Featured Calvin: God is the Author of Sin

The Five Points of Calvinism (the “Doctrines of Grace”) as expressed in the Canons of Dort are not as precise to Calvinism itself as some would pretend them to be. They were precise externally in that they were a response to the Five Articles of Remonstrance (they highlighted the key disagreements that formed, what they deemed, a departure from Calvinism). But all through the history of Calvinism proper, men came to different conclusions within that system of belief. When James Arminius expressed concerns over predestination, his was not just one of two understandings. Calvinistic soteriology is not as univocal as some would make it out to be.

As I consider your experience here, I am struck that mine is very similar, only in the opposite direction. I have never attended a Calvinistic church, school, or seminary. I graduated, in fact, from a very non-Calvinistic seminary. II do not subscribe to a Confession. Yet following the “logical conclusion” of what would be considered “free-will” theology, I could not but come to the conclusion that God’s redemptive plan for all of creation rested in the hands of men. Still, that is not why I hold a Calvinistic soteriology. I chalked that up to “mystery”, and continued to argue against Calvinism for the same reason you oppose it now. I held, for that time, a view along the lines of Reformation Arminianism (God predestined all things – for example, God predestined the Fall in that he ordained, not that the Fall should occur but that in occurring it met his plan of redemption. God ordained, not decreed, such things).

But as you have taken to study, so did I. I found several intelligent and learned scholars (on both sides of the issue). Those who were Calvinists denied the conclusions attached to their belief. I looked at how God used Calvinistic preachers and missionaries. I quickly learned that the charge that the Calvinistic view of election leads to an anti-missionary stance was quickly disproven in real life. I came to realize that these Calvinists have worked out their faith, have worked out the consequences of the “points” to their “logical conclusions”, yet did not arrive where I thought they would have to end up. Out of the Calvinistic scholars, preachers, and teachers there existed none who taught that God was the cause of human sin.

I knew from philosophy that arguing “logical conclusion” was a meaningless fallacy. I knew treating my reasoning itself as superior was a baseless claim. So I simply set aside, the best I could, everything I read of Calvinism and all that I held about free-will, and studied my Bible. I came out holding a Calvinistic soteriology.

But, as I said, it is foolish to argue “logical conclusions”. I would never try to talk you, or anyone else, into holding my view if for you the only conclusion is God authors man’s sin. I would rather us fellowship in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ yet disagree than I would us be united in a soteriological view of how God accomplished salvation that left you believing God as the author of evil.

 

This was not my experience at all. But I suppose if one attended a school that indoctrinated rather than taught you may be right. I attended a non-Calvinist school, college, and seminary. I have never attended a Calvinistic church. What education did for me was that it forced me to look at views (including my own) objectively. But still, when I left, I was not a Calvinist.

Soteriology has never been what I would consider the most important study in theology. It examines how God saves, but it is not what must be known to be saved (it is a study of salvation). I believe it falls below theology proper, christology, pneumatology, and ecclesiology. So I would never define my faith on those terms.

Was the reason you held a Calvinistic view in the past due to attending a Calvinistic school?

 

I know it doesn't. But men think of things differently. When we say that something is a "logical conclusion" we mean to imply that it is the necessary conclusion but in fact it is subjective to our reasoning.

Just like your reply. I read it to imply that under Calvinistic doctrine God did not give me the choice, or that when men do believe they have not done so freely. Neither are Calvinistic beliefs, but both are "logical conclusions" people (even some Calvinists) arrive at from that doctrine.

My point was that I realized some time back that my "logical conclusions" of another belief had no true bearing on that belief. When I held a "free will" view, I didn't think that made me save myself. And I know people don't think that now Just as I know Calvinists do not make God to be the author of evil.

 

I agree. That wouldn't be a choice.

 

I don't know that particular theology. I was talking about what Calvinism taught, not even what Calvinists individually may believe.

 

See, that whole "education" notion Agent47 mentioned was a bit off. If I recall, you and I attended the same seminary...and you came out the better for it.

What I mean is that I do not know of the version of Calvinism that teaches men are saved/lost without the freedom to choose. I am sure that there could be Calvinists who teach that, but that doesn't mean it is what Calvinism teaches.

I was referring to the "five points" of Calvinism, particularly as adopted by Baptists (not "traditional" Calvinists) from the Canons of Dort. They specifically teach men as having the freedom of choice. Those who don't believe chose not to believe. Those who do believe chose to believe. But salvation is of God and not man. You may be pointing to that last part - that Calvinists believes God saves us.

 

This was my conclusion - I stuck with Scripture, tried my best to live my convictions, work out my own salvation, and tried not to impose my reasoning or logic on other believers. Unlike some, I seem to have been born with a disability that renders me somehow incapable of knowing the mind of God beyond what he has revealed in Scripture. So unfortunately I'm dependent on a very narrow source of materials.

We look at the same thing, but when we examine the passages that support each doctrine we come up with different conclusions. It's interesting, perhaps, but not unexpected. People think differently. We put things together differently. Scripture tells us that God is indeed in control. But Scripture also tells us that we are responsible for our own decisions. Scripture says that man makes his plans. But Scripture also says that everything happens according to God's purpose. We fill in the blanks to make it systematic reasoning. I doubt you would be able to deny much of what you deny without filling in the blanks. But, again, people think differently. My wife said the other day that Simon and Garfunkel couldn't sing...not that she didn't like them (she doesn't) but that they couldn't sing???!!!

You mention the Holocaust. I'll go one better (one far better than Nazi genocide). When the Jews crucified Jesus, this was predestined by God that it would happen. Jesus' statements to his disciples, his prayer in the garden, and the Old Testament bear evidence to this. And Scripture tells us that it was evil of the Jews to crucify Jesus. It was a sin. But that sin resulted in what was decreed to happen.

 

It isn't an attempt to redeem Calvinism. I studied compatibilism long before I changed my major to religion, and in a non-religious context. The notion that the will does not exist apart from external influences is, I believe, obvious. But contained within this sphere of influence, men freely choose. Maybe this is why I lean towards a Calvinistic view. Anyway, I am definitely up to that thread so long as you don't confuse philosophy with religion.

 

It's not just the English, brother. The Institutes were, after all, first published in Latin and later in French. Calvin wrote of God, a timeless Subject. But Calvin wrote from and to a worldview that has long passed.