him and teach false doctrines.
Hebrews 6:4-8
“For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.”
Literal translation: it is possible to lose your salvation and leave the elect (therefore, the saints “do not persevere”)
Hebrews 6:26-27, 29
“For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries…How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?”
Literal translation: it is possible to lose your salvation and leave the elect (therefore, the saints “do not persevere”)
(Others: 1 Timothy 2:5-6, Romans 5:18, 2 Peter 3:9)
In the case of Calvinism, I feel that there is a narrow and often mistaken interpretation of Scripture. If the Calvinist seeks to claim the first set of verses as evidence for his or her doctrine, then he or she must be able to maintain consistency with the second set of verses according to the same literal scrutiny applied to the first. Some have tried to do this, but their accounts are not convincing and tend to try to walk around the second set of verses.
Section B: Example of Context
One of the most popular defenses of predestination given by Calvinists is Paul’s words in Romans 9. Romans 9:19-24 says, “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
The Calvinist mirrors Paul’s rhetoric and defends predestination with Paul’s, “You don’t get to ask why” response. The advocate of predestination looks at Romans 9 as a literal defense of predestination. Verse 15 says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
Paul’s words certainly seem like they are a defense of predestination. The non-predestination advocate asks, “If salvation only depends on God’s divine election, how can those who God has not chosen be condemned? For who can resist his will? This is unjust!” The Calvinist/predestination advocate responds with, “God has mercy on whom he has mercy. God chose Israel, God chose Jacob, God chooses the elect. We don’t get to ask why.”
The problem I have with this interpretation of Romans 9 is one of context. If the true context of the passage is taken into account, it can be seen that Paul is not trying to defend predestination at all or offer the justifications of it given above, but actually something very different.
To whom is Paul speaking? Why is he speaking to them? To what is he responding? All of these questions must be answered before trying to interpret Paul’s words. Paul is speaking to Jews who are complaining about the salvation of the Gentiles. The Jews are making the claim that the Gentiles cannot receive salvation, for they do not follow the Law. The Jews are God’s chosen people, not the Gentiles. On the heels of Christ’s death and resurrection, salvation by grace through faith for the Gentiles is something very foreign to the Jews. Unlike the church today, Christian theology is not something that is common knowledge, but is actually in the process of being formulated. While many Jews became Christians, most did not completely understand what Christ did on the cross in his establishment of the new covenant. Faith-based salvation was not only foreign, it seemed to be unjust. The establishment of the new covenant was a hard thing to accept for the Jewish culture, as the Law dominated their faith. The assertion that anyone could be saved if they would merely have faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins and redemption of their soul is a direct attack on God’s Old Testament choice of Israel and the Jewish Law. It is this issue to which Paul is responding.
Now that the context of the time period and issue at hand have been established, an interpretation of Romans 9 can be offered. Paul responds to the Jews by saying that salvation is gained through faith, not by works. This is the central message of the entire chapter. Paul first brings up God’s choice of Isaac, and later Jacob. Paul’s point in bringing them up is to show that Isaac and Jacob did not earn God’s approval; God simply chose them without them meriting such a choice. In Romans 3, Paul also speaks of Old Testament characters, specifically Abraham. He strongly emphasizes that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Abraham did not earn it, it was granted to him according to faith.
Jesus also previously illuminated the Jews’ forgetfulness of the importance of faith. He constantly scorned the Pharisees for their infatuation with the Law. At this point in time, the Jews Paul is talking to are clinging to the Law in the same way. Paul rebukes this line of thought and says in verse 15, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
According to the new covenant, what does God’s mercy consist in? Why does Paul bring up this Old Testament quote? Under the new covenant established through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, righteousness is gained by grace through faith. The Law does not save.
The Jews respond with, (verse 19) “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” Now before I move on to Paul’s answer to this question, the proper context of the question must be further expounded upon. The question is formulated in terms of God’s damnation in the new covenant. God’s mercy was ultimately manifested through the cross. Humanity should have received death, but God’s mercy intervened, as Jesus Christ bore our punishment. God, therefore, has mercy on those who accept Christ’s free gift (Romans 5), and condemns to Hell those who do not. In the Jews’ mind, they see no difference between the saved and the damned, because both are equally sinful. It seems to be completely unjust that God would have mercy on some people when they are just as sinful as those who are not receiving mercy.
