This will be a running
commentary on a lecture (“What’s Wrong with Calvinism?”) Jerry Walls gave at
Houston Baptist U, available on YouTube. This has gotten lots of high-fives in
Arminian circles.
Before
commenting on the specifics, I’ll make a general observation. Jerry talks down to his audience. It’s
like he’s teaching little kids in Sunday School. At one point he even feels the
need to explain a common idiom (“bite the bullet”), as if his audience lacks a command
of conversational English.
Throughout the lectures, he assumes a tone of calculated
shock. There’s a steady build-up to the shocking revelations about the true
character of Calvinism. For a Calvinist like me, it’s unintentionally comical
to listen to him unveil Calvinism in incredulous, scandalized tones.
Jerry says the deepest issue distinguishing Calvinism from
Wesleyan Arminianism is not nature of freedom. However, that’s critical to
understanding the deepest issue.
He quotes a phrase from the Westminster Confession: “Determining them, most freely.”
He
admits this is coherent, given a compatibilist or soft determinist definition
of freedom, which he proceeds to define thusly:
There is no logical inconsistency between freedom and
determinism. Freedom and responsibility are compatible with total determinism.
A free act is not caused or compelled by anything external
to the agent who performs it. The agent isn’t forced to act against his will
It is, however, caused by something internal to the agent,
namely, a psychological state of affairs such as a belief, desire or some
combination of these two.
The agent performing the act could have done differently if
he had wanted to. Freedom defines in counterfactual conditional terms.
The agent is determined to act given psychological states. Those
states are caused by something external. But once you’ve got those, you act
freely.
He says this is the definition of philosophically
sophisticated Calvinists like John Feinberg.
i) To his credit, Jerry concedes the internal consistency of
Calvinism at this juncture. I’ve read Arminians who don’t even attempt to
understand Calvinism on its own terms.
Admittedly, this is a throwaway concession on his part, for
he’s still going to lower the boom on Calvinism later on.
ii) That said, when you interpret a phrase from a 17C
document (e.g. the WCF), you need to define the phrase in terms of 17C
theological usage. What did “freedom” mean to the Westminster Divines?
I don’t see that Jerry has investigated the historic usage
of the Confession. He just gives us a generic definition of compatibilism.
iii) In addition, his definition is problematic.
Compatibilism, as he defines it, is not the only deterministic theory of free
agency. There’s a lot of work being done in action theory. So Jerry’s
definition is simplistic and dated.
iv) Moreover, Calvinism is not committed to any particular
theory of the will. It’s not so much a question of what action theory Calvinism
espouses, but what action theory Calvinism opposes. Calvinism opposes any
theory of the will that runs contrary to absolute predestination, meticulous
providence, spiritual inability, monergistic regeneration, divine hardening,
plenary verbal inspiration, and so on.
But as long as a theory of the will is consistent with
various Reformed doctrines, Calvinism doesn’t select for any particular theory
of the will.
He then says this definition has a “huge implication” that
“can’t be overstated.” He
highlights this implication by quoting a statement by Paul Helm:
If we suppose some form of compatibilism, then God could
have created men and women who freely (in a sense compatible with determinism)
did only what was morally right.
This, in turn, sets the stage for what Walls is pleased to
brand the “Calvinist conundrum”:
1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Truly to love someone is to desire their well being and
to promote their true flourishing as much as you can.
3. The well being and true flourishing of all persons is to
be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we
love and obey him.
4. God could determine all persons freely to accept a right
relationship with himself and be saved.
5. Therefore, all will be saved.
Jerry admits that some Calvinists escape the conundrum by
denying premise #1. They deny that God loves everyone.
Jerry says that’s consistent Calvinism. They embraced the
“huge” implication “without flinching.” Mind you, he thinks that Calvinists who
sidestep the conundrum achieve consistency at an exorbitant price.
Jerry quotes Arthur Pink, McGregor Wright, and John Piper as
representatives of this option.
Actually, he quotes Wright as saying: “God never had the
slightest intention of saving everyone.”
i) That, however, isn’t equivalent to denying that God loves
everyone. Although that’s consistent with such a denial, God might, in
principle, love everyone, yet have no intention of saving everyone.
ii) Be that as it may, the quote is more problematic for
Arminianism. The Arminian God never had the slightest intention of saving those
he foresaw were doomed to hell if he made them. So Jerry’s example circles back
and bites his own position in the tail.
There are also problems with his appeal to John Piper:
i) For one thing, Piper is a well-known exponent of the
“two-wills” view of God. So it’s not clear that Piper denies premise #1.
ii) After quoting Piper’s statement that God would be just
to damn his own sons, Jerry says that “maybe Piper loves sons better than God.”
Jerry says this as if it’s self-evidently outrageous to
imagine that a parent might love his own child more than God loves his child.
