I recently read the book "Calvinism: A closer look" by Daniel Gracely and was impressed by an analogy he gave. I thought I would share it here with you guys. But first I would like to give a little background on my current situation. My best friends brother has become a Calvinist and insist that the bible teaches such. This has led my friend to dive head first into the issue because he wants to know what the scripture teaches on this issue.
In discussing the issue with my friend, I have found Gracely's analogy of the "Dialectical rocking horse" to be perfect. So here is the analogy: As anyone who has ever ridden on a rocking horse knows, you rock "back and forth" making sure not to go to far one way or the other. Well, Calvinist do the same sort of thing when discussing theology. Let me give an example. Calvinist will say "Man is responsible for his sin and is depraved from birth"(The forward position on the rocking horse), Then the non Calvinist ask "Did God ordain everything that comes to pass?" To which the Calvinist replies "Yes! God is the sovereign of the universe!"(The backward position on the rocking horse)
The Calvinist say one thing on one hand, but then turn around and say something 180 degrees from that! All the while rocking back and forth between two contradictory ideas. It is common place for Calvinist to try and defend God from the logical outcome of their system(That if He ordained everything, He is responsible for sin)..But then they turn around and ask "Does the potter have right to do with the clay what he wants?" Thus implying that, in their system, God did create the child molester, rapist, serial killer, ETC..to do exactly what they did!
It is very frustrating to exchange ideas with Calvinist while they are rocking back and forth between two mutually exclusive ideas. Anyone else find the rocking horse analogy to be a perfect fit?
The "dialectical rocking horse" of Calvinism.
-
RICHinCHRIST
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: The "dialectical rocking horse" of Calvinism.
I think that is a good analogy for reformed theology. It especially describes the logic of 2, 3, and 4-point Calvinists.
For a while I entertained the possibility of 'Perseverance of the Saints' being the only scripturally viable point of Calvinism. I think it had a lot to do with my own perspective which was: "Why would I ever want to leave Jesus? He's done so much in, through, and for me! How could I ever deny what He's done and fall away?" However, I've seen a few people choose to turn away, and I couldn't wrestle off certain passages of Scripture as well.
It's especially bizarre conversing with one, two, three, and four point Calvinists because not only are the tenets of T.U.L.I.P contrary to Scripture, but they are completely interdependent upon one another. One cannot believe in Unconditional Election and not believe in Limited Atonement. One cannot believe in Total Depravity and not believe in Irresistible Grace. One cannot believe in Irresistible Grace and not believe in Perseverance of the Saints. One cannot believe in Unconditional Election (or Total Depravity) and not believe in Perseverance of the Saints. And so the cycle continues...
Only knowing of the Calvary Chapel denomination's teachings my first two years of being saved, they always made it a point to not take sides on Calvinism and Arminianism so it seemed that I would hear many teachings of both views (except for Limited Atonement). After surveying the biblical data and analyzing the implications of the doctrines, one has to logically choose to either accept or reject all 5 distinctive aspects of Calvinism.
For a while I entertained the possibility of 'Perseverance of the Saints' being the only scripturally viable point of Calvinism. I think it had a lot to do with my own perspective which was: "Why would I ever want to leave Jesus? He's done so much in, through, and for me! How could I ever deny what He's done and fall away?" However, I've seen a few people choose to turn away, and I couldn't wrestle off certain passages of Scripture as well.
It's especially bizarre conversing with one, two, three, and four point Calvinists because not only are the tenets of T.U.L.I.P contrary to Scripture, but they are completely interdependent upon one another. One cannot believe in Unconditional Election and not believe in Limited Atonement. One cannot believe in Total Depravity and not believe in Irresistible Grace. One cannot believe in Irresistible Grace and not believe in Perseverance of the Saints. One cannot believe in Unconditional Election (or Total Depravity) and not believe in Perseverance of the Saints. And so the cycle continues...
Only knowing of the Calvary Chapel denomination's teachings my first two years of being saved, they always made it a point to not take sides on Calvinism and Arminianism so it seemed that I would hear many teachings of both views (except for Limited Atonement). After surveying the biblical data and analyzing the implications of the doctrines, one has to logically choose to either accept or reject all 5 distinctive aspects of Calvinism.
Re: The "dialectical rocking horse" of Calvinism.
It is certainly a "you can't have one without the other" system. Most Calvinist will admit this and view it as a testimony to the greatness of their system. It is an airtight system if you can just get over the massive logical leaps concerning the origin of evil and such.RICHinCHRIST wrote:I think that is a good analogy for reformed theology. It especially describes the logic of 2, 3, and 4-point Calvinists.
For a while I entertained the possibility of 'Perseverance of the Saints' being the only scripturally viable point of Calvinism. I think it had a lot to do with my own perspective which was: "Why would I ever want to leave Jesus? He's done so much in, through, and for me! How could I ever deny what He's done and fall away?" However, I've seen a few people choose to turn away, and I couldn't wrestle off certain passages of Scripture as well.
It's especially bizarre conversing with one, two, three, and four point Calvinists because not only are the tenets of T.U.L.I.P contrary to Scripture, but they are completely interdependent upon one another. One cannot believe in Unconditional Election and not believe in Limited Atonement. One cannot believe in Total Depravity and not believe in Irresistible Grace. One cannot believe in Irresistible Grace and not believe in Perseverance of the Saints. One cannot believe in Unconditional Election (or Total Depravity) and not believe in Perseverance of the Saints. And so the cycle continues...
