Here are my favorite questions:
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Q: Why didn’t Jesus gather up those in Jerusalem, when he longed to?
- A. Because they were not willing.
- B. This is a mystery.
- C. Hello pea brain. Jesus was speaking of general chicks, not effectual chicks
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Q: God loves what?
- A. The world
- B. The elect.
- C. His glory.
Q: Who will not perish?
- A. Whoever believes in God’s only son.
- B. Let me get back to you on that, I need to look up the answer in “Desiring God”.
- C. Francis Schaeffer won’t perish, but his kid Franky was decreed to go off the deep end.
Acts 16:30,31 [The jailer] then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Q: What must I do to be saved?
- A. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.
- B. Win the divine lottery.
- C. The jailer was a Pelagian.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Q: Who does “all” refer to in this verse?
- A. All
- B. The elect
- C. An unbiased reading of the text shows that the first all refers to everyone and the second all refers to only the elect.
1 Timothy 1:18,19 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.
Q: Paul says that some people have done what with their faith?
- A. Some have shipwrecked their faith.
- B. This is a hypothetical analogy with no real world application. It is merely used by God to ensure the perseverance of the elect.
- C. Nice try. Obviously the ship was never floating in the first place.
1 Timothy 2:4 [God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Q: Who does God want to be saved?
- A. All men
- B. All men, but no women.
- C. God really wants all men to be saved, but only in such a way that he damns most in order to maximize his glory.
I just found out recently that Calvinist scholar Alvin Plantinga believes in middle knowledge as the best way to reconcile divine sovereignty and free will. So it is possible for Calvinists to adopt middle knowledge as the mechanism for resolving the problem.
Related posts
- William Lane Craig discusses Calvinism and the problem of evil
- What are the differences between Wesleyan Arminianism and Calvinism?
- First debate on Calvinism/Molinism between James White and Michael Brown
- James White debates Michael Brown on Calvinism vs Foreknowledge (1 of 2)
- Michael Brown debates James White on Foreknowledge vs Calvinism (2 of 2)
- What about those who have never heard of Jesus?
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Just because one scholar accepts it does not make it true; he must give a defense for why he believes it’s true and let the merits of the argument speak for themselves.
LikeLike
Right! That was why I had argued so long in favor of Calvinism… because so many Calvinists are inconsistent ones. :)
Historical and current Calvinist systematicians specifically rule out middle knowledge from the system.
Sounds like Plantinga’s about one cognitive dissonance event away from joining the dark side.
LikeLike
Gosh, this quiz totally makes me want to stop being a calvinist. Because we all know that a verse taken out of context, followed by a simplistic, facile set of exegetic alternatives is a really good argument.
LikeLike
I’m going to interpret your comment as Calvinists interpret the Bible – and the meaning I am getting out of it is that you’re abandoning Calvinism! Yay!
LikeLike
Wait … wait … you are interpreting Mary’s remark as literal, so is this a tacit admission that Calvinists interpret the Bible as literal???
LikeLike
Gah! Who let you Calvinists on here to tie me up in knots?
LikeLike
1. The first point that must be made is that the doctrine of election is a biblical doctrine — it is not, e.g., something like purgatory that someone has made up to fill a perceived theological need.
2. I believe one of the primary purposes for the apostolicly-articulated doctrine of election is to preserve the high majesty and honor of God. Election means that we as, fallen, unworthy creatures, are utterly dependent upon God and his mercy. It makes God bigger and us smaller. To expand —
3. It precludes the idea that God is somehow up in heaven wishin’ and hopin’ that someone might find his salvation offer attractive and respond to it. God’s majesty precludes this. It precludes a human being scheming to live as he likes and then repent on his deathbed. Push come to shove, salvation is in God’s hands, not ours.
4. We should always leave room for mystery. Two seemingly irreconcilable ideas — man’s freewill and God’s election — can be resolved in God. To expand —
5. Just like in the doctrine of the Trinity — people caricaturize it as three Gods, or God dying on the cross, etc. The Trinity is both true and unfathomable.
6. Finally, most criticisms of Calvinism are based on a caricaturization of what it actually teaches.
7. As we approach the Church entrance, a sign says, “Whosoever will may come”. Once in, we look back, and above the same doorway we see it written, “Chosen from before the foundation of the world”.
LikeLike
I agree with Richard Ball here – especially with point 7.
