Friday, December 14, 2018

What is Calvinism?

I. Preliminaries

I've discussed this before, but now I'd like to offer a more comprehensive statement. This will reflect my own understanding.

Calvinism is often defined by the "five points of Calvinism". But while that's an integral element of Calvinism, it's a reductionistic definition. 

There's a distinction between Reformed distinctives and Reformed essentials. Calvinism shares many essentials in common with other theological traditions. Usually the question "what is Calvinism" has reference to things that distinguish Calvinism from freewill theism or (traditionally) Catholicism. But it's misleading to define a theological tradition primarily by what makes it different from other theological traditions. 

Even in that respect, Reformed distinctives aren't necessarily unique to Calvinism. Calvinism is not the only predestinarian theological tradition. There's Augustinianism, classical Thomism, and Jansenism. 

This post is not a defense of Calvinism, but an exposition of some key tenets.


II. Snapshot definitions

i) Philosophical definition

Calvinism is the view that everything happens for a reason. 

ii) Theological definition

Calvinism is the view that salvation is by grace alone. Sinners make no independent contribution to their salvation.

III. Absolute universal predestination

God has predestined every event. Physical events and mental events. "Blueprint" predestination. A master plan or plot. 

Predestination is absolute in the sense that nothing outside of God conditioned his plan. Predestination isn't based on what will happen; rather, what will happen is based on predestination.

Calvinism allows for alternate possibilities. However, what might have been isn't independent of God. Rather, possible worlds reflect God's imagination. 

Events are conditionally necessary by virtue of predestination. Given predestination, everything must happen according to plan. 

That doesn't mean predestination is antecedently necessary. Leibniz thought there was a best possible world, and the principle of sufficient reason required God to choose the best possible world.

However, I don't believe there's a best possible world. There are better possible worlds and worse possible worlds. No one world history contains all possible goods. 

In principle, God could create more than one possible world. In principle, God could create a less good world. 

Predestination means human agents lack freedom in the sense that human agents can never think or act contrary to what has been predestined. That doesn't preclude other concepts of freedom. The definition of freewill didn't fall from the sky. Rather, that's a philosophical issue subject to various constructions. 

IV. Unconditional election

Election is unconditional in the sense that God's choice isn't base on human merit or foreseen receptivity to the Gospel. 

That doesn't mean election is a roll of the dice. God can still have reasons for electing some individuals and reprobating others. Humans are agents. A world in which you have a different distribution of elect and reprobate will have a different world history. If God reprobated Abraham, that would change the course of world history. Election can take into consideration the plot that God prefers. 

V. Reprobation

There's an asymmetry between election and reprobation. Unlike election, reprobation has an element of conditionality–although it's not contingent on anything independent of God. God doesn't damn anyone who's innocent. Guilt is a necessary but insufficient condition of reprobation. If guilt was a sufficient condition, all sinners would be damned. 

VI. Meticulous providence

Providence is the mirror-image of predestination. Providence is predestination in its execution while predestination is providence in its intention (Warfield). The scope of providence is commensurate with the scope of predestination. God's plan unfolds by means of primary causation and secondary causation, creation and miracle. 

VII. Original sin

i) All humans are held guilty in Adam

That doesn't preclude actual sin. 

ii) All humans are morally corrupted. 

Original sin includes spiritual inability. Absent monergistic regeneration, humans are unreceptive to the Gospel. 

That's another sense in which humans lack freedom. That's narrower than lack of freedom due to predestination, and unlike predestination, where inability to do otherwise is absolute, spiritual inability is not absolute. Spiritual renewal enables a sinner to be receptive to the Gospel.

Spiritual inability doesn't preclude other kinds of freedom. It's not an intellectual impediment to understanding the Gospel. People can hate an unwelcome truth. 

VIII. Redemption

i) Limited atonement

Christ died to redeem elect sinners.

ii) Vicarious atonement

Christ died on behalf of and in place of the elect.

iii) Penal substitution

The sacrificial death of Christ satisfies the justice of God.

