Why I Am Not a Calvinist

I was a Calvinist for a few years. Maybe 2004 to 2009--give or take. I was never a supralapsarian--Heaven forbid! I was an infralapsarian. That means I thought we don't have the ability--after the Fall described in Genesis 3--either to sin or not to sin, or for that matter either to place our faith in Jesus the Messiah or not.

Why did I believe this? Nothing fancy. I've heard disturbing things on Soteriology 101 about most Calvinists thinking the very idea of G-d's sovereignty or omnipotence means G-d has to control every single event, leaving no room at all for any man or angel to have any ability either to do or not do anything.

That's what we call "philosophy," ladies and gentlemen. And it's not very good philosophy. Like Soteriology 101 says, an omnipotent G-d ought to be able to make beings with free will. And a sovereign G-d can control an overall, ultimate outcome regardless of our decisions.

(William James, one my philosophy faves, was very good on that last point. He used the analogy of G-d as a master chess player controlling the final outcome no matter what his opponent may freely choose to do. He also seems to have thought free will was a limit on omnipotence. Well--even my faves can't get everything right, can they?)

But to get back to the point--why was I a Calvinist? Like I said, nothing fancy. I found compelling some Dallas Baptist University cafeteria version of Buridan's Ass. (Or shall we say "Buridan's Donkey"? ) Can we really act against our strongest desires? And is it even possible to have equally matched desires between right and wrong? I still remember sitting in church on the day I became a Calvinist, thinking through the impossibility of equally matched desires. I likened it to Augustine in Book XI of Confessions thinking about the length of the present moment--it has no length!

Add to that the fact that I hadn't figured out a better way to read some things in Paul, like Romans 9.

Well, I'm not a Calvinist anymore. Here's why--and it's also nothing fancy! The next two sections--on Buridan's Donkey and Romans 9--are more old news, going back to 2009 or so. But the commentaries on Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 are new.

So much for Buridan's Donkey

If it takes a miracle to bring about equally matched desires, well--that's something G-d can do, isn't it?

And maybe we can act against our strongest desires. Hadn't I read about that sort of thing in Kant? Kant ain't Scripture, but if a great philosopher can have an idea then maybe the idea itself isn't crazy.

Now About Romans 9

And Romans 9? Well, the solution to the appearance of a Calvinist Romans 9 is ridiculously simple. Brace yourselves:

Clear passages interpret unclear passages.

That's it. That's the key.

Face it, Calvinists: Romans 9 is not the clearest passage in Scripture.

You know what's clearer? Any Bible story where some person appears to decide between doing a thing and not doing it. There may be any number of such stories, and all we have to do is assume they mean what they seem to mean: That person really was able to do or not do a thing. He had that kind of free will!

Naaman is the perfect example. He could either do or not do what Elisha said.

That means that whatever Paul is saying, it's almost certainly not that we lack the ability either to or not to obey G-d in faith.

That's enough.

But there's more on Romans 9: You gotta go back to Jeremiah 18!

Here's Romans 9, KJV:

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Well, gee--if you read that by itself, it almost looks like Paul really is saying that G-d makes some people only to be damned and others to sin, repent, and be saved--with no ability to do otherwise!

The problem is that you should never read something Paul says by itself.

And I don't just mean the context of the rest of Paul's letter. Even more than that, I mean the Old Testament. All 27 New Testament books are Old Testament commentaries.

Paul is drawing from the analogy of the potter and the clay in Jeremiah 18:

¹ The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,

² Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

³ Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

⁴ And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

⁵ Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

⁶ O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

The first event in what happens here is: The clay goes bad. Only after that does the potter do what he wants with it.

In other words, the point is not that G-d as the divine potter will cause us to do what we do. The point is that after we do what we do, G-d has the authority and power to respond as He likes.

And, check it out--even after all that, we often still have freedom to change our ways, in response to which G-d changes his response to us!

⁷ At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

⁸ If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

⁹ And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

¹⁰ If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

And that tells us that Paul is in no way denying that we have the ability to repent or not, or to have faith or not.

Now About Ephesians 1

¹ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

² Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

⁴ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

⁵ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

⁶ To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

⁷ In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

⁸ Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

⁹ Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

¹⁰ That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

¹¹ In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

¹² That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

¹³ In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

¹⁴ Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Reading that, it almost looks like everyone whose sins are forgiven in Jesus is someone who was chosen for that result by G-d before any of us were ever born--like we don't have any real choice in the matter.

But Paul isn't saying that.

He's not categorizing people who are saved as people who are chosen before the foundations of the world.

He begins by referring to those who “are faithful in Christ Jesus."

He then describes some characteristics of those people: They have been blessed, chosen, and categorized beforehand (Greek προορίζω/proorizo, to foreordain or predestine) to be adopted as brothers of Jesus Christ and as children of G-d the Father. They're not predestined to be faithful ones; rather, since they're faithful, they're pre-categorized for adoption as children by G-d the Father.

And how did they get to be faithful? Paul doesn't actually say here. Presumably it was by their own choice. But at any rate, he isn't denying that it was a free choice; if you want a denial of that, look somewhere else.

How 'Bout Romans 8?

²⁹ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

³⁰ Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Kinda looks like a chain of causes and effects, doesn't it? G-d foreknows, and this causes him to predestine; then the predestining causes the calling, which causes the justifying, which causes the glorifying--right?

Wrong. This is not a chain of causes and effects. It's a chain of Barbara syllogisms--its just categories. All people who are foreknown are pre-categorized (προορίζω/proorizo) to be conformed to the image of Jesus; all of those people are called; all the called people are justified; and all the justified people are glorified.

But who is foreknown? If G-d foreknowing me is not the first cause of all this, what is the cause?

Well, if we want to know who is foreknown, we just look at the context. The immediate context tells us that they are people with the Holy Spirit and people undergoing “the sufferings of this present time” (verse 8), without telling us who exactly those people are. But I reckon Romans 4 tells us who those people are: They are the ones who responded to the Gospel with faith.

That response was presumably by their own choice, or at any rate I am not aware of any passage of the Bible clearly ruling this out. Paul is not ruling it out here.

Do you know of a passage? If you do, I'd like to talk about that.