Grace and Peace Everyone,
As I see it and as it has been presented to us Calvinism argues 'unconditional election'. The unconditional election taught in Calvinism seems to rest on three basic assumptions:
- That the sovereignty of God requires unconditional election and thus precludes conditional election.
- That total depravity precludes the response of faith from a sinner unless he is first regenerated by the Holy Ghost.
- That salvation is free precludes conditional election.
If these three assumptions are true, then Calvinism has made its case. If these three assumptions are not true, then Calvinism is in trouble.
The first and probably the most foundational of these assumptions of Calvinism is: That the sovereignty of God requires unconditional election and thus precludes conditional election. Calvinistic thought rests on two great pillars in the history of theological thought: that of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin. It appears to me that Augustine's doctrine grew out of his thought that depravity was so strong it could only be dealt with by unconditional election. It appears that Calvin's view grows more out of the idea that unconditional election is the only view of election that is consistent with the sovereignty of God.
In Calvinism, the central truth to be reckoned with is that
everything elese must harmonize with the sovereignty of God. The Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God, as I see it, is developed along the lines of
cause and
effect. This is why some Calvinists on this board appear to be unlimited determinists. This stress on a
cause and
effect approach to matters relating to salvation when discussing theology on its broader points sound like they are unlimited determinists. In fact, I've found it hard to find out where many Calvinists stand on whether determinism is unlimited or limited because of this point.
The answer to Calvinism's assumption that the sovereignty of God requires unconditional election and thus precludes conditional election will be lengthy. It must deal with the following concerns:
- Influence and response vs. cause and effect
- The meaning of freedom of will
- The need of a theology of personality
- The question of divine determinism
- The question of foreknowledge of God in relation to the free acts of human beings
Addressing the first point of cause and effect Calvinism has oversimpliefied the way God carries out HIs sovereignty. In so doing they have oversimplified the relationship of God to man in the application of redemption. As I see it, it is very important to distinguish between
cause and
effect relationships and
influence and
response relationships.
In the relationship of the physical to the physical, or the relationship of the parts of a machine to one another, we are dealing with
cause and
effect relationships. The concepts of active and passive apply in their simple meaning. When a hammer hits a nail, the hammer is active and the nail is passive. The hammer
causes the nail to be driven into the wood. The anil had no choice. A fouce outside the nail caused the anil to be driven into the wood.
Interpersonal relationships do not submit to such a simple analysis. Influence and response provide more approprate terms. A person is one who thinks with his mind, feels with his heart, and acts with his will. In the simple sense of the terms
cause and
effect, one person cannot cause another person to do anything. This does not depend upon the lack of ability that one person has to influence another. Rather, the inability of one person to cause another person to do something grows out of the nature of what it means to be a
person. When an appeal is made to a person, it is inherent within the nature of a person to consider the appeal and then make a decision. There is no such thng as a person doing or not doing something
without having made a decision. This is true regardless of how strong the influence may be upon him or her.
Calvinsim's approach to irresistable grace (or effectual call) sound more like cause and effect than influence and response. When the appropriate time comes with regard to the elect, God regenerates him or her. As a regenerated person, he or shi is cuased by God to have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. In such a view, faith is considered to be a gift. It is problematic for faith to be consdered his choice, his act, or his response. The possbility of a negative response does not exist. It was a guaranteed response. The fact that it was guaranteed makes the terms cause and effect appropriate. All of this is consdiered by Calvinism to be necessary if salvation is to be a gift.
In explaining the gift of faith that way, the Calvinist is thinking along the lines of
cause and
effect. The only problem is that if being a person means anything beyond being a smoothy operating puppet with conscious awareness, it is impossible to describe the experience of a person in such a manner. We must keep in mind that a human being is a personal being because God has made him or her that way. This is necessary to the very notion of being made in the image of God. Can anyone really deny that faith is a personal response to the working of God with that individual? At least in some sense, the response of faith is a decision in which the person who believes actively participates. Even Calvinism should admit this.
In my opinion, it has been a mistake over the centuries to focus the conflict between Calvinists and Arminians on whether fallen or redeemed amn has a
free will. The real question is: Is fallen man a personal being, or is he sub-personal? (The same question can also be asked concerning redeemed man.) Does God deal with fallen man as a person? If He does, He deals with him as one who thinks, feels, and acts. To do otherwise undercuts the personhood of man. This, God will not do; not becuase somethng is being imposed on God to which He must submit, but because God desinged the relationship to be a relationship between
personal beings. Human beings are personal being by God's
design and were made for a
personal relationship with a personal God. God will not violate HIs own plan. The nature of the case does not demand that God work in a
cause and
effect relationship with human beings.
We dare not take the position that God is unable to work with human beings with the framework of influence and response. Are we going to settle for the thinking that the inability of
fallen man results in the
inability of God, i.e. the
inability of God to work with fallen man and redeemed man in an influence and resposne relationship? I hope not!
I am sure that Calvinists would want to say that they do not believe in "mechanical" cause and effect as it relates to the way God deals with human beings. While they would object to th word "mechanical," if they opt for any form of
determinism they cannot successfully reject the words
cause and
effect. My readings of Calvinist writings suggest that a Classical Calvinist would not object to these terms. If anyone doubts this observations, I would suggest taking another look at Loraine Boettner and John S. Feinberg. I think the description of God's relationship to man that Calvinsits would give would be much like my description of
influence and
response. However, the result is thought to be
guaranteed. When the result is guarantted, they would simply have a softened form of caue and effect. Any time the result is guaranteed, we are dealing with
cause and
effect. When the
guarantee is gone,
Calvinism is gone.
From a Calvinist viewpoint, it will not do to say that
cause and
effect describes God's relationship to us, but
influence and
response describes our relationship to one another. The entirety of that which falls within the scope of determinism falls within the scope of cause and effect. There is no influence and response. Yet, I get the impression when I read Calvinistic writings that they are trying to ersuad me. Persuasion is a form of
influence. I get the impression that they think I could and should agree. I do not think they have any different idea about persuasion than I do. I have a statment that make sometimes, "Calvinists are Arminian except when they are making Calvinsitic statements." :tongue3:
I need to point out that in common speech, we frequently tend to use influence and response and cause and effect somewhat interchangeably. We may say, "He cuaed me to do it." To be technical, we should say, "He influenced me to do it, and I chose to do it." Though the terms may be to a certain extent interchangeable in common speech, I do not believe any confusion will develop from my using them the way I do here.
Peace and God Bless.