IX. Regeneration

Regeneration is causally prior to faith. Regeneration is a source of faith. The Gospel is the object of faith while regeneration restores an irrepressible predisposition to believe the Gospel. 

X. Justification

i) Although sanctifying grace is a necessary condition of salvation, justification is contingent on faith alone. 

ii) When God justifies sinners, he imputes the merit of Christ's atonement to believers (an ascribed status). 

XI. Perseverance

Those whom God elects, redeems, and regenerates cannot fail to be saved. While it's possible for a professing Christian to commit apostasy, it's not possible for a born-again Christian to lose his salvation. 

28 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said at the outset, this post is not a defense of Calvinism, but an exposition of some key tenets.

      Moreover, I'm not going to respond to lengthy screeds by hack Arminians. I pick my opponents. I critique major Arminian representatives like Jerry Walls, Roger Olson, and Brian Abasciano, to cite more recent examples. Occasionally I even respond to Leighton Flowers, if something of his appears in my Facebook notifications.

      Delete
    2. Holding isn't an Arminian or a Calvinist.

      Delete
    3. He's a duke's mixture. Point is, I'm not going to spend my time on hicks and hacks. My preference is to respond to high-level spokesmen for an opposing position or else influential popularizers. Sorry, but I don't consider Holding to be a serious scholar.

      Delete
    4. Joe, you're welcome to challenge my post, but either do it directly or at least link to quality critiques.

      Delete
    5. My name isn't Joe. And, if you think that you are so much better than Holding, why don't you to to TheologyWeb after the holidays (he is dealing with an issue right now) and challenge him to a debate on Calvinism?

      Delete
    6. Isn’t Holding basically a Molinist? If so, Steve has already interacted with far more capable proponents of Molinism than Holding. For example, Steve has interacted with William Lane Craig on Molinism.

      Delete
    7. I didn't say whether or not I think I'm better than Holding. I defend Calvinism against critics on a regular basis. I don't need to interact with every dime-a-dozen critic of Calvinism. And I don't need to justify my time-management priorities to you. Holding doesn't make the cut.

      Delete
  2. Also, on this entry, a guy named Frodric Frankenstein made a good comment:

    Rachel Held Evans: Why Calvinism Makes Me Cry

    Frodric: Gratefully, Calvinism falls apart when you realize they have to redefine Election in a way not used by Second Temple Jews, in order to make the system work. Election is about God's divine choice to make a covenant with Israel, not about his predetermination to save some and reprobate others, without their will or knowledge. The whole system falls apart at that point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For a corrective, read Schreiner's revised commentary on Romans, esp. on Rom 8-11, as well as Baugh on Ephesians. The question at issue isn't some Second Temple mismash, but Paul's specific teaching.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Sometimes some Amazon reviews are helpful. However, when it comes to a complex issue like Calvinism, or even a review of a scholarly tome like Schreiner’s commentary on Romans, a lay perspective isn’t necessarily an ideal option. It’d be better to read a review from a fellow biblical scholar. Perhaps an evangelical academic journal will have a good review of Schreiner’s commentary on Romans.

      Delete
    4. The Amazon reviewer didn't engage the details of Schreiner's exegesis. Moreover, that was a comment on the 1st edition of his commentary, not the revised edition. Intellectual shortcuts don't get you to the destination.

      Delete
  3. If you wish to take issue with something in this post, either present your own argument or link to a reputable source. But I'm not going down rabbit trails by every Arminian Li'l Abner.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Steve. Nice summary. I started out as an Arminian but I am now a Calvanist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the wisest people ended up Calvinists. ;)

      Delete
    2. Same here. It was theologically and philosophically liberating to go from baby milk to solid food. As when one thinks back to the 1980s and the awful clothes they used to wear, I cringe when I think back to the dreadful arguments (standard theological/exegetical and philosophical arguments grounded ultimately in man-centred emotion) I would make as an Arminian.

      Delete
  5. Limited atonement refers to the potential/capacity of the atonement or the end result/ effectiveness of the atonement?

    The death of Christ is apt to save all men but only the elect benefit from it. Is this what limited atonement means?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conhecereis - I have not looked at this stuff in ages but would like to take a stab. There are at least two versions of the Limited Atonement that have made the rounds through history.

