- DOCTRINES OF GRACE
'dɒk.trɪnz əv greɪs noun. The six points of Calvinist soteriology: Deterministic sovereignty, human depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, efficacious grace, and certainty in one’s eternal destiny.
A number of
For various reasons. Some of ’em don’t like being part of an “-ism.” They consider their theology part of a long, noble, five-century tradition. (Some of ’em try for longer: They claim the ancient Christians also believed just as they do. But good luck finding anyone other than St. Augustine who was comfortable with
Others concede not everything Jean Calvin taught is right on the money. They won’t go so far as I do, and insist Calvin’s fixation
Regardless the reason, many Calvinists prefer to call themselves “Reform Christians”—with a capital R, because they’re speaking of
The problem with relabeling? Yep, not every Reform Christian is Calvinist. Lutherans and Molinists aren’t necessarily. Arminians (like me) and Anabaptists certainly aren’t. If you’re Protestant,
“The doctrines of grace” is the other label both “Reform Christians,” and Calvinists who don’t mind their title, like to use to describe their central beliefs about
But like I said, Calvin’s fixation on sovereignty and power undermines God’s character. And in so doing, it undermines much of the grace in his system.
Not generous, but limited.
Grace offers salvation to everybody, to all who call on God’s name.
No, not because God doesn’t wanna save people. See, according to John Calvin’s view of sovereignty, salvation doesn’t work that way at all. God’s in absolute, almighty control of the universe. Nobody gets saved without his say-so. So, scriptures regardless, calling on God’s name has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. It’s entirely about
What’s God’s election based on? Does he pick people who trust him, like Abraham? Or who obey him, like Moses? Calvin figured it’s actually neither. God picks people in spite of us not trusting him, not obeying him. But thanks to this grace, we respond to God
You thought coming to Jesus was in any way up to you? Nah, Calvin concluded: God’s been priming us for it. And not only has God readied us for Jesus, but that our free will is wholly an illusion: We’re just riding the grooves God laid out for us since the beginning of time. So really, God doesn’t offer salvation. It’s been assigned. We’ve no choice in the matter. Just the illusion of choice, at best.
Don’t Calvinists find this idea really bothersome? Not really. Because God chooses to save them! Their place
Well yeah it’s gracious of God… for them. What about everyone else?
Ah there’s the rub. See, limited election, limited atonement, limited salvation, limited anything, would be totally understandable coming from a limited God. Such a God can’t save everyone, so he’s what he can! But Calvinists correctly recognize
So… why’s he holding back then? Since there’s nothing stopping God from saving absolutely everyone, yet large swaths of humans are abandoned to hell, what’s the deal? Imagine a doctor who can treat everyone, but won’t… for his own personal, private reasons. Imagine a lifeguard who says, “Of course I don’t save everyone, and that’s why you should appreciate it all the more when I save you.” What the what?
How’s this gracious of God? How’s it generous? Is this the way God defines favoritism: In order to show his great love for some, he’s gotta screw over pass over everyone else?
Well, Calvinists say, yes. And they trot out this favorite
Romans 9.20-24 LSB - 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? W
ILL THE THING MOLDED SAY TO THE MOLDER , “WHY DID YOU MAKE ME LIKE THIS ”?Is 29.16, 45.9 21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 And what if God, wanting to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath having been prepared for destruction, 23 and in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles?
Yeah,
Once we realize Paul isn’t yet talking about salvation, turns out these chapters are actually about
Through Jesus humanity, not just Israel, is elected for his special attention. God’s being patient with these “vessels of wrath” because there’s always a chance of saving them.
The problem isn’t a God who created an arbitrary, unnecessary cut-off point for salvation. It’s a humanity who would totally set limits on it if we were God. Calvin would; so he imagined a God who would, and told us that’s what God is like. No he’s not.
And though God wants to save everyone, humanity resists his will. We call this resistance
But to the Calvinist, people only think we choose anything. People go to heaven because God decreed it; people go to hell because God, either wrathfully or passive-aggressively, decreed they’re not going to heaven. And again: Not because he’s short on resources, for he’s not. But because he just doesn’t wanna grant grace to those people. He shares
In what way does this idea not violate grace?
Not kind, but compulsory.
Grace is kind, for God is immeasurably kind.
Calvinists prefer the terms efficient and efficacious. (They put up with “irresistible” because it comes in handy for this “
Paul described grace as a gift.
