Systematic Psychopathology: when Calvinism contradicts the rationale of God

A critique of Common Grace and Saving Grace according to the Philosophy of Determinism.

I have been thinking again of late how it is that the concept of Calvinian Common Grace and Saving Grace is not only the weakest link of that Philosophy (i.e. Determinism) but also the hinge upon which the entire superstructure of Calvinism necessarily stands or falls.

I happily accept the concepts of Common and Saving Grace, but I require a much more reasonable relation between the two; namely, that Common Grace is sufficient to lead unto Saving Grace; as opposed to the Calvinistic estrangement of these doctrines: that they never touch. So I have been considering how I might address this discrepancy with various textual criticisms.

Example One

Matthew 23:37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Now, if Calvinism be true and we take the common interpretations born of Determinism then we can make a few reasonable adjustments, in accordance to Calvinian Systematic Theology, to make it clear what the ultimate cause of Jesus’ words really is.

(1) First, let us consider the character of Jesus. Why would Jesus have this desire?

John 5:19-20a. “So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing.’”

(2) Second, let us take a studied look at the Greek word thelō, here translated “would,” to clarify the English translation:

1) to will, have in mind, intend
… a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
… b) to desire, to wish
… c) to love
… … 1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
… d) to take delight in, have pleasure

(3) And, Thirdly, what is the Deterministic explanation for why these would not come?

John 6:44. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

Remember, we are understanding this verse according to Calvinism.

Now then it appears we have an adequate Systematic approach for clarifying the ultimate cause of Jesus’ words in Matt. 23. So let us substitute of few of Jesus’ expressions to interpret Scripture with Scripture after the manner of Calvinistic Determinism.

What Jesus was really saying is:

How often has the Son seen the Father willing and determined to have gathered your children together … and the Father was not willing to gather you! Therefore you would not come.

A wonderful example of contradiction (or, perhaps more accurately, an example of schizophrenia); if I do say so myself. The emphasis to note from this example is the confusion of what God’s ultimate desire is. If this desire to “gather” is to be taken as an empty (or unfulfilled) statement, to somehow capture the sympathy of God, then it’s either a lie or the inspired author misunderstood it.

Example Two

Isaiah 5:1-4. Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard: My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?

(1) First, let us study the Hebrew text concerning a couple of these peculiar phrases: “and he looked for it to yield grapes.”

Hebrew: qavah; translated here “he looked”; and it is in the Piel Imperfect verb form.

1) to wait, look for, hope, expect
… b) (Piel)
… … 1) to wait or look eagerly for
… … 2) to lie in wait for
… … 3) to wait for, linger for

Hebrew: `asah; translated here “for it to yield” or “that it should bring forth”; and it is in the Qal Infinitive verb form.

1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
… a) (Qal)
… … 1) to do, work, make, produce
… … … a) to do
… … … b) to work
… … … c) to deal (with)
… … … d) to act, act with effect, effect
… … 2) to make
… … … a) to make
… … … b) to produce
… … … c) to prepare
… … … d) to make (an offering)
… … … e) to attend to, put in order
… … … f) to observe, celebrate
… … … g) to acquire (property)
… … … h) to appoint, ordain, institute
… … … i) to bring about
… … … j) to use
… … … k) to spend, pass

Thus far we have discovered that the phrase: “and he looked for it to yield grapes”; means that God was eagerly expecting and hoping to find fruits in strict accordance to the consequence of His own work.

(2) Second, let us then consider whether this passage is referring to Common Grace or Saving Grace; what was the consequence of the Lord’s labor? We have a “very fertile hill” wherein the Beloved “dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines,” etc. However, “it yielded wild grapes”! There is no doubt, according to Calvinism, that this is therefore a reference to Common Grace.

(3) Lastly, let us consider the inquiry: “Judge between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?”

Well, this is very simple to answer: God could have provided Saving Grace! One would think God should know this.

Now then to conclude what God was ultimately saying:

Judge between Me and My vineyard. There was more I could have done for my vineyard that I have not done in it. That is why it did yield wild grapes. Therefore, when I sincerely hoped and looked for grapes, I did not sincerely expect anything other then the effect of My own Common Grace: wild and damnable grapes.

It fascinates me that the Lord either seems completely unaware or harshly sarcastic to indicate that Common Grace could ever produce or lead to those results that only Saving Grace could produce.

The difficulty in answering against this critique is ultimately not whether it be true that external conditions simply are not sufficient for salvation but that God had real expectations that His Common Grace was sufficient to produce or lead to the production of good fruit. Hence the problem of the otherwise irrational inquiry by God: “What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?”

Why would God expect to find good “grapes” if He knows full well that Common Grace can only yield “wild grapes”?

