A little over a month ago, I posted an article in which I described the major errors of Calvinism and how its poison has effected non-Calvinists as well. I also promised that at some future time I would offer a Biblical critique of Calvinism. Now is that time. First, I highly recommend reading the original article: Calvinism poisons everything. If you think this is just an arcane debate for bored theologians, that article will explain what is at stake.
From my previous article on the subject, it should be clear that I accept God's sovereignty, but also realize that the term is often misused, especially by Calvinists. As I mention in my previous article on Calvinism, what they call sovereignty is probably better referred to as “total active control” (TAC), so I'll be using this term throughout this article.
On this matter of TAC, there are varying levels of commitment among Calvinists. Some say that God controls every single outcome of every single action, that everything that happens is part of God's decree and will. Other give a little more leeway. Nevertheless, all Calvinists would argue that God has TAC over the salvation of every soul and that he's actively controlling world leaders at the very least. The idea that God exerts TAC over every single action is easy to refute. Simply ask yourself, “when I sin am I doing God's will?” If no, then obviously he's not actively controlling everything. If you answer yes to that, then you're OK with accusing God of sin and I simply can't help you other than to say you're lost and you need to repent.
So obviously God doesn't exert TAC over everything. Then, how and what does he control? Does he actively control nations? Let's see what God says about this. In Jeremiah 18:6-11 God states that he is free to do what he wants with the nations as a potter with clay. Calvinists must stop reading there, because they fail to see that He goes on to describe exactly how he operates. He states that if he decides to destroy a wicked nation, but they repent, then God will also repent of what he was going to do to them (v.7-8). He says a similar things about nations he blesses that fall into sin (v.9-10). Does this sound like God is going around actively controlling everyone? Of course not. He's watching the nations and dishing out judgment/blessing to evil/good nations. But it's better than that. God says that if he pronounces judgment/blessing on a nation, but they start going the other direction, he will change his mind. This leads us to conclude: 1) As a rule, God is not actively controlling nations. 2) Man has an independent will that can choose good/evil. This is obvious from the fact that when God pronounces his will to destroy/bless a city, man can then change his mind by choosing to do good/evil. God's dealings with the ups and downs of Israel throughout the years demonstrate the principle he describes here. Nineveh also comes to mind as an example. To put it another way, God enforces the outcome of moral choices, but the choices are made by men.
An interesting example is found in Matthew 11:21-24. While Jesus condemns the unbelief of the cities where he has worked, he says that if the cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented if he did the same works there. Now, we could speculate on why Jesus didn't appear in these cities and do his thing, and there are some very good possibilities, but ultimately it's just speculation. The important thing is that Jesus says they would have repented if he did signs there. Of course, this also means that they could have repented. This contradicts the Calvinist's idea of total depravity/inability. If Calvinism were true, Jesus shouldn't be able to even theoretically say these cities would have repented under different circumstances. It's clear that these cities did not repent because there was, at least to them, a lack of knowledge/evidence/signs. This contradicts the Calvinist's claim that they didn't repent because these people were predestined to damnation.
Saul is another important example of how God deals with kings and men. Did God specifically ordain Saul as king? Absolutely. Yet, as Saul's reign goes on, he disobeys, and God rejects him as king. God even says the he's sorry that he ever made Saul king in the first place. (1 Sam 15:11,35) Does that sound like a God who ordained and dictated Saul's actions as king? Obviously not, but it remains true that God did ordain him as king in the first place. It's also worth mentioning that even after God turned his back on Saul and didn't want him to be king anymore, he stayed in his position for some time. This gives us a good picture of God's sovereignty over nations. He does set up certain people as rulers, but also lets them make their own decisions. Also, just because a ruler is in power does not necessarily mean that God wants him there. Again, Saul remained king even after God turned his back on him.
It's worth mentioning that Calvinists love to talk about God's hardening of Pharaoh. I don't feel the need to spend a lot of time on this because I've already shown that TAC is not how God operates. Even if the hardening of Pharaoh happened exactly as the Calvinists would have us to believe, it would merely be an exception to the rule, at best. However, I think it's worth noting a could things with Pharaoh. First, Pharaoh hardened his heart first, so this is not an example of God overriding someone's will. Second, Calvinists often think of this as a sort of psychic intrusion whereby God tinkers with Pharaoh's brain/soul and hardens him. This is an unlikely assumption. We are not told how God hardened Pharaoh, only that He did. But comparing this with other passages, we see that hardening is likely done through circumstances. One of the best descriptions of how hearts are hardened is Isaiah 6:9-11. God tells Isaiah to harden the hearts of Israel by preaching to them. In other words, Isaiah is delivering the truth they don't want to hear. They refuse to listen, but Isaiah is credited with hardening them. This is nothing mystical, merely Isaiah putting people in a position where they have to either obey, or harden themselves to avoid conviction. It's entirely possible that God did something like this with Pharaoh.
One final point on this matter of God's sovereignty over nations. Calvinists insist that God is in control of everything, so where does Satan fit into all this? Calvinists typically ignore Satan's role, but Scripture calls him the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Does this not imply some large degree of power or control? At the very least, he can lie and blind the minds of unbelievers. Certainly God doesn't want to lie to unbelievers and blind their minds. So again, it's obvious that God isn't enforcing his will all the time.
In conclusion, there is strong Biblical evidence for the free will of nations. In other words, nations of men make their choice to pursue good or evil and God acts accordingly by blessing or cursing. God does intervene in the affairs of nations by setting up leaders, and causing rise or fall of the nation, but does not intervene in any way that would override or invalidate man's moral choice. Furthermore, there is no Biblical evidence to support the idea that God forces his will on people by directly interfering with their thoughts or will. Therefore, Calvinism presents an anti-biblical view of God's sovereignty and should be rejected as the doctrine of devils.
For reference, here's a short list of other passages that present these same ideas. This is by no means intended to be exhaustive, but it should be sufficient.
Men responsible for their own hardness - Deut. 10:16, Acts 7:51, Matt 14:28-31
Men make free moral choices and God holds them accountable (In particular, if-then statements demonstrate man's ability to choose): Ezek. 3:17-21, Ezek. 18:4-32, Ezek. 33:7-20, Deut 11:22-23, Deut 12:24-25, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 6:14-15, Matt. 10:7-15
No comments:
Post a Comment