Knew Review: For Calvinism (3)

There’s a lot to say about chapter 2 of Michael Horton’s book “For Calvinism.” The chapter is about the human condition (the T in TULIP stands for Total Depravity). It makes some sense to divide my response into 3 sections. I’ll deal with anthropological, polemical, and philosophical issues (in that order).

First, I want to respond to Horton’s anthropology. Calvinists sometimes come across as if they believe that humans are just utter scum. What does Horton mean by TOTAL depravity? He does a good job of avoiding the potential excesses here. Reformed anthropology starts with us being made in God’s image, not with The Fall. Early in the chapter he states, “Calvinism teaches that human beings are basically good in their intrinsic nature.” What’s more, The Fall “has not destroyed the will any more than it has destroyed the mind, the senses, or any other faculty. Rather, it has corrupted every faculty.” According to Horton, the “total” in “total depravity” refers to its extensiveness, not its intensiveness.” All of this is well said! I think Horton has offered, here, a necessary corrective to pop-Calvinism.

Second, I want to respond to Horton’s polemical rhetoric on this issue. It was quite difficult to discern when (if ever) he was critiquing the Arminian perspective on anthropology (and using a straw man) or only intending to dialogue with semi-Pelagianism (and doing a good job of it). For instance, Arminians don’t believe that “our will is left sufficiently uncorrupted to choose good.” We believe that the will is included in the fall (as is everything else, note above agreement). Nor do Arminians agree with “the popular notion that God simply holds out his hand in an offer of pardon to those who turn themselves toward him – and that this constitutes the grace of God in regeneration.” I agree with him that a mere offer made to fallen creatures would never result in a ‘good’ choice. Horton has done a good job of exposing the error of semi-Pelegianism, but I can’t even begin to see where any of this is a critique of Arminianism.

Third, and finally, I want to address Horton’s philosophical beliefs. A lot of this comes down to the dispute between compatibilism and libertarian free-will. Horton is a compatibilist (though he seems to avoid that term in the book). In his own words, “our choices are determined by our nature; we choose what we desire and we desire what is most consistent with our nature. If we are bound by sin… we can only choose sin and death, and we really do choose it.” In other words, compatibilism does not include the ability to choose otherwise (even after conversion), but only the ‘freedom’ to choose your desires.

I’m no expert in philosophy, but from the very first time I read about compatibilism, it didn’t make sense to me (and before that, I would have never even thought of such a theory). Oddly enough, it sounds very much like what atheists believe about free will. Free will, in both systems, seems like a myth. Any theory of free will that begins with the phrase “our choices are determined” isn’t really a theory at all. Of course, my response to compatibilism will have to be much abbreviated for the purpose of this review, but suffice it to say, I think Horton is wrong at a philosophical level.

To use Horton’s categories, I believe we have the natural ability to choose either good or evil, but since The Fall we only have the moral ability to choose evil. We are not free, we are slaves to sin. But we are not left to our own abilities. God comes, gracefully, to woo and transform our fallen wills. He restores our freedom. He does not coerce. He is a gentleman. We find ourselves dealing with desires in conflict. We either, assisted by grace, choose to yield to God’s love or, otherwise, rejecting grace, choose to hold on to self and continue in slavery.

Knew Review: For Calvinism (2)

Part two of my review of Michael Horton’s “For Calvinism” looks at his first chapter entitled “The Essence of Calvinism.” Many theologically oriented books begin with definitions and so he’s trying to define Calvinism here, beginning by being clear about what it is NOT. It is NOT devoted to Calvin himself, he says. It is NOT built around the TULIP acronym. It is NOT a restorationist movement. It is NOT the outworking of a core belief in predestination. In fact, Horton goes on to say that “The truth is, there ISN’T a central dogma in Calvinism.”

Nevertheless, he does offer some suggestions of items that are close to being CORE elements of Calvinism. He talks about how Reformed churches aim at “recovering the clear teachings of Scripture.” He certainly recommends the “Solas” as “the key theses of the Reformation” (sola Scriptura, sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide, soli Deo gloria). He quotes Calvin as saying that the doctrine of justification is the “primary article of the Christian religion.” Covenant theology isn’t, he says, a central dogma, but does serve as an ‘architectural framework” to Calvinism.

Having established what he means by Calvinism, he moves on to briefly define Pelagianism, Semi-Pelegianism, and Arminianism and discuss how they relate to each other. I appreciate this, as it is too commonly the custom for Calvinists to simply label  Arminianism as Semi-Pelagian without being clear about what one means by those terms and how such is so.

