In the Interest of LOGICAL THINKING - A Defense of Calvinism

[Dimmesdale]

Calvinism, as a system, is entirely consistent with itself. That is, taking its assumptions at face value, and then in-putting the Bible and its interpretation through their lens, one cannot contradict it. That is my contention. However, recently I have come across some, perhaps ambitious or otherwise driven people, who wish to claim that Calvinism is not internally consistent. In the interest of what I consider to be logical thinking, rather than a difference of interpretation, I wish to un-muddy the waters in this regard so that people will not be bamboozled. The following therefore is my defense of a system which, given its premises, does not, in and of itself, lead to a contradiction with itself.

The following three points are made.

Point number one: "You were always saved."

This argues that, since God eternally decreed your salvation from all eternity, and that Christ died on the Cross for your sins with you in mind, you were "always saved" and this implies, therefore, that there was never "a time" when you were saved. And also that, for some odd reason, God always "owed you" Heaven from all eternity....

This is just plain nonsense. Calvinism's claim of being "saved by grace through faith" holds, because even though a person was "in the queue" so to speak, that "in the queue" was at the disposal and deliberation of God. Indeed, that person's destiny was such that they *ended up saved* rather than the absurd *they were always owed salvation*. The God of Calvin holds the prerogative to do as he wills. And what he wills is to save, and a condition of that being able to be instantiated is that one becomes penitent through that grace. That penitence is not the active element which saves (that is, Christ), but it is the necessary pre-condition of being saved in that it is pleasing to God, and God wills that it should happen that way and not another. I agree with the Calvinistic system that God does not owe us anything. This is all in accordance with God's will and respecting God's will.....

Point number two: "God doesn't Love everyone."

This argues that God loves only the elect and hates all other humanities, or that God has only a "special" love for the elect, and only a secondary or derivative love for the rest of mankind. This point argues that this plays fast and loose with the idea of love. If God "Loves everyone" then God's secondary love is shallow to the point of meaninglessness - for why "love" in the first place if you are bent on sending them to hell? And if God hates the non-elect, as some Calvinists also believe, then why are there so many beseeching or imploring statements in Scripture with the command to "repent" or "come back to me", etc.....

First, a secondary love, even if one punishes one in hell in the end, can still be real. Even the damned in hell are not tortured randomly or senselessly. They have some rights. For them to perdure in existence is still a type of good, even if they themselves have contempt for it. Nonetheless, whatever we experience, if there is an all-providential God who is Just rather than just vengeful, somehow, we still possess a kind of meaning. If I give a gift to a person and he spurns it, I don't have to go back on it. And similarly, the person who refused the gift, still nonetheless recognizes that the gift was offered. They might even acknowledge it. In a similar way, God may maintain some level of goodness in us even that is simply allowing us to exist, or perdure. We may not like it, but in a way I would agree it is "tough love."

Secondly, if one takes the view that God actually hates the non-elect altogether and does not love them at all, that Still does not create a logical contradiction, because those imperative commands of God to "repent" or "return" or "accept the Love that is offered" still hold true in the Calvinist scheme. The non-elect simply choose not to accept it - for one reason or another. Perhaps, like in the case of Judas, God's providential plan requires some sinners to exist to further his historical ends. Or perhaps God's grace simply cannot Leap the gulf of human freedom and decision making which is simply too inveterate and balks at God - and this due to a concatenation of factors and causes which just so happened to be set up from the beginning, those factors and causes having to exist in order to allow yet Other beings and effects to also exist that are themselves Good..... Whatever the reason, an offer may be made that, nonetheless, is eternally doomed to failure. That does not make the offer bad or even invalid. The onus is on the refusal of the recipient, which the Calvinist maintains, is us, not God.


Point number three: "We must love our enemies with divine love"

This point essentially maintains that, since we are called to, not only evangelize and help our neighbor, but also to forbear and will the good of our enemies, this puts us in a better position to love than God, or something. To display the same Mercy as God displays to sinners means that, in miniature, we are better Lovers than God. Or something, I don't know. To think that God in the end damns the non-elect to hell, seems a far grosser thing than we could ever do. So in that sense, this refutes itself. Since we are not God, we do not bear the same level of offense as God, and we do not have the authority to condemn to Hell. Besides, what is human justice in this temporal sphere, is nothing like the "perfect Justice" of God, and so there is really no analog here whatsoever. Of course it is good to display mercy to all people, even the worst, just like Jesus did. That does not mean there are no final scales in Eternity. This "argument" really falls apart at first glance and, really, is not worth pursuing, EXCEPT for a single point that I think is worthwhile, and that can be considered as quite separate from this whole, specious "argument".

Namely, that it is Glorious, in and of itself, to display a Love that exists for its own sake, and which is pleasing to God, even if it always will remain unrequited. That is, in and of itself, commendable. For it displays magnanimity, selflessness, a refusal of rewards or "consequences" etc.

There, I hope that, in the interest of logic, I have cleared the water. At least somewhat....

P.S., Suffice it to say, I am not a Calvinist, or even a Christian.

[marke]

Calvinism, as a system, is entirely consistent with itself. That is, taking its assumptions at face value, and then in-putting the Bible and its interpretation through their lens, one cannot contradict it. That is my contention. However, recently I have come across some, perhaps ambitious or otherwise driven people, who wish to claim that Calvinism is not internally consistent. In the interest of what I consider to be logical thinking, rather than a difference of interpretation, I wish to un-muddy the waters in this regard so that people will not be bamboozled. The following therefore is my defense of a system which, given its premises, does not, in and of itself, lead to a contradiction with itself.

The following three points are made.

Point number one: "You were always saved."

This argues that, since God eternally decreed your salvation from all eternity, and that Christ died on the Cross for your sins with you in mind, you were "always saved" and this implies, therefore, that there was never "a time" when you were saved. And also that, for some odd reason, God always "owed you" Heaven from all eternity....

This is just plain nonsense. Calvinism's claim of being "saved by grace through faith" holds, because even though a person was "in the queue" so to speak, that "in the queue" was at the disposal and deliberation of God. Indeed, that person's destiny was such that they *ended up saved* rather than the absurd *they were always owed salvation*. The God of Calvin holds the prerogative to do as he wills. And what he wills is to save, and a condition of that being able to be instantiated is that one becomes penitent through that grace. That penitence is not the active element which saves (that is, Christ), but it is the necessary pre-condition of being saved in that it is pleasing to God, and God wills that it should happen that way and not another. I agree with the Calvinistic system that God does not owe us anything. This is all in accordance with God's will and respecting God's will.....

Point number two: "God doesn't Love everyone."

This argues that God loves only the elect and hates all other humanities, or that God has only a "special" love for the elect, and only a secondary or derivative love for the rest of mankind. This point argues that this plays fast and loose with the idea of love. If God "Loves everyone" then God's secondary love is shallow to the point of meaninglessness - for why "love" in the first place if you are bent on sending them to hell? And if God hates the non-elect, as some Calvinists also believe, then why are there so many beseeching or imploring statements in Scripture with the command to "repent" or "come back to me", etc.....

First, a secondary love, even if one punishes one in hell in the end, can still be real. Even the damned in hell are not tortured randomly or senselessly. They have some rights. For them to perdure in existence is still a type of good, even if they themselves have contempt for it. Nonetheless, whatever we experience, if there is an all-providential God who is Just rather than just vengeful, somehow, we still possess a kind of meaning. If I give a gift to a person and he spurns it, I don't have to go back on it. And similarly, the person who refused the gift, still nonetheless recognizes that the gift was offered. They might even acknowledge it. In a similar way, God may maintain some level of goodness in us even that is simply allowing us to exist, or perdure. We may not like it, but in a way I would agree it is "tough love."

Secondly, if one takes the view that God actually hates the non-elect altogether and does not love them at all, that Still does not create a logical contradiction, because those imperative commands of God to "repent" or "return" or "accept the Love that is offered" still hold true in the Calvinist scheme. The non-elect simply choose not to accept it - for one reason or another. Perhaps, like in the case of Judas, God's providential plan requires some sinners to exist to further his historical ends. Or perhaps God's grace simply cannot Leap the gulf of human freedom and decision making which is simply too inveterate and balks at God - and this due to a concatenation of factors and causes which just so happened to be set up from the beginning, those factors and causes having to exist in order to allow yet Other beings and effects to also exist that are themselves Good..... Whatever the reason, an offer may be made that, nonetheless, is eternally doomed to failure. That does not make the offer bad or even invalid. The onus is on the refusal of the recipient, which the Calvinist maintains, is us, not God.


Point number three: "We must love our enemies with divine love"

This point essentially maintains that, since we are called to, not only evangelize and help our neighbor, but also to forbear and will the good of our enemies, this puts us in a better position to love than God, or something. To display the same Mercy as God displays to sinners means that, in miniature, we are better Lovers than God. Or something, I don't know. To think that God in the end damns the non-elect to hell, seems a far grosser thing than we could ever do. So in that sense, this refutes itself. Since we are not God, we do not bear the same level of offense as God, and we do not have the authority to condemn to Hell. Besides, what is human justice in this temporal sphere, is nothing like the "perfect Justice" of God, and so there is really no analog here whatsoever. Of course it is good to display mercy to all people, even the worst, just like Jesus did. That does not mean there are no final scales in Eternity. This "argument" really falls apart at first glance and, really, is not worth pursuing, EXCEPT for a single point that I think is worthwhile, and that can be considered as quite separate from this whole, specious "argument".

Namely, that it is Glorious, in and of itself, to display a Love that exists for its own sake, and which is pleasing to God, even if it always will remain unrequited. That is, in and of itself, commendable. For it displays magnanimity, selflessness, a refusal of rewards or "consequences" etc.

There, I hope that, in the interest of logic, I have cleared the water. At least somewhat....

P.S., Suffice it to say, I am not a Calvinist, or even a Christian.

Marke: You are right on some points. Calvinism is illogical, unresonable, and unbiblical.