I
liked what
Matthew said so
much that I want
to use it as a
basis for making
an argument
against
Calvinism, if I
can.
Here
Matthew
wrote:
"But
is
it
always
rational
to
accept
a
simpler
theory?
It
is
true
that
simpler
theories
always
have
greater
explanatory
scope.
But
there
is
a
point
where
a
theory
can
have
too
much
explanatory
power
in
which
it
explains
everything,
and
actually
doesn't
really
explain
anything
because
there
is
no
observation
or
fact
which
it
cannot
explain.
Such
a
theory,
having
too
much
explanatory
power
ceases
to
be
a
simple
theory
and
becomes
simplistic."
Too
much explanatory
power? No
observation or
fact which it
cannot explain?
What does this
mean when
applied to
Calvinism?
Let’s explore
this.
Take for
instance their
whole notion of
a completely
sovereign God.
God does
everything…everything.
There is no room
for human
causation…none.
It’s all been
planned in
advance, and God
executes
everything
according to his
eternal plan,
which he has
always had.
Nothing can
happen outside
of God’s
plan…nothing.
He’s in
complete control
of everything
that happens. If
it happens in
our world or in
heaven, then God
planned it, and
he did
it…everything.
Calvinists will
argue that human
beings desire to
do the things
that they do,
and so God is
not to be blamed
when they do
evil deeds, even
if God decreed
that they should
do them.
However, when
pushed on this
Calvinists will
also recognize
that God
decrees that
human beings
also DESIRE to
do everything
that they do.
The Calvinist
will also have
to admit that
whether or not a
human being
thinks Calvinism
is true is also
decreed by their
sovereign God.
So, for
everything we as
human beings do,
and everything
that we believe,
God makes us do
things and think
things the way
we do. This is
the bottom line
for Calvinists,
regardless of
the logical
gerrymandering
they do when
using
linguistics to
defend this
theology, which
of course, once
again, God
decreed that
they should do
in order to
defend their
theology.
Okay so far?
That’s why
Calvin describes
it as a
“horrible
decree.”
Now what reason
does God have
for punishing
human beings on
earth in
hurricanes, and
fires, and
diseases like
the Spanish
Influenza which
killed millions
of people, and
then later
sending us to
hell when we
die? Well, the
offered reason
is because we
have sinned.
Since we sin,
God has a right
to do with us as
he pleases and
there can be no
critique of
God’s dealings
with us. We
deserve
everything that
happens to us.
But the only
thing we can be
guilty of is
that we desired
to sin, and the
reason why we
desired to sin
in the first
place is because
God sovereignly
decreed from all
of eternity that
we should desire
to do every sin
throughout our
entire lives.
And what reason
does God have
for sending
innocent babies
to hell if they
die? The offered
reason is
because of Adam
and Eve’s sin
in the Garden.
But here again,
why did Adam and
Eve sin in the
first place?
They sinned
because God
decreed from all
of eternity that
they should sin.
He produced in
them the desire
to sin, and made
Eve grab the
fruit, eat it,
and made her
desire to give
it to Adam, who
also was made to
eat it. Their
only crime was
in being created.
To blame them
because of
God-implanted
desires cannot
be their fault
anymore than a
puppet on
strings can be
blamed for any
of its actions.
But because they
sinned in the
Garden, God is
now free to do
with human
beings as he
pleases, and he
is not to be
blamed for
anything he does
to us if we
suffer.
This Calvinistic
God also has two
wills, one
revealed in the
Bible and a
secretive
one…the real
one…that
decrees the
things we
actually do. But
both wills
cannot be true
at the same
time. If the
Bible says,
“thou shalt
not kill,” and
then God
secretively
decrees both the
desire to kill
and he actually
takes a man’s
hand and causes
the arm to swing
an ax to split
another man’s
head open, there
is a
contradiction in
what God
actually wants
us to do. Does
God want this
man to kill or
not? The
contradiction is
resolved for the
Calvinist
because she will
say that God’s
secretive will
is his true
will. But this
means that, on
Calvinistic
grounds, the
Bible is full of
lies and cannot
be trusted when
it tells us what
God wants us to
do. Calvinists
will respond
that the Bible
is used as a
means to get
people to do his
secretive will
one way or
another, good
deeds or evil
deeds. If, for
instance, God
says “Thou
shalt not
kill,” it
might actually
lead someone to
kill out of
rebellion, which
is what God
secretively
decreed all
along. And in
this way, God
needs the Bible
to accomplish
his secretive
will.
