attacks on Calvinism

[RJ Spencer]

I've had many encounters through the years with "cage stage" Arminians, for lack of a better term. These people are so furious at what they believe to be Calvinism, but I've noticed that what they describe as Calvinism is actually Supralapsarianism. They see God as being active in reprobation to the same extent that He is active in regeneration. No matter how often I correct them that not all Calvinists believe what they claim that all Calvinists believe, they insist that the we Must believe this. I don't want to talk negatively about Supralapsarians, but I'm having trouble defending Calvinism against these charges without agreeing with the Arminian that if Calvinists actually believed what they claim we believe that we would be wrong. It seems that I have more in common with non-reformed Baptists than I do with Supralapsarians. Should I even waste my breath? Am I making this issue out to be bigger than it is?

 

[Ben Zartman]

When we cannot understand in our finite minds how God could do something that to us appears bad, we must cling to what we do understand, because he has revealed it: God is good, and everything he does is right, and is just. Apparent contradictions to this are a product not of a defect in God or in logic, but in our understanding.

 

[Chad Hutson]

I simply ask my Arminian friends who are so concerned about the matter of my Calvinism if they think God ever makes a mistake? They will invariably answer "no," I then say "then you can trust Him in regard to reprobation." I think the biggest problem is that too many people think that man is the center of God's plan instead of His own glory.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There are lots of people who, not believing certain things that others believe, nevertheless claim to know what those others *should* believe if they were only "consistent;" followed by the corollary: that if the others don't want to go there, then (naturally) they should now agree with the ones who have challenged them.

Even some Reformed-types have been known to argue thus. Without casting aspersions on Baptist brothers generally, I've personally encountered a bit of this from some of them. They seem to *know* what a Presbyterian's conclusions should be. Or for a public example, JPiper claimed that the FV was just more consistent Covenant Theology. A Presbyterian might be no better, if he claims that every Baptist should be a flaming dispensationalist.

One major cause of this is how little practice (or time taken) there is to understand another position on its own terms. People don't care to find out how another view has worked out its own internal principles, or how it has dealt with previous allegations of "inconsistency." The force of the charge is usually only felt by someone who might share some crucial presupposition with the challenger; and that chink-in-the-armor is where the challenger tries to break down the defense of the other position.

If JamesWhite says he's a Baptist because he's being (trying to be) consistent with his interpretive principles, then it might be a good idea to find out his principles and only then see if his conclusions make sense. Or once you find out his principles, you could then see how they are not your own principles.

The latter was my personal path to discovery: that the reasons why Presbyterians and Baptists persistently disagree on certain things has almost nothing to do with either side being "inconsistent;" but the fundamental misunderstanding is to assume that we're (Presbyterians and Baptists) in hermeneutical agreement to begin with. That we share significant doctrinal convictions is sort of "accidental." I call it staking out (surveying) our respective, overlapping territorial claims on the theological heights, where we each arrived by a different ascent.

In other words, it's a bad assumption to conclude that with little pressure, we can turn a Baptist into a Presbyterian, or vice versa. The change (if it comes, if it will be for the better) must be founded deeper. FMalone is supposed to have been a Baptist, turned Presbyterian, returned Baptist. That (I surmise) is because whether he realized it fully or not, he could not square his deeper hermeneutical commitment with his presumptive effort to "get consistent." He actually returned to a stable, theological consistency.

I would rather see that happen, than the theological "drift" that sometimes happens because someone keeps making ad hoc changes in his theology to "get consistent." He can't afford emotionally to go back to what he was, so he keeps pressing for a new hermeneutical justification that will sustain his move to paedobaptism (or or some other position). This leads to things like paedocommunion--a position that is hermeneutically consistent with a Baptist assumption (about proper recipients of sacraments) flipped on its head. This instability could finally resolve itself in some other relatively stable theological tradition, such as Romanism.

