# Biblical Calvinism vs. Popular Calvinism



## tellville (Apr 24, 2006)

This was over on Vincent Cheung's blog today, and I was wonderning what you guys thought. I hear people espouse "both versions" of Calvinism. I thought that Chueng's definition of "consistent Calvinisim" sounded a little hyper to me, but maybe I am wrong. 

Vincent Cheung:
Consistent Calvinism affirms with Scripture that divine sovereignty is incompatible with human freedom, and since Scripture teaches that God is absolutely sovereign, this completely excludes and destroys human freedom. Man has no free will; he is not free at all. It is true that man exercises his will "“ he makes decisions "“ but his will is not free. Rather, his will "“ how he makes decisions and what decisions he makes "“ is directly and constantly controlled by God for both good and evil, both faith and unbelief. And God is righteous by definition in all the actions that he performs upon the creatures. I have offered full expositions of this biblical scheme elsewhere.

Then, there is the popular form of Calvinism. This is the inconsistent view that says divine sovereignty and human freedom are "compatible" in some sense, that moral responsibility presupposes some measure or sense of "self-determination," that God has desires that contradict one another, that God issues divine decrees to effect things against that which he desires, perhaps to establish that which he desires even more, that God could decree the reprobation of individuals, making it impossible for them to believe, but still "sincerely" offer them salvation as if they could believe, that God somehow rules over evil but have no direct causative relation with it, that Adam was created innocent and without evil but could somehow perform evil without God causing him to do so, that we can affirm the reality of evil but deny that God exercises any direct causative power over it and still somehow avoid lapsing into deism or dualism, that we can affirm both sides of an "apparent" contradiction, and that Scripture teaches "apparently" contradictory doctrines that are not real contradictions in the mind of God. We will make no attempt to defend this unbiblical and irrational bundle of confusion.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by tellville]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 24, 2006)

It makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## tellville (Apr 24, 2006)

By a lot of sense do you mean "consistent Calvinism" is the right way to go?


----------



## natewood3 (Apr 24, 2006)

Cheung affirms that there is no Biblical problem with saying that God is the author of sin. As far as the will and the sovereignty of God is concerned, I see his point. I am not sure if I agree though. It is a complex issue to make the human will and sovereignty of God compatible, and you do seem to run into some apparent contradictions. One thing I don't like is to say that God simply "permits" evil or sin in that He just simply passively sits and lets it happen. I don't find that to be Biblical. I am not sure if I want to go far as to say that He actively creates evil or sin in the heart of man either....


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tellville_
> By a lot of sense do you mean "consistent Calvinism" is the right way to go?



I am FAR from an authority on the matter, but from what I read, at this point in my life, I would say that yes I agree with his consistent Calvinism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 24, 2006)

disclaimer--I'm not a Cheung fan.

Many of the things he says above are accurate; some of his more obvious personal targets are not represented fairly in his screed. And he really needs to do a little more to explain God's providence as with regard to all events "He ordereth tham to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, *freely,* or contingently" (WCF 5.2).

Here's something from that "inconsistent Calvinist" Dabney in another thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=18173#pid249102

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## CalsFarmer (Apr 24, 2006)

I tend to agree with Bruce above...but OTOH I was not aware that calvinism was popular


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

God does say that He creates evil though. I don't want to sound like a heretic but a Sovereign God has to create sin too right? It doesn't make Him sinful. But it is an example of Sovereignty.

I think we have to shoot straight down the middle and stop trying to make excuses for God and playing both sides of the fence. God is Sovereign, He says He creates evil, so therefore He must have created evil. A Sovereign God of omnipotent power cannot be taken by surprise by sin. He ordained sin because Jesus was the lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 24, 2006)

> ...but still "sincerely" offer them salvation as if they could believe...



Here we go again. I thought we had settled this one. God does sincerely offer salvation to all.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Apr 24, 2006)

and so we delve into hyper-calvinism...sin is seperate from God - it is "not-God" - God is light there is no darkness in Him - darkness is absence of light, not the presence of something.

When Man fell, he did just as the devil and the fallen angels - we excercised our free will to create "not-God" in ourselves.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 24, 2006)

JD,
Man dont have a 'free-will'. If man had a free will we would all be arminians. I dont deny mans responisibility by any mean's though. 

If man truly has a free will then there was no need for Christ on the Cross Crucified period. Man has a bound will to God alone and it is God alone who decide's whether a man at any given time will have a will not free but bound to death or God's Grace. 

In Christ,
blade


----------



## panta dokimazete (Apr 24, 2006)

I think you misunderstood me - Man did have free will - in the Garden...and none after the Fall.

After the Fall - your George Whitefield quote is correct...

-JD


----------



## turmeric (Apr 24, 2006)

Are you telling me that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas aren't true Calvinists?

