"Although we use the same words when sharing the gospel, after one looks under the hood... one quickly sees that this view that Calvinists espouse is quite frankly a totally different Gospel than the one most Christians have in mind when sharing the good news."
- Tim Stratton, "Calvinism: A Different Gospel" video
So in my recent shift towards going from several different theological viewpoints, I am certainly starting to evolve my understanding of theological positions from going towards shifts from one side of the spectrum to another. Even more recently is my current agnosticism towards Calvinism in light of some perspectives and understandings I have engaged with. That being said, I would affirm that even if I were to forsake Calvinism and lean towards either Molinism or Arminianism, I would still view Calvinism as another branch of the vine of Christ among the others that preaches the same historical gospel. However, it seems that Dr. Tim Stratton, a Christian Theologian, will argue that Calvinism is very much a different gospel. Anytime that I hear of an accusation of another gospel, this is a very serious charge I must consider. Especially when it comes to what the Apostle Paul says:
"I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! For am I now trying to persuade people, or God? Or am I striving to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."
- Galatians 1: 6-10 (CSB)
So when I saw this video came out, I needed to take a look at the claims and decide what to make of them. My first thing to point is that I do not think that Molinism is a false gospel nor do I hold to it as a false view of God. While I may disagree with it, I consider it adiaphora. Adiaphora being just a fancy way of saying that it is a disagreement without violating orthodoxy. Some might be shocked to hear a Calvinist say this, though not shocking if you read my article on Provisionism. My only contention is on the approach of this view from a mixture of philosophical critique while also considering Christian history view Scripture and Church History. Because I do not think one can consistently claim that Calvinists are fellow Christians while also charging them with teaching another Gospel. Biblically and historically, this just cannot be seen as the case. We shall begin an examination of the five points in Stratton's video. Before we get into that, let's explore the one key theme here:
PREFACE: What Exactly Constitutes "Low View?"
Tim will mostly focus on the objection of Calvinism rendering a low view of God, scripture, man, sin & the Gospel. When listening to the five low views argued on, I was trying to figure out how exactly this objectively constitutes such. In my understanding of some of these debates and perspectives regarding adiaphora matters, it is simply an issue of a subjective feeling regarding a topic dealing with objective matters. In other words, different interpretations on something that still agree on essential fundamentals. Just like one can have a view of Social Trinitarianism and another on Latin Trinitarianism, but both affirm the trinity without a charge of heresy being accounted to them (except by some radical traditionalists that feel the need to nitpick either as heresy).
There can be other arguments apart from the Calvinist view of things that one could possibly argue for low view of things within Christianity. The first example that I can think of recently that I believe is in mind regards the Eucharist or Lord's Supper as some call it. There have been different interpretations over the years, but two come to mind when it comes to the Protestant view without getting into the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation. There is either the memorial/symbolic view or there is the Real Presence view where Christ is really present in the Eucharist. From what I would argue, I believe that Real Presence would push towards a high view of Christ whereas the symbolic "only in memory" view as taught by the majority of Baptists in church history. This is due to the view of essentially removing the teaching of Christ's presence among the Eucharist despite what is taught in scripture and the early church. However, one can see, as noted by Phillip Schaff, that there are several different views of the eucharist within the first six centuries of the church.
A second one can be noted in baptism between the debates on infant baptism as well as baptismal regeneration. I would affirm both of these doctrines as a Protestant while arguing that the opposite views would render a low view of God's grace, covenant and salvation. However, while I could argue this despite the big historical affirmation of it as well as verses that obviously refer to the baptism of water for salvation, this would be another case of adiaphora in my opinion and not a means to suggest a legit low view nor heresy. Especially when one examines the early church ecumenical councils which showed several condemnations of historical errors. None of which condemns infant baptism nor baptismal regeneration.
Other examples can be seen in the whole high church and low church divide regarding some who would affirm a liturgical versus the "baptist" service of music and preaching 30 minutes each, the doctrine of hell where some argue that eternal conscious torment & conditionalism is a low view of God as opposed to universalism (I disagree with universalism by the way), the debate on the biblical canon and that Protestants have a low view of the church as well as the Holy Spirit, and the divide over calling Mary the "Mother of God" whereas some say those who call her such are having a low view of God and a high view of Mary as a divine being (despite this being a silly argument to suggest such in light of who Christ is). However, I do not think that these are issues that are going to have a big deal regarding disagreement. I think they are adiaphora matters, similar to the Calvinism vs Non Calvinism divide. Hence why I fail to see any objective "low view of" the subjects in mind for the Christian.