In light of this, Paul asserts in verse 20, “But who are you, O man to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” ” What Paul is getting at here is not a defense of predestination, but of the will of God. Why did God decide to sacrifice his own Son for the atonement of mankind’s sin? Why does God decide to grant cleanliness to those who accept his gift, and not to those who reject it? Paul’s response is very appropriate—we cannot get inside the mind of God, all we know is that this new covenant through Jesus Christ is the will of God. This is what we don’t get to ask “why” about.
Finally, the objection made by the Calvinist here is that having faith, in this context, seems to be a form of meriting salvation. This is simply not the case. In verses 30-32, Paul separates faith from merit-based works. He says, “What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.” Here, Paul asserts that the saved Gentile has attained righteousness through faith, not merit-based works. This is where the separation is made. Many times, the Calvinist makes the false assumption that having faith is somehow something that someone must do in order to attain salvation. But according to Paul’s answer given to the Jews here and in many other places (Galatians 2:15-16, John 3:16), it is clear that one must have faith in order to be saved. But once again, this is different than merit-based works, because such faith is the acceptance of God’s gift of salvation by recognizing that Christ’s atonement is the only way to be made righteous.
The final piece of Romans 9 the Calvinist/predestination advocate can cling to now is God’s choice of Isaac, Jacob, and hardening Pharaoh. It does not say that Isaac or Jacob had faith, but that God simply chose them. God hardened Pharaoh in order for his glory to be manifested. This seems to indicate predestination via unmerited choice. What is overlooked, however, is that the new covenant was not present during this time. Righteousness through Christ’s atonement did not yet exist. Paul brings these people up for the sole purpose of showing that God’s will is God’s will, period. God’s will, now, (speaking to the Jews in Romans 9) is that God has mercy on those who accept Christ’s gift of salvation, and condemns those who do not. God does this, because the new covenant is his will. Just as God had mercy on whom he would have mercy before Christ’s death on the cross, he has mercy on whom he has mercy (those who freely accept the gift of salvation) after Christ’s death on the cross.
It can now be seen that when Romans 9 is interpreted through the proper context, the result is much different than what it is popularly made out to be. Paul is not defending predestination at all—he is defending salvation through faith.
Concluding this short chapter on Scripture, I think that Calvinism’s use of Scripture leads to an oversimplification of God. Scripture cannot be given a strictly literal interpretation—the context of the passage, the culture of the time period, and God-given rational thought must be applied to each and every verse. Skipping any one of these crucial components leads to a broken, incomplete, and dangerous result. In the case of Calvinism, it leads to absurdity via the consequences outlined in chapter 3. It leads to the “Masses in the Mire.”
Chapter 5: ”Masses in the Mire”
“Masses in the Mire” is the title of a short story I have written to illustrate Calvinism. The story takes place through a conversation between two angels—Solace and Insight.
“Masses in the Mire”
“And this, Solace, is Earth. All of those people you see down there are wandering souls created in the very image of God.”
“The actual image of God, Insight?”
“Yes, the actual image of God. Humans are very dear to his heart. It was only fitting for him to put himself in each and every one of those people down there.”
The angel Solace and his mentor, Insight, floated motionless in the sky above the Earth’s surface. Solace tucked in his brilliant wings and dove like an eagle to get a closer view of humanity.
“I didn’t know there were so many! Why didn’t God give them wings like us?”
Insight laughed. “You’ve yet to learn many things, Solace. Don’t worry, even if they did have wings I don’t think they would know what to do with them! After all, they can’t even see the sky, watch the birds, or feel the pure rays of the burning sun. All they do is sit there—slumped over with their faces down in the great marsh.”
