Knew Review: For Calvinism (5)

Part 5 of my review of “For Calvinism” by Michael Horton responds to his chapter on atonement (the L in TULIP stands for Limited Atonement). Horton prefers “Particular Redemption” and says the Reformed Faith believes that, “Christ’s death is sufficient for the whole world, but secured the redemption of the elect.” At face value, I don’t necessarily have any problem with that definition (of course, Horton and I wouldn’t agree about the theological meaning of “secured” or “elect”). But his application is pretty haunting (Jesus intended to die just for certain people).

Horton wants to talk about atonement theories here (HOW does Christ connect the elect to God?). Calvinists are known for their allegiance to the penal substitution theory of the atonement (we deserve punishment for our sins, but Christ took the punishment as our substitute). Horton admits that this theory is at the heart of Reformed theology, but he also wants to be clear that the other theories have merit as well. Christ’s saving work “cannot be reduced” to just one theory.  

He speaks favorably of recapitulation theory (Christ’s entire life serves as a re-start for humanity… Christ is the 2^nd Adam). He also notes the truth behind Christus Victor models (though he fears they are too often defended as alternatives to penal substitution). Anselm’s satisfaction theory receives a mixed review (true that God has been offended by sin, but it’s His justice and not so much His dignity at stake). Moral influence theory (That Christ’s simply sets a good example for us to follow) is rebuked for not taking sin seriously enough. Nor does he have anything good to say about Hugo Grotius and the governmental theory (that the New Covenant brought a new government with lower standards, allowing us to succeed in keeping them).

In the end, Horton believes there is some truth in all the theories discussed: “Reformed theology has always encouraged a richer and more integrated understanding of Christ’s saving work that encompasses his incarnation, obedient life, sacrificial death, and triumphant resurrection. Christ’s sacrificial love is also an example for us to imitate and establishes God’s moral government.” He simply thinks penal substitution is at the core of the atonement (I tend to think recapitulation is). 

For Horton, there are three possibilities: Christ’s death saved everyone (Universalism), Christ’s death made salvation possible (Arminianism), or Christ’s death saved some people (Calvinism). He says Universalism should be dismissed out of hand. The Calvinistic view is superior to the Arminian view, he says, because in it Christ’s death actually (rather than merely potentially) saves people and because in it Christ is the focus (rather than the believer’s choice). I think both of these arguments are insignificant. Arminians don’t deny that Christ’s death “actually” saves them. It is certainly not their “choice” which saves them, the choice only gives them access to the saving power of His death. And whether we focus on Christ or self is a matter of volition too.

Horton admits that the Bible sometimes makes it sound like God loves and died for the whole world, but we are supposed to take that not to mean every single individual, but individuals from every part of the world. Jesus died for all kinds of people, not every person. He died for the world, not just the Jews. To use Horton’s own words from the previous chapter, though, I think “this view is to be faulted not for what it affirms but for what it denies.”

It was a bit of a strange chapter, to be honest. Why so much discussion of the different theories of the atonement (especially since Horton thinks they've all got some truth in them). Was this a way to avoid focusing on the brute fact that, in Calvinism, no matter HOW the atonement works... it was only meant to work for a limited amount (or particular group) of people?

Knew Review: For Calvinism (4)

Chapter 3 of Michael Horton’s book “For Calvinism” focuses on the doctrine of Election (The U in TULIP stands for Unconditional Election). Calvinists believe that God selected certain people to be saved before time began, based solely on His mercy and grace. Of course, both Calvinists and Arminians believe in election. They simply interpret it differently. In this chapter, Horton critiques the Arminian position(s), and argues for his own position… insisting that the questions provoked by the Calvinistic interpretation of election will largely remain in the realm of mystery on this side of eternity.

There are two main ways that Arminians interpret election. Some believe, much like Calvinists, that God selected certain individuals before the world began for salvation. The only real difference (though it is a big one), is that these Arminians believe the BASIS for this selection was God’s foreknowledge. God knew who would respond to His grace and, therefore, selected them. This interpretation is based largely on Romans 8:29 and Horton, I think, does a decent job of interpreting that passage differently (foreknowledge has more to do with pre-intimacy than pre-information).

Since I don’t hold to the above Arminian view, I was more interested in how Horton would treat the second possibility. Some Arminians (myself included) believe that election is corporate rather than individual. I believe, for instance, that God, before time began, elected ‘The Israel of God’ (believing Jews and Gentiles) to be His people. Individuals play a role in deciding whether they will be in Israel/Christ, but the body itself is always elect and secure. In my opinion Horton didn’t really have an impressive critique of this view. He argued that it’s true, but that individual election is true too. I don’t doubt that some individuals were selected for certain roles, but that is a far cry from saying every individual is either selected for salvation or not.

As for his own view, Horton clearly knows it is apparently problematic. He spends a good bit of energy insisting that God actively selects some for salvation, but only passively leaves the rest in their sins. Recognizing that the selection of only some seems unjust, he tries to argue that Arminianism faces the same critique in that God could have chosen to save people regardless of their response to grace (but this is a bad argument, that wouldn’t be saving ‘people,’ only robots). He responds to the problem of children who die before repenting by suggesting that, as an exception, elect children (children with elect parents?) may be saved without repentance. As for assurance, Calvinists simply must trust the promise of the Gospel (not sure, really, how that would solve the ‘am I elect?’ problem).

Horton is not too sure about a lot of this election thing either. He chalks it up to mystery. We “cannot resolve” it, but we must affirm it (65). We may wonder how it is possible, but with God all things are possible (even contradictions?). Conveniently, for Horton, election transcends reason (so we don’t have to try to make sense of it?). The closing thought of the chapter is, basically, that we should stop being so curious about God’s mechanism of salvation.

I have to admit, the chapter left me feeling a bit icky.

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.