      LA1: Christ died a death that could potentially be effective for all but really is effective only for some.

      ~ So if apart from Christ, only a 100 people ever existed on this planet and Christ died for 10 of them, then His death could save all 100 potentially - it is sufficient for that, however it will effectively only save 10.

      ~ LA1 is the more extant and common understanding of the Limited Atonement.

      LA2: Christ died a death that as far as the nonelect are concerned is insufficient for them and as far as the elect are concerned is both sufficient and effective for them.

      ~ So in LA2, if there were only a 100 people on the planet and Christ died for 10 of them, then his atonement is effective and sufficient for those 10 only. It not only has no application for the other 90, it cannot. Its insufficient for that.

      LA2, I believe goes by the name equivalentism and is defended by Tom Nettles today. I think its problematic and even odd. Let me use an illustration to explain how I think it works. I call it the Accountant's Atonement.

      ~ Just as an accountant sets up a T-table and does debits and credits on both sides until a balance is achieved, so also in LA2, you play debits and credits with sin and suffering until things balance out. That is to say if the 10 people mentioned up above committed 784,981 sins, then Christ died for 784,981 sins and not one more, nor one less. You better have 784,981 on both sides of the T. Christs suffering must balance that exact amount of sins.

      ~ Now LA2, aka equivalentism, (= Christ's suffering is equivalent to a set number of sins), seems to me to be problematic for at least two reasons.

      1) It may create problems for the doctrine of Hell in that it may create problems for the idea of sin as an infinite offense against God idea. What unit(s) of finite suffering can atone for 1 sin that is an infinite offense. Or are we dealing with infinite units of suffering... As I said - odd.

      2) It may run into Sorites/Vagueness problems.

      Ok... said too much. Ciao!

      Delete
    2. As I use the term, it refers to the design of the atonement. God intends the atonement to redeem elect sinners.

      Delete
    3. That explains why I have seen some Calvinists explain this point differently.
      I subscribe the version LA1.
      Thanks

      Delete
  6. Holding has been writing for a leading apologetics magazine for 18 years. He also has been cited by popular works. I think he is a serious scholar. Also, he said that he debated Steve, and Steve didn't know what to do with any of his social science stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hm, this "apologetics magazine" wouldn't happen to be associated with Holding's own Tektonics ministry, would it? In any case, magazines aren't typically equivalent to academic journals (e.g. no peer review).

      Also, "cited by popular works" is so vague. One could cite oneself in a popular work, for example. Not suggesting that's Holding did, but point being the statement is so vague it could include lots of things includingtthings which aren't "scholarly".

      In short, neither of these statements suggest Holding is a "serious scholar" if that's what you're aiming to show.

      Delete
    2. I like Holding but his theology is a little wonky and Steve did refute him a while back on the "Block Logic" stuff. I recommend you stay away from crazy Southern Baptist fake theologians like Johnathan Pritchett and Flowers. T-blog has plenty of resources and I recommend you read their articles defending their thoughts before you just start typing nonsensical statements about exchanges you haven't read.

      Delete
    3. And if Holding already debated Steve (I'll assume on Calvinism since this is the context of the post), then why call Steve to debate Holding again?

      Delete
    4. Holding belongs to a subculture of homegrown apologists who network with each other and scratch each other's back. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. I make no great claims for myself.

      But there are far more competent exponents of freewill theism than he. I prefer to pick my targets and sparring partners from higher up the food chain.

      You're entitled to your opinion of Holding. But you can't make me share your opinion.

      Your obsession is rather odd. I've done hundreds of posts on this subject.

      Delete
    5. 'Also, he said that he debated Steve, and Steve didn't know what to do with any of his social science stuff.'

      Good grief. Did I just read that? Try reading things for yourself instead of running around blindly like a fawning lackey. We are not in the school playground where Johnny shouts, 'My mate said he beat you up!'

      Delete
  7. Steve already debated Holding on Calvinism and related topics. Just do a search. For example:

    site:triablogue.blogspot.com holding

    ReplyDelete