I feel that, relevant to this upcoming subject, we should point out some interesting alternatives to low views of God as it relates to Arminianism. The first is Arminianism as it relates to an objection Gordon H. Clark, an apologist who would've been the William Lane Craig of his time if it weren't for the controversy that arose between him and Van Til, soon formulates in his work on the problem of evil. To quote Clark:
"Free will was put forward to relieve God of responsibility for sin. But this it does not do. Suppose there were a lifeguard stationed on a dangerous beach. In the breakers a boy is being sucked out to sea by the strong undertow... He will drown without powerful aid.… But the lifeguard simply sits on his high chair and watches him drown... After all, it was of his own free will that the boy went into the surf... Would an Arminian now conclude that the lifeguard thus escapes culpability?... Unlike the boy who exists in relative independence of the lifeguard, in actuality God made the boy and the ocean, too. Now, if the guard—who is not a creator at all—is responsible for permitting the boy to drown, even if the boy is supposed to have entered the surf of his own free will, does not God—who made them—appear in a worse light? Surely an omnipotent God could have either made the boy a better swimmer, or made the ocean less rough, or at least have saved him from drowning."
(Clark, God and Evil, 17-18; Religion, Reason, and Revelation, 204-5)
So as Clark puts it, there is still a problem found in the means of declaring free will as the response towards the problem of evil as well as the overall theological worldview. However, the point is simply this: no view is free from difficulty or objections of "low view." As even Gavin Ortlund in his video, "Calvinism Isn't Crazy" notes: "If you don't like Calvinism, you have to provide some other answer to this mysterious question of "Is God Sovereign" and if so in what sense?... Any view you take on this, I would just say we got room for humility and trembling here. Any view you take has difficulties. For the classical Arminian, for example, you think God foreknows that people will reject him and yet he chooses to create them. Now so full well knowing that this person will be damned, he still chooses to create them. Now that is not the same problem, but it is still not an easy option to embrace. There is still questions that arise." This can even be stated regarding Molinism, the position that Stratton would, but I am going to simply save this for a read from Turretin, who I think best deals with Molinism. I'll link to an article citing from Turretin's Institutes to go over the matter here.
1. Low View of God
The main part of this point, which eventually leads to the other four points, is that Calvinism creates a "low view" of God, which is built from a quote by AW Tozer, one of my favorite Christian authors I learned from. The quote from the preface of Knowledge of the Holy reads as follows: "The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men... The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us." This quote is then agreed on and the view of Exhaustive Divine Determinism is viewed therefore as a "low view of God" based on God being a "deity of deception and an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs." However I have two points towards this. First one being the quote and the low view of God being defined by Tozer in that same preface. I'll put more of the quote and bold the words that aren't from the original part.
"The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men. This she has done not deliberately, but little by little and without her knowledge; and her very unawareness only makes her situation all the more tragic. The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us. A whole new philosophy of the Christian life has resulted from this one basic error in our religious thinking. With our loss of the sense of majesty has come the further loss of religious awe and consciousness of the divine Presence. We have lost our spirit of worship and our ability to withdraw inwardly to meet God in adoring silence. Modern Christianity is simply not producing the kind of Christian who can appreciate or experience the life in the Spirit. The words, ”Be still, and know that I am God,” mean next to nothing to the self-confident, bustling worshipper in this middle period of the twentieth century."
So here we find the main view is this surrendering is not done deliberately by the church, but without her knowledge being completely unaware. A philosophy of sorts that is an innovation of the Christian way of living. One which tries to forgo the sense of the holy and majesty. It is essentially the numbing down of the divine mysteries and the divine holiness of God that church buildings aren't viewed as sanctuaries of God, but as mere buildings. God's holy attributes aren't considered either because then they are just viewed as mere attributes and not considering holiness. Indeed, as Tozer says in the same preface: "The decline of the knowledge of the holy has brought on our troubles. A rediscovery of the majesty of God will go a long way toward curing them. It is impossible to keep our moral practices sound and our inward attitudes right while our idea of God is erroneous or inadequate. If we would bring back spiritual power to our lives, we must begin to think of God more nearly as He is."
Furthermore, with the argument that the God of Calvinism is a God of deception and an unreliable source of theological beliefs, then we need to consider why this is such. According to him, it is because it is determined for these false beliefs to be therefore a low view of God. However, this I would argue is just not the case. It is simply one approach by which God chooses to grant us knowledge, but we are still operating agents with cognitive function. Plus as a result, I would argue that the limit on our knowledge is due to the results of what we would call the Creator-Creature Distinction with what can be called Analogical Knowledge. In other words, our knowledge and ability for knowledge is not as perfect or great as God's which will thus put us into the problem of getting false beliefs despite our convictions. But if we want to point out certain problems, we must then show there can be objections to the Molinist view that leads to similar problems.