Okay, seriously, man has volition but not free will. It didn't look as though Cheung was leaving room for volition in his "true calvinist" description. This looks like a supra/infra thing to me.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > ...but still "sincerely" offer them salvation as if they could believe...
> ...



Right! Many called, few chosen. The outward call is to the whole of humanity. The inward to the elect only.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> God does say that He creates evil though. I don't want to sound like a heretic but a Sovereign God has to create sin too right? It doesn't make Him sinful. But it is an example of Sovereignty.
> 
> I think we have to shoot straight down the middle and stop trying to make excuses for God and playing both sides of the fence. God is Sovereign, He says He creates evil, so therefore He must have created evil. A Sovereign God of omnipotent power cannot be taken by surprise by sin. He ordained sin because Jesus was the lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.



Brian,
JD is correct. God allows for evil; He decreed it, he did not create it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 24, 2006)

JD,
I understand you better though I dont think man had a free will in the garden I think God ordained or decreed that man was to fall. But I dont have a thesis or treatise written up to defend it  

blade


----------



## bob (Apr 24, 2006)

When God says that He creates evil in Isaiah 45 and Amos 3, I think that we should contextually argue that God is speaking not about evil not in the sense of sin, but as the antithesis of prosperity. I think the evil that is being referred to is speaking of wars, pestilence, and such things that God sends to judge wicked men.

In regard to the notion of God being the author of sin, I would concur with these remarks from Edwards in Book 1:

" They who object, that this doctrine makes God the Author of Sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, The Author of Sin. I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by the Author of Sin, be meant the Sinner, the Agent, or Actor of Sin, or the Doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the Author of Sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the Author of Sin; rejecting such an imputation on the Most High, as what is infinitely to be abhorred; and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what I have laid down. But if, by the Author of Sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of Sin; and, at the same lime, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that Sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the Author of Sin, I do not deny that God is the Author of Sin, (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense,) it is no reproach for the Most High to be thus the Author of Sin. This is not to be the Actor of Sin, but, on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein, is holy; and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature."


----------



## polemic_turtle (Apr 25, 2006)

If we mean "free" in the sense of neutrality, I believe we have a contradiction from Jesus' words that men are either for Him or against Him.

"Man's will is free, insofar as there are no external compulsions forcing him to choose one way or the other, but it is not free from being determined by his character, which was fallen into sin the last time I checked." -- Paraphrase of a second hand quote I heard Machen said. I thought it was pretty good. ;-)


----------



## BrianLanier (Apr 25, 2006)

> Man has no free will; he is not free at all. It is true that man exercises his will "“ he makes decisions "“ but his will is not free. Rather, his will "“ how he makes decisions and what decisions he makes "“ is directly and constantly controlled by God for both good and evil, both faith and unbelief.



Doesn't saying "his will" already presuppose that it is free otherwise it wouldn't be "his"? It seems that in effect Chueng proves this when he says that it "is *directly and constantly controlled by God*". Doesn't this just mean that it is _God's_ will and not _his_ will at all.

For all his gripe toward apparant contradictions, this sure seems like one.


----------



## BrianLanier (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> If we mean "free" in the sense of neutrality, I believe we have a contradiction from Jesus' words that men are either for Him or against Him.
> 
> "Man's will is free, insofar as there are no external compulsions forcing him to choose one way or the other, but it is not free from being determined by his character, which was fallen into sin the last time I checked." -- Paraphrase of a second hand quote I heard Machen said. I thought it was pretty good. ;-)


----------



## tellville (Apr 25, 2006)

So am I wrong in thinking Cheung is souding a little Hyper?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 25, 2006)

Cheung doesn't appear to have ever read a Reformed systematic. He's definitely a "Hyper" Calvinist and deeply in error, in my opinion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2006)

I don't recommend reading Cheung. He's got some really strange ideas. Whether parts may be debatably orthodox here, there are some strange implications to his ideas. This "sovereignty" idea also leads Cheung to believe that God so controls our thoughts that He will actively deceive our senses when reading Scripture so we don't comprehend the message.

Just don't waste your time. Not everybody with a computer, Internet access, and a following is worthy of our consideration.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> and so we delve into hyper-calvinism...sin is seperate from God - it is "not-God" - God is light there is no darkness in Him - darkness is absence of light, not the presence of something.
> 
> When Man fell, he did just as the devil and the fallen angels - we excercised our free will to create "not-God" in ourselves.
> ...



I apologize. I didn't mean to delve into hyper-calvinism, but hyper-calvinism seems to me to be the only option. That or Arminianism. Traditional calvinism seems to try all it can to get God off the hook. In the process it seems to not make much sense. 

Of course sin is separate from God. I never said that God had sin in Him. But should He choose to create it to use for His own glory, what would that be to us? 