The Calvinist
will fall back
on the idea that
God is an artist
and he’s
creating a
massive mural
painting on a
wall. In any
painting there
will be bright
colors and dark
ones. There will
be highlights
and shadows.
There will be
points of focus,
and points that
accentuate the
points of focus.
God’s painting
is beautiful,
we’re told,
and he needs all
the colors to
create it. So
some humans will
be points of
focus while
others will be
in the recesses,
dark and
foreboding. We
who want to
judge the
painting simply
don’t
understand what
God is doing. We
have no right to
complain if we
are used to
accentuate the
beautiful colors
in the mural and
are condemned to
hell, because
after all, we
all deserve
hell. The end
result will be a
beautiful
painting that
brings him
glory. Every
color is needed,
and likewise,
every evil deed
and every
condemned soul
is needed, to
make this a
beautiful
painting and to
bring him
ultimate glory.
If we say that
such a God does
not care for us
and is only
interested in
himself, the
Calvinist will
respond that he
has a moral
right to be
concerned with
his own glory
over anyone
else's, since he
alone deserves
all the glory.
We deserve none
of it. The
Calvinist will
claim that we
deserve
nothing…nothing.
And why is that?
Because we are
“worms,”
miserable
sinners
deserving of
nothing. Any
mercy God may
want to offer us
by decreeing
such things that
bring us
happiness,
including
salvation, are
undeserved. They
will claim we
all deserve to
be in hell, so
anything good we
receive is
because of
God’s love and
mercy extended
toward us. And
why do we
deserve to be in
hell? The bottom
line is because
it brings God
the most glory.
If God can cause
us to desire to
do evil deeds,
then he can also
cause us to
desire to do
only good deeds.
But doing so
would not bring
him as much
glory, and as
his creatures we
have no right to
complain. This
end result is
what will bring
God the most
glory in the
painting he’s
creating on the
wall. We should
probably even be
happy to be in
hell, for if we
do, we’ll
bring God the
glory that he
deserves for
both decreeing
that we desired
to reject the
gospel, and also
decreeing that
we did.
“Praise God
for what he has
done!”—sorry.
Now, how did
Calvin (and
Augustine before
him) come to the
conclusion of
what’s known
as Calvinism?
They argued for
it from the
Bible and
outside sources,
including Plato.
They reasoned
that this
describes their
God. Man is
totally
depraved,
God’s election
is
unconditional,
Jesus only died
for the elect,
God’s grace is
irresistible,
and once saved
no man can
reject his
salvation. All
of these
doctrines are
disputable on
exegetical
grounds, and
I’ll let
non-Calvinists
do that. But
they are based
upon the
exegesis of a
historically
conditioned
document
purportedly
being from God,
even though a
proper
understanding of
history (and the
documents that
report that
history) is
itself fraught
with so many
problems that
most historians
now claim we
cannot know
exactly what
happened in the
past nor even
what people
believed in the
past. But the
bottom line is
that these
theological
conclusions
based upon
Calvinistic
grounds, were
the conclusions
that God had
decreed both
Augustine and
Calvin should
arrive at from
all of eternity.
If so, how is it
possible to
trust any of
these
Calvinistic
conclusions if
we don’t have
access to
God’s
secretive will? As
far as the
Calvinist knows,
God’s
secretive will
may be that they
should be
deceived about
Calvinism. Based
on their own
theology they
have no reason
to trust
God…none. God
may be leading
them astray,
based upon his
secretive will,
only to cast
them in hell for
his own glory.