To go back now to the concern of the OP, notice what is happening. The Arminian is treating a certain Calvinist belief as if it "must be" something, but why? Why "must it be" so? One reason is: if something he assumes must be the case really is what he thinks. But what if it isn't that case? Then his whole logical conclusion is vitiated.

"Question the premise." What the Arminian is counting on is the person he's arguing with consenting to the premise on which the argument turns. Working back to that presumed agreement may take some effort, however finding out where there is no starting point of agreement--consent he's hoping to use as a wedge-tactic--pulls the rug out from under the argument. The result could be that he walks away frustrated against further engagement.

That's OK, because the exposed honesty of the disagreement has removed the superficial basis for offering the other side an opportunity to "get consistent." Now, in order to get consistent, one sees that this or that side must give up something deeper, not just change the order of the divine decree. The same as that switching from Presbyterian to Baptist is something deeper than changing the timing and mode of the rite of baptism.

Sometimes, a dispute with an Arminian (or someone else) can teach you something about your relationship to a completely different theological commitment held by someone else, e.g. a supralapsarian. It may help you see better why you aren't a supra-, without therefore implying that you must become an Arminian in order to "get consistent."

The "furious" Arminian may not learn anything, despite his opportunity. But that isn't your fault. Nor is it any reason to stop talking to them, in spite of your frustrations. It means that maybe you can have a more profitable discussion in the future, because you can try to get further back to exploring deeper, Arminian hermeneutical commitments. That's where hopefully you can show someone that an axiom he "took on faith," unexamined, is the source of his present position; and a different axiom is the source of yours.

 

[User20004000]

There are lots of people who, not believing certain things that others believe, nevertheless claim to know what those others *should* believe if they were only "consistent;" followed by the corollary: that if the others don't want to go there, then (naturally) they should now agree with the ones who have challenged them.

Even some Reformed-types have been known to argue thus. Without casting aspersions on Baptist brothers generally, I've personally encountered a bit of this from some of them. They seem to *know* what a Presbyterian's conclusions should be. Or for a public example, JPiper claimed that the FV was just more consistent Covenant Theology. A Presbyterian might be no better, if he claims that every Baptist should be a flaming dispensationalist.

One major cause of this is how little practice (or time taken) there is to understand another position on its own terms. People don't care to find out how another view has worked out its own internal principles, or how it has dealt with previous allegations of "inconsistency." The force of the charge is usually only felt by someone who might share some crucial presupposition with the challenger; and that chink-in-the-armor is where the challenger tries to break down the defense of the other position.

If JamesWhite says he's a Baptist because he's being (trying to be) consistent with his interpretive principles, then it might be a good idea to find out his principles and only then see if his conclusions make sense. Or once you find out his principles, you could then see how they are not your own principles.

The latter was my personal path to discovery: that the reasons why Presbyterians and Baptists persistently disagree on certain things has almost nothing to do with either side being "inconsistent;" but the fundamental misunderstanding is to assume that we're (Presbyterians and Baptists) in hermeneutical agreement to begin with. That we share significant doctrinal convictions is sort of "accidental." I call it staking out (surveying) our respective, overlapping territorial claims on the theological heights, where we each arrived by a different ascent.

In other words, it's a bad assumption to conclude that with little pressure, we can turn a Baptist into a Presbyterian, or vice versa. The change (if it comes, if it will be for the better) must be founded deeper. FMalone is supposed to have been a Baptist, turned Presbyterian, returned Baptist. That (I surmise) is because whether he realized it fully or not, he could not square his deeper hermeneutical commitment with his presumptive effort to "get consistent." He actually returned to a stable, theological consistency.

I would rather see that happen, than the theological "drift" that sometimes happens because someone keeps making ad hoc changes in his theology to "get consistent." He can't afford emotionally to go back to what he was, so he keeps pressing for a new hermeneutical justification that will sustain his move to paedobaptism (or or some other position). This leads to things like paedocommunion--a position that is hermeneutically consistent with a Baptist assumption (about proper recipients of sacraments) flipped on its head. This instability could finally resolve itself in some other relatively stable theological tradition, such as Romanism.

