c l a s s i c a l
When I think of "the Devil," I am usually thinking about Satan in particular. However, many times we use "the Devil" as an expression to refer to demons as well, as when we say that someone is possessed by "the Devil." We do not mean that the individual is possessed by Satan himself, but by any number of his followers. In this post, any reference to "the Devil" is merely generic, not necessarily implying Satan himself.
In the interminable debate between Calvinists and all non-Calvinist Christians throughout the world, the subject of demonic activity is rarely brought into dialogue. Since Christ Jesus has won the victory over sin, death and hell, we can rightly conclude that Christ, as Lord, has defeated His demonic opponents: "The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8 NRSV).
Jesus, after His resurrection and subsequent ascension, was seated at God's right hand as Lord and Savior, and Christ "must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:25 NRSV). This He shall continue to do, even at His second advent: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26), which will finally be conquered at such a time. Until that day, however, there will still be demonic activity in the earth (2 Cor. 11:13-15; Eph. 6:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 13:14; 20:8).
Though Satan and his demonic followers are fallen foes, Christ having triumphed over them (Col. 2:15), they are still hell-bent on destruction. At Christ's return they will be cast out of God's presence for eternity. But until then, we still encounter their opposition. But what can we admit concerning their opposition? Even though Christ has defeated their ultimate plans for destruction, though He has won salvation for us by His gracious work through faith in Him alone, how are we to view spiritual wickedness?
We understand from Scripture that God is sovereign over every event in our lives. No event can take place without His permission and will. When Satan demanded of God to let him sift Jesus' disciples like wheat (cf. Luke 22:31), we recognize that he could not do so unless God gave him permission. This is significant for our understanding of demonic activity. At no time are we permitted to think that Satan or any other devil outsmarted or triumphed over God. Only a fool could come to such a conclusion.
Yet, I do not think we are permitted to view demonic activity as a means of God accomplishing His will, as though the only method for accomplishing His various purposes is through the instrumentality of demons. If so, that would make Satan and the devils a necessary component of God's will, and thus God would be found dependent and disadvantaged.
However, if we are to adopt a Calvinist perspective of God's sovereignty, that God "from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass,"1 then we are obliged to imply that God, in fact, is disadvantaged, making the presence and activity of devils a necessity, as well as was their fall into sin, disobedience and ultimate rebellion.
John Calvin taught that not only humanity but also demonic beings are used to do God's bidding at His whim. (link) God can ordain and bring to pass whatsoever He has decreed, from eternity past, and not be tainted in character or holy nature. Calvin thought that God's motives were not even to be questioned, using the oft-repeated response: "But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?" (Rom. 9:20 NRSV)
I wonder why Calvinists hold certain incendiaries responsible for certain consequences when the instigator did not actually perform a given reprehensible act but only made certain that such an act would ensue. As long as a person does not perform an evil act, according to Calvinist logic, then why blame the individual for making certain an evil act be committed?
That is, essentially, how Calvinists view God's standards. For the Calvinist, God can render evil certain, bringing about all of the evil circumstances He wishes, and not have His character tainted. How so? Because Calvinists insist as much. Evidently, insistence is the dominating factor as to how God cannot be charged as sinning, or his character charged as exceedingly suspect, when He makes sin an absolute necessity by decree.
Calvin agrees that God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are justly condemned, though they are obeying his will. (link) He is convinced that people "do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction. . . ." (link) This is consistent Calvinism! All Calvinistic views which oppose this overall concept is a departure from consistent, Classical Calvinism.
What we find here is an explicit statement that when evil men and women act sinfully and evilly, they are obeying God's decree. Calvin concludes (emphasis added): "Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust." (link) So, I cannot do but what God has secretly decreed that I do, but I am also condemned for doing what God has secretly decreed I do.
I want to introduce my sinful behavior from last March into this conversation. Consistent Calvinist theologian Wayne Grudem insists that God "influences the desires and decisions of people. . . . Our words, our steps, our movements, our hearts, and our abilities are all from the Lord" (emphases added).2 I sinned, criminally so, against my seminary roommate St Patrick's Day weekend, March 2012. What, according to Calvinism, are we to conclude regarding my heinous actions?