Solace’s innocent glow faded. “Why don’t they look up? God is up there! Who wouldn’t want to look at God’s glory, the creator of all things and the very embodiment of all that is truly good? I never get tired of listening to the seraphim’s trumpets praising him. Are you saying that those humans don’t want to have any part of that?”
“It isn’t that they don’t want to have any part of it, they just can’t…on their own that is. Only God can bring them to himself. Without God, they are completely deprived of everything because of their sin. They are completely incapable of desiring God or accepting his salvation.”
Solace looked down at humanity’s desolate state. Just as Insight had described, an endless expanse of people sitting in a crude mixture of mud, stagnant water, and weeping foliage stretched out as far as the eye could see. Not one soul looked up, or even around for that matter. No one spoke to one another and no one acknowledged another’s presence. Each human being sat like a mime in an imaginary glass case, unaware of anyone or anything outside of it.
Solace looked up toward God, but couldn’t see his glory because of a thick blanket of dark clouds separating humanity from the window of the heavens. “Why are those black clouds there, Insight?”
Insight looked up at the dark sky. “Humanity put them there. Those black clouds are the result of sin. Sin is a very dark thing, Solace.”
“So even if they did decide to look up, they wouldn’t be able to see God? All they can do is sit here! What a dreadful thought…” Solace’s felt trapped.
“They can do more than sit here. They can talk, laugh, enjoy each other’s company and even love each other.”
“I haven’t seen anyone say one word yet, Insight. All I see are people hopelessly trapped in their sin. There doesn’t seem to be much to laugh about or love down here.”
“Not so fast, Solace, you can’t forget about God’s election. Look over there.” Insight pointed at a young girl being lifted out of the mud by a single ray of light shining through the ominous black clouds above. She began to look upward.
“What’s happening to her?” Solace asked.
“God has chosen her! Praise God, the Lord of hosts, for salvation has come to a lost and wayward soul!” Insight began to sing a beautiful a cappella song in a heavenly language. His celebration of what the two angels were witnessing was truly beautiful—only something a heavenly being could so gracefully jubilate.
After Insight finished his rejoicing, Solace asked, “Why did God choose her? Why didn’t God choose that little boy right there?” Solace pointed at a small boy playing in the mud.
“I don’t know, Solace. God chooses to have mercy on whomever he wills. He doesn’t pick everyone. I do know that he didn’t pick that girl because of something she did. Her salvation is only due to God’s election. Nothing more.”
The young girl who had been lifted stopped rising and hung motionless—suspended in the air a few feet above everyone else. The girl began to speak of God, his redeeming love, and Christ’s atoning sacrifice, but no one looked up at her. It was like she didn’t exist.
“Why aren’t they listening to her? She’s speaking truth! If they would only listen to her, they could come to know God. Why do they only sit motionless in the filth of their sin?”
“Remember Solace, only God can affect the salvation of someone. That girl doesn’t have the power to save—only God’s divine election does. He—” Solace interrupted, “No, look! That man there is listening! And he’s rising up! He is saved now because of her! Praise God!”
Insight put his hand on Solace’s shoulder. “Look. See the ray of light pulling him up? See how it is connected to the girl’s ray? She didn’t save him, God did. God raised him up out of the mire, it only appears as if she contributed to his salvation.”
“But didn’t God at least use her to save him?”
Insight laughed. “By no means! If God uses her as a tool, does that all of a sudden mean that she is doing the work? Do hammers build houses or do people? Either way, God’s election is what raised him up. Nothing more. That ray connecting them represents the elect. The elect are all connected through God’s light. Their number was decided ages ago before you or I ever existed. It is for them and them alone that Christ died. And now, God’s will is taking shape.”
Solace looked back at the small boy playing in the mud. “I still don’t understand why God chooses some and only died for those people. These people can’t do anything about this bog they’re stuck in, God put them here!”
“Solace, God did not put them here. Their sin put them here. Don’t ever forget that.”
Solace’s frustration grew. “Yeah but they can’t—” Insight interrupted, “Isn’t it great to see the joy on a newly saved person’s face! Look at that girl. She is singing for joy, looking up at God through her beam of light.” Insight began to tear up. The girl’s song really was beautiful. Her ray of light intensified as her perfect notes drifted toward the sky.