To go back now to the concern of the OP, notice what is happening. The Arminian is treating a certain Calvinist belief as if it "must be" something, but why? Why "must it be" so? One reason is: if something he assumes must be the case really is what he thinks. But what if it isn't that case? Then his whole logical conclusion is vitiated.

"Question the premise." What the Arminian is counting on is the person he's arguing with consenting to the premise on which the argument turns. Working back to that presumed agreement may take some effort, however finding out where there is no starting point of agreement--consent he's hoping to use as a wedge-tactic--pulls the rug out from under the argument. The result could be that he walks away frustrated against further engagement.

That's OK, because the exposed honesty of the disagreement has removed the superficial basis for offering the other side an opportunity to "get consistent." Now, in order to get consistent, one sees that this or that side must give up something deeper, not just change the order of the divine decree. The same as that switching from Presbyterian to Baptist is something deeper than changing the timing and mode of the rite of baptism.

Sometimes, a dispute with an Arminian (or someone else) can teach you something about your relationship to a completely different theological commitment held by someone else, e.g. a supralapsarian. It may help you see better why you aren't a supra-, without therefore implying that you must become an Arminian in order to "get consistent."

The "furious" Arminian may not learn anything, despite his opportunity. But that isn't your fault. Nor is it any reason to stop talking to them, in spite of your frustrations. It means that maybe you can have a more profitable discussion in the future, because you can try to get further back to exploring deeper, Arminian hermeneutical commitments. That's where hopefully you can show someone that an axiom he "took on faith," unexamined, is the source of his present position; and a different axiom is the source of yours.

Bruce,

The theological disagreements between Arminians and Calvinists are not about hermeneutics. The disagreements the Arminian has with the Calvinist (and consequently Scripture) are ethical in nature. From the sin of either (a) wanting to “protect” God from being sovereign or (b) denying man is utterly depraved, the Arminian defends pure contingency of choice (LFW, a metaphysical surd) and in the process must forgo the philosophical grounding of future tense truth propositions of creaturely choices.

 

[User20004000]

I've had many encounters through the years with "cage stage" Arminians, for lack of a better term. These people are so furious at what they believe to be Calvinism, but I've noticed that what they describe as Calvinism is actually Supralapsarianism. They see God as being active in reprobation to the same extent that He is active in regeneration. No matter how often I correct them that not all Calvinists believe what they claim that all Calvinists believe, they insist that the we Must believe this. I don't want to talk negatively about Supralapsarians, but I'm having trouble defending Calvinism against these charges without agreeing with the Arminian that if Calvinists actually believed what they claim we believe that we would be wrong. It seems that I have more in common with non-reformed Baptists than I do with Supralapsarians. Should I even waste my breath? Am I making this issue out to be bigger than it is?

I have a suspicion that if you articulate the Arminian view of Calvinism that you find agreeably objectionable along with the Arminian, that position you articulate will not be Supralapsarian. In other words, the Supra position doesn’t make God “active in reprobation.” Your Arminian friends are erecting a straw man and you should expose it as such.

 

[Pergamum]

The best solution is to do away with High-Calvinism (Supralapsarianism) and embrace the view assumed in the Confessions, which is the Infralapsarian position, which better defends itself against such attacks. Arminians have good cause to be furious over some of the nonsense that extreme high Calvinists spout.

 

[ZackF]

Bruce,

The theological disagreements between Arminians and Calvinists are not about hermeneutics. The disagreements the Arminian has with the Calvinist (and consequently Scripture) are ethical in nature. From the sin of either (a) wanting to “protect” God from being sovereign or (b) denying man is utterly depraved, the Arminian defends pure contingency of choice (LFW, a metaphysical surd) and in the process must forgo the philosophical grounding of future tense truth propositions of creaturely choices.

We can ultimately ground all false beliefs in sin. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t use means for men to arrive at the truth. I think Bruce’s post is a fine illustration of this. After all one can intellectually assent to Calvinism and be unregenerate. Once can also by grace be saved assenting to 4/5 of “five points” having been merciful walked through a process like Bruce has elucidated.