How could the devil, his angels, and mankind fall unless God put the ability within them to fall? And since Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world (God's PLAN, not a "plan B"), God intended for them to sin.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bob_
> When God says that He creates evil in Isaiah 45 and Amos 3, I think that we should contextually argue that God is speaking not about evil not in the sense of sin, but as the antithesis of prosperity. I think the evil that is being referred to is speaking of wars, pestilence, and such things that God sends to judge wicked men.
> 
> In regard to the notion of God being the author of sin, I would concur with these remarks from Edwards in Book 1:
> ...



Bob, you could be right. Or God could have just created evil. He is Sovereign and omnipotent. What He wants, happens. I don't see how we can hide behind a "God gave free will and the devil and man fell" line. If God is sovereign and omnipotent and gets whatever He wants then it follows that He wanted the devil and man to sin or He never would have gave them the ability to. 

Please, nobody brand me a heretic. I'm trying to understand God too and the only options that seem to make sense to me are hyper-calvinism or arminianism. My church isn't even hyper-calvinist, but it is the view that makes sense to me. Traditional calvinism seems to try and let God off the hook and come up with all sorts of nonsensical contradictions, such as "God is sovereign, all powerful and gets what He wants but man had free will and chose to fall".


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2006)

Or maybe Cheung has not fairly represented traditional calvinism, Brian. I certainly take issue with Cheung when he says "My version of Calvinism is biblical, and therefore disagreeing with me is disagreeing with the Bible." Cheung wants a black-white world, where everyone is conveniently divided into two camps, "real Calvinists" (by his definiton), and everyone else, including "popular" or fake Calvinists.

Cheung holds some unique philosophical positions, which in turn influence his theology. And the manner in which he uses the word "cause" (familiar so far as I am with his philosophy) is problematic to me.

There are "popular calvinists" out there, most of them 4-pointers or something like it. And some others who are trying to soften down the uncomfortable aspects of divine Sovereignty. This is too bad.

I disagree in part with Cheung (which in his black-white mind is the same thing as totally disagreeing with him, oh well). At the very least, his use of terminology is up for criticism. Someone pointed out that Cheung doesn't appear to have read widely and deeply in the Reformed tradition, before setting himself up as a "theologian of note". What, has no calvinist thinker of the past 400 years ever dealt with these questions before? There isn't a history of terminology, a careful presentation of the truth that excludes error in both directions? You'd never know it by reading Cheung.

I will never try and "get God off the hook" for his sovereignty. But I won't present God's absolute sovereignty in language that "destroys human freedom," to quote him. What does Cheung mean by this? Did Calvin ever talk like this? This is careless talk. It shows a penchant for only absolute categories, a distinctly unhelpful mode of communication--and (dare I say it?) an unbiblical mode as well.

Cheung is a poster-boy for the anti-sovereignty types who pin such as him up on the wall (for the purpose of taking potshots) as a "true" calvinist, one who promotes the "divine pupetteer". The Jonathan Edwards quote (above) is far more judicious, and a more fair representation of the "consistent Calvinist."

Likewise, saying "God created evil" is both an infelicitous expression, as well as being open to biblical challenge. "God is light, and in him there is no darkness." "God created men good, but they have sought out many inventions." And God saw all that he had made, and behold it was good." However we express ourselves, we have to do so in words that preserve our God from calumny. We do that by using word like "allow" and "permit" when we are talking about sin or evil (moral, not natural). And when we do that, we yet affirm that God is in no way giving up any of his sovereign control and direction.

We believe God is in total control of every atom and event in his universe. He has decreed every action, natural and moral, including the "free" actions of men. Including sins. He's decreed them, in such a way so that they are done "freely." This is the language of our confessions.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

Hey Bruce, thanks for your reply. I haven't even read Cheung, I was just speaking from my own understanding. A Sovereign God who gets what He wants and wills, had to have created sin. I don't understand how He couldn't. Creating evil or sin would not mean there is darkness within God. He uses evil and sin to accomplish His purposes. He works good out of evil. I will read into this matter to try and better understand it but as of now, I don't. 

When I first became a Calvinist and since then, I've had a hard time with the traditional Calvinist view. It has seemed that people were engaging in double talk and trying to get God off the hook, so to speak. It was one reason that it took some time for me to be convinced of Calvinism. Traditional Calvinism still gives me some doubts but hyper-Calvinism would seem the logical way that things are.

When I said in the past that one can draw Calvinist doctrines and Arminian doctrines straight from the Bible because the Bible teaches both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, I have never had anyone agree with me. Therefore hyper-Calvinism must be true because it makes logical sense.

