Does God Love All or Some?

Comparing Biblical Extensivism and Calvinism’s Exclusivism

Ronnie W. Rogers

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9781532681776
  9781532681783
• eBook ISBN:
  9781532681790
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

The term "extensivism" describes my position regarding the doctrine of salvation. Specifically, extensivism believes that man was created in the image of God with otherwise choice; God's salvation plan involves an all-inclusive unconditional offer of salvation to every person, reception of which is conditioned upon grace-enabled faith rather than Calvinism's exclusive plan of a limited actual offer of salvation to only the unconditionally elected. Generally, it replaces the term "non-Calvinism." These are the five primary objectives of the book: First, my considerations would result in a deeper understanding of God. Second, I will demonstrate that God salvationally loves every single person. Third, I intend to offer a precise and respectful critique of Calvinism's internal and biblical inconsistencies (these are largely due to its commitment to compatibilism and unconditional election). Fourth, I will demonstrate that God's free choice to endow man with libertarian freedom is a more biblical perspective. Fifth, because a significant percentage of people who become Calvinists do not actually understand Calvinism, I seek to present Calvinism and extensivism in language that is precisely and consistently reflective of the commitments of each perspective regarding God's sovereignty, salvific love, foreknowledge, and man's freedom; this so a person can make an informed choice about Calvinism.

1

My Journey from Calvinism to Extensivism

I was a Calvinist for over thirty-three years and was unabashedly so for the first twenty. I spent the last thirteen years of my time as a Calvinist probing deeper into my accumulated questions and concerns regarding the harmony between Calvinism and Scripture and only doffed the label Calvinist in the final months of that journey.

Although I continued to study Calvinism and rely on Calvinist commentaries on my pilgrimage out of Calvinism, I did spend those thirteen years evaluating what Calvinists said, what I had said as a dedicated Calvinist, and the entailments of Calvinism in light of a simple reading of soteriological Scriptures (Scriptures related to salvation). I always sought to let the simple reading of Scripture be my guide to studying Scripture. However, looking back now, I believe I inadvertently failed to faithfully follow this practice when it came to soteriology. It seems to me now that given many of the commitments and entailments of Calvinism, one cannot be a consistent Calvinist and let the simple reading of Scripture be the guide, at least in soteriological verses. At least that is what I now believe even though such seemed to be the very opposite when I was immersed in Calvinism. I will elaborate on the reason Calvinism cannot consistently do this in the following chapters. By simple reading of Scripture, I mean evaluation of the text based on context, grammar, history, and congruence with other Scriptures. Consequently, this is quite different from a simplistic approach.

As a matter of practice when I was in my questioning stage, I would consider a particular verse or passage as Calvinistically understood as I had done for well over two decades with little thought that such might be wrong. I was a doughty Calvinist. This stage included consultation with solid Calvinist theologies and commentaries at my disposal. Then, the questioning part of this process meant that I would focus exclusively upon the text, without even the remotest desire to either disestablish my Calvinist understanding or harmonize the passage with anything other than itself. Meaning I focused intently on what it actually said. Progressively, once I was assured I was accurately noting what the passage said, as well as what it did not say, implicitly or explicitly, I would then seek to consider the verses in light of the totality of Scripture.

My discovery consistently revealed inconsistencies between the straightforward simple reading of the clearest verses in Scripture and Calvinism. I was confident I was not misreading the text because of what the text explicitly said; at this point, the interpretation was not in play but only what the text said and did not say. Additionally, my understanding was bolstered by reading significant Calvinist commentaries and preachers who often explained the text exactly as it clearly seemed to me, even though when everything is considered such reading was disharmonious with Calvinism.

This is not to say many did not feel compelled to mention unconditional election or some other theological belief unique to Calvinism that was simply not in the text. I was not reading books that were adamantly opposed to Calvinism, wherein one might expect a reading or comments that were inconsistent with Calvinism. This point was significant to me. I was reading other Calvinists say what I was seeing, even though their interpretations undermined the core beliefs of Calvinism.