 

[ZackF]

The best solution is to do away with High-Calvinism (Supralapsarianism) and embrace the view assumed in the Confessions, which is the Infralapsarian position, which better defends itself against such attacks. Arminians have good cause to be furious over some of the nonsense that extreme high Calvinists spout.

That the WCF is infra is disputed. For the record I am supra in my beliefs but I have yet to encounter that issue as an objection to faith or Calvinism.

 

[User20004000]

We can ultimately ground all false beliefs in sin. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t use means for men to arrive at the truth. I think Bruce’s post is a fine illustration of this. After all one can intellectually assent to Calvinism and be unregenerate. Once can also by grace be saved assenting to 4/5 of “five points” having been merciful walked through a process like Bruce has elucidated.

What’s the Arminian hermeneutic?

 

[ZackF]

What’s the Arminian hermeneutic?

I don’t think there is just one. Most Arminians are on a continuum of sorts ranging from almost Pelagian to almost Calvinist.

 

[User20004000]

That the WCF is infra is disputed. For the record I am supra in my beliefs but I have yet to encounter that issue as an objection to faith or Calvinism.

Correct. The post clearly stated that the Arminian thinks that Calvinism teaches God is active in reprobation just like he’s active in regeneration. The poster thinks the Arminian is depicting Supralapsarianism. The supra position posits no such thing. The lapsarian debate is over the order of the decree. No position posits that God actively de-generates, whereas both sides acknowledge that God actively regenerates.

 

[User20004000]

I don’t think there is just one. Most Arminians are on a continuum of sorts ranging from almost Pelagian to almost Calvinist.

But that’s not a hermeneutical spectrum. Hermeneutics has nothing to do with this.

 

[ZackF]

But that’s not a hermeneutical spectrum. Hermeneutics has nothing to do with this.

I don’t understand. Hermeneutics informs all theological positions. I don’t know how to pin down what your asking though I’m delighted to try.

 

[User20004000]

I don’t understand. Hermeneutics informs all theological positions. I don’t know how to pin down what your asking though I’m delighted to try.

One can hold to an Arminian metaphysic of free will while holding to the hermeneutic of any number of Reformed theologians. One’s hermeneutic will never decide for a theologian whether libertarian freedom is a necessary condition for moral responsibility. Any number of philosophical biases can function within any number of hermeneutics. For instance, one can be a Calvinists or an Arminian within a dispensationalist hermeneutic. When it comes to total depravity and God’s work in regeneration, hermeneutics has nothing to do with it. It’s not just simplistic to think that submitting to Calvinism is a hermeneutical consideration. It’s just wrong to think so.

 

[Herald]

In other words, it's a bad assumption to conclude that with little pressure, we can turn a Baptist into a Presbyterian, or vice versa. The change (if it comes, if it will be for the better) must be founded deeper. FMalone is supposed to have been a Baptist, turned Presbyterian, returned Baptist. That (I surmise) is because whether he realized it fully or not, he could not square his deeper hermeneutical commitment with his presumptive effort to "get consistent." He actually returned to a stable, theological consistency.

Bruce, your words hit home with me. When I joined the Puritan Board I wanted to become a Presbyterian. I thought that hanging around with Presbyterians would finally convince me and I would be able to make the change. Over the years I have found many Presbyterian arguments to be, at a minimum, thought provoking, but in the end I have not been convinced to change my Baptist "hermeneutical commitment".

OK. Back to the OP.

 

[Herald]

Bruce,

The theological disagreements between Arminians and Calvinists are not about hermeneutics. The disagreements the Arminian has with the Calvinist (and consequently Scripture) are ethical in nature. From the sin of either (a) wanting to “protect” God from being sovereign or (b) denying man is utterly depraved, the Arminian defends pure contingency of choice (LFW, a metaphysical surd) and in the process must forgo the philosophical grounding of future tense truth propositions of creaturely choices.