If we hold to Calvin's words, as well as to the words of Grudem and other consistent Calvinists, then we are forced, absolutely so, to conclude that my lust toward my roommate, and my actions in touching his body without permission, were from the Lord, from God's secret instigation and secret decree. In Calvin's own theology, as well as all consistent Calvinists, God used and governed my counsels (thought processes) and affections (lust); and, therefore, I, in executing what God secretly instigated and decreed, was justly condemned, even though I was obeying God's secret decree. I wonder how my roommate would feel if he heard me say, "I'm sorry, but I was merely obeying God's secret decree." (God forbid!)
More specifically, God was busy at work in this one, wicked scenario. Much preparation was executed so that I would sin, by God's secret decree, against my roommate. Though the apostle John admitted that he was writing to believers so that they would not sin (1 John 2:1), God was busy in my heart and mind, making certain that I would sin! By being disobedient to God's precepts, I was actually being obedient to the secret instigation of God, by which every thought, desire, word and action was conceived. Imagine a God who would conceive of such things.
The Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty is, for me, the most heinous, insidious, reprehensible aspect of Calvinism. Calvinism's determinism presents the most distorted views of God's character and nature than any other Christian theology of which I am aware.
Calvin read a verse such as Isaiah 45:7, and concluded that God creates evil (cf. Amos 3:6). He read a passage such as Psalm 115:3 and concluded that God could do whatever He wanted to do without taint to His character or nature. Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Gen. 18:25 NRSV) According to Calvinism, the answer is no. God will create whatever evil He wishes, and we are to consider Him holy and just regardless. King David prayed, "Don't let me drift toward evil or take part in acts of wickedness" (Ps. 141:4 NLT). Such a prayer is superfluous to the secret instigation of God with regard to our behaving wickedly.
The Hebrew word for evil at Isaiah 45:7 is better translated as calamity. God cannot create evil, strictly, since evil is not a thing; it is not an entity or a substance. Evil is merely the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light. God brings calamity on disobedient people and nations, not merely at whim, but as a corrective and to distribute justice.
Only a libertarian free will theodicy accurately interprets God's relation to sin and evil. Though the devil has a measure of freedom to do as he wishes, as do human beings, God is still sovereign. But we cannot suggest that any devil of hell, or any human being, performs sin or evil because of being obedient to God's will. God is too pure to look at evil (Habakkuk 1:13), to say nothing of absolutely decreeing evil, as Calvinists erroneously imagine.
Flip Wilson, in the early 1970s, used to jokingly say "the devil made me do it." According to Calvinism, devils and men are merely pawns in God's purposes and plans; He directs them as He wills. No, the devil did not make you do it; God did. Had God not decreed and brought about sin and evil, then such would not exist, not if He decrees every minutiae of our existence, rendering certain all our sin, not by means of foresight of free will but merely by decree.
Calvinism's implicating God's character and nature, due to its heinous and erroneous views of God's sovereignty, should cause its adherents to abandon it straightaway. Such is not "big God theology," Jemar Tisby, but big distorted God heresy. I could not stand before God and admit to His face what Calvinists claim regarding His character and sovereignty.
__________
1 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, "Of God's Eternal Decree." This section states, in part: "I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." (link)
2 Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 146.
In the interminable debate between Calvinists and all non-Calvinist Christians throughout the world, the subject of demonic activity is rarely brought into dialogue. Since Christ Jesus has won the victory over sin, death and hell, we can rightly conclude that Christ, as Lord, has defeated His demonic opponents: "The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8 NRSV).
Jesus, after His resurrection and subsequent ascension, was seated at God's right hand as Lord and Savior, and Christ "must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:25 NRSV). This He shall continue to do, even at His second advent: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26), which will finally be conquered at such a time. Until that day, however, there will still be demonic activity in the earth (2 Cor. 11:13-15; Eph. 6:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 13:14; 20:8).
Though Satan and his demonic followers are fallen foes, Christ having triumphed over them (Col. 2:15), they are still hell-bent on destruction. At Christ's return they will be cast out of God's presence for eternity. But until then, we still encounter their opposition. But what can we admit concerning their opposition? Even though Christ has defeated their ultimate plans for destruction, though He has won salvation for us by His gracious work through faith in Him alone, how are we to view spiritual wickedness?
