In response to Jonathan's comment

Jonathan,

Begining at the end of your comment, it certainly is possible that I am doing exactly the thing that I lay at the feet of calvinists. I've done it in the past, and I have little doubt that I'll do it again in the future. Trying to prove our own rightness and defend what we have invested ourselves in is a strong impulse of human nature. Also, it is extremely unsettling to get to a point at which you seriously question doctrines upon which you have built your faith.

I know because I've been there. In my journey thus far I have, on at least three different occasions, faced serious challenges to my faith. Challenges of the earth shaking variety.

People, including myself, tend to build their faith on the doctrines they are taught. Thus when the particular body of doctrine to which we adhere is brought into question, it shakes your entire faith. I was raised non-denominational Charismatic, my doctrinal views were decidedly arminian.

The first great challenge I faced was when I entered college. I was raised as a young earth creationist and in my first semester at secular state college I took anthropology which was of course a class on evolution. I was raised to be intellectually honest, which meant that I could not simply dismiss everything I was being presented with. It was an incredible challenge because the amount of 'evidence' and the arguments presented were staggering and far far more impressive than I had ever been prepared for in creation science classes.

At first I was rocked back on my heels. I was forced to question the foundations of everything I believed, and re-evaluate my faith.

It took a long time, and alot of learning and thought to resolve that crisis once and for all.

The second great challenge I faced was when I went to a christian leadership conference called The Summit, in Colorado Springs. While there I sat in on lectures and discussions from a fellow who was part of the reformed church and he was a preterist as well. He was a very intelligent fellow and did a very good job of shredding both charismatic teaching, and arminian teaching.

He did a very good job of forcing the students to question their beliefs. As is typical in such situations most people come back with pat memorized answers, but little understanding of the topic other than the doctrines they have been trained in. The result was that many of the people were very angered because they couldn't answer the challenge, but were also unwilling to honestly consider the questions.

These discussions and lectures usually involved the students trying to support their doctrinal views by quoting proof texts from the bible. The same verses that they were taught to memorize and heard in sermons all the time. However in most cases, the teacher was able to show, or at least seriously question whether those verses were being taken out of context and whether they really meant something other than what the students were using them for.

The result for me personally was two fold. First I was forced to seriously question, and even reject some of the doctrinal beliefs I had held up to that point. Secondly it called into serious question the leaders who had been teaching me in church up to that point. After all, if they were teaching me bad doctrines, and had so misunderstood the word on a number of points... what else where they wrong about?

From this point on I was very often involved in debate and dicussion on theological issues. Over the next few years I actually took a very strong swing towards calvinism. For quite a while I referred to myself as a 4.5 point calvinist. I accepted all of the TULIP points except for irresistable grace and there for logically I also had to question perseverence of the saints. However, I didn't say they were incorrect completely, but that they were not necessarily always true. I believed that God could over rule human will when he wanted to (and I still do) and I believed that God would pursue his chosen to such a degree that it was nearly impossible for them to resist. Not that they could not exercise their will, but that God's persistance was such that anyone he persued would eventualy give in.

The reason I took that swing to calvinism was because I was very much into the intellect, and logic, and reasoning. Calvinism is very logical, and very reasonable. I pretty easily recognized in my conversations with different people, and my experiences in church that calvinism was usually far superior logically and intellectually to what most of the arminian church had to offer.

So, I strongly leaned towards calvinism.

Over the course of years, as I studied logic and philosophy more, and studied scripture more, I eventually began to see things in the reasoning and logic of Calvinism which didn't jive. Alot of what I began to see revolved around the fact that things simply aren't as cut and dry as calvinism presents them.

I remember that the transition away from calvinism for me especially began when I started running across arguments and teachings that denied, or interpeted away the face value of scriptures because they didn't fit with the logical construction of doctrine that the person in question had built up.

For example. In the scriptures dealing with the tower of babel it says that God came down and visited the site of the tower of babel to see what the people were doing. I ran across alot of arguments that would run like this...