For all they
know God may
turn around and
reward those of
us who are
atheists, simply
because he
secretively
decreed us into
unbelief. For
the Calvinist to
proclaim that
she can trust
God just because
he says he
“doesn’t
lie” doesn’t
solve anything,
for the Bible is
merely his
revealed will,
which leads
people into
believing or not
believing what
God’s
secretive will
has decreed from
all of eternity
for them.
All that the
Calvinist can
say is that
“this is what
God has led me
to believe, and
that’s why I
believe it.”
There is
absolutely no
guarantee that
what they
believe is true,
based upon their
own theology.
And I can say
the exact same
thing as an
atheist from
their
perspective:
“this is what
your God has led
me to believe,
and that’s why
I believe it.”
So here’s
where Calvinism
has too much
explanatory
power. It
explains
everything…and
nothing. It has
an answer for
everything…and
nothing.
Take for
instance the
whole problem of
human suffering.
The amount of
human suffering
is intense
around the
globe. There is
an unbearable
amount of it for
many people.
Indonesia
suffered through
a tsunami that
killed a quarter
of a million
people due to an
underwater
earthquake that
God could've
averted before
it happened (and
none of us
would've known
God averted it,
either). A year
later the
survivors have
suffered through
a horrible
earthquake which
killed even more
of them that God
could've
secretly averted
too.
The Calvinist
answer is that
none of us
deserve anything
from God. We
deserve hell, so
what’s a
little tsunami
and/or
earthquake on
top of it? So
there’s the
answer. It’s
simple. It
explains
everything. And
there are no
silly questions
left over. The
Calvinist answer
is that
everything God
does is good,
even if we
cannot
understand it.
So every
instance of
human suffering
that any human
being has ever
experienced is
good. Everything
that happens
brings God
glory. We are
not to complain.
He's creating a
beautiful
painting. God
knows what
he’s doing. We
should trust
him.
But think of
that last
statement! “We
should trust
him.” Why does
a Calvinist
think
anyone...anyone...should
trust their God?
Why? What
reasons are
there for
trusting such a
God? There are
none…none!…not
on Calvinistic
grounds, for
reasons I just
specified. Who
knows what
God’s
secretive will
really is? They
don’t. On
their own
grounds they
can’t trust
him to even be
truthful with
them.
Since this is
the case, I can
look at the
amount of
suffering in
this world and
reasonably
conclude there
is no good God.
If he exists,
he’s a
monster.
That’s the
reasonable
conclusion to
arrive at when
looking at the
observable
facts. Why
shouldn't I
trust my own
conclusions when
I am not even
given one reason
why I should
trust or believe
in Calvin’s
God? I already
know I cannot
trust such a
Calvinistic God
on it’s own
grounds, so when
I see the amount
of suffering in
this world that
I do, I am
better off
trusting what I
conclude, than
in believing
what Calvinists
do. They have no
basis for
trusting their
own God! They
have no basis
for calling
their God good!
They have no
basis for
believing he
never lies! They
have no basis
for believing
that our sins
are such
terrible deeds
that deserve
hell! They don't
even have a
basis for
believing God is
good, since we
have no reason
for trusting God
when he says
that he is good,
especially when
all the
observable
evidence of
suffering in
this world
overwhelmingly
denies this! But
the Calvinist
has an answer
for this too.
God is decreeing
that I reject
him for his
glory. That's a
simple answer.
It solves
everything.....and
nothing. But it
absolutely fails
to take into
account the
observable
suffering that
human beings
have observed
since the dawn
of time.
That’s why
Calvinism
explains
everything…and
nothing. It has
moved from being
a simple theory
to a simplistic
theory. It
explains
nothing…nothing.
There is no
reason why I
should become a
Calvinist. None.
There is no
reason why I
should trust
that God. None.
Since I cannot
trust such a
being, and since
I can see no
reasonable
solution to the
problem of
observable
suffering coming
from such a God,
I reject him.
The observable
facts of human
suffering around
the world, which
could take up an
entire
encyclopedia,
say otherwise.