We understand from Scripture that God is sovereign over every event in our lives. No event can take place without His permission and will. When Satan demanded of God to let him sift Jesus' disciples like wheat (cf. Luke 22:31), we recognize that he could not do so unless God gave him permission. This is significant for our understanding of demonic activity. At no time are we permitted to think that Satan or any other devil outsmarted or triumphed over God. Only a fool could come to such a conclusion.
Yet, I do not think we are permitted to view demonic activity as a means of God accomplishing His will, as though the only method for accomplishing His various purposes is through the instrumentality of demons. If so, that would make Satan and the devils a necessary component of God's will, and thus God would be found dependent and disadvantaged.
However, if we are to adopt a Calvinist perspective of God's sovereignty, that God "from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass,"1 then we are obliged to imply that God, in fact, is disadvantaged, making the presence and activity of devils a necessity, as well as was their fall into sin, disobedience and ultimate rebellion.
John Calvin taught that not only humanity but also demonic beings are used to do God's bidding at His whim. (link) God can ordain and bring to pass whatsoever He has decreed, from eternity past, and not be tainted in character or holy nature. Calvin thought that God's motives were not even to be questioned, using the oft-repeated response: "But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?" (Rom. 9:20 NRSV)
I wonder why Calvinists hold certain incendiaries responsible for certain consequences when the instigator did not actually perform a given reprehensible act but only made certain that such an act would ensue. As long as a person does not perform an evil act, according to Calvinist logic, then why blame the individual for making certain an evil act be committed?
That is, essentially, how Calvinists view God's standards. For the Calvinist, God can render evil certain, bringing about all of the evil circumstances He wishes, and not have His character tainted. How so? Because Calvinists insist as much. Evidently, insistence is the dominating factor as to how God cannot be charged as sinning, or his character charged as exceedingly suspect, when He makes sin an absolute necessity by decree.
Calvin agrees that God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are justly condemned, though they are obeying his will. (link) He is convinced that people "do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction. . . ." (link) This is consistent Calvinism! All Calvinistic views which oppose this overall concept is a departure from consistent, Classical Calvinism.
What we find here is an explicit statement that when evil men and women act sinfully and evilly, they are obeying God's decree. Calvin concludes (emphasis added): "Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust." (link) So, I cannot do but what God has secretly decreed that I do, but I am also condemned for doing what God has secretly decreed I do.
I want to introduce my sinful behavior from last March into this conversation. Consistent Calvinist theologian Wayne Grudem insists that God "influences the desires and decisions of people. . . . Our words, our steps, our movements, our hearts, and our abilities are all from the Lord" (emphases added).2 I sinned, criminally so, against my seminary roommate St Patrick's Day weekend, March 2012. What, according to Calvinism, are we to conclude regarding my heinous actions?
If we hold to Calvin's words, as well as to the words of Grudem and other consistent Calvinists, then we are forced, absolutely so, to conclude that my lust toward my roommate, and my actions in touching his body without permission, were from the Lord, from God's secret instigation and secret decree. In Calvin's own theology, as well as all consistent Calvinists, God used and governed my counsels (thought processes) and affections (lust); and, therefore, I, in executing what God secretly instigated and decreed, was justly condemned, even though I was obeying God's secret decree. I wonder how my roommate would feel if he heard me say, "I'm sorry, but I was merely obeying God's secret decree." (God forbid!)
More specifically, God was busy at work in this one, wicked scenario. Much preparation was executed so that I would sin, by God's secret decree, against my roommate. Though the apostle John admitted that he was writing to believers so that they would not sin (1 John 2:1), God was busy in my heart and mind, making certain that I would sin! By being disobedient to God's precepts, I was actually being obedient to the secret instigation of God, by which every thought, desire, word and action was conceived. Imagine a God who would conceive of such things.
The Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty is, for me, the most heinous, insidious, reprehensible aspect of Calvinism. Calvinism's determinism presents the most distorted views of God's character and nature than any other Christian theology of which I am aware.