Just as Wintery’s quiz has come up with a load of anti-calvinism verses, I could come up with a load of pro-calvanism verses. Several coming out of Romans i.e. while we were dead in our sins and enemies of God, Christ died for us. Dead people don’t make decisions to come alive, it was Christ who made us alive.
There is an awesome balance to the two sides and this sort of ‘quiz’ just patronises and pushes away fellow Christians which isn’t very cool.
LikeLike
To be fair, dead people also don’t sin.
You see, the problem here is not that one side “has verses to support their claim” it is in how those verses are interpreted. Or how the meanings of individual words such as “world”, “all”, and “love” are first mangled and THEN interpreted.
You claim that quizzes or satire like this “pushes away fellow Christians” but what about the arrogance of the reformed position (that it is “true Biblical Christianity” with the implication that everyone else is simply brain damaged at best and willfully negligent at worst)?
LikeLike
I agree Wes, both sides are just as frustrating as each other. Had I been commenting on a calvinist promoting site that rubbishes armininists I would have similar comments.
LikeLike
This was a great quiz, thanks for the laugh (along with a few things I hadn’t considered before).
You should be careful with Plantinga and his relationship with Middle Knowledge. He is a world-class epistemologist and I absolutely love almost everything he does. However the point of disconnection between he and William Lane Craig is in how they both view the proper basicality of belief in God.
Basically Craig maintains that while belief in God is properly basic, he defines it in such a way that it is A.) non-specific (that is, we have a sense of the divine in accordance with Romans and B.) that it can be resisted. suppressed, and ultimately rejected. Plantinga, as far as I can tell rejects both of these premises in favor of a view more compatible with the epistemological system posited by men like Cornelius Van-Til.
Still, Plantinga rightly recognizes the real source of cognitive dissonance is in the overly simplistic understanding (and outright rejection) of limited free will.
Actually, as I’ve been reading through the excellent book “Whosoever Will” I have come to understand that Plantinga is far more in line with historical Calvinistic beliefs (which include unlimited atonement and resistible grace) than modern high (or hyper in my opinion) Calvinists.
LikeLike
I hope that you will be writing a review of this. I would also like to see a debate between these influential Calvinists and some of their better opponents. The only debates I know of are the ones with Michael Brown and James White, where White is crushed every time. I remember when I was considering Catholicism, I took in about a dozen debates with James White against various Roman Catholic apologists and scholars. I like to approach these questions rationally and assess both sides.
One thing about Arminianism that bothers me is why their theologians are left-of-center on politics. Have you noticed that? I find it disturbing that Calvinist guys like Wayne Grudem are basically correct on economics and politics across the board, whereas someone like Roger E. Olson seems to be left-of-center. Blech! Are there any politically conservative evangelical Arminian theologians?
LikeLike
Plus, Plantinga is a philosopher and I think that may have something to do with it.
(YEYEYE I know, genetic fallacy…)
But seriously, it’s really getting to me that literally almost every single top theologian and preacher i can think of is a Calvinist. Loads of Christian philosophers, on the other hand, are Arminians.
The thing is, most of the time I find that the Arminians who try and make their case often do so by appealing to our emotion or with rhetoric, ultimately resorting to, “I personally don’t like that kind of God.” Then they might introduce a problem which God hasn’t given us all the answers to (why does God need to check everything he does with puny little depraved humans anyway??), and then offer some nice, neat philosophical theory based on personal reasoning.
Hardly ever do I hear a real, deep biblical exegetical case for Arminianism. I liked this post a lot though, because it was based more on bible verses.
My theory is that it’s difficult for apologists to carry Calvinism into philosophy because philosophers won’t like what they believe and it’s harder for non-believers to make sense of.
The top theologians and scholars of scripture, on the other hand, have a hard time being consistent in their biblical interpretation and theology if they subscribe to arminianism. It really, really makes me wonder why there seem to be no top Arminian scholars who are consistent and deep in their exegesis.
LikeLike
Calvinism and Arminianism, to the extent they are each based on biblical data, are both undoubtedly true.
And, to the extent they both take biblical data and extend it to its “logical conclusion”, they are both undoubtedly false.
In other words, they are both right and both wrong — like one man reporting on the image found on one side of a coin, and another man reporting on what’s on the other side — and getting into a fight over what the coin looks like!
A recent US coin relegated the obligatory “In God We Trust” to the edge of the coin — perhaps we fightin’ Christians need to do the same!
Ahhh, Christian mystery — what a meditative comfort you are!
Call me Ricardo the Mysterion.