Only knowing of the Calvary Chapel denomination's teachings my first two years of being saved, they always made it a point to not take sides on Calvinism and Arminianism so it seemed that I would hear many teachings of both views (except for Limited Atonement). After surveying the biblical data and analyzing the implications of the doctrines, one has to logically choose to either accept or reject all 5 distinctive aspects of Calvinism.
Re: The "dialectical rocking horse" of Calvinism.
I have also read Calvinism: A closer look and thought it to be a good overview of the problems with Calvinism. Some of the analogies he gives are very good.
He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth. (Isaiah 42:4)
Re: The "dialectical rocking horse" of Calvinism.
If nothing else, 5-point Calvinism employs internally consistent logic. As such, all five tenets of "pure" Calvinism hang or fall together. Prove any one wrong, and – if you are truly a 5-point Calvinist – the whole system implodes.
It is, however, possible to believe in individual tenets of Calvinism without believing in all five. For example, one can believe in the "perseverance of the saints" without subscribing to the other four tenets. One need simply believe that God removes freedom of choice with regard to abandoning salvation once an individual has exercised their free choice to become saved. Now, I don't personally believe that way, and think the Bible gives repeated and very clear warnings about "falling away," but that topic (Eternal Security) is a discussion for another thread.
I might also point out that I don't agree with a single tenet of Calvinism – let alone all five – but that simply makes me a "non-Calvinist"...it does not make me an Arminian.
But back to the topic of this thread: the dialectical rocking horse.
Yes, I think it is indeed an accurate analogy, but my experience of discussing Calvinism with Calvinists is, unfortunately, that the absurdity highlighted by the analogy won't matter. It will simply be dismissed as "a mystery of God."
Why?
Because, as I said above, they’ll simply explain that it is part of the "mystery of God” and words to the effect of “… if we could understand all of God’s ways, He wouldn’t be God.” Sadly, you may even encounter a certain smugness in the Calvinist in this respect. They fancy themselves as able to put their own sense of justice aside and believe in a God that doesn't make sense and doesn't seem fair, thus having a faith that is somehow more noble…by not glorifying the reason of man above the sovereignty of God.
It’s like a holy trump card that gets slapped on the table whenever you’ve forced the Calvinist to really face the inescapable conclusions of his beliefs. It’s as though the Calvinist says, “Take it up with God…it’s His system…not mine.” This troubles me greatly because at the moment you ask the Calvinist to truly accept the horrible conclusions of his theology, he will cop out and essentially blame God.
It is, however, possible to believe in individual tenets of Calvinism without believing in all five. For example, one can believe in the "perseverance of the saints" without subscribing to the other four tenets. One need simply believe that God removes freedom of choice with regard to abandoning salvation once an individual has exercised their free choice to become saved. Now, I don't personally believe that way, and think the Bible gives repeated and very clear warnings about "falling away," but that topic (Eternal Security) is a discussion for another thread.
I might also point out that I don't agree with a single tenet of Calvinism – let alone all five – but that simply makes me a "non-Calvinist"...it does not make me an Arminian.
But back to the topic of this thread: the dialectical rocking horse.
Yes, I think it is indeed an accurate analogy, but my experience of discussing Calvinism with Calvinists is, unfortunately, that the absurdity highlighted by the analogy won't matter. It will simply be dismissed as "a mystery of God."
- ...Even when you point out Calvinism’s logical inconsistencies (not within itself, but with the Bible...and with logic itself)
...Even when you point out that it makes God more ego-centric and monstrous than Satan
...Even when you point out that Calvinism is inconsistent with entire chapters of the Bible – not just verses
...Even when you point out that the Bible - in virtually every OT and NT book - is overflowing with God "appealing" to man to choose life instead of death (why would a God who controls every outcome have to appeal to anyone about anything?)
Why?
Because, as I said above, they’ll simply explain that it is part of the "mystery of God” and words to the effect of “… if we could understand all of God’s ways, He wouldn’t be God.” Sadly, you may even encounter a certain smugness in the Calvinist in this respect. They fancy themselves as able to put their own sense of justice aside and believe in a God that doesn't make sense and doesn't seem fair, thus having a faith that is somehow more noble…by not glorifying the reason of man above the sovereignty of God.
It’s like a holy trump card that gets slapped on the table whenever you’ve forced the Calvinist to really face the inescapable conclusions of his beliefs. It’s as though the Calvinist says, “Take it up with God…it’s His system…not mine.” This troubles me greatly because at the moment you ask the Calvinist to truly accept the horrible conclusions of his theology, he will cop out and essentially blame God.
Last edited by NevadaDad on Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The "dialectical rocking horse" of Calvinism.
Just FYI - Daniel Gracely is a member of this forum (some of y'all already know, I'm sure).
Nick - DanielGracely
Nick - DanielGracely
Re: The "dialectical rocking horse" of Calvinism.
That is so cool!RickC wrote:Just FYI - Daniel Gracely is a member of this forum (some of y'all already know, I'm sure).
Nick - DanielGracely
Steve Greggs Forum is the place to be!