"well this is an example where the scriptures were written from a human perspective so the ancient primitives could understand it. God didn't really come down and visit because God has no need to do so, he is omniscient, and omnipresent. Therefore it is silly to think that he would come down in order to find out whats going on at the tower of babel. Thus this passage must be understood as a consession to the inability of the ancients to understand such concepts."

That is pretty sound reasoning logically. The problem is it doesn't sit well with me. It is first, very arrogant in presuming that the ancients were incapable of the level of understanding we have today. Most of the time I have found the opposite to be true; the ancients had much better understanding and insight than we do. Secondly, I can agree that God didn't need to come down and visit in order to find out what was going on, and it still doesn't mean that he didn't do so, or that we must therefor believe the scripture doesn't really mean what it says.

Maybe God just wanted to come down and visit. When he judged Sodom, he came down and not only visited the city, but stopped to visit abraham before hand.. he didn't have to do that either.

That is just one illustration. The same principle applies in many cases.. infact I would almost go so broad as to say "across the board".

Calvinism routinely re-interpets scripture as mere anthropomorpic refrences which are essentially condescensions to mans inability to understand God's true nature (until of course the arrival of Calvinism).
Any point in scripture which talks about man making a choice to follow God, any scripture which talks about people departing the faith, or believers being decieved etc etc. All of those become essentially meaningless as they are infact talking about things that are impossible.

When you really logically apply calvinism out to the Nth degree practically the entire new testament becomes an exercise in redundancy. Warnings about things which can't happen, exhortations to do things which you have no choice about.

Calvinism is philosophically deterministic. Calvinism relies upon the argument of God's sovereignty. They say that God's sovereignty does not allow free will. Ok, but if this is true, it must be applied uniformly. Calvinists run into problems here. They will say that in terms of salvation God is sovereign and thus there is no free-will.. but of course people have free will in everything else they do. They decide to sin, they decide what to eat when they get up in the morning etc.

The problem is that this ruins their own argument. If God's sovereignty can allow free-will in all those things, why can't it allow free will in salvation? Or is God simply not sovereign over all of life?

Then as I pointed out previously.. determinism works philosophically, and logically.. it really can't be defeated in the purely philosophical realm, but it just doesn't work in the practical realm and it so obviously doesn't work in real life that almost no one except extreme cases really ever beleive deterministic philosophies when it comes time to run their lives.

Ironicly the only places you will find many true believers in determinism is in Islam and Hinduism.

So, those are the things I began to see and question. So I was at a point where I was hanging somewhere between calvinism and arminianism, and really questioning alot of what I was seeing within the charismatic church.

Then came the third big shake up. I was thuroughly protestant and evangelical my whole life. Then I came to a point at which I was drawn into conversations regarding the traditional churches, and the historical church. In the coarse of my investigations there I found that much of what I had been taught about the historical church and the traditional churches was either based on misunderstanding, or in some cases it was simply wrong.

At this point I had spent years learning and studying doctrine and theology. I was forced to face up to the question, was everything I had invested so much time in, foundationally flawed?

Through that question and the related journey, I have learned a great deal. Things that never made sense before in scripture, began to make sense, and fall into place. I'm still working on this one :)

The point of the little autobiographical section here is to point out that I have looked at Calvinism (as well as a couple other view points) from the inside. I've not just looked at them from the outside, trying to find ways to defeat them, or to defend my own position.

There have been times when I've dismissed other people's view points without much consideration because they seemed rediculous etc. However, when presented with reasonable argument and evidence, I have made a habit of trying to consider opposing view points honestly. In a number of cases I have ended up changing my own beliefs because in my judgement the opposing positions turned out to be the truer.

For example, there are some points on which I still agree with standard calvinist teaching. The main one is on the idea that a person can not come to God, unless God first calls that person. Humanity in an unregenerate state is incapable of understanding, or approaching God. As Paul said, no man can even say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. I agree with this position because it is clear in scripture, and it is not contradicted in scripture.


