Evil Old Calvinism

You've all heard the joke, I'm sure. "Hey, Dad, when do I get to drive?" asks the son. "You get to drive when you get a haircut!" answers the father. "But, Dad, Jesus had long hair." "Sure, and He walked everywhere He went." Sometimes it seems that winning an argument might leave you somewhere you don't want to be ...

You'd think I'd be used to it. You'd think it would be old hat. Still, it always comes as somewhat of a shock to me when I hear how people abuse Reformed Theology. Rhett speaks of Calvinism this way:

My friend is a Calvinist, which means he believes that free will does not exist and that God is in control of every minute detail on this planet, and so nothing happens which God does not desire to happen.

There are two issues here that baffle me. The first is the notion that is tossed into the air like a poor skeet target so they can shoot it down, the claim that Calvinism "believes that free will does not exist." Sigh! Here, tell ya what ... pull ... BANG! I'll join you in shooting that one down. Anyone who denies that humans have the ability to make unforced choices is simply confused at best and heretical at worst. I mean, if they can't make choices -- if God forces all choices -- in what possible sense can God hold them responsible for their (nonexistent) choices? Simple! It's nonsense. No, seriously, this is fun. Let's do it again. Pull ... BANG! And I suppose that there might be one or two fringe types who would make such an argument. (I suppose there are one or two fringe types on just about any nonsensical argument you might pull up.) Still, it's not "Calvinism" and I sure wish it would stop. We Calvinists, as evil as we might be, affirm that human beings have the ability to make choices without outside forces. Can't we just let that poor clay pigeon die?

The other one, however, baffles me from the other side. Calvinism, it is claimed believes that "God is in control of every minute detail on this planet, and so nothing happens which God does not desire to happen." I stand there and hear that and scratch my head. Let's consider the alternative. God is not in control of what happens on this planet and stuff happens that God doesn't ultimately want to happen. Yeah, that sounds better. Much more reasonable. So when an influenza pandemic strikes and kills something in the vicinity of 20 to 40 million people, God is secure. He wasn't in control of that. It just happened. He was up there going, "Oh, no! How horrible! How I wish I could intervene but I can't." Wait, "I can't"? No, that can't be it. He can do anything. How about this? "Oh, no! How horrible! How I wish I could intervene but I won't." Won't? Why not? So ... is it that He isn't omnipotent ("can't") or that He isn't loving ("won't")? I mean, could He not have caused Katrina to cause less damage? Could He not have misdirected those pilots on 9/11? Or is He simply unwilling? Now, before we get our knickers in a twist, let's think about the question. Is there any point in asking? You see, if, for whatever reason, God knows about an event and does not act, can it rightly be said that He didn't, in some sense, desire it? I suppose if you say He is incapable of acting in those cases then He didn't desire it ... but now you have "the Lord God omnipotent" (Rev. 19:6) lacking power. Some might argue, "No, He had the power, but He was unwilling to intervene in Man's choices." Fine. Let's go with that. Doesn't that say that, while we might agree that He didn't desire Islamic terrorists to kill people, He desired not to prevent them? And doesn't that, in the final analysis, equate to the claim that He desired what happened, if only as a function of their free will? And, when it's all said and done, doesn't that mean that God will or will not intervene to allow or not allow whatever He ultimately desires to allow or not allow? Or, let me put it another way. Doesn't that say that "God is in control of every minute detail on this planet, and so nothing happens which God does not desire to happen?"

The Sovereignty of God, as touted by "Calvinists", is a major issue. I won't deny it. And it is often attacked. They say that we believe that, as a result, there is no human freedom. I, along with every Calvinist I know, deny that absolutely. They say that we believe that God is in control of everything, that there is not, in the words of R.C. Sproul, even one "maverick molecule." On that we are guilty as charged. But are you sure you want the alternative, a God who either cannot or will not act? Is that a "more Christian" God? Is that somehow more acceptable, more loving, more biblical? And does it actually make your case? You see, it doesn't help you to argue against something that those with whom you disagree don't believe. On the other hand, neither does it help you to argue against something you don't believe if you don't consider where it leaves you if you win the argument.