But in reality every culture defines gifts by whether they’re compulsory. When they are—when the giver calls it a “gift,” but we don’t think of it that way, and only play along lest we give offense—we don’t consider it a gift at all. No one does. You might’ve heard this story: The kings of Siam used to give sacred albino elephants to their courtiers. Sometimes as an honor—’cause they’re sacred—but the courtiers didn’t see it that way. They couldn’t refuse them, couldn’t give ’em away, and they were a huge expense. And their king was totally aware of this, yet often gave ’em these “white elephants” anyway, sometimes just to ruin them. The one significant thing missing from this so-called “gift”? You guessed it: Grace.
See, unwanted grace is an oxymoron. It’s not grace! Even when the person imposing the gift considers it grace. Like when I try to give a needy friend 20 dollars, ’cause he could totally use the money—but he refuses it because he “doesn’t do charity.” Look, you seriously need the money; take the money, you moron. But he won’t hear of it. And if I press him hard enough, at some point I’m actually no longer being gracious.
To Calvinists, God doesn’t have to respect us. Or our will. ’Cause he’s God. His will trumps his kindness.
See, whenever Calvinists imagine
No, this rapey scenario doesn’t accurately describe God in the slightest. God is love. He’s not gonna act in any way inconsistent with how he and his prophets
From time to time God’s gonna judge and punish the wicked, but only in the course of defending the weak and righteous—because he loves them, and is acting out of love. And if the wicked repent and turn away from their evil, God’s often gonna stop judging and punishing them, because he loves them too.
But we humans don’t care so much about love. Instead we care about and covet power, and that’s much of the reason some of us fixate so on God’s sovereignty. We’re totally willing to compromise God’s love in favor of his power, and try to emphasize his might and wrath and will
Hence when Calvinists describe grace, it doesn’t sound gracious at all.
Love behaves kindly. Calvinist grace behaves no such way. It’s only “grace” because we get the good future. To hell with those who don’t.
Not about love for others, but God’s glory.
One of the slogans Calvinists keep trying to slip into the Protestant solas is sola Deo gloria/“for God’s glory alone.” Which is a great slogan… but not so great when we recognize what Calvinists mean by sovereignty.
See, Calvinists were looking for the meaning of life, and they’re pretty sure they found it in God. If everyone and everything would simply revolve around him, everything’d work out! And y’know, they’re not wrong. God knows how we oughta live; God knows how the universe oughta run. If we do seek his face, do submit to his will, things’d be way better than they are now. And in the End, God’s gonna fix humanity and the world—and we’re gonna praise him for it, and rightly so.
So far so good, right? Here’s where it all goes astray: Since the best thing for us is to prioritize God above all else, Calvinists presume God shares that attitude. That he prioritizes himself above all else. That everything he does has the goal of self-exaltation. Self-promotion. Self-glorification. Not for selfish reasons though: He’s doing it for our benefit. He glorifies himself so we can see we need to glorify him too.
Um… is self-glorification God’s primary motive? Not in the slightest.
And no, it’s not self-love. Love doesn’t promote itself.
So humanity gets slammed, and God gets exalted. And supposedly, not only is God okay with this behavior, he does it himself. He slams us and exalts himself.
Is this how Jesus behaved when he walked the earth? Not at all. He came to earth so we could become God’s children.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t honor God. Of course we should. Nor am I saying it’s okay for us to exalt ourselves; we do plenty enough of that as it is. But this idea God gets to self-promote… well, it has a bothersome side effect. Namely that Calvinists figure there exists a form of selfishness which is actually okay: Divine selfishness. It’s okay for God to seek his own, even though love doesn’t do that. It’s okay for God to prioritize his glory over our needs, even though love definitely doesn’t do that. And sometimes—and in practice it turns out to be often—we get to be selfish too. Just a little. After all, God does it.
A graceless religion.
Y’know,
Well, people who imagine they’re exceptions to his gracelessness. Who figure the rest of the world is getting destroyed, but they get to escape God’s raging judgment ’cause they’re his special favorites. Who figure if God limits his grace, it’s probably okay if they do too. Gracelessness begets gracelessness.
You can probably see from this article why I’m not Calvinist. I have big problems with
That’s them. Now if you’re a Christian who has no such personal relationship—like
But if you’re looking for a graceless God to suit your own bad attitudes, Calvinism’ll do ya. Plus it’ll let you call