Ron, as a former card-carrying Arminian, that was not my experience. My change from Arminianism to Calvinism was based on a changed understanding of scripture. In my case understanding drove my ethics. My source of authority (scripture) established my moral beliefs.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One can hold to an Arminian metaphysic of free will while holding to the hermeneutic of any number of Reformed theologians. One’s hermeneutic will never decide for a theologian whether libertarian freedom is a necessary condition for moral responsibility. Any number of philosophical biases can function within any number of hermeneutics. For instance, one can be a Calvinists or an Arminian within a dispensationalist hermeneutic. When it comes to total depravity and God’s work in regeneration, hermeneutics has nothing to do with it. It’s not just simplistic to think that submitting to Calvinism is a hermeneutical consideration. It’s just wrong to think so.

Ron,
I'm not sure you understood my point. As I said, the issue isn't satisfactorily addressed by

just change the order of the divine decree

in any direction. RJ's point (as I read him) was not about getting his Arminian interlocutors to submit to Calvinism, but to get them to admit that what they viewed as a necessary conclusion of Calvinism isn't such. Hermeneutics, or how-to-read-the-Bible is something each person brings to the Bible. Of course, the exercise of a man's hermeneutic means that it develops as well in the use; it is to some degree dynamic rather than static. I'm suggesting that the Arminian has to be challenged to reckon more seriously with that which he brings to the text.

Hopefully, RJ can take my post and by it come to some fresh awareness of why the Arminians who attack his views see those views (and see him) as "stubborn" and "inconsistent." It hardly seems important to this issue just how inconsistent in fact the Arminian is with himself. He's so locked-in and convinced that he understands the Bible (certain key verses anyway) in the only way that a "true Christian" can or should; he thinks he knows what a Calvinist believes, and why; etc.

I just say this: try to read my post as an effort to answer RJ's specific concerns: defending Calvinism, not giving in on a secondary point (supralapsarianism) just to keep the conversation going, struggling with seeing the ongoing discussion as worthwhile, as worth the trouble.

 

[User20004000]

“Hermeneutics, or how-to-read-the-Bible is something each person brings to the Bible.”

Bruce,

Although that’s a true statement, what I’ve been laboring is that the dividing line between Arminians and Calvinists should not be seen as a hermeneutical consideration.

Perhaps my point can be best grasped if one would actually try to define a “Calvinistic” hermeneutic (whatever that means to some); then we might approach a text like Ephesians 1:4 to see whether it’s the hermeneutic or some non-hermeneutical consideration (like one’s metaphysic as it relates to moral accountability) that drives the full orbed meaning of having been chosen in Christ. Will someone accept the offer? In short order we might begin to see that hermeneutics doesn’t concern itself with concepts such as pure contingency, possible worlds, the grounding objection etc. Nor are those exegetical considerations. That’s why dispensationalist Baptists can affirm Unconditional Election. Their hermeneutic pertains to discontinuity of testaments and ecclesiology, and not to deeper philosophical considerations. Again, the Arminian conundrum isn’t a matter of hermeneutics but something quite other.

My point is, both the Molinist and Calvinist agree that God predestines individuals from all eternity unto salvation. If their respective differences are hermeneutical in nature, then it should be easy enough for someone to put forth the hermeneutical distinction that supposedly determines the difference between a Calvinist and Molinist rendering of the text. I think that’ll be a tall order given that the text does not address the basis upon which God predestines. A Calvinist Compatibilist and a Molinist Incompatibilist can have surface agreement over the text based upon a shared hermeneutic. In fact, even at the Presbytery level their respective differences can be missed! That’s because their differences are beneath the hermeneutical surface.

Similarly, we might go to texts such Matthew 11:21-24, which some or many Calvinists think contemplate counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCFs). Calvinists and Molinists agree that God knows CCFs. Both can interpret such texts as affirming CCFs while also disagreeing over the philosophical basis upon which God can know that the miracles done in Chorazin and Bethsaida would have been sufficient to bring Tyre and Sidon to repentance. I can understand one thinking that hermeneutics will determine whether the text contemplates CCFs or doesn’t. But that’s as far as hermeneutics will take us. It won’t offer insight into how God knows the CCFs in view. (As Letham notes in his ST, page 294, Dabney acknowledges that middle knowledge is compatible with a Reformed view of Providence. Again, surface agreement over CCF’s. The watershed is something other than hermeneutics.)

 

[User20004000]

Ron, as a former card-carrying Arminian, that was not my experience. My change from Arminianism to Calvinism was based on a changed understanding of scripture. In my case understanding drove my ethics. My source of authority (scripture) established my moral beliefs.

Herald,

You should agree that prior to God changing your understanding of Scripture, you had a faulty view of depravity and God. Those deficiencies were moral in nature. Secondly, you should also agree that the Arminian can have just as high a view of the authority of Scripture as the committed Calvinist. One’s high regard for the authority of Scripture is not sufficient for one to embrace God’s sovereignty in salvation. It’s not even a necessary condition.

 

[User20004000]

“It hardly seems important to this issue just how inconsistent in fact the Arminian is with himself.”

Bruce,

If the Arminian can be shown that his position is logically contradictory, how can that not be an important issue? I think God is honored when the Christian graciously shows another brother that his view is an impossibility. If we are successful in such an endeavor, we can look to God for increase. When a person is graciously confronted with irreconcilable differences that can only be reconciled by the truth of Calvinism, we’ve done our job before God. Surely that’s important.

 

[Herald]

Herald,

You should agree that prior to God changing your understanding of Scripture, you had a faulty view of depravity and God. Those deficiencies were moral in nature. Secondly, you should also agree that the Arminian can have just as high a view of the authority of Scripture as the committed Calvinist. One’s high regard for the authority of Scripture is not sufficient for one to embrace God’s sovereignty in salvation. It’s not even a necessary condition.

Ron, I don't doubt that an Arminian can have a high view of scripture and be just as committed to that view as a Calvinist. However, when I started looking at Arminianism vs. Calvinism I don't recall wrestling with ethical and moral questions. Perhaps I did so subconsciously, but for me the issue was my theological understanding.

 

[User20004000]

Ron, I don't doubt that an Arminian can have a high view of scripture and be just as committed to that view as a Calvinist. However, when I started looking at Arminianism vs. Calvinism I don't recall wrestling with ethical and moral questions. Perhaps I did so subconsciously, but for me the issue was my theological understanding.

Yes, I get that. Things are very intertwined. Total agreement. Thanks for the reminder!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

“It hardly seems important to this issue just how inconsistent in fact the Arminian is with himself.”

Bruce,

If the Arminian can be shown that his position is logically contradictory, how can that not be an important issue? I think God is honored when the Christian graciously shows another brother that his view is an impossibility. If we are successful in such an endeavor, we can look to God for increase. When a person is graciously confronted with irreconcilable differences that can only be reconciled by the truth of Calvinism, we’ve done our job before God. Surely that’s important.

Ron,
I was addressing one man, with one particular set of issues. As I read the OP, arguing logical consistency, as in just trying to get the Arminian to recognize and acknowledge that the Calvinist was not obligated to the conclusion demanded of him, was not making any headway. The other guy thinks there's only one way to correctly see things, which is the way he sees things; and all "right-thinkers" agree with him. He "knows" what I believe better than I know it. At best, I'm the one in a halfway house between seeing things his (right) way, and being diametrically opposed to him (the way he "knows" true Calvinists are).

You and I both know that a self-contained set of principles *could be* logically consistent and valid; yet false, because of false premises. So, my point has been from the outset: try an exposé of a deeper misunderstanding, namely that "we both agree on the fundamental way of reading the Bible," or maybe reading any text.

So, I don't disagree with you that it can be helpful to show the Arminian the illogic of his interpretations. I just don't think that this Arminian is presently open to that line of reasoning.