In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Molinism, we learn that "proponents of the doctrine of middle knowledge believe that things could have been different than they, in fact, are. There is much that is not necessary about the way the world is." Further, we see the following example: "God could have made things differently. The sky could be yellow instead of blue, or the grass pink. God could have chosen to not create at all. Although this assumption should be self-evident, it is also supported by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Things could have been different."
So when we have the Natural Knowledge of God along with the Free Knowledge of God being met with a Middle Knowledge, we might come to an objection found in issues of why did God create x to possibly believe y, which can include false beliefs like racism, pseudoscience, heresy, etc. in the first place? If it is part of the best possible world, as some say, for x to believe y, then it comes to an issue one can raise about the results of such beliefs. For example, the racist beliefs leading to murder, oppression, discrimination, etc. when the lack of racist belief could prevent such cruelty rooted in these beliefs. Some would argue, "why didn't God directly come and tell him. Why did he just watch it happen and not tell him directly that this is wrong?"'
This is not to suggest there are no solutions to this objection or problem for the Molinist, but neither does this mean there is no solution the Calvinist can offer up. The point is that we should not be so much focused on the logical or philosophical of a belief as Tozer points out and instead, we should learn to appreciate the Divine in light of the mysterious and the holiness that doesn't seek to please men.
2. Low View of Scripture
This is a sort of follow up on the previous point since if God is an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs, then how can we trust the Bible? This can be resolved in simply arguing for the truth of the Bible based on the presupposition regarding God's attributes and perfection as it comes to the words He inspired. We point out this logical truth of God in light of the Creator-Creature Distinction. To me, this doesn't seem like that much different from what I addressed previously, but I will make another point similar in light of inspiration of the Bible.
If God didn't want false information communicated with proper interpretations, then we must consider why under non Calvinist view points, we see this problem happen. To formulate one of the under utilized logical problems on this subject, we turn to the Interpretation Argument (which is a problem even for Calvinists). To lay out the premises:
1. For any message God wants to communicate, he knows how to communicate it such that it will be interpreted correctly
2. For any message God wants to communicate, he is capable of communicating it such that it will be interpreted correctly
Therefore: If God chooses to communicate a message it must be interpreted correctly.
So we must then ask "why are there false interpretations contrary to the message God wanted to communicate, despite being capable of communicating it in such a way that it will be interpreted correctly?" One could argue free will, but this would then have to deal with Premise 2 and the Conclusion of the argument. Plus, there has to also be an explanation for incorrect interpretations which lead to harm not just to the church, but also for humanity in general. Such as the case of the interpretation of Westboro Baptist Church, New Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, certain sects of Black Hebrew Israelites, etc. whom use very harmful interpretations that lead to people getting killed. Some would find a God who decrees a murder to be on the same level as one who knows something bad will happen with false information in mind, but chooses not to do anything directly or to reverse the course of action.
Another point to note is false facts in the bible. Dr. Michael Heiser, a favorite scholar of mine, has pointed out that you will find innacurate science in the Bible such as the flat earth cosmology of the Bible. Why would God put this info in which then leads to a slight halt in the advancement of science by some proponents of the Biblical text? There are Christians who were at the frontier of scientific advancement, but then there are others who would use it to halt the advancement of scientific research.
3. Low View of Man
This is the popular argument against Calvinism where essentially man is a cog in the machine of predetermined events. To me this is solved by the use of compatibilism, despite Stratton calling this "one of the worst ideas ever introduced to the church. It has brought nothing but confusion and those who purport it often have good intentions, yet they inadvertently deceive those who have not been trained to think otherwise..." in his article on Compatibilism is Incompatible with Reality. However, this brings many presuppositions with it regarding the manner and will also be guilty of the same objections for Molinism that Stratton raises towards Calvinism. If we are to avoid bringing confusion into the church, then what about the confusion from introducing certain philosophical terms and concepts into the church? Middle Knowledge is something I learned of from William Lane Craig in 2015 and could not understand it at all until years later. Even asking my family members and pastor about it led to them being confused and dismissed it as something not to believe because it is too complicated and confusing with "unnecessary categories of God's knowledge." So the introducing of three categories of knowledge from God would just bring about the same problems that Calvinism brings.
So the idea is ultimately arguing that Calvinism is holding such a low view of man because it shows that man cannot really be considered an agent that does much since their actions have been determined. Like the previous takes on God & Scripture, I do not see how this reduces to a low view of man objectively. Some could argue that holding to a sinful nature in man or original sin is considered a low view of man. Some would argue free will theism in Christianity would put a low view of man as it relates to God when it comes to the relationship of God and the unrepentant sinner in the desire for repentance. Some would even argue that Hell as either eternal torment or annihilation is a low view of man that views them as needing to be tortured infinitely for finite crimes. Again, these could be argued for the same matter of a low view of God based on how others feel, which is ultimately the real debate here.