Calvin read a verse such as Isaiah 45:7, and concluded that God creates evil (cf. Amos 3:6). He read a passage such as Psalm 115:3 and concluded that God could do whatever He wanted to do without taint to His character or nature. Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Gen. 18:25 NRSV) According to Calvinism, the answer is no. God will create whatever evil He wishes, and we are to consider Him holy and just regardless. King David prayed, "Don't let me drift toward evil or take part in acts of wickedness" (Ps. 141:4 NLT). Such a prayer is superfluous to the secret instigation of God with regard to our behaving wickedly.
The Hebrew word for evil at Isaiah 45:7 is better translated as calamity. God cannot create evil, strictly, since evil is not a thing; it is not an entity or a substance. Evil is merely the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light. God brings calamity on disobedient people and nations, not merely at whim, but as a corrective and to distribute justice.
Only a libertarian free will theodicy accurately interprets God's relation to sin and evil. Though the devil has a measure of freedom to do as he wishes, as do human beings, God is still sovereign. But we cannot suggest that any devil of hell, or any human being, performs sin or evil because of being obedient to God's will. God is too pure to look at evil (Habakkuk 1:13), to say nothing of absolutely decreeing evil, as Calvinists erroneously imagine.
Flip Wilson, in the early 1970s, used to jokingly say "the devil made me do it." According to Calvinism, devils and men are merely pawns in God's purposes and plans; He directs them as He wills. No, the devil did not make you do it; God did. Had God not decreed and brought about sin and evil, then such would not exist, not if He decrees every minutiae of our existence, rendering certain all our sin, not by means of foresight of free will but merely by decree.
Calvinism's implicating God's character and nature, due to its heinous and erroneous views of God's sovereignty, should cause its adherents to abandon it straightaway. Such is not "big God theology," Jemar Tisby, but big distorted God heresy. I could not stand before God and admit to His face what Calvinists claim regarding His character and sovereignty.
__________
1 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, "Of God's Eternal Decree." This section states, in part: "I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." (link)
2 Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 146.
WWB - Your real life experience, your sin so to speak, reveals that if one is a Calvinist and living that soteriology consistently, then God is a really, really tricky fellow. The Calvinist understanding of sin really slanders His impeccable character.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Calvinism is so similar to the excuses found in the Garden of Eden: Adam blamed Eve & God, and Eve blamed the Serpent. God does not accept the blame and forces humanity to accept responsibility and blame for their own actions.
Arminianism, on the other hand, squarely places the action where it should be: on the sinner. James 1:14 puts sin in its proper place. It comes not from God but from our own lust.
Thanks for the honesty you expressed here.
Dale,
DeleteExcellent response! I particularly like your second paragraph, though I agree wholeheartedly with everything else (and the James 1:14 reference).
Roger Olson wrote, "In my estimation there is not much difference between the God of Calvinism and Satan. Satan wants to kill all people and the God of Calvinism wants to kill most all of them." Pretty tough words but if we hold that God determines all things by His own sovereign will then we must conclude that all things, including evil, happens because He wills it so and renders it certain.
ReplyDeleteRoy,
DeleteI certainly agree with your estimation, following Olson's statement.
I liked Olson's recent challenge to Calvinists. When challenged by a Calvinist, "If it was revealed to you in a way you couldn't question or deny that the true God actually is as Calvinism says and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him?," he now flips the question and asks, "Suppose it were revealed to you in a way you couldn't doubt or question that Satan is God? Would you still worship him?"
Touché!
When asked "Would you still love and worship God if it were revealed to you in a way you couldn't deny that God is not at all like Jesus?" he rightly responds that Jesus is the revelation of God.
The question betrays what is plainly, explicitly revealed in Scripture, on which all Christians can and should agree. This question is not, categorically, identical to the one above.
An interesting post, William. There are some thoughts about the content of this post I could share that came to mind as I read, but I want instead to make an observation. I think it is worth noting that Arminius himself took a more positive, or at least a more hopeful, view of Calvin's doctrine of the fore-ordination of sin and the fall than you do in this post. Arminius refers at least once to what he called "Calvin's dicta." Specifically, Calvin's dicta included the statements: "All the sons of Adam did fall away by God's will"; "It was decreed by God that Adam should perish by his own falling away"; "It was the secret counsel of God in which the fall of man was ordained"; "Adam did not fall away but according to God's knowledge and ordinance."