I have yet to find any 'school' of theology or doctrine which I would consider completely accurate in its vision, or model of how everything works in scripture. Most have some merits, but all that I have seen also have contradictions in scripture.
The problem that I was addressing when I suggested that Calvinists often defend their view point rather than seeking to find the truth is a problem that occures with every school of doctrine. The heart of this problem is that when someone devoted to a particular school of doctrine runs into a contradiction in scripture, they seek to explain it away rather than really questioning their doctrine.
There are clearly instances in which apparent contradictions can be solved through coming to a better understanding of a given passage. That is where judgement comes in. Is the interpetation of a given passage really better? or is it just what's required to make a given view point work?

In the examples I mentioned in my original post, from 2nd Peter and Ezekiel regarding God's desire that none should perish, the calvinists have an answer to these verses. They interpet the verses to refer only to the elect and not to all people. Their interpetation here, as I said originally, is possible. I, however, don't think it is the correct interpetation. I don't think it is the best interpetation. It is, however, a necessary interpetation if the calvinist view is to remain viable.

The heart of this issue is the nature of God, and his intention for salvation. Does God desire the torment and destruction of some people? Does God create people specificly to send them to hell? Did God intend salvation to be for all men, or only for a select few that he randomly chose?

We can find verses which seem to suggest both. Frankly its easy for either side to proof text this argument, and its easy for either side to re-interpet the proof texts the other side offers.

I already know that there are virtually no verses or passages I could quote that Calvinism doesn't have an answer, or an alternative interpetation of. I have heard them all before. The issue is that I simply don't agree with many of them.

Lets go back to what I believe to be the core of this issue, God's attitude towards humanity. This is a topic that is a focus for the entire bible. In this debate we can toss back and forth a few proof texts about predestination, and I will look at the passage you cited from Romans, but the real issue is not a few verses here and there... its the entire body of scripture. Does the entire body of scripture tell you that God desires the destruction of men, or does it tell you that he desires the salvation of men? Does it tell you why God destroys some and saves others?

This is an interesting discussion if for no other reason than it raises questions and scriptures that stretch the limits of doctrine. There are verses involved here which appear to support the Calvinistic view. There are also verses involved here that appear to suggest universalism, a doctrine held by most to be not only wrong, but heretical.

For example, when considering what God's purpose was in the act of Christ's sacrifice, how can we ignore Romans 5 which tells us that just as all men died in Adam.. all men now live in Christ. Clearly the intention there is for all, not just all of a select group.
Add to that 1st Timothy 4:10 which says that God is "the savior of all men, especially of those who believe". Clearly this also indicates that God's intent was to make salvation available to... "all men".

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

In this verse the word "for" as in "he might taste death for everyone" means - 'on behalf of' or 'for the benefit of'. Again the indication is that God's intent in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, was to benefit everyone, all men, not just a special group of men.

Again, Calvinists undoubtedly have answers for these verses. The issue is, what is the best most honest interpetation of these verses?

There are dozens of doctrines, and revisions of doctrines which are based on the argument "well it COULD mean this..." With creative reasoning and argument a given text can be interpeted to mean MANY things. The question is not, what COULD it mean, but what is it intended to mean? What is the clear intent, the face value meaning of the text?

Going back to the verse in 2nd Peter which says that God is not willing that any should perish. The calvinists argue that this applies only to believers because Peter is writing to believers and he says that the delay of Jesus' return and judgement is due to God's longsuffering "towards you".

The argument is that Peter is talking to believers and telling them that God is delaying because he is long-suffering and doesn't want any believers to perish. This is a possible interpetation.

This to me does not fit as a common sense, clear intent meaning of the text. The first and most obvious point is that believers are already saved. There is no need to be long-suffering and delay for the sake of believers because they are already saved. The whole point of predestination is that God chose his elect from the foundations of the world, and that they are saved by no other fact than that he has chosen to show them mercy. Thus there is no need whatsoever for God to delay on our behalf. All the people who will ever be saved already are. Even if they are not born yet, they are saved.
If this verse really does apply to the elect, it clearly implies then, that it is possible for the elect to not be saved, unless God delays, waiting for them to respond to his grace. This is a contradiction with the rest of Calvinist teaching. According to Calvinist doctrine there is no involvement of human will in salvation.