How could God decree sins within free man and have nothing to do with it? He did not sin but He made man with the ability to sin. Therefore sin had to exist. Where did it come from if God did not create it? I am in no way implying that God is not holy, etc. I am trying to understand God. He is omnipotent and the creator of all things. Where did sin come from if God did not create it?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I don't recommend reading Cheung. He's got some really strange ideas. Whether parts may be debatably orthodox here, there are some strange implications to his ideas. This "sovereignty" idea also leads Cheung to believe that God so controls our thoughts that He will actively deceive our senses when reading Scripture so we don't comprehend the message.



But isn't that exactly what happens when non-believers read scripture? It isn't that scripture itself is confusing or contrary, but the Spirit actively confuses the minds of non-believers. God blinds men to the truth, so hearing the words of the Gospel, they do not understand them. Or if they do understand the words, they do not believe it is true. 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_ Just don't waste your time. Not everybody with a computer, Internet access, and a following is worthy of our consideration.



Have you read Cheung's commentaries? They seem pretty good to me. His writing is clear and his reasoning is straight forward. I find it refreshing to read someone who doesn't bury his ideas in flowery prose.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Cheung doesn't appear to have ever read a Reformed systematic. He's definitely a "Hyper" Calvinist and deeply in error, in my opinion.



What's his error?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Apr 25, 2006)

I've studied very little on the origin of evil, but believe that it could be said that Augustine formulated a pretty good definition of sin and how God could therefore be the cause of sin, but not the source of it, if I'm phrasing it correctly.

What is sin? It is doing that which God did not command, which is sort of like darkness and light, inasmuch as darkness has no substance, but is the result of an absence of light. So, sin would be either the commission of that which God has commanded against or the omission of that which He has commanded. Therefore, sin is nothing, but a defection from the command of God. He does not have to create or define something in addition to what is good for there to be sin, for sin is only the opposite of that which is good. He creates good things, defines good rules, and sin appears from the abandoning of His command and the abuse of His creation. Therefore, He controls and directs sin in a passive way, in that He allows it to happen, even though He commands against it.

I have heard the original sin( which was Satan's, not Adam's ) could have been caused by a sort of moral "gravity", by which God could allow one of His creatures to fall or to fail, although He forces none in that direction; all it takes for Him to certainly decree sin to occur is to withhold His support and by virtue of this moral "gravity", that which was ordained would come to pass.

But this is way beyond my current education or status in learning.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

Tyler, you did a wonderful job in my opinion. I understand what you were saying and I agree. Maybe God is the cause of sin but not the source of it like you said. I can agree with that. Somewhere in the whole equation, God has to be there. Nothing takes Him by surprise.


----------



## P.F. (Jun 22, 2006)

> We believe God is in total control of every atom and event in his universe. He has decreed every action, natural and moral, including the "free" actions of men. Including sins. He's decreed them, in such a way so that they are done "freely." This is the language of our confessions.


Indeed we do.
That is a common point of our agreement.
If that is the limit of the discussion, then we are in agreement.
However, what if someone will present the obvious questions:
How can they be both "free" and under the total control of God?
Must we reject further explanation as curious pryings into the mysteries of God? 
May we provide any further explanation to those who challenge the explanation above as self-contradictory?
If so, is VC wrong to do so?


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Jun 23, 2006)

> But isn't that exactly what happens when non-believers read scripture? It isn't that scripture itself is confusing or contrary, but the Spirit actively confuses the minds of non-believers. God blinds men to the truth, so hearing the words of the Gospel, they do not understand them. Or if they do understand the words, they do not believe it is true. "
> 
> 
> My understanding could be off-base, and I am certainly not trying to give an authoritative answer. I would like to ask though is God "actively" involved in confounding the hearts of men or is his creating them in their sin "active". It seems to me that God does not need to be actively hardening the hearts of men because they are already hardened.
> ...


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 19, 2006)

in my opinion, Cheung (as quoted above - "consistent" Calvinism) is *technically* correct, but *essentially* wrong - a "law without Spirit" kind of thing.

Because everything that happens has been decreed by God from the beginning, including our choices, then technically our decisions are controlled by God. But his description carries an implication of puppetry that the Bible does not ever suggest - like God somehow forces us to do things that are against our wishes. I think that Mr. Cheung wants to over-simplify something that is very complex and, frankly, probably just over our finite heads. 

It is true that I want to somehow "balance" God's sovereignty with man's free agency (not free will!). That's because the BIBLE teaches sort of a "two planes" approach to the perception of life. Consider the death of Saul. Did Saul kill himself (or the young man who claimed to have finished him off - I'm not clear on whether he actually had to finish him, or just wanted bragging rights), or did God? (1 Sam. 31:4; 2 Sam. 1:8-10,16; 1 Chr. 10:13-14) 

I still believe that God is utterly in control; I just believe that, rather than *contradicting* my will, He *changes* it.


----------