ReplyDeleteArminius commented on these statements (and, by extension, those like them, such as those you have cited here) with the following observation.
"Calvin's dicta must be understood in a very modified sense, and according to the interpretation premised by us; otherwise they cannot be defended. But, that his [Calvin's] design was to demolish the dogma of the Schoolmen, is an assertion which ought not to be made by one who has taken up the defense of his opinions. . . . But all the Schoolmen openly allow that God permits willingly what He does permit. Yet the blasphemy of the Manichees is not to be imputed to Calvin, because, though he sometimes speaks rather improperly, yet he elsewhere plainly removes that calumny from himself and his doctrine" ("Modest Examination of Perkin's Pamphlet" in The Works of Arminius, 3:373-374).
You will notice at the beginning of the citation that Arminius says Calvin's words on this subject have to be interpreted in a very modified sense according to the interpretation that he has laid out earlier in the treatise. If Calvin's words cannot be taken that way, then they are indefensible. If he had left his comments there, the case would be closed, I think. Most, after all, would never think that Calvin really meant what Arminius meant. But I think Arminius was more optimistic than most and took a more positive view. He goes on to say at the end of the quote (only a couple sentences later) that Calvin in his writings had "plainly removed from himself and his doctrine" the blasphemy of the Manichees, which is essentially what this post imputes to him and his doctrine, the very thing Arminius says should not be imputed to him.
Surely Arminius had read the Institutes. Surely he had read some of the commentaries and some of the other treatises by Calvin. Even still, Calvin made it clear to Arminius's mind in his writings at some point that he wasn't teaching blasphemous doctrine, and Arminius calls it calumny to lay that charge upon Calvin. So it seems clear to me that Arminius thought Calvin probably did mean something closer to what Arminius himself was saying, which, as he understood it, is not what Perkins, Beza, Gomarus and others were saying. The big problem with Calvin, Arminius says, is that he is given to "speak rather improperly." Speaking improperly so as to need one's statements interpreted "in a very modified sense" seems to be Arminius's trouble with Calvin. It was the wording, not the substance, that Arminius apparently found troubling. So I am not sure Arminius would have written a blog post like this one, at least not one like this targeted specifically at John Calvin. Seems that Arminius was more positive, hopeful and supportive of Calvin's doctrine of sovereignty than you are.
Wesley,
DeleteWelcome! It's been a long time!
I have no doubt whatsoever that Arminius was much more positive toward Calvin's views or chosen words on this subject. I wonder if Arminius was being too gracious? After all, Perkins, Beza and Gomarus took their cue on God's sovereignty -- the latter two their supralapsarian views -- from Calvin.
To admit that Calvin "spoke improperly" is quite telling. The entire eighteenth chapter of Calvin's book one in the Institutes regards the instrumental use of wicked individuals by God, and His having decreed even their wickedness, without having tainted His character. What I'm asking you is, If Calvin is suggesting something much more positive than what I've outlined above, then why all the qualification? In other words, if Calvin is not communicating what he seems to be suggesting, and especially so with regard to all of his offered proof-texts, then what, exactly, is he stating -- merely that God is sovereign? But who is denying that God is sovereign?
In the introduction of that chapter, he begins by insisting that there are passages of Scripture, in which "God is said to draw or bend Satan himself, and all the reprobate, to his will," and so "a more difficult question arises. For the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how, when acting by their means, he contracts no taint from their impurity, nay, how, in a common operation, he is exempt from all guilt, and can justly condemn his own ministers. Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his Judgments."
Honestly, I think Arminius was being far too kind: far. I see no other way to take his words than what we have at face value. He was a brilliant man, and not known for carelessly choosing his words, or "speaking improperly."
Why, too, did subsequent Calvinists speak of God's decreeing sin and evil in even more explicit terms than Calvin himself? I am led to think that they were merely being consistent with Calvin's theodicy.
What of Grudem's words, which I've quoted so many times before? Do you think Grudem (and Piper and Packer and Sproul, etc., etc.) is modifying or echoing Calvin, or merely repeating the errors of Beza and Gomarus? God influences our desires and decisions? For me, that is consistent with Calvin's chapter on this subject. I also think that it is close to blasphemy.