Further, salvation, or "justification" in Calvinist doctrine is held to be "forensic" which means that a saved person is righteous, and "justified" simply because God has declared them to be so. Thus their response to God's grace is irrelevant. Calvinism, of course, teaches that santification follows justification. Anyone who is declared righteous by God will begin to live rightly in the process of santification as God works in them. However, technically this is unnecessary to salvation. A person could die before every showing any sign of sanctification and as long as God declared them to be justified, they would be saved. The idea of predestination is essentially that God declared his elect to be justified from the beginning of time. So technically a person does not even have to be born in order to be saved, so long as God declared them to be justified. The result is that this passage is redundant and unnecessary if understood within Calvinist framework.

I submit that the clear meaning of this verse is that God waits for people to be saved because he desires people to be saved, AND if he did not wait, some people who could be saved, would not be saved. I don't think the verse makes sense any other way. I further submit that if that understanding is true, it requires significant revision of Calvinist teaching.

I believe that this idea is more inline with the entirity of scripture and what it tells us about God.


So then lets look at Romans 9. This passage is often quoted in support of Calvinist teaching because it looks to support both the idea of predestination, and the idea that God creates some people specificly for the purpose of destroying them.

Paul begins the chapter talking about his distress at the fact that his people, Israel, have been cut off from God. This in itself should raise questions because of the fact that through out scripture to this point God has declared (remember forensic salvation) that Israel are his chosen people. He has called them over and over his Chosen and declared them to be his people. Yet this chapter begins by Paul lamenting that they have been cut off. If Calvinism is correct... how is this possible?

So far the only what I have seen this resolved by Calvinists is resorting to replacement theology. The Jews were set aside because the refrences to Israel in scripture are really referring to the church, not to the nation of Israel.

Paul, however, goes against this view in his initial statement of the chapter by clearly stating that the adoption (as the sons of God), the convenants, the patriarchs, and even Jesus Christ himself (after the flesh, or in his humanity) derives from their race. This is clearly a refrence to the physical genetic descendants of Abraham.

Paul then goes on to address the question (which is relevant to Calvinism) does this mean that God or his word have failed? Does the fact that the Jews were chosen, and have now been set aside mean that God or his word failed?

Paul says no, this doesn't mean God has failed because not everyone who is a genetic descendant is a true descendant of Abraham. He uses the examples of Ishmael, and Esau, contrasting them to Isaac, and Jacob. The point Paul makes is that mere genetic descent does not make one a member of the covenant. Membership in the covenant comes through the promise, or being a son of promise. Isaac and Jacob were the ones who carried the promise, sons of promise. Ishmael and Esau were not.

Paul goes on to ask the question... is this unjust? Is God being unjust by choosing Isaac, and Jacob, and not choosing Ishmael and Esau? Paul answers... "No, God is not being unjust because it is his perogative to show mercy, or not to show mercy." He goes on to address the question "If God determines these things by his own will, how can he find fault with those who are not part of the promise". Paul answers basicly saying "Can the pot say to the potter, why have you made me thus?" In other words, we who are the creation do not have the right to accuse or question the creator and what he does with his creation.

At this point things are looking pretty good for the Calvinists.

But then things start to get sticky again when Paul starts quoting from the Old Testament. He first quotes a passage from Hosea which talks about the gentiles being brought to salvation, being as Paul says, grafted in.
The first problem that becomes evident is that this passage from Hosea clearly states that the gentiles at one time were not God's people. In fact it says that God declared to them that they were not his people.

Surely this is a problem for the idea of both replacement theology, and the idea of pure predestination. The gentiles were declared not to be God's people and at some point, he declared that where as they had not been his people, now they are.

The real kicker though is at the end of the passage. Paul closes with this...

"30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Here Paul tells us why Israel was set aside, and why the gentiles have been brought in. Why?? In so doing he goes back to the whole point of this passage... the question "the jews were chosen and the gentiles were not... yet the gentiles attained righteousness and the jews did not... why?"