Yet this is also the whole problem: Common Grace (according to Calvinism) does not do anything towards creaturely renewal. For the function of Common Grace is one of restraint and not of renewal — it is a suppression of evil and not a drawing unto righteousness. Unless the Calvinist would like to claim that Common Grace is sufficient to produce or lead to Salvation (for we know there can be no “good fruit” apart from regeneration and justifying faith) then he cannot claim that the Grace of God was truly resisted or rejected. For we must recall the Deterministic concept of the human will (e.g. Edwardian Calvinism). We can think of this as a simple math problem:

God knows it takes exactly 100 units of Grace to produce “grapes.” But God decides to only put forth 20 units of Grace with the sincere (?) expectation of finding “grapes.” After some time God inspects the labor of His hands and finds only “wild grapes.” God is indignant; but not because He knows full well that He used insufficient units of Grace; but because the work of His hands did not bear the same result as 100 units of Grace.

Can anybody say brick-making without straw? Is this supposed to be an example of the grace of Pharaoh (you know, the one with the darkened heart of stone)?

For in like manner, according to Determinism, is it even possible for the clay to resist the work of the potter’s hands? The so-called “resistance” of the clay is nothing more than obedience to the potter. Therefore the wild fruit of rebellion and sin in the hearts of men is the precise and purposed result of God’s gracious labor.

If the Calvinist really wants to object, that this only serves to illustrate that people reject even the subtle light of revelation, then we in turn ask whether that subtle light of revelation was sufficient to save them from their sin. If they reply “it was not,” then nothing was resisted. Just because men may be said to “resist” the oft-labeled Directive Will of God, well, God does too (as we saw in the first example); but none resist the Sovereign Will of God, the very idea is absurd.

Example Three

1 Corinthians 10:13-14. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. [But] God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

(1) First, according to Calvinism we have primarily one of two ways to understand this passage.

Either (i) God irresistibly puts evil into the hearts of His creatures that He might turn them away from loving Himself (Equal Ultimacy).

Or (ii) God irresistibly removes that Divine Grace necessary to continuance in righteousness and holiness (Unequal Ultimacy).

Given either one of these interpretations I will explain why it is entirely inconsistent to argue that this passage is a demonstration of either Common Grace or Saving Grace, in the Calvinian usage of those terms.

(2) Second, let us consider the following phrases:

a) “No temptation has overtaken (come upon) you that is not common to man.”
b) “God is faithful”
c) “he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability”
d) “with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape”
e) “that you may be able to endure it”

Greek: dynamai; translated here “may be able.”

1) to be able, have power whether by virtue of one’s own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom
2) to be able to do something
3) to be capable, strong and powerful

(I could cite more of the Greek but it is unnecessary. If there is any concern that I have presented these propositions inadequately then I recommend the reader to inspect the Greek himself.)

(3) Third, let us consider the nature of Common Grace and Saving Grace in particular.

These expressions are inconsistent to Common Grace because by definition Common Grace is incapable of preserving us to endure temptation or to pursue righteousness by faith — it is not effective to Save us (recall the “wild grapes” from the previous example).

Nor can this be understood according to Saving Grace because those who are born-again, made new creatures in Christ, may still fall into sin. Wherefore if Christians are no longer slaves to sin, that is, they no longer having any constraining principle within them to do so; and if God is indeed faithful to never tempt us “beyond our ability,” according to the Grace He has given, by providing “the way of escape, that [we] may be able to endure it”; then this cannot be speaking of Calvinian Saving Grace. For if this is referring to Saving Grace then we must rather interpret this passage to say instead:

God is not faithful because he will often, even daily, allow you, even cause you, to be tempted beyond your ability; that is, beyond the Grace He has given you; and purposely not provide, and even shut you out from, the way of escape so that you must irresistibly be overcome by temptation and thereby sin.

The primary emphasis to bear in mind from this example is the expression that the faithfulness of God is said to “make us able,” that is, sufficiently and efficiently capable according to that Grace He gives, to endure temptation and thereby not give in to sin but remain unpolluted from idolatry. Therefore the Calvinist must embrace within his Systematic Theology that the faithfulness of God and His Saving Grace includes the continued and purposed subjection of His own beloved children into the sinfulness of sin and heart rebellion. Truly, if “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28), then even sin must be the great helper — “work[ing] together for good” — of the true believer (compare to Romans 6:1 and Hebrews 10:26). If this were not true then God would not be graciously moving the hearts of His Spirit-filled sons and daughters to sin daily against Him. Sure, we may confess a hatred for sin, even as God is said to do; but greater than this rhetorical sentimentalism is our heart’s desire to obey the Sovereign Will of God by sinning, whensoever and howsoever He is pleased to command us, in fulfillment of that purpose in Christ for which He has called us to glory and virtue. (I wish I could say that was meant to be sarcasm.)

Considerations such as these often leave me wondering whether it be consistent within the system of Calvinism to conclude that God rather takes joy in and delights in His creatures sinning against Him. At least such is the logical perspective of the Philosophy of Calvinistic Determinism. For we know that nothing happens unless it is in strict accordance to the predetermined good-will and pleasure of God.

Advertisement