Why I Am Not a Calvinist

The moral argument against Calvinism

I make no attempt to disguise that this is a provocative topic and I am writing in a provocative manner. But that's because I believe that the God and the Gospel of Calvinism deserves this treatment. For a brief while in my late teens and early twenties I was enamored with what I thought was the cold logic and harsh reality that Calvinism offered. The theology of Calvinism is bleak, and often the argument is put forward that it is the bleakness and the ruthlessness of Calvisnism that somehow makes it true, ie. if you aren't compelled by Calvinism, it's because you don't like to face uncomfortable truths. So, if Calvinists are upset by the tone or contents of this short piece, I'd ask them to question if that's because they are unconvinced by my arguments, or if it's just that they don't like to face uncomfortable truths.

There are perhaps no reasons to object to Calvinism more convincing that the moral argument. If the God of Calvinism is true, then how can God be good? This is the foremost argument in the debate and this is the line I will be taking. To get to that point, though, we first need to lay out a Christian idea of teleology. Teleology refers to the final cause of any event, the purpose for which the event was carried out. When we apply teleology to God, we refer to His plan or purpose, eg. the teleology of the Incarnation was the salvation of humanity. This is particularly relevant in Calvinism as it is linked to the notion of determinism (that God predetermines all events in history for His purposes). We don't just want to look at the teleology of particular events, but the teleology of Creation itself. God created everything in existence and had a plan and purpose, a telos, for all of it. Part of God's telos for us, was that we, as Creation, would know and love Him. The Westminster Catechism affirms that 'Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.'

In other words, God has implanted the desire for God in all of us. We yearn for God, but we often try to satiate this desire with earthly things. Earthly things, as Creation, point to God. We saw in the previous post 'Corpus Christi' that all of Creation participates in God, it points to Him because He made it all. Creation, as a sacrament, evokes transcendence.

The mistake we make is trying to satisfy these transcendent desires with immanent things. When we think that Creation is the end in and of itself, rather than a sign that points to God, we are disappointed. It can give us a taste but can never fulfill. This is sin, taking God's gift of Creation and divorcing it from Him. Salvation, though, is when we finally latch onto what we've been searching for; our eyes are opened and we can see God. When this happens we could not do anything but worship Him. Our eyes are opened and we love God for God's sake. I'd imagine that Calvinists would agree with much of this.

But here is where problems arise with Calvinism. Calvinism perpetuates the notion that God has chosen those who will receive salvation in advance. Not all, in fact very few will, come to know God. If God has put the desire to know Him in all humans, then why does He frustrate this by denying it to some? An idea that is prevalent in Calvinism (although not universal) is the proposition that sinners continually reject Him even in the age to come. If this is true, then it means these souls have not seen Him. If they would see Him they would not reject Him, as knowing and loving God is our telos. This must mean that God is keeping people perpetually in ignorance of His love. So either, in Calvinism; God does not give the desire to know Him to all humans, or He has given all the desire to know Him, but chooses beforehand which people will have this desire fulfilled. In either case He's created people for the purpose of populating hell. The telos of God in Creation, then, was to torture the vast majority of created beings for all eternity.

How can I say this so boldly? What sets Calvinism apart is the insistance that salvation involves no human effort. We can agree that humans are unable to save themselves, and but for the grace of God we'd be lost in sin, but Calvinism takes this a step further. Not simply is it that humans are unable to save themselves, but salvation is entirely a passive process that does not involve the will of man. God chooses a select group of people, based on no criteria other than His sovereign will, and these few will inherit eternal life. In truth, we affirm that God is under no obligation to offer eternal life to anyone at all, and it is unspeakable grace that He would deign to offer this to anyone. However, those who do not inherit eternal life are instead damned to eternal torment. Their whole existence was for the purpose of suffering. Some Calvinists who have a more sensitive moral palate naturally find this idea difficult to swallow, and attempt to appease their conscience by using language that shifts the responsibility onto human beings. While the salvation of men and the regeneration of a soul is appropriated solely to the efforts of God, those who are eternally damned are so-judged based on their own failure to repent. God, in Calvinism, is 100% responsible for lifting the few out of sin, but 0% responsible for not helping the many still in sin. The fault lies at the feet of sinners. This doesn't work, though, as without the intervention of God, none can come to Him. What this means is that the Calvinist God puts the responsibility on sinners to repent, and yet makes it impossible for them to do so. So, not only can sinners not save themselves, they have no hope of repentence without God choosing to save them. To put responsibility on human beings for their sin, in a Calvinist system, makes little sense. It would be like punishing an object for obeying the laws of gravity. The reality is, the sinner, according to Calvinism, has no freedom, he cannot choose God, he can only choose sin. How can we say that such a person is repsonsible for their actions, if the only thing that they cannot do is the one thing that would spare them?

Some more honest Calvinists gladly accept the notion of double predestination, they are open with their beliefs that God chooses to save some, but actively condemns the rest to eternity in hell. They admit that the mass torment of human beings pleases God and He is glorified in sending them to suffer. How else would God demonstrate His justice? What they are less inclined to be open about is that this, if it were true, would be evil. If Calvinism were true, God would not be good, nor just. A God that willingly and knowingly creates human beings for the telos of making them suffer for all eternity, even if it did somehow bring Him glory, would not be a God of Love. Some argue that 'good' for God does not mean the same as 'good' for humans, and that we cannot judge God by human standards. The latter half of that assessment is true, God can only be judged by His own standard, and by the standard of the Jesus Himself, the God of Calvinism falls short. Jesus is the embodiment of Love. Self-sacrifice, kenosis, the unending love of the Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep is a far cry from the God of Calvinism. Some say that total depravity has so corrupted us that we can't even say what is good and what is bad. Such a notion only further obfusticates our vision of God. If that is true, we can't say anything true about God. If our word 'good' bears no relation to 'good' in God then all we have left is to take it on faith that predetermining the torture of the mass majority of humans is 'good'. Perhaps we all should follow suit.