An Answer to "Things Calvinists Really Need to Stop Saying"

I came across an article yesterday on the Society of Evangelical Arminians and posted by Evan Minton.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/things-calvinists-really-need-to-stop-saying/

I would like to answer his objections.  These are the things he thinks Calvinists should stop saying:

1. "Who are you O Man to Question God!?

2. "Straw Man Argument!"

3. An Appeal to Mystery

Here is the gist of his argument for number one:

" I do not believe Arminians and Calvinists worship different Gods, just that the theology of Calvinism paints an awful picture of the God we both worship.

Calvinists need to do better than simply point out that we’re in no position to judge God. They need to show how their theology doesn’t paint God as something He’s not. No Calvinist believes that God is evil. However, I don’t see how their soteriology makes Him anything but. It seems to me that you can either believe that God is good or you can believe that Calvinism is true. You cannot believe both. Yet no Calvinist has ever been able to show me how one can consistently affirm both.

Here’s something to chew on: If merely saying “Who are you O man to question God?” was enough to resolve such difficulties, why did Paul Copan write an entire book called “Is God A Moral Monster”, answering criticisms to God’s moral character from atheists? Why couldn’t this over-used Calvinist slogan be enough? When atheists say that God is morally flawed by unleashing His judgments in the Old Testament narratives, why couldn’t every single page of Copan’s book say in big bold letters “Who are you O man to question God!?” Why couldn’t that be enough? Maybe because it isn’t enough. The critically thinking mind wants answers, not slogans."

He says a whole lot more before this and you can go to the web address to read it if you like.  The thing I find interesting with his objection is that he completely fails to address the context in which this statement, "Who are you O man to question God?" comes from. It's not a mere slogan. It comes from Romans 9, where in part, it says the following:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:6-24 ESV)

I really don't know what else to say in response to this gentleman's objections except what the Bible has to say here in Romans 9.  One can not improve that much on what God's Word has to say here.  It's not the Calvinist's soteriology or theology that is offensive to the writer of this article, but  what the Bible says right here in Romans 9 that is offensive.  Perhaps he needs to explain his understanding of Romans 9?

2. Straw man argument!

He complains that Calvinists accuse those who object to their view of misrepresenting what they really do believe and then arguing against it, thus the idea of a straw man argument.

Here is what he would want of the Calvinist he is debating:

Here’s what Calvinists should do. If someone actually does misrepresent their view, they should

1: Describe what they do believe.

2: Acknowlege that even if that’s not the view you personally hold, it may be the view other Calvinists hold.

3: Make sure you define your terms. Often times Calvinists and non-Calvinists have very different ideas when they use terms like “Free Will” (Calvinist meaning it in a compatiblist since, the non-Calvinist meaning it in a libertarian sense) or “Sovereignty” (Calvinists take sovereignty to be synonymous with divine determinism often times, which is why they accuse Arminians of denying God’s sovereignty). Defining your terms can help eliminate confusion.

Fair enough.  I would agree whole heartedly!  And in like manner, those who disagree with Calvinists need to be willing to define exactly what they believe and also define their terms.  Defining terms is most important in any discussion. 

3. An appeal to mystery.

Here is what the author is driving at with this objection:

Now, don’t get me wrong. I concede that there are theological mysteries. There are things I don’t think I’ll ever understand in this life; such as how people can be happy in Heaven if they get there and find out one of their loved ones is in Hell. Nevertheless, my soteriological position has far, far, far, far fewer mysteries than the Calvinist position. Look, when over half of the objections often raised to Calvinism is met with an appeal to mystery, that in itself should make the position suspect. While I concede that there are theological mysteries, you should be able to give a rational answer to at least 70% of them. Yet no Calvinist can provide a plausible solution to the problems I bring up? None of them can show me, for example, that it’s even possible for God to be just in condemning infants to an eternal Hell (I wrote a blog post arguing from scripture that He does not do this by the way). I cannot get them to tell me why God would causally determine me to disagree with their soteriology! I can’t get them to give a plausible answer as to why, if God really does determine all things, why we don’t live in a world without evil and suffering (it makes since from a libertarian free will perspective, but not from a compatiblist one).

He says, "...None of them can show me, for example, that it's even possible for God to be just in condemning infants to an etermal Hell..."

That's too bad if they can't, because God addresses it in Romans 9:

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” (Romans 9:10-20 ESV)

He says, "...I cannot get them to tell me why God would causally determine me to disagree with their soteriology!" 

This is a crazy question.  Of course there is no verse in the Bible that is going to explain exactly why God would causally determine him to disagree with the Calvinist!

  However, there are principles set forth in Scripture that could show that God would allow that to happen.  For instance, of Pharaoh, who opposed Moses, God said, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 

 Of  course, I don't believe the writer of this article is an unbeliever such as Pharaoh, so please don't even go there.  I am only using this as an example of how God allows opposition for His own purposes.  I don't know the mind of God, nor does the person this writer is opposing.  So how are we to explain "why" God would causally determine him to disagree with them? 

He complains, " if God really does determine all things, why we don’t live in a world without evil and suffering (it makes since from a libertarian free will perspective, but not from a compatiblist one)."

This is an interesting question.  Acts 2 tells us that Jesus was delivered up by wicked men according to God's definite plan.  

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:22-24 ESV)

God didn't suddenly look down and see what was happening and had to suddenly go to plan B.  His plan included the acts of wicked men!  

When Pharoah kept hardening his heart against the Israelites, there was a point where it also said God hardened his heart.  But the point being is that God's plan included the acts of a wicked ruler!  

God had a plan.  He executed His plan.  His plan included the wicked acts of men.  He didn't have to switch to plan B when He saw what men were going to do.  God was in control and not reacting to what men were doing.  

For this writer to ask, " if God really does determine all things, why we don’t live in a world without evil and suffering (it makes since from a libertarian free will perspective, but not from a compatiblist one)" , implies that he believes God is not in control of all things. By implication, this statement assumes that evil would not be included in God's plans if He were in control.  It would scare me to think that God might not be in control of all things. What kind of God would that be?  He certainly would not be worth my trust. Yet, I know that my God is in control of things, including the evil in this world, and that He uses all these things for my spiritual good. A God who is not in control of all things and determines all things is a very small God that isn't deserving of my trust and allegiance.

On the issue of free will, yes men have free will to choose good or evil according to their nature. We are told in Romans that there is none that does good. Romans 3:12 tell us that.  It is speaking of good as compared to the righteousness of God.  Anything that man does that he defines as good is evil and tainted with sin in comparison to God's standard of righteousness.  So apart from God's saving grace, man can not choose good that measures up to God's standard.  However, on a human level, man has free will to choose good or evil on a human standard.  As can be seen in Romans 9 and Acts 2 and elsewhere, God uses the willful acts of sinful man within His plan. I can't explain how that works, but the Bible clearly teaches it.  

Yes, there are many mysteries about God that we will not understand.  This author has even said so.  Romans 9 is a difficult passage to come to terms with, yet it's in the Bible.  Most of what is stated there is mysterious.  How do we explain it?  We can't. That is how it is with many of the puzzles this Arminian comes up with to stump the Calvinist.

 I find it appalling that this author does not use one shred of Scripture to back up what he has to say in this post.  If he is going to pose questions that imply what his position is, then he needs to show what his Biblical foundation is for saying what he does.  In his first point, he uses a lot of emotionalism, but absolutely no Biblical basis for saying what he says. I would encourage you to go to the link and read his entire post.  Where is the Biblical warrant for what he says?  He asks a bunch of emotionally charged questions, but does not support anything with Scripture.