But what’s surprising or incongruous about that possibility?
a) To begin with, some mothers and fathers are blinded by
parental love. They take a “my child right or wrong” approach. No matter what
their child does to anyone else, they always side with their child. But
although that may be psychologically understandable, that’s not ethically
admirable. They so completely identify with their own kids that they ditch
elementary moral standards where their own kids are concerned.
b) In addition, Arminianism traditionally affirms
everlasting punishment. So does God love the damned less than their parents?
Would parents damn their children?
Jerry says that according to Calvinism, the vast majority is
destined for damnation. He doesn’t cite any Reformed creed to that effect.
Having outlined consistent Calvinism, Jerry surveys
inconsistent Calvinists who “waffle” on the alleged conundrum.
He singles out J. I. Packer. Packer says human beings are
divinely controlled, yet morally responsible agents. Packer says that’s a
mystery.
Jerry attacks that position. He objects to Calvinists like
Packer who “punt to mystery” under the “guise of superior piety.”
Jerry distinguishes real from apparent contradictions, explicit
from implicit contradictions, and offers his own definitions of mystery and
paradox.
Now, I myself am one of those Calvinists who denies premise
#1. So the alleged conundrum doesn’t apply to me.
However, there are Calvinists who think the Bible teaches
both reprobation and God’s universal love or universal salvific desire.
Although I don’t agree with that position, if a Christian genuinely believes
the Bible teaches both, then it’s proper and pious for him to invoke divine
mystery or paradox. They defer to the authority of Scripture, as they
understand it. That is a mark of superior piety, compared to Jerry’s
position.
In the same vein, Jerry attacks Packer’s claim that the
Gospel is “freely offered. God gives all free agency (voluntary decision-making
power), so that we are answerable to him for what we do.”
He considers that to be “confused.” But suppose, for the
sake of argument, that Packer’s position is confused? Unlike John Feinberg or
Paul Helm, whom Jerry previously cited as examples of “philosophically
sophisticated” Calvinists, Packer is not a Reformed philosopher or
philosophical theologian. Packer is a systematic theologian with a predilection
for historical theology–especially the Puritans. If Packer’s position is
incoherent, that may simply mean he lacks the philosophical aptitude and
training to formulate a logically consistent position. He has his limitations.
He’s better at systematic theology and pastoral theology than philosophical
theology. Big deal.
Having mentioned the offer in the gospel in reference to
Packer, Jerry segues into a segment on “Core Calvinism”
1. Only the elect can actually accept the offer of salvation
2. Not all are elect
3. Not all persons can actually accept the offer of
salvation and be saved.
He raises the stock Arminian objection that the offer of the
gospel is insincere or dishonest unless every sinner could “really” could
respond or “actually” accept the offer.
He ignores standard Reformed rejoinders:
i) A bona fide offer is a true offer. Since the offer is
conditional (“If you believe, you will be saved”), the veracity of the offer is
not contingent on whether a would-be respondent is able to respond, but whether
he would receive what the offer promises in case he responded.
ii) Assuming the classic Arminian doctrine of divine
foreknowledge, God foreknows that everyone to whom the offer is made will not
respond. So does that make the offer disingenous?
iii) God doesn’t offer the gospel directly, but indirectly,
through preachers and evangelists who, in the nature of the case, don’t know
the disposition of the sinner.
iv) In addition, Jerry’s description of the “universal”
offer is equivocal. The offer of the gospel isn’t universal in the sense of
offering the gospel to all, for the gospel isn’t offered to every
human being who ever lived.
Of course, Jerry subscribes to postmortem evangelism. But
that’s not how the offer of the gospel is framed in the NT.
Jerry then discusses “Ambiguous Calvinism,” by which he
means Calvinists who allegedly “slide back and forth between a libertarian view
of human responsibility and a compatibilist view of divine sovereignty.
In that connection he quotes a statement by Calvin
(Institutes, 3.24.8) about how rejecting the offer of the gospel aggravates the
guilt of the sinner. However, Jerry fails to explain how that’s ambiguous.
And, in fact, we have examples in Scripture where OT
prophets are told ahead of time that their warnings will fall on deaf ears. In
that event, the warning is not intended to convert the sinner. The effect would
be to aggravate his guilt.
Jerry then discusses Calvin’s position in relation to
backsliders and the “dreaded false hope.” However, the notion that a professing
believer can entertain false assurance of salvation is hardly unique to
Calvinism. In most theological traditions it is possible for professing
believer to be self-deluded.
From there, Jerry shift to “Misleading Calvinism.” He says
Calvinists who tell unbelievers that God loves them are dishonest. He singles
out D. A. Carson, who distinguishes between different senses of divine “love”:
1. Providential love, viz. rain falls on just and unjust
(common grace).