This simple process of letting the text say only what it said even if it seemed to undermine significant beliefs of Calvinism like unconditional election, compatibilism, efficacious calling, and a good faith offer, for a Calvinist like me, had the effect of revealing serious incongruences between what I as a Calvinist believed and what the text actually said. Often, in the clearest and most unambiguous verses, the passage said precisely what is incompatible with some of the doctrines and entailments of Calvinism. That is, these Calvinistic doctrines are not gleaned from the text, but rather they are artificially superimposed upon the clear declaration of the text.

Within Calvinism, the reconciliation of such inconsistencies is managed repeatedly by the creation of extra-biblical reconcilers (such as the good faith offer, the two-will theory, the supposed or intimated dissonance between God’s salvific love and his glory, or the Calvinistically-generated “mystery”) and what I non-pejoratively describe as double talk. Double talk is a rhetorical practice that obscures, elides, or simply misrepresents the harsh realities and inconsistencies found in Calvinism, which I do not believe are found in the simple reading of Scripture. Regrettably, and quite sadly for me personally, I had to face my own consistent double talk when I was a Calvinist. For example, I would seek to extol God’s love or desire for everyone to have a meaningful opportunity to be saved when in truth, such is absolutely precluded by the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, and the selective internal efficacious call to salvation. Actually, once I came to grips with Calvinism’s need for and my own fluency in this pervasive practice, it troubled me greatly. This inescapable reality fueled my quest for truth and truth alone.

Here is an example of double talk. Matthew says of Judas, “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matt 26:24). I wrote publicly that this is true of all the non-elect if Calvinism is true; the gospel is therefore, not good news. One Calvinist responded, “True of any man who freely chooses like Judas and a whole host of others to reject the gospel.” Another said, “They cannot be saved if they will not leave their sins in repentance. They will not since they love darkness rather than light and so are condemned.” One said, “Calvinists hold that the sole reason why sinners are in hell is because of their chosen sin and nonbelief of the truth.” Similarly, another responded, “People in hell will forever regret being born for rejecting the gospel of God’s sovereign grace. Calvinism saves.”

Such comments more rightly reflect Extensivism than Calvinism. These Calvinists seek to make one’s eternal destiny dependent solely upon one’s choice and will, implying that each could have chosen differently, or that everyone gets an opportunity to believe or not believe. However, this is simply double talk. That is speaking in such a way that obscures the real reason why the non-elect are in hell, which is because they are the non-elect—reprobate, and that pleased God. In Extensivism men cannot be saved because they will not believe, whereas, in Calvinism, men will not be saved because they cannot will to believe, as decided by God. The only difference in the sinners in heaven and sinners in hell, according to Calvinism, is that God was pleased to save some and reprobate some.

In Calvinism, the ones who did believe could not have chosen to disbelieve and the ones who disbelieved could not have chosen to believe. That is the insurmountable reason for one’s eternal destiny and any articulation of Calvinism that obfuscates that truth is double talk. It is not a matter of deserving hell because everyone deserves hell. It is the matter of why some who deserve hell go to heaven and others do not. To intimate in any sense that the sole reason for different outcomes in Calvinism is due to whether one exercises faith, loves sin, or because of a mere act of the will is misleading indeed.

In my quest, I sought to bow to the simple declaration of Scripture in the most simple and obvious passages, which clearly did not say what Calvinism needed them to say. It was living with the inconsistencies necessitating double talk and extra-biblical concepts, without which the clearest of Scriptures did not coalesce with the essentials of Calvinism, which haunted me. For example, within Calvinism, unconditional election is the ubiquitous program that runs in the background of every interpretation of every verse, even those which clearly present God’s salvific love for all or portray scenarios where everyone can and should obey the gospel or command of God. Unconditional election is at times elided by the Calvinist interpreter when facing verses that unambiguously declare the very opposite, but the need to reconcile is omnipresent. If just one verse can be shown to demonstrate real otherwise choice with regard to salvation (or in any area for that matter), Calvinism fails to be a coherent system. I believe there are numerous such Scriptures; consequently, the Calvinist default to extra-biblical concepts and double talk only obscure the clear meaning of such Scriptures and the irreconcilability of the Scripture and Calvinism.

Calvinism’s commitment to decretal theology and compatibilist freedom makes any suggestion of the slightest possibility of choice between accessible options or minimizing its micro-specific determinism misleading at best because such is impossible within compatibilist freedom (see chapter 7 for a full description of compatibilism and libertarianism).1 Decretal theology and compatibilism entail that everything, from beginning to end—including every one of my own choices and yours—is as it can only be. Yet, when preaching, writing, praying, and talking Calvinists repeatedly either explicitly say or imply such choices do exist. If someone is disinclined to believe Calvinists quotidianly communicate so as to be understood by the listener as believing in otherwise choice, just ask the listeners. While I do believe much of this is the result of Calvinists not fully understanding compatibilism and libertarianism, it does not seem that all of it can be.

I am not addressing the issue of motive, but only the practice. As mentioned, I began to consider soteriological verses and passages without Calvinist theological importations. Accordingly, I would simply ask myself if I do not read this verse as a Calvinist, what does it actually say—before asking what does it mean. Quite unsettlingly to this long-term Calvinist, I would discover it did not say what we said it says when viewed through Calvinism. Of course, this practice unraveled a tightly woven rope of correlated ideas and left me with many disturbing theological loose ends, but I did choose to let Scripture say what it said. I chose to live with the certainty of what pivotal Scriptures said and did not say while concomitantly wandering in the desert of thinking through these clear revelations that were dissonant with Calvinism.

My experience gives me compassion for Calvinists who truly seek to evaluate their commitment to Calvinism. These were years of theological isolation and confusion as I watched the columns of my Calvinism decay, crumble, and fall, eventuating in the systemic collapse of the system, at least for me. I know others godlier, smarter, and more used of God than me see it quite differently, but this is how it appears to me. My experience is not meant to cast doubt upon the heart, sincerity, or motive of those who see Calvinism differently than me, but this is my experience. My theological thoughts and considerations are intended to motivate all to consider the beliefs and entailments of consistent Calvinism.

Based on my experience as a dedicated Calvinist, and my journey out of Calvinism, I believe a departure from Calvinism is highly improbable unless the definitions of terms or concepts used in Calvinism are considered as well. If one accepts the definitions employed by Calvinism, one will become and remain a Calvinist because it is a system of assumptions and definitions that leads only to the system of Calvinism. This is why it is absolutely inexplicable to most Calvinists why everyone is not a Calvinist or why anyone would leave Calvinism, at least for noble reasons. The inability of many Calvinists to evaluate those who disagree with them without filtering such through Calvinistic definitions and assumptions prohibits valuable dialogue, much less the plausibility of anything being more consistent than Calvinism. In my journey I would ask myself, are the assumptions and definitions that we Calvinists employ the only way or even the clearest and best way to define such terms in light of Scripture? My answers led to the conclusion that very often they were not.

Additionally, one cannot think through such concepts by merely reading a particular verse or even several because thinking through some of these ideas and related Scriptures leads to philosophy and speculative theology. The more I studied the soteriological Scriptures by the methods I have described above and considered Calvinism’s philosophical and speculative theological commitments, the more I became convinced that Calvinism depended upon philosophical concepts and definitions that were biblically inadequate and philosophically inferior to alternative perspectives. For the record, I do believe there is a legitimate place for the study of philosophy and speculative theology, and I actually enjoy such study.

I have spent a significant amount of time thinking about and studying through concepts like compatibilism, libertarianism, foreknowledge, predestination, and election; this includes seeking to distinguish between what is entailed and what is not. This all played a part in my clearer understanding of what I believe to be deficiencies in Calvinism and how to address some of the tough questions posed by Scripture and Calvinism. Although I seem to know so little, God is very good to continue teaching me.

In my meandering departure from Calvinism, I first chose the label Minor-Calvinist in contradistinction to my prior commitment to being a Major-Calvinist, technically I was a four-point Calvinist. Then, after having rejected Calvinism totally, I referred to myself as a Disenchanted Calvinist which highlighted my journey away from Calvinism. I now refer to my soteriological position as Extensivism.

1. Decretal theology reflects Calvinism’s belief that God decreed (determined) who would be saved and who would not be saved. People are not saved because they exercise grace-enabled faith, but solely because God decreed them to be saved. See Appendix 1 on the Order of Elective Decrees.

2

In Consideration of Calvinism

Since the publication of my book Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist (2012, updated 2016), I have been involved in countless conversations with many Calvinists through writing, e-mails, and talking one-on-one. I have enjoyed many of my discussions with my Calvinist brothers and sisters during this time. I can only pray that my thoughts have been even minimally as helpful in contributing to their knowledge and love of God as theirs have been for me. However, I must admit I have found some interactions with Calvinists quite frustrating because of the great difficulty I have often experienced in trying to discuss a particular point without being misread. These brothers will often provide me with only a standard response (one I used to give as a Calvinist) that is the very response I am trying to move beyond in our consideration of Calvinism and Extensivism. Or they simply neglect to engage my specific point ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction: Extensivism: A Biblical Alternative to Calvinism’s Exclusivism
• Chapter 1: My Journey from Calvinism to Extensivism
• Chapter 2: In Consideration of Calvinism
• Chapter 3: Why I Chose the Term Extensivism
• Chapter 4: Why Some Extensivists Identify as Calvinists
• Chapter 5: One Man’s Suggestions for Calvinists and Extensivists
• Chapter 6: The TULIP: The Petals and the Leaves
• Chapter 7: Compatibilism or Libertarianism?
• Chapter 8: Can Human Acts like Prayers and Childrearing Really Affect Someone’s Salvation?
• Chapter 9: Calvinism: Origin of Sin and Offer of Salvation
• Chapter 10: Extensivism: Origin of Sin and Offer of Salvation
• Chapter 11: Does Physical Birth Demonstrate That Spiritual Birth Precedes Faith?
• Chapter 12: Does Faith Precede or Result from the New Birth?
• Chapter 13: God, Creation, and Sin: Calvinism’s Dilemma
• Chapter 14: Is Reprobation Necessary for God to Demonstrate His Holiness?
• Chapter 15: Is Man Totally Passive Prior to Monergistic Regeneration?
• Chapter 16: Does It Please God to Damn Most to Eternal Torment?
• Chapter 17: Are We to Hope for the Hopeless and Blame and Reward the Determined?
• Chapter 18: Does Unconditional Election Include a Forced Change, a Freely Chosen Change, or Both?
• Chapter 19: Does God Have Two Wills?
• Chapter 20: A Better Gospel!
• Chapter 21: Do the Doctrines of Grace Affect Evangelism?
• Chapter 22: Is Libertarian Free Will Eternal?
• Chapter 23: Equally Lost and Equally Savable: No Distinctions!
• Chapter 24: The Exalted God of Scripture
• Chapter 25: Good Faith Offer or Bad Deception?
• Chapter 26: Rejecting Calvinism Does Not Require a Weak View of Depravity
• Chapter 27: Faith Is the Condition of Salvation and Grace Is the Work of Salvation
• Chapter 28: God Can Know the Free Acts of Man without Determinism
• Chapter 29: The Dynamic of the Gospel Encounter
• Chapter 30: What about Those Who Never Hear the Gospel: Analyzing the Argument
• Chapter 31: What about Those Who Never Hear the Gospel: The Old Testament
• Chapter 32: What about Those Who Never Hear the Gospel: The New Testament
• Chapter 33: What about Those Who Never Hear the Gospel: Foreordination versus Foreknowledge
• Chapter 34: The Place of Creation in Witnessing to Pagan Gentiles
• Appendix 1: The Order of Elective Decrees
• Appendix 2: Leigh Vicens on Theological Determinism
• Appendix 3: A Guide for Determining a Pastoral Candidate’s Level of Commitment to Calvinism7
• Appendix 4: A Response to Calvinists’ Attempt to Moderate the Sequential Order of Regeneration and Faith
• Authorial Glossary
• Bibliography