Now...he [God] arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. So wrote John Calvin.
If there ever was a statement that would give a couple second thoughts about having a family, that would would rank near the top. That declaration is one reason the historian Will Durant wrote, "We shall always find it hard to love the man, John Calvin, who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense."
In this first article on the subject of why I'm not a Calvinist, I would start, not by picking the TULIP, but by taking a look at a text that's the sign-off of Luke's second volume, Acts, chapter 28 and verses 23-31.
Paul's in Rome awaiting his trial and while he's there, he's under house arrest living in "his own rented quarters." He'll stay in that situation for two years. During those 24 months, Paul is active with a capital "A." His daily routine consists of "welcoming the large numbers who came to him," (vss. 23, 30) engaging in "explaining," "testifying," trying to persuade," "preaching" and "teaching the Lord Jesus Christ."
The reaction to this hurricane of activity was that "some were being persuaded but others would not believe." What Paul is doing is what we call apologetics, a defense of the faith. Persuasion involves apologetics. The text points out that Paul did this "from morning until evening." That's as active as you can get.
With apologetics and persuasion come disagreements and arguments as verse 25 records. The problem with the word "arguments" is that it's a pejorative term, bringing to mind name-calling, yelling, and rudeness. But Christian persuasion and argumentation is not like that as Peter points out in I Peter 3:15 where he says that making a defense of the faith is to be done "with gentleness and reverence."
Be that as it may, Acts 28:24 is of import for the title of this essay. Luke writes "others would not believe." Luke doesn't write, "others could not believe," but that "others would not believe."
According to the introductory statement by Calvin, there have been billions and billions of people born into the world for whom it was impossible for them to believe. As he said, "They were doomed from the womb." Therefore, they couldn't believe.
This idea has led into a cul-de-sac of despair. One example would be Calvinist John Piper's counsel to a defeated and discouraged letter writer who asked, "I have wanted to believe in Jesus and I've tried and tried to believe, but I just can't. What am I to do?"
Pastor Piper's answer wasn't encouraging. He paused with his head down and then said, "You can't believe because God hasn't given you the ability to believe."
To put this in the framework of Calvin's statement, Piper was saying that this letter writer could be one of that innumerable host who have been "doomed from the womb."
Piper, Calvinist that he is, blamed God for the questioner's problem. He had to; the system of Calvinism, imposed on the Bible, made him give that answer.
The fact that they would not believe puts the blame squarely on them, not God, and is reminiscent of what Jesus said about Jerusalem, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, . . . how often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her young under her wings, and you were unwilling!"
Calvinism, having God as the cause of everything, leads to difficult problems such as one author has written, "Did God cause Moses to argue with Him in Exodus 4, to the point that God's anger burned against him? Did God cause the Israelites, when they were being led by Moses out of Egypt, to complain about His care for them, to worship the golden calf, to anger Him so much that He punished them with death in the desert? So God, for His pleasure, causes people to argue and rebel, and then He gets angry about it and punishes them!?! Interesting! Sounds more like the actions of an irrational mythological Greek god than the God of the Bible."
This reminds us of another text, this one in Romans 1: "They are without excuse." But if God created them doomed from the womb, they would have an excuse.
In the Old Testament we read of Joshua's drawing a line in the sand by saying, "Choose you this day whom you will serve." They had a genuine choice. According to Calvin, they didn't have a choice, so was Joshua teasing them?
As we look at Acts 28, we also see another facet of New Testament evangelism: what Paul's doing puts a dagger through the heart of that trite and tough-sounding expression, "I just give them the gospel and let the chips fall where they may." Paul's methodology was a far cry from that. We read that he explained, testified, tried to persuade, preached, and taught the Lord Jesus Christ. That's not letting the chips fall where they may, that's using apologetics morning and night to persuade. He would never quit until a person said, "Leave me alone."
When the problems of Calvinism arise, such as "How can God create billions of people for whom it is impossible for them to receive Christ, myriads who are doomed from the womb and yet hold all of them responsible and punish them forever for their rejection?" Calvinists have a stock answer, as John MacArthur says: "I don't know; I'm not God; it's a mystery."
Like so many other aspects of Calvinism, it isn't a mystery; it's a contradiction. There's a simple way to solve the problem: the greatest gift God gave man is free will.
No comments:
Post a Comment