I think you are right about my assessment, though. I have nothing positive to say about Calvin's or the Calvinist's views regarding God's sovereignty (i.e., determinism).
Wesley,
DeleteI forgot to add: I was very careful in the words I chose, because Calvin made a very clear distinction between God's precept and God's will. So I had the task of also making that distinction, not only with representing his views accurately, but also in charging Calvinism with serious error regarding the same.
I do wonder, however: If God is sovereign, if we assume Calvin had a "softer" view than that of Beza or Gomarus, assuming Arminius was correct, do you suppose that it would actually make any difference in the end?
This reminds me of the nuances between hard and soft determinism, or determinism and compatibilism. Monergism.com insists: It should be noted that this position [compatibilism] is no less deterministic than hard determinism -- be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. . . . (Note: compatibilism denies that the will is free to choose otherwise, that is, free from the bondage of the corrupt nature, for the unregenerate, and denies that the will is free from God's eternal decree.)
I'm just not convinced that Calvin's views on this topic were any softer than how they appear, or different from any subsequent Calvinist, hyper-Calvinists notwithstanding.
Thanks for the welcome, brother! It has been a long time indeed. I am delighted to find myself back in the arena with you, my friend!
ReplyDeleteI don't have much else to say in response. I really just wanted to put my observation out there and see what you thought about. I have been reading from Arminius's works lately, and I came across that very interesting passage that I wished to share above. You may be right that Arminius was being too kind and too willing to accommodate Calvin's language to his own views. I just wonder what he could have been referring to when he said Calvin plainly removed blasphemy and calumny from himself and his doctrine in his writings. In the section I quoted from, he was in the midst of arguing that Perkins's doctrine made God the author of sin. It was in that context that Arminius defended Calvin from blasphemy. So I wonder what that means, either about Arminius or about Calvin.
Honestly, I assumed that a scholar of Arminius's caliber was in a great position to know what Calvin meant and whether it was at all different from Beza and other doctors and divines at the time. He knew Beza and these other stellar teachers and theologians of the day. It made me think Calvin's language led his followers and successors to speak after the same manner (or an even stronger manner) but with a more stringent meaning. I do not assume that Beza and others simply toed the line and said nothing but what Calvin said. I think they helped develop and advance the Reformed faith. As they did that, they brought about the Reformed Orthodoxy of the following generations. It would not surprise me if they went beyond what Calvin himself originally taught in some ways. Maybe they didn't at all. I don't know. I just defaulted to giving Arminius the benefit of the doubt given how close he was to the Reformers.
It seems to me, and I defer to your correction, that Arminius was eager to find common ground with his contemporaries and opponents, and he was willing to accept his opponents' language if it could be taken at all with a proper meaning, even if improperly worded on the face of it. He wanted to uphold the doctrinal standards of his church and say what they said, and it seems he wanted to be on Calvin's side as much as he could (as, I imagine, everyone in the Reformed churches did). He defended Calvin's words and praised supremely Calvin's abilities as an exegete. He affirmed and agreed with and accepted the language and wording of everything he could from Calvin and his opponents, but departed where he believed he had to. So perhaps that disposition skewed his reading and understanding of Calvin, or maybe he was right about Calvin. I don't know.
The more I read Arminius, though, the more it seems to me that he is more of a Calvinist in some ways than I ever would have guessed. And if Arminius is right about Calvin, maybe they are not so different after all. I think that would be a good thing. I wonder what you think? I know there are some really important differences we could talk about, but Arminius was definitely Reformed and pretty calvinistic in some ways, don't you think? He is, at least, nothing like any Arminian I ever knew or talked to with precious few exceptions! lol
Wesley,
DeleteI'll just reply briefly to your final question. Yes, I think Arminius was more "Calvinistic" than what many people think, and I only wish that other Calvinists such as yourself would actually read Arminius. If they did, then books such as The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented, by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, would not make the many all too common errors we find in Calvinistic literature about Arminianism being semi-Pelagian, or other such nonsense.
I'll also grant you that Arminius is more Calvinistic than myself and many other Arminians I know; as well as a much better bridge-builder than we Arminians today.