4. Low View of Sin
Sin is now the subject here and I must say that while Stratton is right regarding the definition of sin in language, I feel like this also ignores the main focus on what is considered sin. According to 1 John 3:4, "sin is lawlessness" (CSB) which means that sin is ultimately about violating God's Law, which is part of the gospel message when it comes to understanding sin and how to preach about sin to certain people. But what exactly makes sin have a low view in Calvinism? Simply put, if God determines everything, including sin, then nobody really sins on this view. He even uses the example of Hitler in order to suggest that Hitler was simply a predetermined tool that was given his desires by God via the determined decree of God as another cog in the machine. However, we need to consider that again, this then leads to another view relative to similar scenarios regarding the low view of man and God objections that I put forth earlier.
When it comes to the low view of sin though, some theonomists as well as New Independent Fundamentalist Baptists might argue that the rejection of certain "moral laws" being done today like the dietary laws or executions for certain sins is a low view of sin because you are rejecting the punishments taught in the Old Testament which teach us what sin is. Sinless Perfectionists would argue that if you teach that nobody can become sinless today, your are teaching a low view of sin and are thus responsible for why people are sinning because you have gone soft on sin by teaching everybody sins. Others might attempt to even argue against the Gospel by saying that the gospel teaches forgiveness of sin as if you violate the law and shouldn't be punished for it because you are merely forgiven or have somebody else pay your fine for you. "This is cowardice and unjust" says the certain critic. "How can you have such a low view of sin by letting the actual criminal get away with it because somebody wanted to pay it off?"
5. Low View of the Gospel
The Gospel is given an acronym definition in this next part by Stratton, which even the points of O & S, could be argued for as low views of man and sin by some, but we shall continue to the general argument by Stratton. Essentially, he says that the Calvinist gospel is different from the regular gospel by replacing the general and vague ideas of the Gospel with specific theological points mixed with the general and vague ideas of the Gospel. This is honestly an unfair tactic used because this is what can be done to LITERALLY EVERYONE'S OTHER'S VIEWS. Meaning one can put in the specific exhaustive details of a theological view to show Molinism has a different gospel than that of the Arminian or Open Theist. This is honestly to me a very uncharitable approach to an individual's gospel and I am ashamed that it was done by somebody as professional as Dr. Stratton. Especially a Christian individual.
He then goes to argue that while Calvinism is guilty of Galatians 1:8-9's charge of teaching a false gospel, he argues that "I am not saying that Calvinists are not Christians... They are going to heaven." This is a contradiction though in light of what Galatians teaches. The definition of accursed in Galatians as it relates to the teacher of the false gospel is simply one who is cursed or devoted for God's wrath into utter destruction. In other words, it is about them being damned to hell if they preach a false gospel. This has been the understanding of the early church in the first three centuries before eventually it was in the fourth century that council languages used the term accursed or anathema to refer to simple excommunication. We will even show a syllogism to show the problem in Stratton's reasoning.
P1: Those who preach a false gospel are accursed
P2: To be accursed is to be under God's curse of utter destruction
P3: Christians are not under God's curse of utter destruction
C: Therefore, Christians do not preach a false gospel
Conclusion
Tim Stratton's language is one which can be very confusing at first because as is seen by some, people will try to use some of the points in Stratton's video to argue that Calvinists are not Christians (which shows these people do not watch the rest of the video or even start to watch it). Stratton however needs to consider that Molinism, Calvinism, Arminianism and Open Theism do not touch on the essence of the Gospel. The Gospel is affirmed in the creed of 1 Corinthians 15, the message in Romans 1, the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed & The Athanasian Creed. These have been sources of affirmation of what is to be believed in order to be saved. These are the key elements of the Gospel. We are to use the law as well to demonstrate what is sin, but then teach them to follow the Law of Love. My worry about Stratton's video is that it will eventually cause more confusion that confounds the church, tear the divide between the church at the moment as opposed to the striving for church unity and eventually, lead to Gospel becoming an elitist message of not a general common Christianity, but a specific church similar to the NIFB, Westboro Baptist Church and various other groups that say all other denominations or theological viewtakers opposite of their one church will be "going to hell because they are teaching a false gospel compared to us."
Hopefully, we do not adopt this mindset and hopefully Stratton can eventually change his mind on saying Calvinism teaches a false gospel and just be consistent in the embracing of Calvinists as Christians by affirming they preach the same gospel. While Tozer criticizes Calvinism, he does not accuse them of having a low view of God in the book Stratton cites. Nor has he charged them as having any in his other writings or sermons. In fact, I will end this by quoting from AW Tozer on how we should respond and behave.
"Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become ‘unity’ conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship."
- AW Tozer, The Pursuit of God
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment