Answering a Friendly Calvinist!

I came across the above lengthy video (over 2 hours long) in which Leighton Flowers debates with a Calvinist named David Louis; and if I were to act as an impartial referee, I would have to conclude that the Calvinist guy won the debate. He debates and presents his arguments in a very reasonable, friendly, amiable (and logical) way; and Leighton Flowers is not doing very well in responding to him. He dodges and dismisses his arguments without giving them an appropriate reply. It seems he doesn’t have good answers to give, so he dodges it instead, which is a pity, because David Louis appears to be a very reasonable guy and a good debater, and presents good arguments, which deserve to be properly answered. I will discuss only one of his comments. At around 46:20 minutes into the video he makes the following comment in response to Leighton Flowers:

“I will be the first Calvinist to admit there are, let’s call them tensions—I would want to call them that because it is my position—but … what I would push back on you is, there is also issues in the other framework; so for example, if God created the universe, knowing that there would be rape; yet he created that universe anyway, knowing that, isn’t he still somewhat responsible, even from your view, of ordaining it? Now, you can remove it one step, right? and say, ‘Well, he didn’t create it directly; you Calvinists say, He causally ordained it.’ Okay, granted; but in every other theistic system, don’t you have to deal with the problem that God created the universe where there would be rape? Couldn’t he have not created that universe? Couldn’t he have created a perfect universe? He chose to create a universe where that stuff is happening. So part of my problem as a Calvinist listening to … Arminians in general, is they want to act like us Calvinists are the only ones that have the problem with this theodicy issue. ‘You Calvinists, God is on the hook for you in your system; in ours he is not.’ Well, wait a minute, yes he is, because if he created a universe where he knew there would be rape, but he did it anyway.”

Those are legitimate questions which deserve an appropriate reply. There are several issues raised in there that need to be separated. The first is, What does he mean by “universe”? The “universe” is a very big place. This earth is a tiny speck of dust compared to the rest of the “universe”. To equate what is happening in this world (at this brief period of time) with what is happening in the rest of the “universe” (for the rest of eternity) is not a reasonable assumption. This earth is not only a tiny speck of dust compared to the rest of the “universe,” it also stretches over a time-span which is less than a tiny speck of dust compared with the rest of eternity. The time-span of this earth is approximately a few thousand years. How long is that compared to the rest of eternity? It doesn’t even compare. So the first thing he needs to do is to add some perspective to his question. The way the question is framed makes it sound as though what is happening in this world, at this brief period of time, is what is happening in all the rest of the “universe,” and for all the rest of eternity, which of course is not an accurate description of what is happening.

Having added some perspective to the question, we next come to the question of why does God allow evil to exist in this brief period of mortality? But before giving the answer to that question, there is another perspective that we need to get right. Evil is not the only thing that is happening in this world. There is also a lot of good that is happening in the world. If you talk to Calvinists, you come away thinking that nobody ever does any good, and nothing good is happening in the world at all, which of course is not biblical, and is not true. There are lots of people who are doing good in this world—as well as a lot of people who are doing evil. I would hazard a guess that there is more good being done in the world than evil. But the question being asked is, Why does God allow the evil to take place in the world? That is a question that is very clearly answered in scripture. It leaves no room for ambiguity or misunderstanding. The scriptures that give the explanation are these:

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

(See also Psalm 9:7-8; 96:12-13; 98:8-9; Matt. 16:27; 25:31–46; Acts 17:31; Rom. 14:10–12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12) How could God “judge” people according to their “works” (“good” or “bad,” and reward them accordingly), if they had no power to do evil; or if the choice between good and evil didn’t exist? There are several implications to those scriptures. The first is that people are free to choose between good and evil. If that freedom didn’t exist, and they were like robots, and were preprogrammed to choose good or evil (as in Calvinism), they could not be “judged” for their actions either. That would be a mockery of justice. “Judgement” implies culpability, which implies (and necessitates) complete libertarian freewill. How can you “judge” someone for their “actions” if they had no control over their actions, and were preprogrammed like robots to do as they did? Calvinists try to get round it by saying that we freely choose what we want, but our wants and desires are predetermined by God, which is absurd logic and a dodge. If our wants and desires are predetermined, then our choices are not freely made.