Insight spoke again, “Her song is contagious, isn’t it Solace? It’s irresistible! Once God’s salvation raises someone up out of their filth, they cannot resist its tow. God’s grace is truly irresistible.”
“Do only the elect receive God’s grace?”
“Yes, only the elect receive it, but all hear about it. You see, those clouds up there don’t block out all of God’s light. There is still enough down here to see, but only the elect are penetrated by it. The unsaved are deaf to its call, but the elect hear it and listen to it.”
“Can they listen to it and ignore it?”
“Never! And who would want to? Listen to yourself, Solace, would you ever not want to listen to God? It is truly impossible to not listen when his grace is offered.”
“But the unsaved don’t listen!”
“That is because they can’t listen to it. Remember, only the elect can actually listen. The unsaved treat it as if it never existed to begin with because it does not penetrate them.”
Solace began to grow impatient. “But why doesn’t it penetrate them? I understand that it doesn’t, and that God doesn’t choose everyone, but why doesn’t he choose everyone and penetrate everyone with his irresistible grace if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for everyone’s sin?”
Insight’s smile faded. “Solace, God’s will is truly mysterious. His power is unsurpassable, and his ways are completely unsearchable! It is not our place or humanity’s for that matter to try and comprehend the answer to your question. Come. We have more to see.”
Solace and Insight glided down closer to the surface and landed atop a barren hill. The muddy swamp of Earth stopped near the base of the hill, allowing the two angels to rest their wings. Earth was quite the spectacle. Billions of people spread out far and wide—some stuck in the mire, some suspended in the air by God’s salvation. The silence of the unsaved rang out much louder than the song of the elect.
Solace pointed towards the base of the hill and began to walk towards an older woman sinking into the soupy ground. “That person is drowning, Insight! Come, let us lift her up!”
Insight took hold of Solace’s arm. “No, Solace, God has not instructed us to come to her aid. Our purpose for coming here today is only for learning’s sake, not for action.”
“But she will drown!”
“If that is God’s will, then it shall come to pass.”
The woman sunk below the marshy surface. A few bubbles rose up from where she descended.
Solace stared with wide eyes. “Where did she go, Insight?”
A dour expression came across Insight’s face. “She descended to the place where the slimy filth of humanity’s sin slowly seeps. Sin leads to destruction and damnation. Sin leads to Hell. Come. The Gates of Damnation is our last stop before we return. The hour is growing late.”
The two angels took to the air again and flew a few miles to the East. After a short while, a vast cavern came into view at the base of a mountain. The smell of sulfur was overwhelming.
“Before we enter, you must remember that we are not here to act, but to learn. The urge to storm the gates will be great, for the amount of evil behind them is immense. But it is not the time for battle. That time is reserved for when God commands.”
Insight and Solace entered the dark cave, and cautiously moved forward on the steep and widely spaced path.
“There are very few caverns like this one. Beneath the earth’s surface, the sewage of humanity drains into a massive nexus of rocky paths that lead down to the Gates of Damnation. This path here is the widest and most accessible. The path of the righteous is narrow, but the path of the wicked is wide. This path is so wide and well travelled that it is actually accessible from the surface. We are in a very grim place, Solace.”
Insight pointed up. “Look up there. Do you see that person sinking through the ceiling? That is what happens to the unsaved when they die. They finally drop down and lifelessly roll to the black gates at the end. Once someone enters those gates, they are admitted for eternity.”
Solace pointed up at what appeared to be gold on the ceiling. “Why is there gold up there? Isn’t all gold reserved for heaven?”
“Ah yes, that is gold indeed. That gold prevents the elect from sinking into the Earth. It acts as an anchor for God’s salvation to keep the righteous suspended in air. You see, it is impossible for the elect to enter Hell, because their righteous perseverance is sure. Even if they stray for a while, their salvation is absolute. The gold prevents them from sinking, no matter how sinful they become. After all, even the sins they commit after they are saved have been covered by Christ’s blood.”
