Calvinism's Achilles Heel

In a brief discussion I had with James White, we discussed how people come from a state of being in sin to a state of being saved.

Classical Christian doctrine states that all people have sinned against God, and therefore are bound to spend eternity in hell. Jesus then provided grace so that some people might repent of their sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, and receive forgiveness for their sins as well as salvation.

One of the distinctive doctrines of the Calvinist TULIP is Irresistible Grace. This is the doctrine that God acts first in the process of salvation. He gives his grace to certain people, and those people are irresistibly compelled to repent and believe, and as a result, receive salvation. Here is the doctrine as described by the Reformed web site Theopedia:

Irresistible Grace (or efficacious grace) is a doctrine in Christian theology particularly associated with Calvinism which teaches that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect), whereby in God's timing, he overcomes their resistance to the call of the gospel and irresistibly brings them to a saving faith in Christ.

Those who obtain the new birth do so, not because they wanted to obtain it, but because of the sovereign discriminating grace of God. That is, men are overcome by grace, not finally because their consciences were more tender or their faith more tenacious than that of other men. Rather, the willingness and ability to do God's will are evidence of God's own faithfulness to save men from the power and the penalty of sin, and since man is so corrupt that he will not decide and cannot be wooed to follow after God, sovereign efficacious grace is required to convert him. This is done by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit whereby a fallen man who has heard the gospel is made willing and necessarily turns to Christ in God-given faith.

The problem with this doctrine is that humans are considered responsible for their decision whether to believe or not. This is still considered a free act. Calvinists will respond by holding to the doctrine of compatibilism, which is the belief that an act can be causally determined and still free.

The traditional problem with compatibilism is that it is vulnerable to manipulation arguments. No compatibilist has been able to come up with a definition of a free act that can distinguish between a free choice and a compelled choice. Behavior that is manipulated by a psychiatrist with the right combination of drugs is generally not considered free behavior.

The problem is worse with Calvinism. On the Calvinist view, not only is behavior both free and determined, but it is also manipulated by God. God's irresistible grace compels cooperation, and yet any choices it produces are still considered free human choices.

Here is the kicker: If God can compel a human choice and it is still considered free, what if another human compels the choice of another human? Is it considered free? Suppose that Jill, a psychiatrist, puts a kleptomania drug into Jack's cup of lemonade. Suppose that this is done without Jack's consent. Suppose also, that Jack is compelled by an irresistible urge to steal someone's car, attempts to do so and is caught. Was Jack's attempt to steal the car a free choice, and is Jack responsible for it? It would seem not, and any court that could prove Jill's actions would absolve Jack of his behavior and hold Jill accountable for Jack's attempt to steal the car.

Suppose that God has elected Jack unto salvation from before the beginning of the world. Suppose that this was done without Jack's prior permission or consent. Suppose that God then irresistibly compels Jack to repent and believe, and Jack is compelled by an irresistible urge to repent and believe. He does so and receives salvation. Was Jack's choice a free choice? It seems not.

And so compatibilism is simply not an option for any Christian.

Why Calvinism Cannot Solve the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is a long standing problem in philosophy of religion. If God is perfectly powerful and good, how is it that evil can exist in this world? Since Calvinist theology affirms what is called theistic determinism (that God not only allows evil to exist, but causes evil to exist), the Calvinist is committed not only to the existence of evil, but also to God being the direct cause of it. Hence, a Calvinist cannot argue that the existence of free will removes any guarantee that an omnipotent God will be able to prevent creatures from disobeying. According to Calvinism, God actively determines everything, including acts such as child molestation.

 The Calvinist will then try to defend this by resorting to a defense called instrumentalism.

Instrumentalism: The denial of evil's ultimate character as evil, and the assertion that it is an instrument of good.

James White, a Calvinist, argues that there is no libertarian free will for humans. That is to say that there are no choices made my humans that are not already determined by God. Hence, when challenged on issues of human wickedness, he said that evil needs to exist in this world in order to maximize God's glory and so that we can have an appreciation for the good.

The question then becomes: Do the benefits of these actions outweigh the costs? If not, then the problem remains as to why a perfect God would ordain them. If they do, then instrumentalism collapses into what is called illusionism.