PS — I’m enjoying the posts on Plantinga, et al.
LikeLike
My problem is that I have this insatiable desire to explain why everything is the way it is all the time, so no Wintero the Mysterion for me.
LikeLike
Proverbs 3, :D
I have the same desire as you in that respect, Wintery, but God’s been teaching me a lesson about my puny little human mind. Namely, that i) i can never understand the fullness of God’s glory, ii) i can only begin to understand the tiniest details about God, and iii) there are countless things about God that I will never end up understanding.
And anyway, if I could understand everything about God and his motives, what kind of God would that be??
LikeLike
Hmmmn. That last point about God makes sense, so maybe I should allow some mysteries.
LikeLike
I think the message in the book of Job is about thirty chapters of wheel-spinning followed by God thundering, “Y’all don’t have the first clue!” (not to suggest that God is a Texan — although, I’m not denying that, either — I’m keeping my options open.)
LikeLike
While it is true that we do not possess omniscience it is not true that we do not know certain things with a degree of certitude necessary to warrant claiming such as knowledge.
Many of these things are undermined, however, by Calvinist in an attempt to harmonize or otherwise avoid the nasty logical, philosophical, theological, and biblical contradictions their system contains or introduces.
In these cases, to posit a mystery where a paradox exists is not only unwarranted but dishonest and fraudulent misleading.
LikeLike
http://thepredestinedblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/predestination.html
A thoughtful article on predestination by a blogger. You are predestined to read it, or, maybe not — only God knows.
LikeLike
I guess the author was also predestined to misrepresent his opponents’ position on these issues.
Ex:
“Calvinists want to glorify God by proclaiming He is the ruler and sovereign of all things”
As if non-Calvinists don’t? How presumptuous.
“Arminians want to glorify God by proclaiming that He has nothing to do with free agents going to Hell”
Nice dodge of the REAL issue which is whether God predestines people to go to hell (reprobate) _without their having any choice in the matter whatsoever_. THAT is the real issue, NOT whether people end up in hell but why they do so. Calvinism posits they have no other choice and that their being sent to hell (by a loving God who didn’t die for them) glorifies God (in opposition to the texts that tell us that God is not glorified in sin nor does he take delight in anyone perishing).
It seems to me that before any fruitful discussion can be had regarding the “doctrines of grace” that Calvinists need to be honest about both what they believe as well as what their opponents reject.
LikeLike
Dear Wes,
Perhaps a more civil spirit is due?
If I have misrepresented the issue, it is from ignorance, not malicious intent.
The real issue and purpose in life is God’s glory and that is what all theological arguments really should aim for, including this one.
And it seems you did not read my blog carefully are did not understand what I meant, but I do not anywhere say that the issue is “whether people end up in hell.” Both sides believe that and yes what you brought up is also at the very heart of the argument ie “Nice dodge of the REAL issue which is whether God predestines people to go to hell (reprobate) _without their having any choice in the matter whatsoever_.”
Besides, I know it is common in the blog-o-sphere to simply skim over posts and comments, however, I ask you to look it over again as I tackle head on whether people have choice in that decision.
It is my firm belief that the glory of God is the issue at hand and for the Arminian and it is exactly this that is at stake when you argue so vigorously against the Calvinist about his beliefs of the reprobate. I ask you to reconsider the idea that I dodge the heart of the issue…
In ***love*** and hope that others will be edified,
-The Predestined Blog
LikeLike
No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief.
John Calvin
God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.
John Calvin
Well which is it? My unbelief condemns me for not receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior or I have no choice in the matter and am already condemned from the foundation of the world.
How can God says that He desires that none should perish and yet He preordained the very ones He wants not to perish to perish? This kind of circular logic is needed if one is to show that God wants us ALL to be saved yet ordains that some of us CAN’T be saved, it makes no sense.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me John 12:32
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation 2Cor5:19
In these Scriptures we see God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to himself, we see Christ drawing all men to himself, and that the actual drawing itself is done by God in Christ (Matthew 1:23:Isaiah 7:14:John 8:58:John 10:30 JESUS is GOD) Can we, by reasoning out 2Peter 3:9b: not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, understand that God in John 6:44 is indeed drawing all men to Salvation. If it is a GIFT Romans 6:23 then it falls to me to choose to take it or leave it, if it is forced on me or implanted in such a way that I cannot resist then I am not saved by GRACE or FAITH but by a mandate.
LikeLike