The answer is faith. The gentiles attained righteousness by faith, the Jews failed because they lacked faith. The clear indication is that the Jews did not fail and were not unfaithful because God rejected them, or did not choose them. Infact quite the opposite. He did choose them and they still failed. Rather they failed because they did not have faith, and because they did not have faith, God rejected them for the time being and brought in the gentiles.

This raises all sorts of problems for Calvinism. Of course they have their own interpetation of this passage as you are well aware. I just don't think that it addresses the intent of the passage.

The Jews were chosen, but they failed to attain what they sought because they did not have faith. The gentiles were NOT chosen, and they attained what they did NOT seek because they received in faith.

Now, look back at the two examples of those who were not chosen... Esau and Ishmael. According to the calvnist view, they are examples of vessels not made for glory, of people that God does not love. Go back in scripture and read the stories of Esau and Ishmael. Ask yourself the question.. does God love these men? Did he abandon them?

I think you will find that God did not desire their destruction, and he did not abandon them. He blessed them in fact.

That calls into question the idea that Paul is saying God actually makes people for the purpose of destroying them. I would submit that what Paul is doing there is addressing specific questions by taking them to their most absurd degree (props to D. Ketter on this point). Paul is addressing the questions "Is God unjust to have abandon the Jews who he once chose, and who tried to follow him?" "Is God unjust to give salvation to the gentiles who did not seek God, and were not chosen?" Paul makes his point by taking those questions to their most extreme and saying "even if God did completely abandon the Jews, even if he did make people for no other reason than to condemn them, he would still be Just because it is his right as the creator."

I don't think Paul is actually intending to say that God does this, or that this is part of God's character. Which is why, in every case he makes clear that the people God set aside, or the people God destroyed were not simply abandoned for no reason, but they failed through unbelief. In otherwords, they refused to believe God, and rejected God.. not the other way around.

It is especially note worthy in this context that Paul goes on to point out that God will eventually bring the Jews back and he will save them, even though in this passage he appears to compare them to 'vessels of wrath'.

The final example I'll look at in this passage is Pharoh. One of the greatest examples of predistination. God hardened pharoh's heart. God raised up pharoh in order to destroy him.

BUT :)

There are several scriptures that also tell us that Pharoh hardened his OWN heart...
Exodus 8:15, 8:32, 9:34, and 1st Sam. 6:6.

Interestingly the verse in 1st samuel is a warning to the Israelites not to harden their hearts as Pharoh and the egyptians did.

The verse which states that God raised pharoh up in order to demonstrate his power, does NOT say that God created pharoh for the purpose of destroying him, as Calvinism assumes. It says that God raised him up, which refers not to his creation but his coming to his position of power. God made him Pharoh for the purpose of demonstrating his power to the world.

The indication, when you consider all of the information is that God chose a man to become pharoh, he chose a man that he knew would resist him and harden his heart against God. He did this in order that God might show himself to the nations through his dealings with egypt under the leadership of this man.

I do not deny that God did harden pharoh's heart. I also do not deny that Pharoh hardened his own heart. I believe this is a clear indication that God's sovereign will works in cooperation with the human will which he gave us. God maintains his sovereignty, while allowing us freedom.

Pharoh is a stern warning, one that we find in other places in scripture. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found. Pharoh is an example of a person who hardened his heart to God, and hardened his heart through sin, the end result was that God took him, and used him to serve God's purposes. It seems likely that for Pharoh, he passsed the point at which God could be found.

Another similar statement to this is Jesus' statement "offenses must come, but woe to him by whom they come." It is ordained that bad things will happen, just as it was ordained by God that egypt would oppose God, and woe to the person who becomes the instrument of offense, just as it was woe to Pharoh that he became the instrument that God used to demonstrate his power.

clearly there is an element of predestination involved in this. Also there is clearly freedom.

I believe the indication of scripture as a whole is that God desires the salvation of all men and does not take joy even in the destruction of the wicked. We can cite proof texts back and forth, the calvinists can answer mine, and I can answer theirs. In the end you have to judge which view fits better with the scriptures not only each individual scripture, but the scriptures as a whole.