Thread by @RScottClark

The problem of evil is great and amateur “Reformed” (ahem) Twitter is not the best place to learn how to think about it. The Scriptures do teach divine sovereignty but they also teach human agency.

tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2018/01/… /

For example, the Synod of Dort was more careful about how to talk about the doctrine of reprobation than some have been:

heidelblog.net/2018/11/canons…

heidelblog.net/2008/10/god-ph…

Some (e.g., Molina, Arminius, and the Remonstrants) have tried to “solve” the problem via “Middle Knowledge” but as Turretin (and Voetius before him) noted, that move (as the philosophers say) creates more problems than it solves:

heidelblog.net/2016/08/turret…

Notice how the Reformed churches, in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) discuss providence and suffering:

Notice how the Synod talks about divine sovereignty and evil:

When we discuss this problem we do well to use the language adopted by the churches. One of the great problems with the so-called “New Calvinist” movement is that it has not taken the time to immerse itself in the language of the churches.

Rather, it has tried to append a doctrine of divine sovereignty to an existing system. In other words, in many respects it isn’t actually Reformed. It is predestinarian but that does not make it Reformed.

Further, we should stop calling it “Calvinist.” Predestinarian is more accurate. The Reformed were called Calvinist by their Lutheran critics but that’s not how we spoke about ourselves. Ironically, a lot of “New Calvinism” has little to do with Calvin.

If you don’t baptize babies, you’re not a Calvinist. If you don’t subscribe one of the historic Reformed confessions, you’re not a Calvinist. You might be predestinarian or broadly Augustinian but you’re not, strictly speaking, a Calvinist.

In other words, not every species of predestination = Calvinism. E.g., appending a doctrine of divine sovereignty to a two-stage doctrine of salvation or justification (I care not which one) is not “Calvinist.” The Reformed churches and theologians DON’T do this.

Because Arminianism (Wesley) and Pelagianism (Finney) has dominated American evangelical religion for so long and because America’s first great predestinarian theologian (Edwards) was so idiosyncratic and

because the most influential Reformed confessions have had so little influence on American evangelical religion for so long, it is understandable why people would be confused. There are lots of preachers and celebrities touting themselves as “Reformed,” when,

judged by the confessions, they aren’t. People don’t know the confessions or the actual Reformed tradition (beyond Calvin and he seems to be more known by tee shirts these days than by his writings) so they’ve no frame of reference.

Consider, e.g., the logical order of the decrees, i.e., supra v infralapsarianism. Most of the Reformed theologians were infra and only a respectable minority were Supra but judging by the way some talk in the modern period one would think

that they were all Supra then and now. The Synod of Dort was INFRA not Supra. What do the terms mean? Well, if you can’t explain it perhaps don’t opine in public about the problem of evil.

Here’s a chart:

rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-lo…

See A) from Synod Utrecht (1905), which is helpful here:

rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-co…

In short: the Surpas said that God elects and reprobates potentials or those considered as potential creatures. They are not considered as created and fallen. The Infras said that the elect and reprobate are considered as created and fallen.

The latter is the majority view. It was certainly the view of the Synod of Dort. Further, the Reformed wrote at length about the reality and nature of second causes and human agency in sin and evil. These nuances get lost on Twitter, of course, and in popular “New Calvinism.”

Finally, there is the pastoral issue. Yes God is sovereign but people are also hurting. The Reformed theologians and churches have typically cautioned that these doctrines be handled carefully, sensitively, pastorally—even with fear and trembling.

We need also, with the Heidelberg, to focus on God’s goodness to us and upon his Christ, who suffered for us sinners, and upon his presence with us by his Holy Spirit. There is peace in knowing that nothing comes by chance but there is also peace

in the cross and in the communion of the saints, in being supported by prayer and fellowship in the midst of suffering. The theological and pastoral approach to the problem of evil has multiple aspects and all of them should be clothed in grace and wisdom.

Here’s the link the Table Talk article:

tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2018/01/…