Illusionism: The denial of evil's existence.

Here is how instrumentalism is reducible to illusionism.

Evil, if it is defined in any meaningful sense, is a violation of a moral ought. If someone ought to tell the truth about why he is late to an event, but instead lies about it, then he is saying something other that he ought to be saying. There is a difference between what he is doing and what he ought to do, and therefore the act is evil.

Instrumentalism states that evil is really an instrument for realizing the ultimate good. For example, one needs to see evil in order to appreciate the good. If this is the case, then evil (what ought not to be) is necessary for achieving the good (what ought to be).

This is the same as saying that the instruments for achieving the ultimate good ought not to be.

This is the same as saying that the good ought not to be.

Unless we deny the reality of good itself, then evil, as an instrument for the good, must be good itself. But this is to say that evil is good, and therefore evil is illusory. This is the same as denying the existence of evil.

What about the Calvinist who bites the bullet and states that there is no such thing as evil, so defined?

That is to go out of the frying pan and into the fire. First, we seem to have this belief that evil (what ought not to be) exists. If we have this belief, and it is not true, then that belief is mistaken, and ought not to be. Furthermore, if no evil exists, then why is this explanation offered in the first place? If there is not evil, then no explanation is required. If it does not exist, then it is not illusory, for even the illusion of evil is itself evil.

The problem is that the illusion of evil is just as problematic as the existence of evil itself. Evil then possesses at least an illusory reality, just as the mirage on the road is real as a mirage. And just as the mirage is not explained by calling it a mirage, neither is evil explained by calling itself an illusion.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 20

    It shall come to pass in the latter days
        that the mountain of the house of the LORD
    shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
        and shall be lifted up above the hills;
    and all the nations shall flow to it,
        and many peoples shall come, and say:
    “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
        to the house of the God of Jacob,
    that he may teach us his ways
        and that we may walk in his paths.”
    For out of Zion shall go the law,
        and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
(Isaiah 2:2-3 ESV)

    “Give attention to me, my people,
        and give ear to me, my nation;
    for a law will go out from me,
        and I will set my justice for a light to the peoples.
(Isaiah 51:4 ESV)

These two sections are used by Christians to argue that the New Testament law will replace the laws of Moses. I myself am not convinced by these prooftexts. Unbelieving Jews will then use their own prooftexts to argue that a new covenant will not arrive, and that the law of Moses will be enforced forever. This is also not true, as the video of J. Immanuel Schochet showed in my last post.

Troki also argues that King Messiah will come and bring peace, judgment, and the like upon the world. While I do not disagree with the prooftexts that eventually, the nations will beat their swords into plowshares. I disagree with the idea that this has to happen immediately when Messiah arrives. There is no independent warrant for that. Troki continues to read his own assumptions into the Bible, and continues to wonder why we keep disagreeing.

Troki also argues that the word "torah" does not always mean law, but means instruction in the book of Proverbs. Troki concludes that no second law will arise. However, Jesus did not come to bring a second law. In fact, the idea of a different kind of Torah existing in the world to come is thoroughly consistent with Rabbinical Judaism.


I think the problem with Troki is that he thinks that Messiah can only be a nationalistic figure. The problem here is that the word "Messiah" is rarely used to describe King Messiah, and so the question as to whether something is a Messianic text is itself highly speculative.

My opinion is that the covenant between God and national Israel is a permanent covenant. There is no biblical reason to think otherwise. However, there is no guarantee that the nation itself is guaranteed to be preserved permanently. This was the purpose of Isaiah's calling, to let the people know that the death which happened to the Northern Kingdom would also happen to Judah, if that kingdom did not repent. That did not work completely, and in the year 70, the rest of national Israel was annihilated as well.

This is not to say that the church is the New Israel. It is Israel in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one. Paul mentioned in the book of Romans that the methods God wants to use to bring his law to the Gentile nations is God's sovereign choice. That, and not individual salvation, is the purpose of Romans 9.

I, and many others, hope that one day Jesus will bring about the resurrection of the nation of Ancient Israel. It has not been accomplished yet. Modern Israel is not a theocracy, and therefore cannot be the same nation as Ancient Israel. Hence, Modern Israel is not the nation of the covenant, but perhaps a precursor to it.