Before I begin, I want to state up front that I Love Calvinists. As an Ecumenicalist, I want to see the Church come together in unity and Love despite minute congregational differences. Such theological differences should not bar us from serving together, holding communion together, and even having corporate worship together. Grace and civility ought to be had amongst The Church. That said, I think there's definitely a place for friendly disagreement and discussion; the only barrier to this is hardheadedness and dogmatism.
Calvinism, when properly understood, ultimately leads to an infinite regress. For those who don't speak philosopher, this is a fancy term that means, "a sequence of reasoning or justification that can never come to an end." Or, to put it another way, "a series of never-ending propositions, where the validity of one proposition depends on the validity of the one which follows and/or precedes it." An example might be: "This universe exists because one existed before it that collapsed on itself and exploded to create this one. That one came from a similar universe which came from a similar universe which came from a similar universe ad infinitum inconveniens (unto infinity impossibly). This is a logical fallacy, which means that it fails to hold to reason and undermines itself. An infinite regress cannot happen because there is no end, there is nothing that is actually true in this system. Essentially, it is an endless series of effects with no real, or primary, cause which got the ball rolling. This fundamentally breaks the logical law of cause and effect.
This is where Thomas Aquinas answers the question. He observed that everything in some way is either still or moving. However, something that is not moving must be acted upon to start moving. Isaac Newton echoed this by stating, "An object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force." Aquinas realized, "I am moving. But why am I moving? It is because my mother gave me life and started my movement. But who started hers? All of my ancestors back to the First Man have got each of us rolling. But who started the first man moving? There must be an unmoved Mover that needs no moving that set the whole universe spinning." And this brings us to the problem of Calvinism.
Calvinism purports that God must ordain for someone to believe in Him, and not just to believe in Him but to believe Him as to take Him at His (W)ord. That means that God would have to ordain for His Followers to ultimately come to any true revelation about Him. But, that would ultimately require an infinite regression. Here's why in a caricature of Calvinist thought:
"God has ordained me to believe in Him, but in order for me to believe that He ordained me to believe in Him I must believe that He ordained me to believe that He ordained me to believe in Him. In order to believe that I must believe that God ordained me to believe that He ordained me to believe that He ordained me to believe in Him. In order to believe that I must believe that God ordained me to believe that He ordained me to believe that He ordained me to believe that He ordained me to believe in Him."
So on and so forth with no end in sight. Ultimately, there is no actual point where God ordains any of it, as it is just infinitely regressing. Which means that God never actually ordained any of it, least of all for you to believe in Him. Now, I know that there are many types of Calvinists, from those who are barely more than Arminian (compatiblists) to hyper-Calvinists (total determinists) who believe every action of every atom ever has been ordained and decreed by God, including sin (which I believe is the most logically consistent form of Calvinism). This argument is aimed more at those who take the middle road between these two extremes, and especially to the latter extreme of hyper-Calvinists.
Does this mean Calvinism isn't true? I think its a good indicator that it can't be, not in any logical realm of thought anyway. Does that mean that Calvinists don't hold valid beliefs or that they should be seen as heretics of logic, or blasphemers? Certainly not. Just because one holds an errant belief about God and/or other theological matters, this does not in any way make them heretics or blasphemers. Take the penitent thief on the cross for example. It is extremely improbable that he believed Jesus Is Yahweh, or believed in a Trinity, or even held Calvinist views. And yet, because of his heart, Jesus told him that they would see one another in the New Creation. Thank God for the penitent thief, that we are judged on our Relationship to, and with, a Loving Savior rather than any trifle in our theology!
Comments