Poly's POTD 06-22-06

[Poly]

Everyone is different. I was convinced to give up Calvinism for a trek through Free Will theology because Calvinism doesn't jive with the Bible. The evidence for Calvinism was too weak, and for Free Will too great. Perhaps I missed something. Can you name say the three best points for both positions and how you looked at them to come to the conclusion that Calvinism is more consistant with the Bible.

Here’s part of the reason I left the Calvinist camp for more Free Will waters (ending up eventually in the Open Theistic camp, though it was a journey to get there and did not happen all at once.

Here were the strongest “Calvinistic” verses and why my study showed that they unravel as a solid basis for theology. You gave the first verse, if I may use it:

My Calvinist Forte #1
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

So the Calvinist view of this passage is that God foreknew individuals and predestined them to be a brotherhood to Jesus. When I touted this passage, I considered it very strong. Here is how it unraveled for me when once I was challenged.

1. The Calvinist position that this is meant for individuals is not solid. It could mean for groups. In fact, the overall them of this passage, as I opened up enough to look at this fairly, was that the theme of this passage was a group concept, not for individuals. The phrase ”firstborn among many brethren” suggested a wider scope of people than something that is individualized. It seems to imply a predestination of a group of people, rather than an individual. This is problematic as groups of people can be chosen without knowing who specifically is in the group.

2. The context of Romans 8 is concerned with groups, specifically of the groups of Jews and Gentiles.

3. This passage could easily be read as the general group of believers having been predestined to become the brothers of Jesus. This could be done without the need for individuals to be picked. That implies that the Calvinistic position that this proves predestination of individuals is forced onto the passage, and does not come naturally from the text.

My Calvinist Forte #2
Eph.1.11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.


I sincerely thought this passage proved that God did everything. The problem is that this isn’t what the intended meaning of this passage is at all. Paul is not stating that God does all the good and all the evil, as the Calvinist maintains, but deal directly with the plan God has for us as believers (he chose that believers would become children by adoption). Thus the Calvinist position unravels as the verse is merely indicating that the things God does (with particular context to our become brethren to Jesus) is part of God’s will.

My Calvinist Forte #3
Rom 9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;

In my error I believed that this passage was referring directly to the salvation of individuals. A close examination shows that Paul is arguing for a case that God can switch his ministry from Jews to Gentiles since Jews were picked via birth without determination of whether they were a more deserving nation or not. This presented too many problems for me to continue to hold this verse as a strong example for Calvinism.

With perhaps my three strongest cases for Calvinism crumbling and built on specific ways to read the passage that often didn’t hold to close scrutiny, I was then hit with some undeniable problems for the Calvinist position.

1. Verses that indicate God repented
Nearly thirty verses appeared that indicated that God repented. And while you dismissed them because they were found in the Old Testament, I had more of a difficulty just saying “Oh well, I don’t understand it, so I’ll ignore it”. And unlike the scattered passages I had in Ephesians and Romans for Calvinism, there were nearly twenty of these passages. Certainly I had heard at this point that these were not really what was meant, but even if the word of God “I repent” was removed the context of a repentance by God held on. Clearly God’s repentance was even central to the story and to deny it in some places required me to even deny the story to some degree.

2. Verses where God’s prophecies did not come true.
These were difficult for me because I preferred to pretend they didn’t exist. Then I pretended that they must mean that God prophesied falsely just to bring about what he knew would happen. But that left me with an intentional false prophecy by God, and didn’t always fit with the story (ala Hezekiah, for which there was no valid reason for God to deceive, or when Jesus predicted that he would come within the lifetime of the apostles).

3. Verses which showed God interested in what way the future would turn out.

Seemingly every book in the Bible focuses on some choice that is set before men to make for good or for evil. God says “perhaps” at times predicted some will repent and they either do or often do not do as God predicted. God puts people in situations and watches to learn what they will do in that situation. God. God expecting people to turn around their ways and then recording that they do not.

All in all, I felt there was far more biblical evidence for the open view than for the strictly predestined view. What’s more, the predestined view is questionable and hinges upon reading with the presupposition of predestination in mind going in.

Context