Pelagianism, he says, is marked by the “denial of original sin and the necessity of grace.”  Semi-Pelagianism also denies original sin, insisting that “the initial act of responding to God is due to free will, but grace assists the believer in a life of faith and good works.” This makes Semi-Pelagianism almost an exact opposite of Horton’s Calvinism. In the former the initial step of salvation is wholly taken by humans. In the latter the initial step is wholly performed by God. Arminianism is a different beast for Horton. Arminians affirm total depravity and the necessity of prevenient grace.

After reading those definitions, I found Horton’s statement that “the Arminian system seems closer to Semi-Pelagianism [than Calvinism]. In fact, I would argue that it lists in that direction” a bit annoying. If Semi-Pelagianism is marked by a denial of original sin and an insistence that the first step of salvation is not dependant on grace… and if Arminianism rejects BOTH of those definining marks… for what reason would one write that Arminianism is “closer to Semi-Pelagianism”? Is it for pure rhetorical effect? 

He goes on to say that Arminianism, if followed to its logical conclusion, goes in a “Pelagianizing” direction, but this doesn’t make much sense to me. If a group believes in original sin and the necessity of initiatory grace, how is a denial of those doctrines a logical conclusion for that group? Even Horton admits that, “the crucial difference between Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism is that the former insists upon the necessity of grace prior to all human response.

All in all, definition chapters are never riveting, but they are almost always necessary. It was good for Horton to define these key terms, but I'm left feeling like he didn't take his own definitions very seriously.

Knew Review: For Calvinism

Thanks to a generous gift (in the form of an Amazon gift card), I recently purchased a bunch of books, including Michael Horton’s “For Calvinism” (a companion book to Roger Olson’s “Against Calvinism”). I’m not a Calvinist, but I think it is good for non-Calvinists to learn Calvinism from Calvinists (and not from caricatures created by other non-Calvinists). I thought I’d share my response to Horton’s Calvinism in a series of blog posts. The book includes an introduction followed by 8 chapters… so this will likely come in 9 installments.

I’d begin by saying I’m glad ‘companion’ books are written. I think Michael Horton and Roger Olson are excellent choices for this ‘for’ and ‘against’ approach to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate.

On the very first page of the introduction, Horton admits the existence of a ‘hyper-Calvinism’ that sometimes proves the caricatures of critics (13). Later, though, Horton calls Norman Geisler’s moderate Calvinism ‘basically Arminian’ (204). Thus, Horton would place himself between hyper-Calvinism and moderate Calvinism. He aims to present Calvinism as a theology that avoids any hint of either antinomianism or Arminianism.

In this book Horton has been asked to use the famous T.U.L.I.P. acronym as a basic outline. He reluctantly does so, insisting throughout that there are better ways to communicate the core truths of Calvinism.

Indeed, I found his succinct summaries of each of the 5 points more agreeable than the standard T.U.L.I.P. statements. I would, for example, wholly endorse his statement on total depravity. I could interpret his statement on unconditional election in a way that I’d support. Even on limited atonement, his re-worded ‘particular redemption’ is summarized in such a way that I would find acceptable. Of course, the devil is in the details. In the chapters he adds nuance that I wouldn’t support. And even his succinct statements on irresistible grace (which he calls ‘effectual grace) and perseverance of the saints are objectionable from my perspective. Nevertheless, I found his T.U.P.E.P. an improvement in content over T.U.L.I.P. (though clearly not as catchy!).

I was glad to see Horton state that differences of opinion between Calvinism and Arminianism do not amount to different Gospels. Clearly, “we are justified through faith and Christ, not through doctrinal precision.” This is an obvious point (I hope), but clearly needs to be said in these debates (given the history of rhetoric on these issues).

He’s also right in stating that much of the debate comes down to an issue between monergism and synergism, but he might be surprised to find that I (and I would expect most Arminians) would have no problem with his definition of monergism (“God’s grace as the effectual source of election, redemption, faith, and perseverance”). The key is the word ‘source.’ I totally agree that God’s grace is the source of every aspect of salvation. God is the initiator and I depend on God’s presence for each step along the way. The big question is whether there is any individual step of salvation that God resources and completes without any response (or cooperation) to grace from me.

Horton thinks it’s lazy to simply decide that these issues are irresolvable. I agree. We can’t just say that each side has its own verses of support in Scripture. One side, at least, is interpreting ‘their’ passages wrong. Horton thinks his interpretations are right, of course, and this book is a defense of those interpretations and ‘Calvinism’ is general. He prefers, though, the label ‘doctrines of grace’ (rather than Calvinism), but I see this as an attempt to take the high ground in the debate (Arminians obviously think they take grace most seriously, at least I do).

And so we begin. The next installment will cover Horton’s first chapter: The Essence of Calvinism.

Minority Report

I take a number of minority positions for a variety of reasons

I'm a young earth creationist
I'm on the open theist side of Arminianism
I'm an anabaptist (including pacifist)
I'm a partial preterist
I'm amillennial
I'm in the eventual extinction camp on hell

Have you lost all respect for me?
Do you agree?
What minority positions do you take?

Roger Olson

Yesterday I went to Houghton College for the Woolsey Lectures to hear Roger Olson. Here are some highlights of the day, which got better and better as it went along:

1. In the morning, he preached a brief but helpful sermon on Philippians 2:12-13 in morning chapel. The tension, there, is over the double use of the word 'work' in many English translations. Work in verse 12 is our part of continuing on the journey with God. Work in verse 13 is about God providing us with that ability/energy to continue on. There is no contradiction between the two verses. The sermon had 3 points. First, grace is free. We can do nothing to boost it. Sacraments, for instance, are not ways to boost God's grace. God's grace is constant. Second, grace is costly (in that it cost the Father the death of His Son). Third, grace is relational. Though there are no grace boosters, there are grace blockers. To 'work out' our salvation is to identify those blockers and rid ourselves of them so God's constant grace can transform us.

2. In the afternoon, there was a Q&A session. Olson insisted that the main reason his theology takes the [Arminian] form that it does is because of his emphasis on the character of God. That God is good is the center of his theology (not an insistence of free will). In fact, Olson bluntly stated that he, himself, couldn't worship the Calvinist God (unless he simultaneously became a Universalist!). Other notable points that came out in this Q&A are summarized below:

A. He doesn't like 'middle knowledge' (Molinism) as a helpful option for Arminians. It fits better with Calvinism. Olson believes that this is not the world God wanted, but Molinism insists that it is. For Olson, Molinism is still determinism.

B. He is more open to Open Theism. He thinks Open Theism is a sub-category of Arminian. What prevents him from being an open theist is the lack of support in church history/tradition. The Scriptures are not clear enough on the subject to override the non-open-theist consensus of church history. Besides (and this is tongue-in-cheek), Olson helps the open theists better by not being one!

C. The New Calvinism is largely a rhetorical device and it is very anti-ecumenical. It is wrong for them to imply that the 'others' (those that don't agree with them) are either not Christians or are just barely Christians.

D. Most people who think they are Arminian are ACTUALLY semi-Pelegian! The Calvinists are wrong about Arminianism, but rightly suspicious about most who wear the label. True Arminianism isn't held by many people.

E. We all have to live with some degree of mystery, no matter what theological positions we take. We should not accept contradictions, but we must, ultimately, accept some mystery. It becomes a matter of what mysteries we prefer to live with. Olson currently prefers mystery to open theism, but that could change.

F. On Hell, Olson endorses C.S. Lewis' view that there may be a possibility of leaving hell. Because of this, he does not like the Annihilationist view because it cuts off that very opportunity. As for Rob Bell's book, he feels it was basically identical to 'The Great Divorce' and regrets that there is an industry within Evangelicalism for discovering heresy first.

3. In the evening, Olson read an excellent paper titled "A Christian Humanist Manifesto."

Humanism is the belief in the dignity and worth of human beings, but it tends to have a bad reputation with Christians (we think of 'secular humanism'), but the original humanism was Christian. Olson feels a need to balance the anti-humanism of Calvinism (generally) and John Piper (specifically). Speaking only about our depravity misses the whole picture. We tend to emphasize either our goodness or our badness, but we must learn to balance these extremes. We are damaged goods. Damaged yes. But goods too. It is possible to overstate our depravity.

Men like Erasmus (an early Christian Humanist, emphasized that we were created in the Image of God. Sin is not essential to our nature (the Incarnation is proof enough of that!). In fact, humanity is essentially good (even if existentially estranged). God doesn't just seek His own glory, He wants to glorify us too (Eastern 'Deification' is essentially becoming truly human, not become God). We need not escape our humanity, we simply need to be redeemed. Christian humanism has the capacity to give us more energy and optimism in our kingdom work, confident that God is already in the world and is for it.

All in all, a well spent day. Olson shared some very good stuff and I was able to connect with some people I hadn't seen in a while (or much of) while also getting in some library time. Thanks to Houghton for putting this on!