Loose Strings: A Critique of Calvinism
Calvinism is a branch of Protestant Christianity that adheres to the theological teachings of John Calvin, a French theologian who lived in the 16th century. Calvinism is also known as Reformed theology, and it places a great emphasis on the sovereignty of God, predestination, and the doctrine of grace. However, the doctrine of Calvinism presents several problematic views of God's love and human free will that are worth exploring.
John Calvin was a theologian, pastor, and reformer who played a crucial role in the Protestant Reformation. He was born in France in 1509 and studied law before he became interested in theology. Calvin's most famous work is the Institutes of the Christian Religion, which he wrote in 1536 and revised several times before his death in 1564. The Institutes outlines the key doctrines of Calvinism, including the sovereignty of God, predestination, and the doctrine of grace.
One of the most problematic aspects of Calvinism is the view that God predestines certain individuals to salvation and damnation regardless of their actions. This view presents a troubling picture of God's love and justice. If God is truly loving and just, then it is difficult to reconcile the idea that he would predestine some individuals to eternal damnation without giving them a fair chance to choose otherwise. This view of God's love is incompatible with the idea that he desires all people to be saved, as stated in the Bible.
Furthermore, the doctrine of sovereignty vs. free will is a key issue in Calvinism. Calvinists believe in the total sovereignty of God, meaning that everything that happens in the world is ultimately determined by God's will. This view of sovereignty can be problematic because it leads to the conclusion that humans have no free will. If everything is predetermined by God, then it would seem that humans are not free to make choices that are not predetermined. This view of free will is incompatible with the idea that humans are responsible for their actions and will be judged accordingly.
will.
Examine an argument made by a calvinist.
[ ] Premise 1 Gods plan can not fail
[ ] Premise 2: If humans have free will, then God's plan can fail.
[ ] Premise 3 humans dont have free will
This syllogism is not logically valid, as its conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. The argument commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent, which occurs when a conditional statement is reversed and its consequent is negated to draw a conclusion.
Here's an example to illustrate the fallacy:
[ ] Premise 1: If I have a car, I can drive to work.
[ ] Premise 2: I don't have a car.
[ ] Conclusion: Therefore, I can not drive to work.
This argument is invalid because the fact that I don't have a car does not necessarily mean that I can not drive to work. There may be other modes of transportation available, such as public transportation or carpooling, that would allow me to get to work without a car.
Similarly, in the syllogism presented, the conclusion that humans have no free will does not necessarily follow from the premises. The second premise assumes that human free will can make God's plan fail, but this assumption is not necessarily true. It is possible that God's plan includes human free will and that God can work around any actions that humans take to fulfil his plan. Therefore, syllogism does not provide a valid argument against human free will.
Most modern-day calvinist often conflate free will with the idea of maximal autonomy. They argue that free will means one can choose without any constraints and that free will can displace the plans of God in the minds of many calvanist. The truth is that free will is not the same as maximal autonomy. Maximal autonomy is a property no being possesses even though we can conceptualise it. For being autonomous maximally, it should be able to determine its past+ genes+ character . God doesn’t have that maximal autonomy, God just is . And no human possesses maximal autonomy. We do not choose our past nor our genes, nor character. These are chosen for us . We shape and adapt with what is given and built for it .
Examine the argument for maximal autonomy :
[ ] Premise 1 . If an individual has maximal autonomy, they have complete control over the past, gene, and character
[ ] Premise 2 . No human can choose their past, genes, or character .
[ ] Premise 3. Therefore, humans do not possess maximal autonomy.
This syllogism is logically valid as it follows a correct structure of a conditional statement (if A, then B) and makes a sound conclusion based on the premises provided.
Premise 1 states that maximal autonomy requires complete control over one's past, gene, and character. This means that a person would have to be able to control all of their experiences, their genetic makeup, and the development of their personality traits.
Premise 2 asserts that humans do not have the ability to choose their past, gene, or character. This is because past events, genetic makeup, and personality traits are not entirely within a person's control. For example, a person can not choose the family they are born into or the genetic predispositions they inherit from their parents.
From these premises, the conclusion follows logically. If maximal autonomy requires complete control over one's past, gene, and character, and humans do not have control over these things, then humans do not possess maximal autonomy. Therefore, the conclusion that humans do not possess maximal autonomy is sound and follows logically from the premises.
Examine this argument for free will
[ ] Premise 1: Individuals have the power to think, judge, decide, and act on the basis of their own understanding and choices.
[ ] Premise 2: If individuals have this power, then they possess free will.
Conclusion: Therefore, individuals possess free will
The first premise recognizes the ability of individuals to engage in the cognitive processes of thinking, judging, deciding, and acting. These processes involve a degree of conscious awareness, reflection, and evaluation of one's own beliefs, values, and goals. In other words, individuals have the capacity to think for themselves and make decisions based on their own understanding of the world around them
individuals have the power to think, judge, decide, and act on the basis of their own understanding and choices, and then they possess free will. Free will is the ability to make choices based on one's own reasons, goals, and values, rather than being determined by external forces or factors beyond one's control.
There is a classic example of Eve in the bible. In her discourse with serpent, she looked at the fruit. It was pleasant to the eyes and one to make one wise . This was not God causing her to lust after the fruit. Rather, she was using her cognitive powers of judgment and analysis. This is what free will means. It doesn’t mean you can do whatever, but that a person can rationalise and use their cognitive faculties in decision making .
The conclusion affirms that individuals possess free will because they have the power to think, judge, decide, and act on the basis of their own understanding and choices. This argument supports the idea that individuals have the ability to exercise control over their own lives and to pursue their own goals.
In conclusion, the statement made by Charles Spurgeon that "Calvinism is the gospel" has been taken by many to mean that Calvinism is the only true interpretation of the gospel. However, this is a false imposition as Calvinism, like any theological model, is an interpretation of the biblical text from the perspective of another man. Therefore, it can be critiqued and reformed.
The rejection of Calvinism is not the rejection of the gospel but an interpretation of it, just as other interpretations like Molinism exist. Modern-day Calvinists tend to invoke sovereignty as a divine shield to explain God's role in evil, but this is not enough to absolve God of causing evil. If all knowledge is rooted in God, then our sense of justice, causality, and guilt is also rooted in the revelation of God, and therefore sovereignty cannot be an escape hatch to excuse God from causing sin and punishing those who cause it at the same time.
Today, "Jesus loves you", and it is an offence to many, especially calvinists who are under the impression that God loves only the elect and hates the dammed. Such an unfortunate view . There is no unrighteousness judgement with God, and the gospel still stands on the words of the Lord," for God so loved the world"...
