Why I *Am* A Calvinist---Brief Response to Michael Brown

So, my friend Michael Brown posted a video yesterday, I think, on why he's not a Calvinist. And of course, I could post a video why I'm not an Arminian, or more specifically, why I'm not a Synergist, I think would probably be more to the point.

But I'm just going to respond with why I am a Calvinist in response to some of the concerns that Michael raised. For example, Michael said, well, you know, God grieves when man sins. And he identifies this as being somehow relevant to why he is not a Calvinist.

Well, that would assume that Calvinists have no reason for God to grieve, have no basis for saying that God would grieve. And that assumes that, well, if God ordained it to be that way, then why would he grieve?

It's a very simplistic view, but here's the problem. I've said this many times before, the only consistent Arminian is an open theist. Because from Michael's perspective, when God created, he knew exhaustively everything was going to happen.

At least, I think that was, that's his position, this is one of the things we focused upon in the debate at SCS, is that objection works for an open theist. When you can say God didn't know this was going to happen, I mean, you know, he knew it was a possibility, but he didn't really think that the chances were good that man would fall.

But if you're actually, you know, orthodox, and I don't believe open theism is orthodox, if you're actually orthodox, then you believe that God does not change, and therefore God knew all of these things from the time of creation.

Now whether he passively takes in knowledge of these things, that's where one of the big issues comes in, is did God learn what the events in time were going to be, or are they the result of his decree?

Obviously, I believe they are the result of his decree, and I think the Bible is very, very specific and clear on that. But the objection I don't think fits within Michael's system. That's why, you know, when people ask me about why I love Michael so much, and how we can get along on so many things, is I refer to the blessed inconsistencies.

I think when it comes to these specific issues, that's where the inconsistency comes in. And so when I answer the question, why am I a Calvinist, I point to the incredible biblical testimony that the triune God, from beginning to end, is glorifying himself, that the entirety of creation is the working out of that self-glorification.

It's all focused upon who God is. It's not focused upon us. And that, to me, is the fundamental difference between Calvinism and everything else, between a truly monergistic understanding that is focused upon God first.

Man is merely the recipient of God's grace, but man is not the focal point, man is not the determiner of the success of God's efforts. It's all about God. And when you recognize how plainly this is testified in Scripture, when you don't skip over the tough passages about God hardening hearts, and bringing judgment to bear, and how many times God says, I accomplish what I want to accomplish, when you really read the 33rd Psalm or Daniel chapter 4, and you see how this all works out in the life of Joseph and his brothers, or Isaiah chapter 10, and then the plain statements of texts like Ephesians 1, Romans 9, when you see the consistency of the biblical testimony to the fact that God is accomplishing all these things to his own glory, I just don't see how you can avoid it.

As I've said many times, the same exegesis that Michael and I would share in defending the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, it's that same exegesis that says that foreknowing is a verb, and foreknowledge is a noun, and they need to be differentiated, that would cause you to walk through the golden chain of redemption, Romans chapter 8, and understand that God's doing all these things, and he's not just making a possibility, he's not just the heavenly Amway man that then leaves it to his downlines, that he is actually accomplishing these things.

And then when you see the powerful testimony to Jesus Christ as Savior, the fact that he doesn't just try to save, he actually saves his people. You put all this together, and it's just overwhelming evidence.

So I am a Calvinist because I am forced to the position of Reformed theology by consistently applying the same exegetical methodology by which I defend monotheism, the deity of Christ, the person of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of the Trinity, the resurrection, the sufficiency of Scripture, all of these things.

If you simply stay consistent and join that, I guess, I would have to admit with the conclusion that you start with God, you don't start with man. I believe sinners just start with man, I really do, and they reason from man up to what is acceptable from their perspective in regards to what God could and could not do.

And I think you have to begin with God and then view man in light of his Creator. You don't view the Creator in light of his creation. And that's an important element, I think, in the differences that exist between us.

So why am I a Calvinist? I'm not going to go the easy route and say I was predestined to be one. I don't know the content of God's decree. We are not held accountable for the content of God's decree, we are held accountable for what he has revealed to us.

But in seeking to handle Scripture accurately and consistently, that is what brings me to that conclusion. So just some thoughts in response to what Michael had to say as to why he's not yet a Calvinist.

We're working on it. Thanks.