Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Was salvation an afterthought?

Calvinism’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty in providence includes its doctrine of predestination. According to it, absolutely nothing ever happens or can happen that God did not decree and render certain. Even sin and evil are part of God’s plan; he planned them, ordained them, and governs them. He doesn’t cause them, but he does render them certain. 
What does this mean? Few consistent Calvinists hesitate to admit that they believe even the fall of Adam and Eve and all its consequences, all the sin, evil and agony of the world, are decreed and rendered certain by God. 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-calvinism/

I'd like to make one brief observation: if God didn't plan the Fall, then God didn't plan the Cross. There was no plan of salvation. Redemption was an afterthought. Something God cobbled together on the fly. 

8 comments:

  1. Perhaps I need to rethink this, but it seems that your brief observation doesn't exactly make sense. If God allowed for multiple possible futures, then none of them would be "unplanned" or an "afterthought." Even we plan for A or B to happen. If A happens, then we do A'. If B happens, then we do B'. God's plan to have a people to himself would be consistent with no fall as would his plan with the fall. Nothing for God and even oftentimes for us is "cobbled together" when we know of the distinct possibilities and have a plan for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're failing to appreciating the linkage between a planned/unplanned fall and a planned/unplanned response to the Fall. Olson strenuously denies that God planned the Fall. But your appeal to contingency plans for multiple possible futures either applies to both the Fall and redemption, or neither one.

      Delete
  2. Steve,

    I was mainly posing a possible solution to the dilemma you presented. I believe this would solve the apparent problem with Olson's proposal. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A solution on whose terms? Olson's? You have to apply contingency plans consistently to interrelated events. How can there be a plan of salvation if the fall is an unplanned event? I don't see you addressing the linkage.

      Delete
    2. I would say a solution on terms of Arminianism in general and perhaps Olson as well. I failed to see where he said the fall wasn't part of a plan. God's plan in this scenario would be a people for his own possession that has the free-will to love God or not. God would desire that all men love him, but plans that that might not occur. Because of that, he plans for a way of redemption if it be needed.

      Delete
    3. Olson is contrasting Calvinism, in which God planned the Fall, with Arminianism, in which God did not plan the fall. Moreover, this is hardly the first time he's done that.

      Delete
    4. Your "solution" implies open theism, where God doesn't know ahead of time how the future will actually turn out, so the best he can do is to prepare for multiple contingencies. After all, if God knows what will happen, then these fallback plans are superfluous.

      Delete
  3. An ad hoc god simply isn't the God Who self-identifies in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete