Did Jonathan Edwards Undermine Calvinism?

Hey, there’s always equivocation!

is on firm footing when you think the greatest attack against it is the Edward’s use of the word “good.”

I’ve been done with this debate for many years. I know what I believe. I leave the pontificating to younger guys in seminary! As for Edwards … I really don’t care for the Puritans, and I’ve never been bitten with the Edwards bug.

While I tend to lean towards a strong view of divine sovereignty, it doesn’t bug me that Edwards might be said to undermine Calvin. The question I have is whether he added something good to the equation—Luther made mistakes, Calvin made mistakes, hey, maybe we get a chance to really put Sola Scriptura to work and fix those errors?

So Olsen, an Arminean apologist finds an inconsistency in Edwards’ Calvinism. Is anyone surprised?

In truth, every serious minded Calvinist knows that there are aspects of Calvinism that are impossible to reconcile logically. But the same is true of Arminianism. Indeed, the same is true of many Christian doctrines, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But that doesn’t render them untrue, only beyond full human comprehension. Again, should anyone be surprised?

The article implies it is impossible to believe God is good and that He is involved in “double predestination.” But let me ask non-Calvinists this. If God is good, meaning he expresses personal benevolence to everyone (see article for that point), then how is God good in ANY scenario where someone winds up in hell? The same logic Olsen uses to defeat Calvinism takes his position out as well!

If “goodness” is merely ultimate personal benevolence, then no hell is acceptable.

The problem is the definition of “good.”

This has been argued before. The problem is that Arminians don’t really understand Calvinism and the Calvinist don’t really understand Arminianism. They just talk past each other. At the end of the day, Scripture is neither Arminian or Calvinist. We, as humans with limited understanding, must create containers so that we can explain what we really don’t fully understand. We do this with theological models and we do this with denominations. All the while, missing the point that in the end we don’t really understand Scripture as we really think we understand it. If none of the kings, priest, prophets and apostles fully understood it, why do we really think in the end we now have it understood because Owen finally wrote, the “Death of Death in the Death of Christ”, or some other book. I am not saying these models are necessarily bad or evil, but lets remember, we are significantly flawed by sin, including our understanding of the things that are “higher than we are”, we don’t fully comprehend the truths laid out in Scriptures, and our models are man constructed. There will not be a place in heaven for Roger Olsen and another place in heaven for Jonathan Edwards.

As one who was for many years Arminian, and later was forced, by Scripture, to embrace Calvinism (though not without a royal battle over several years), I think I understand Arminianism better than most Arminians understand Calvinism. Occasionally, I encounter an Arminian who says he used to be a Calvinist, but further conversation reveals that he was a Calvinist in a very limited sense. Perhaps he was reared in a Presbyterian church, etc., but without a solid understanding of Calvinist doctrine. In my experience, whenever anyone embraces Calvinism after serious study and thoughtful reflection, he remains a Calvinist for life. He also understands Arminianism pretty thoroughly. His wrestlings back and forth between Arminian and Calvinist interpretations over an extended period leaves him with an enlarged understanding of both systems.

Olson’s “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities” is essential to understand this soteriology. Going deeper, there are a few monographs around, but not many, that discuss prevenient grace in detail. The Nazarene systematics (e.g. Wiley) and Wesley’s writings are also helpful on that score. Thomas Oden, I believe, also wrote on this.

The key thing is prevenient grace, and some Reformed Christians haven’t read source docs on this — there is often much reheated boilerplate repeated from Reformed apologists. Of course, the opposite is also often the case.

Olsen is deep into prevenient grace. I have read parts of “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” I learned the hard way that the church I attended for 5 years really believed in prevenient grace but didn’t know the word. Not even the pastor realized it!

The basic idea is that Jesus’ death on the cross paid for all of mankind’s sin guilt before God. The only sin not paid for is unbelief. So, Olsen can then “shift” the burden for going to hell to each man rather than God.

Olsen’s argument doesn’t fly in my book. God could, if He was “good,” as Olsen says, get around this and let everyone into heaven. That is if “good” is “benevolence” towards everyone.

The thing is many people, especially Baptists, accept this “Jesus paid for everyone’s sin except unbelief” argument. The problem is, if belief is up to you… you can lose it. You can turn away from God and “lose” your salvation. Consistent Arminianism leads to loss of “once saved, always saved.” But, the 2 are often seen together despite the lack of compatibility.

The Arminian Baptist view goes something like this. “You can exercise your free will until you make a decision for Christ. Then God says, ‘Now I gotcha and you can’t get away from Me now’.” Now, you are locked into your decision. No more free will to change your mind. So much for free will! Full Arminians are at least consistent, though mistaken, in their theology at this point. If your free will can choose Christ, then your free will should also be able to unchoose Christ.

A lovely notion, but unfortunately, not taught in Scripture.

Prevenient grace says that, via the Cross, the Spirit (as it were) brings all humanity to an almost neutral point so each individual can make a free, intelligent decision for Christ and can thus be properly held accountable for knowingly rejecting Him. The grace is “prevenient” in that it “goes before” to blunt the effects of sin for all, preparing the way for the Gospel.

It’s a philosophical answer to the ambiguities (so called) of Reformed soteriology.