But I'll also let you know that the neo-Calvinists are partly to blame for this. If you and some other Calvinists were on the receiving end of comments from the likes of Piper, Sproul, Packer, MacArthur, Driscoll, and so many others, you might also be much less a bridge-builder and rather defensive.
For example, when J.I. Packer says that Arminians are nearly "unChristian," Sproul says we're "barely saved" and make a faith a work, like Romans Catholics (thus the "return to Rome" charge), John Owen says we're from the devil himself, Abraham Kuyper says we're Socinian, Agustus Toplday says we're idolators, MacArthur, Driscoll, Steele and Thomas say we're semi-Pelagian, Justin Taylor, Tom Nettles, and Ardel Caneday say that God has not "opened our eyes" to the truths of the doctrines of grace -- why would we want to accommodate and build bridges with such people? They cause this ungodly rift, not us.
I've never had a problem admitting that Arminius was a far better man than I'll ever be.
Wesley,
DeleteI do think that I should also note that Arminius would not have agreed with Calvin's views on God's sovereignty and decrees wholeheartedly, since Calvin thought God decreed the future according to His own purpose and plan, irrespective of foreknown events or free will decisions (as also the Westminster divines wrote in their Confession), while Arminius thought God decreed the future according to foresight of free will decisions, as taken from today's post (Tuesday, Feb. 5):
For He is the first cause, and the causes of causes, who, from the foreseen free act of rational creatures, takes occasion to make any decree, and to establish a certain order in events. . . .
Whatever we can admit, given Arminius' accommodating Calvin's words, relieving him of the charge of blasphemy, we have to concede that he would not have agreed with Calvin in toto on the issues at hand.
William,
ReplyDeleteTo your first reply, I can only say I sympathize with what you're saying. Just in case, I didn't mean for any of my posts to come across as critical of you or your stance in this post and this conversation. I really just wanted to highlight some things about Arminius and his approach to Calvin on these issues. I mentioned how he seemed to be taking a different approach to Calvin than you did in this post, but that was not intended to be a "gotcha" point or something negative about you.
To your second reply, I would agree with you, of course. As I said, and as we all know well, there are important differences between Calvin an Arminius. Arminius believed that God's middle knowledge had to intervene in his decrees. I don't think Calvin believed that. That would have been a problem for Arminius, no doubt, as you rightly point out. I am just surprised and impressed at times that Arminius was as thoroughly Reformed and even moderately Calvinistic as he was. I enjoy reading his works and getting to see what his theology was really like. Ever since our paths have crossed and I have read Arminius for myself, I have been able to see Calvinists get things wrong with more clarity and frequency. At the same time, however, tons of people would have the exact same experience if they read Calvin for themselves as well :-)
Wesley,
DeleteI wasn't put off by your comments. I know you too well now than to think you were trying to pull a "gotcha," haha.
Arminius once stated: "But after the Holy Scriptures . . . I exhort them [his students] to read the Commentaries of Calvin, on whom I bestow higher praise than Helmichius [a Dutch divine] ever did, as he confessed to me himself. For I tell them that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the Ancient Christian Fathers: So that, in a certain eminent Spirit of Prophecy, I give the preeminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyond them all. I add, that, with regard to what belongs to [Melanchthon's] Common Places, his Institutes must be read after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as a more ample interpretation. But to all this I subjoin the remark that they must be perused with cautious choice, like all other human compositions." (Works, 1:295-96).
My mouth hit the floor when I read that (I still have the bruise mark). Probably needless to say, I don't agree with him. I'll take Melanchthon over Calvin.
I enjoy reading your thoughts and comments. Don't ever stop. Though I probably don't need to repeat these words, I will. Whenever I'm critical of Calvinists or Calvinism, I would never intend to say anything about you as a person. Meeting you was one of the highlights of my college years at Southeastern; and because of my relationship with you (and some other fine Calvinists), I'm kept from being an anti-Calvinist -- you all keep me in a proper line.
Which brings me to tomorrow's post. The little rant I wrote above in this comments section about all of those Calvinists who have made nasty comments about Arminians and Arminianism, well, that is the subject for tomorrow's post, and it is much more detailed. It is in response to Justin Taylor's post today, and not meant as an attack on anyone personally, especially you.