Overreactions To Calvinism
Kerry Duke
Extremes beget extremes. This trend appears in politics, in philosophy, and in religion. A reaction easily becomes an overreaction, and it often does so without our intending it or realizing it to be such. When we oppose a false view, we can quickly become so focused on refuting the error that we make statements that are intended to give a death blow to the falsehood but which may contain subtle seeds of implication of error themselves. Or we may in combating error so emphasize the truth being denied that we tend to emphasize it to the neglect of other equally or even more important issues. We may also coin phrases and expressions that become pat and fixed but at the same time unexamined answers. Sometimes we go too far in refuting error, then a later generation, unfamiliar with the pressures that gave rise to the conflict, takes that position even further. The trend continues until people critically examine the whole dispute and challenge the overreaction.
The American frontier in pre Civil War days was full of trials. The Restoration Movement in this country faced great obstacles. One of its most formidable foes was Calvinism. Calvinism then was closer to the original teaching of Calvin than the diluted Calvinism scattered throughout much of American Protestant religion today. Many of the pioneer gospel preachers fought this doctrine with their heart and soul. They hated the theological system which taught that babies are born in sin, that God and not man chooses who will go to heaven or hell, and that God is the author of every human act, good or evil. These preachers were godly men. Their work in debating and preaching against Calvinism was tireless. We are indebted to them and we should regard them highly. But they were men. They were uninspired, imperfect men liable to mistakes in reasoning and in expression as well as in action. They did well in refuting Calvinism, but their arguments against it sometimes went farther than what the Scriptures actually teach.
Calvin’s doctrine of election was strong in the 1700’s and 1800’s in America. This doctrine states that all men are not created equal, but God has ordained some to eternal life and some to eternal damnation. God makes this choice, Calvin said, for reasons only He knows. Thus Calvin taught that man can do nothing to be saved. He cannot even believe by a decision of his own; God must do this for him. This decision about the elect has been set from eternity. Gospel preachers fought this view, citing Scriptures which teach that God wants all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4; II Pet. 3:9). But they made a mistake in trying to refute this doctrine. That mistake was assuming that Calvin’s doctrine of election was based upon God’s unlimited foreknowledge of the future. These preachers thought that if they could disprove the idea of the unlimited foreknowledge of God, they would thereby disprove Calvin’s idea of election. They asserted that if God knows what man will do in the future, then man is not free, but is only acting out what God knows he will do anyway. Thinking that the removal of this idea would be the death of the doctrine of election, they proceeded to set forth arguments denying that God knows everything in the future. These arguments are repeated to this day even in discussions having nothing to do with Calvinism.
The denial of God’s absolute foreknowledge was thus born out of a controversy that occurred generations ago. This view is an overreaction. Just because a person does not understand how God can know future acts without causing them to happen does not mean He is unable to do so. God foreknows what man will freely choose to do in the future. We do not understand such knowledge. We are in time and God is outside of time. We have to wait and see what will happen in the future, but God already knows. Yet His knowledge of the future no more takes away free will than His knowledge of the past does. The Bible shows that God knows the future, and there is neither need nor justification for limiting this knowledge. Even more regrettable is the fact that the whole attack on divine foreknowledge to refute Calvinistic election was a waste of time and effort. Calvin never said that election was based on God’s foreknowledge. In fact, he said the reverse is the case: God foreknows because He elects; He does not elect because He foreknows. He explicitly denied that foreknowledge was logically prior to election. But once arguments against divine foreknowledge were perceived as powerful arguments against Calvinistic election, they gained momentum and found a place in teaching on the topic that has survived to this day.
Calvin’s view of providence was also widespread. According to this doctrine, everything that happens, good or bad, is the work of God. Loyal Calvinists taught that every calamity and every fortune is an act of God. When a man does good, God is doing it; when a man does evil, God is doing it. Calvin’s view of God was one of a God in total control of everything that happens. Calvinists then and now call this the sovereignty of God. Calvinists say that God does not merely permit all things good and bad to happen; He causes them.
It is true that God sometimes sends misfortunes as well as blessings. But Restoration preachers knew that God is not the cause of all adversity. They knew that time and chance happen to all (Ecc. 9:11). They taught that tragedy is not always sent by God as punishment for sin (Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-3). Some of these preachers had been taught Calvinism and had even preached it themselves at one time. But they could not live with themselves and hold this doctrine. American life was fraught with dangers and trials. Many of these preachers experienced disease and death in their families. The idea that God was behind every one of these heartaches was a burden too heavy to bear. Besides, the belief that God causes the drunk and the thief to commit sin was ludicrous. The more their resentment toward Calvin’s view of providence burned, the more fiercely they preached against it.
Somehow this opposition to Calvin’s view of providence eventually paved the way for an extreme view of providence. Brethren began to analyze God’s operations in the world and gradually explained everything that occurs in terms of natural law. Calvin said God caused everything to happen without exception. Preachers said in response that God only works through natural laws. Whatever happens in this life happens because we either respect or violate those laws. If we act in accord with the laws of nature, we will be blessed by them. If we violate those laws, we will be cursed by them. The providence of God was thus reduced to God merely sustaining these observable and regular principles of the creation. The universe according to this view is fixed and static in its operations. God in this belief does nothing more than provide the energy to maintain these operations. Ironically, this reasoning amounts to physical predestination, as contrasted with Calvin’s spiritual predestination. This view denied Calvinism, but it also denied Scripture. If all that happens is nature’s observable and predictable response to our actions, then why should we pray to God? If God does nothing but sustain the observable laws of nature, then there is no point in asking Him to do anything, since what nature does is all that will be done. Our petitions to God become nothing more than acknowledgments of what happens anyway whether we pray or not. Though the preachers of this thinking may have prayed earnestly in spite of it, the fact remains that this view of providence really denies the need to pray.