Another implication of those scriptures is that this brief period of mortality is a testing ground. It is a period of trial to see if we would choose good or evil, right or wrong—and be rewarded accordingly. It is not something which is going to continue indefinitely, and for the rest of eternity (which is what his question is implying). To be “free,” people must be permitted to make wrong choices as well as right choices. When they make wrong choices, innocent people are going to get hurt. That is a necessary and inevitable part of this mortal experience. The good news is that it won’t last very long. And at the end of it we will enter into judgement where all wrongs will be put right, and everyone will receive a just reward for all the right (or wrong) which they have done—and those who have innocently suffered will be fully compensated. After that we have the rest of eternity to look forward to, where the present condition no longer applies.

Another interesting question that arises from this discussion is, What role does the Atonement of Jesus Christ play in all of this? The answer is that the Atonement makes it possible for people who have done wrong to repent of their sins and be forgiven, so that they will not be held accountable for it on judgement-day. Repentance is a universal concept. You don’t have to be a Christian to repent. Anybody of any faith, culture, or religion who genuinely repents (i.e. recognizes that he has done wrong, puts it right where possible, and determines to never do it again), will be forgiven, even if they have never heard of Jesus Christ. They will be forgiven by virtue of the Atonement, even if they don’t know it themselves. “Imputed righteousness” is a Calvinistic invention. There isn’t any such thing. The correct theology is forgiveness and remission of sins, by virtue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, through faith and repentance. “Faith alone” doesn’t save anyone. But faith coupled with genuine repentance does.

But the answer to the original question is a simple one, and is given in the scriptures cited. What is happening in this world, at this present time, is not what is happening in the rest of the “universe,” and will not be continuing forever for the rest of eternity neither. It will last only for this brief (very brief) period of mortality. It is a test, a trial, to see who will be faithful and obedient to the will of God, and who will not be. At the end of it everyone will be “judged,” and will receive their “wages” according to how they have (freely) chosen to live their lives in this world—and thereafter will either be happy or unhappy accordingly for the rest of eternity to come. And nobody is “predestined,” nor “preprogrammed” to do evil or good (according to the heresy of Calvinism). That is the simple and correct answer to the original question. The scriptures cited permit of no other explanation. Calvinists claim to be biblical. If they are, and want to be honest with themselves, they have to admit this, that that is the only explanation possible from the scriptures cited (and possibly others that could be given).

Sola Scriptura and Therefore Charismatic?!

I came across the above video by Dr Michael Brown, speaking in defense of the Pentecostal Charismatic movement, which he apparently adheres to, who believe in (and claim) the continuation of the miraculous gifts mentioned in the Bible, such as the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing etc. His argument is that there is nothing in the Bible that says that such gifts should be done away, notably quoting the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 14:39, “Wherefor, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.” His argument basically is that the Bible does not say that such gifts should be done away, therefore the Pentecostal Charismatic claims to possessing such gifts are true. That is not a valid logical argument. Just because the Bible does not say that such gifts should be done away, it does not logically follow that anybody making such claims (including the Penticostal Charismatics) must therefore be genuine and true. The Bible also teaches that it is possible for people to make false claims; and it is also possible for some to be deceived. Jesus says, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matt. 24:4) And John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” (1 John 4:4) To Timothy Paul wrote, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:13) To the Thessalonians Paul writes, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21) In the same chapter of Paul that he quotes from, verses 32 and 33, Paul also says, “And the spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Cor. 14:32–33) And again in verse 40 he says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:40) The kind of erratic, uncontrolled, and abnormal (even dangerous) behavior sometimes manifested by those who make such claims in the charismatic movement is evidence that they are not genuine. They are at best false pretenses, and at worst evidence of demonic possession. We are required to “try the spirits,” to see if they be “of God;” and not believe “every spirit” (1 John 4:1). “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21–22.) Paul further says, “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” (Gal. 5:22.) And again, “For the fruit of the Spirit is all goodness and righteousness and truth; proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” (Eph. 5:9–10.) The spirit manifested by these folks contradicts that, therefore it cannot be of God. The erratic and abnormal (even dangerous) behaviors sometimes manifested by those who make such claims in the charismatic movement are telltale signs that their claims are not genuine.