Solace and Insight continued down the path and stopped abruptly upon viewing the black Gates of Damnation. Bodies rolled past them and through the gates, which opened as each damned body approached. Faint cries and horrifying screams could be heard from beyond the twisted black metal. Solace began to cry.
Insight comforted the troubled angel, “Do not be downcast O Solace, for the destruction these souls are receiving is just. The price of sin is steep, just as the rewards of righteousness are great.”
“But these poor people had no choice! They could not enter into heaven because God did not choose them! How can this be just if it isn’t their fault?”
“Solace, it is their fault because they indeed committed sin. The wages of sin is death, because sin and God are completely incompatible!”
“I understand that, but even if these people wanted to become saved, they could not!”
“Ah, you misunderstand the matter, Solace. None of these souls have ever wanted to become saved. If they had desired salvation, they would be saved indeed! God refuses salvation to no one who calls upon his name through Jesus Christ.”
“Why didn’t they ask for salvation then?”
“Because God did not choose them. Remember, salvation is based on election. Nothing more.”
“But I thought you said it depends on whether someone calls upon God’s name through Christ? Isn’t that their decision?”
“It may seem like that is the case, but God chose them before time began. Before they were even born they were destined to become a member of the elect. Nothing they do—not even a choice—saves them. Only God’s absolute will can save them.”
“Then humanity isn’t free! God is also choosing people to enter Hell, Insight! Why would God predestine someone for—” a large quake shook the ground upon which the angels were standing.
“Hurry, Solace, we must leave this place of destruction, for the evil one is drawing near. Our presence has not gone unnoticed.”
Insight took Solace by the hand as the two angels swiftly flew out of the cave and back to the Earth’s muggy surface.
“It is time for us to return to heaven, Solace, you have seen much and undoubtedly need time to reflect.”
Insight began to fly upward, but Solace resisted.
“Solace! Come, let us go!”
Solace looked out at the masses in the mire. “I can’t. I feel I must stay.”
“It is not your duty to stay, Solace, you must come back to heaven to continue your studies. You are not meant to stay with humanity.”
“Insight, I respect you and love you, but I cannot return to heaven. I feel I must stay and comfort those who are sinking into the ground. They need at least some comfort before they die, considering where they are being forced to spend eternity.”
“Blasphemy! Solace, if you dare defy the will of the living God, you will suffer the same fate as these evil and wretched people!”
“If that is my fate then so be it. I cannot live in heaven if people are sinking into Hell because of no reason other than the will of God. I must try to lift them out of their miry graves, even if it means sinking with them.”
Insight’s face reddened. “Solace, quit speaking such foolishness. Return with me to heaven, and we will address these matters. If you decline, I will be forced to deem you a fallen angel and a servant of Lucifer.”
Tears ran down Solace’s face. “I choose to stay. I love these poor people who are unwillingly drowning into eternal suffering. I cannot return, lest these people come with me.”
“Do you love these people more than God? Is your sympathy for these evil creatures greater than your desire to please the most Holy Lord? So be it, Solace. You leave me with no other choice.”
Insight grabbed Solace’s heavenly seal from around his neck and tore it from him. Without another word, Insight flew back into heaven. Solace watched with his face wet with tears. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken your creation? Why have you caused such evil upon your creation and your humble servant? My heart is crushed, and my soul is downcast. My wings cannot lift me, and the sorrow of the lost forces me down. Their fate is undeserved! Their eternal destruction is caused by you, and their freedom does not exist. I long for your love, but can feel it no longer as your acts of destruction and injustice have shrouded your face.”
Without another word uttered toward heaven, Solace, the angel of sympathy, embraced a young girl who was sinking and staring blankly into the mud. Through tears Solace said to the little girl, “Do not be weary O daughter of Earth, we will sink together, for there is at least one being here who has chosen to love you and desires for you to live.”