2. Whosoever will, may come
3. Effective selective love towards elect.
I myself don’t think it’s necessary to tell unbelievers
generally that God loves them. However, there’s nothing dishonest about
distinguishing between differing degrees of “love.” We don’t love strangers or
enemies as much as we love our spouse, or mother, or son or daughter.
Jerry exclaims: “Isn’t that the gospel, for crying out loud?
Christ died for the world.
i) That objection assumes an Arminian definition of the
“world.” But in Johannine usage, the “world” is not synonymous with “everyone.”
Indeed, the “world” is often set in contrast to Christians. Exclusive rather
than inclusive.
ii) Moreover, did Jesus give his life for pagans who lived
and died before the advent of Christ? What does that mean, exactly?
God called Abraham out of paganism, but he left the rest of Abraham’s countrymen in darkness. God made a covenant with Abraham and his posterity. Eventually that would redound to the benefit of future gentiles. But most gentiles were consigned to ignorance, idolatry, and superstition.
At one point Jerry says that if a Reformed preacher
explained to the unbeliever what he really meant, if he told him that, “for all
you know you may be damned for all eternity,” the Calvinist resurgence would
lose its popularity in two years.
But that’s really an objection to everlasting punishment
rather than Calvinism. Wesley believed in hell.
He then asks: “Does God love those he sends to hell
unconditionally?”
i) God doesn’t “unconditionally” send anyone to hell. There
are no innocents in hell. Everyone there is a sinner.
ii) Speaking for myself, I don’t think God loves the damned.
iii) But we could turn Jerry’s question around: Does God
love those he send to hell conditionally”? Eternal punishment isn’t remedial
punishment. It’s not for the benefit of the damned.
Jerry then attacks a position he imputes to Calvinism:
God can’t do this because he wouldn’t be fully glorified if
he didn’t damn some.
God gets more glory out of determining people to blaspheme,
to commit horrendous sins, then punishing them forever.
For his nature to be wholly manifest, God must damn some. He
needs eternal evil to be fully God.
But that’s a straw man:
i) God doesn’t “get more glory” by reprobating sinners. God
doesn’t need evil to be fully God.
Manifesting his nature is hardly equivalent to “getting
glory” for himself or needing evil to be himself. And the manifestation is for
the benefit of others, not himself. God hardly needs to manifest his nature to
himself.
ii) To my knowledge, Jerry rejects annihilationism. So Jerry
believes in eternal evil.
Jerry then says “Calvinists are all about power.” That’s
just slander. Jerry is an Arminian bigot.
Jerry says that Calvinism subordinates Love to will. But
that’s just his jaundiced characterization. God loves the elect. God ensures
their salvation. That’s far more than the Arminian God does for the lost.
Jerry says “Calvinists favor imagery of God as sovereign,
king.”
I don’t know where Jerry comes up with this stuff.
Calvinists affirm all of the theological models for God in Scripture.
Jerry makes the odd comment that the first person of the
Trinity is called “Father” rather than “Lord.”
i) Of course, Jewish fathers were authority-figures.
ii) Does he think “Lord” is not a proper title for God the
Father?
iii) Conversely, the second person of the Trinity is
typically called “Lord” rather than “Father.” So where does that leave Jerry’s
argument?
He objects to Calvinists who say “Who are you to question
God?”
But, of course, Calvinists are simply repeating Paul’s
riposte, in Rom 9.
He then says the proper question is “How would a God of
perfect love express his sovereignty?”
Well, that’s a good question to turn back on Arminians. The
Arminian God is far less loving than he could be. For instance, why doesn’t the
Arminian God give advance warning of natural disasters? Advance warning
wouldn’t infringe on freewill or destabilize the natural order. Indeed, advance
warning would give humans more choices.
Likewise, why does the Arminian God let the powerful abuse
the weak? How is that loving to the weak?
Early in the lecture, Jerry contrasted compatibilism with
the libertarian theory, which he tendentiously dubs the “intuitive” or “common
sense” theory. He defines libertarian freedom thusly:
A free action is one that is not determined by prior causes
or conditions. As he makes the choice, the agent has the power to choose A and
the power to choose not-A, and it is up to him how he will choose.
One problem with this definition is that not all freewill
theists define libertarian freedom as choosing between alternative possibilities.
For instance, William Lane Craig is a prominent freewill theist who rejects
that definition of libertarian freedom.
But there’s a bigger problem. Towards the end of the
lecture, Jerry says there are some things God can’t want to do. God can’t choose
to love or not to love. For God, loving everyone is necessary rather than
optional. Jerry also says that he could never strangle his own
granddaughter.
But in that event, Jerry has conceded that God lacks
libertarian freedom. Moreover, that humans like Jerry lack libertarian freedom.
