The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Critiques of Calvinism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hey all, again!

The issue of universal reconciliation has popped up again in a Facebook group I’m a part of, and I’ve run across even more internal issues with Calvinism. I don’t know yet whether these have been answered and those I’ve argued with simply don’t have a broad enough grasp of their doctrine, or whether these are truly demoralizing arguments against its very foundation. If you want to add any, feel free. Anyway, here goes:

  1. Quality of love for the elect -

God’s providential love, and cherishment for creation, is not tied to His redemptive love, since unconditional election prescribes that the elect are not loved by any quality of their own, but simply because they are selected for it, and the distinction between they and the non-elect is in order to demonstrate His glory. But if God loves some and not all simply to demonstrate His glory, isn’t that more of a cold calculation than it is true, deep affection?

  1. Variableness and “shadow of turning” -

God is said to love all in a providential sense. But the issue of redemptive love eventually concerns providential love, since those not loved redemptively are not loved providentially in the end, either (whether they are still cherished as His creation or not). Thus, God’s love is limited and bound, not only in distinction between individuals, but between segments of time. God’s love doesn’t radiate indiscriminately (like the sun), but is more arbitrary.

Comeback: God’s love doesn’t radiate equally toward all creation, or else the angels would be “helped” (see Hebrews 2:16).
Response: But this is speaking of two different class of beings, which presumably would have differing qualities to receive different aspects of love (for instance, there isn’t even a question to begin with of sparrows being loved “salvifically”), and the elect are not a different “class of being” lest this again violate unconditional election.

  1. Sovereignty and glory -

I’ve brought this up here before I believe, but there is also the issue that if some do not repent in the end, and their hearts are too hardened to recognize and agree with God’s ordinances and ways, then they obviously do not see the merit in God’s nature or activity, and thus He does not receive His due glory in their hearts or minds, and neither is He sovereign in those same inward parts, either. There is at least one realm - or rather, many - where God remains unglorified, and trumped by sin and unrepentance.

Comeback: Unless the non-elect are banished from God’s creation as a whole and placed in some state of quasi-non-existence where their existence doesn’t count, or something.
Response: But to the extent that they exist, God has knowledge of them, and it still undoubtedly very much counts to Him. Besides, this smacks more of gnosticism and seems fairly unbiblical. For instance, in Revelation 22:14-15, the unwashed and unclean are found right outside the city gates, and clearly if there are kings bringing their glory through the entrances, the walls of the city don’t circumscribe the very bounds of existence.

  1. Anger at His own work -

And then there’s that ol’ classic objection that Calvinism proposes that God creates creatures prone to wickedness simply in order to damn them as a part of showing His glory and for no other reason. It would be similar to a mannequin punching bag that one creates (that, by the way, requires almost zero resistance and work for the creator to punch), simply to demonstrate one’s superiority. In the end, there is no point to it, for it is an empty display. It is quite apparent to anyone that such a superior being has no trouble punching the bag. Coming back to the Calvinist model, only humans would be unaware of this, but does this imply that God has something to prove to humans? Most Calvinists would scoff at such a statement.

Comeback: But people have free will in choosing evil over God, it is just that He selects the elect and leaves the rest for damnation. They are still accountable for their actions.
Response: But they are helpless to submit to God (total depravity), and thus God still creates creatures that are intended to be consigned to damnation by omission, so that in a very real sense they are still just punching bags to show His superiority. Their sins are not really even the issue.

  1. Devaluation of the atonement -

I just thought of this one as I was writing the last bit of the last one. In Calvinism, it is already decided who will and will not be saved from the foundation of the world. Thus, the status of the cross is not as the glorious determinant of salvation, but merely the vehicle through which redemptive love is carried. (Any other viable vehicle would’ve done as well.) The distinction here is subtle but I hope you catch my drift. In this viewpoint, the cross does not trump all and is not the ultimate in demonstrating God’s glory, but is of secondary importance. It is God’s election, apparently, that demonstrates God’s glory to the utmost, and the cross plays second fiddle to it. Funny then to wonder why Paul determined to “preach nothing but Christ, and Him crucified!” I have no idea what the response to this would be.

Anymore? I’m sure you guys have run up against some yourselves. :smiley:

I have the Institutes of the Christian Religion on my bed which I have yet to start trying to plow through, which should be a task in itself, and one I’d have to work around my political activity, but hopefully I can penetrate it sooner or later in order to better understand the “enemy”… :wink:

#2

Hi Justin

Good to hear from you. You’ve been quiet these last few months. :smiley:

Critiques of Calvinism, eh? Well, you won’t get any criticism of Calvinism from me. I mean, what could be more honouring to God than that billions of sentient creatures, creatures who can love and laugh and emote and feel pain and weep, be condemned to endless punishment in hell for the ‘crime’ of being born into this vale of tears? We all know that the God who is love needs to show off how loving and glorious he is by burning billions of his creatures in hell. I mean, how else would we know quite how glorious he is?