Chapter 6: Confessions of an ex-Calvinist
For the past two years and for the first time in my life, I questioned not only some of the things I had been taught regarding theology, but also what the Bible seemed to indicate. I finally came to the conclusion that the consequences of Calvinism are too much to bear and sit at the brink of absurdity. In my immature thinking, I took an all or nothing point of view when it came to things like this. I reached the point (in my mind) of making the choice to either accept Calvinism and all of its consequences, or to reject it. But by rejecting it, I felt like I was rejecting my faith and slipping into an atheistic mindset. If Calvinism is false, then Christianity is false. Or so went my thinking.
For a short period of time, I probably would have classified myself as an agnostic. I can honestly say that I no longer knew if my Christianity was justified by both Scripture and logic. In order to find a way to justify my faith, I turned to the tumor that had killed me. That tumor, in essence, was the absurdity of predestination, and in turn the Calvinistic doctrines that follow from it. I asked myself a series of simple questions. What if Christianity is true, and predestination is not? What if Christianity is true, but Calvinistic deduction is not? Without Calvinism, does Christianity make sense, and does Scripture support such a view? The idea that followed was one of love.
I reflected upon the necessary conditions for relationship, and reasoned that free will is necessary for a loving relationship to exist. Through the cross, we are able to enter into an intimate relationship with the God of the universe. But if the cross is forced through predestination, then so is the “relationship” that follows. Can it truly then be called a “relationship” if it is only singularly directed? Put another way, is it possible to have a relationship with a robot that has been programmed for predetermined functions or ends? I argue that it is not (and am writing a story to be published soon called “In His Image”), and that for a relationship to truly be a relationship, there must be a mutual (free) decision from both sides to engage in “love.” C.S. Lewis puts it rather elegantly in Mere Christianity, “The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.” And in Miracles, Lewis writes, “[Sin] was rendered possible by the fact that God gave them free will: thus surrendering a portion of His omnipotence because He saw that from a world of free creatures, even though they fell, He could work out a deeper happiness and a fuller splendour than any world of automata would admit.” Predestination, on the other hand, effectively razes relationship and promotes singular love–the love of puppets in the clever guise of “humans” suspended in air for the ultimate fate of bliss or torture.
Central to this theology is mankind’s free will. Calvinism asserts that we are not free, but I argue that without free will, both personal relationship and love is impossible. If there is not a free decision made to desire another person or to love another person, then there is nothing more than an automated program of sorts performing what appears to be love. Love cannot exist without free will. Christianity without mutual love cannot be. This added on top of the necessary consequences outlined in Chapter 3 is simply too much for me to accept.
I mentioned in the introduction that I am not sure whether this new faith (which is, despite its very similar appearance, very different from Calvinism) is really a new life at all, or merely a dream. The reason I say this is because Calvinism is something that has been taught to me in one form or another throughout my entire life. Predestination isn’t just something endorsed by Calvinists, but by the majority of Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians. It is easy to side with the majority, and many times their arguments can be convincing. Nonetheless, I have ultimately adopted a disdainful attitude towards both predestination and Calvinism I fear I cannot change. Like Descartes’ meditation, I too realized “false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them.”
I admit that I now consider myself an agnostic about many things Fundamental Christianity objectively claims—about things I previously wouldn’t have dared question—about things not even mentioned in this essay, yet are preached nearly every Sunday from the majority of pulpits. It has happened slowly as my education has progressed and my personal inquiries into the subjects of God, religion, philosophy, human nature, and even psychology have deepened. Some might think I have “fallen away.” Others may deem my beliefs blatantly agnostic. Neither of these assertions are wholly true, I will be the first to say, though they are at least partly true. I cannot deny them outright.
In light of this, however, it doesn’t matter what I believe or want to believe—what is will always be. Like Solace in “Masses in the Mire,” I will be deeply saddened if Calvinism is true. I do not think I could reject the god of Calvinism like Solace for fear of judgment and my need for salvation through Christ (and since I am a Christian, and therefore a member of the elect, would not be able to reject him). But one thing is clear to me: if Calvinism is true, my eternity will be filled with an underlying presence of despondency. That is, if the god of Calvinism doesn’t forcibly erase it.
3 Responses »