And what could be a better illustration of divine justice than choosing one twin to damn and the other to save for no reason whatsoever? And while we’re about it, what could be fairer than unchangeably ordaining that a person commit a violent rape, say, but then holding that person accountable simply for doing what they were unchangeably ordained to do? That’s clearly a fair way to go about ordering things.

Seriously, Calvinism? What’s not to like??!!

I just don’t understand why some people persist in finding it impossible to believe that God is the vain, insecure, fickle, duplicitous, vindictive, vengeful, sadistic, egomaniacal monster that Calvinism says he is. I suppose it’s possible that these idiots are a bit confused when Calvinists say that they derive all their beliefs from the Bible, and that the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters of doctrine – sola scriptura, isn’t that their mantra? – when the Bible says that God is love, that His mercies endure forever, that He wills all people to be saved, that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and God in Jesus was reconciling the world to Himself, and all those other loving merciful universalist things. Yeah, I can see how that might be confusing for the non-Calvinist hoi polloi.

:wink:

Seriously seriously, mate :smiley: , all your critiques hit the bullseye in my book. Although I’d say you are just scratching the surface of the theological abomination that is Calvinism. You might want to check out the tail end of this thread, where a couple of us have been starting to unravel some of the, shall we say, *inconsistencies *of that wicked, odious doctrine?

I will come back to you in more detail soon. Until then, preach it Justin!

All the best

Johnny

#3

Here’s a slightly off topic take on a problem with classical Calvinism (TULIP and otherwise). It concerns the incarnation – God in Christ became true God and true human being. For Greek Orthodox theologians this is part and parcel of our redemption – by assuming human nature, God redeemed it.

An interesting thing about human nature – as the philosopher Peter Strawson pointed out – is that our very modes of perception are crystallised around notions of freewill. Resentment, forgiveness, the ability to give and receive praise and blame etc… all of these presuppose a deep sense that in some way we have choices to make (no matter how limited the scope of these choices might be). A nerdish philosopher or theologian might notionally argue the case for strong determinism or predestination – but as human beings we actually can’t get outside of this deep intuition of freedom that structures our emotional and cognitive life (apart from by indulging in pure abstraction).

God’s ways are not our ways – but I think we can take our humanity – our being created in the image of God – as something not completely alien to God, because God is with us. If God feels emotions in some sense – as the Bible teaches – and is not a pure legal or philosophical abstraction, then I think we can trust something about this aspect of our nature as pointing to a truth about God and humanity.
That’s a random thought.

#4

I agree, God’s ways are not our ways. His ways are supposed to be better than ours, not worse.

But from the reading I have done here and online, original Calvinsim certainly appears to have been more inspired by our ways at the time of its inception than God’s ways. It was definitely a religion for the upper classes.

Think about it, Divine Right of Kings (elect for sure), Heirs the Princes and Princesses (more elect for sure), Dukes and Duchesses (more elect), Earls (elect), Lords and Ladies (probably Elect), Town Mayors (Maybe) Yeomen (no way),Townspeople, peasants, serfs and slaves (no way). The people from the “other” city or state—no way. Outrageous punishments and torture (by our modern day standards, awful) perfectly accepted. And God is just like us, so everything we do is endorsed by Him. Its a reflection of His Glory. Its a ancient Greek revival, God is just like us.

I don’t know if Calvin intended it that way, but thats probably how his thoughts were viewed by the secular lay people in power. I also wonder if he ever read the NT? I mean really read it, without preconceptions.

I am astonished its hung on for so long. Talk about twisting your own thinking to conform until you make yourself sick. The Glory of God is expressed by sending people to Hell??? And He is to be worshipped. If I was expected to believe this, I would run, not walk to the nearest underground church.

#5

I couldn’t agree more :smiley:

#6

When I was a Calvinist the biggest emotional difficulty for me was the idea that all those who dies in infancy were, by that evidence, the non-elect - and thus spending eternity suffering in the lake of fire, along with everyone else who died without believing in Christ (the mentally ill, the I evangelised, terminated foetuses etc). It was unbearable.

Another problem was the lack of assurance. The idea that Calvinism grants once-saved-always-saved assurance is false. This is because those who turned apostate demonstrate that they hadn’t been truly saved to begin with, thus they were not elect. How did I know that, like them, I wouldn’t lose faith at some point in the future, that my feelings of assurance were, like theirs, false or of the devil? I couldn’t - therefore any assurance I had might or might not have been illusory.

#7

For #2, regarding angels, one might also want to see the following:

But SURELY all doesn’t really mean all . . . :unamused: