civic
Well-known member
Although both Calvinism and Extensivism (the belief that God genuinely wants every person to be saved and has made it possible for them to be saved) fall within the parameters of orthodoxy, and I do love my Calvinist brothers and sisters, we embrace very different ideas of God. Since God’s salvation plan is the most dominant theme of Scripture other than God Himself, and Extensivism and Calvinism hold such disparate perspectives regarding salvation, with some points being mutually exclusive, it seems easy to see why we would have some significantly different concepts and emphases regarding God Himself.
God’s choice to endow man with either compatible freedom (as Calvinism claims) or libertarian freedom (as Extensivism claims) says more about who God is than who man is (though the differences in man are substantial as well).[1] Each time I contrast the essence of these different soteriological (salvation) perspectives, it always leads me to contemplate the nature of God. Thus, I am unwilling to categorize our differences as secondary or tertiary (in the same way we do ecclesiology or eschatology) because, to me, that would be to contemplate God irreverently. Therefore, I might categorize the importance of our soteriological differences as a tertium quid or a primary-minus, neither heretical nor secondary. I mention three significant areas in which the nature of God plays a significant role, which I believe Calvinists complicate and confuse.
Goodness and Omnibenevolence
Charles Hodge says, “Goodness, in the Scriptural sense of the term, includes benevolence, love, mercy, and grace. By benevolence is meant the disposition to promote happiness; all sensitive creatures are its objects”[2](italics added). Similarly, Millard Erickson says regarding benevolence, “By this we mean the concern of God for the welfare of those whom he loves. He unselfishly seeks our ultimate welfare”[3] (italics added). Erickson then quotes John 3:16 as an illustration of this benevolence, which strongly indicates he includes people’s salvific welfare.
I agree with Hodge that benevolence is the promotion of true happiness for all humans. I also agree with Erickson. But these explanations generate questions in my mind. For example, does providing for the “happiness” and “ultimate welfare” of a person not necessitate giving an opportunity to experience salvation? Does this benevolent act not tower exceedingly over all other promotions of “happiness” and “welfare?” Without such benevolence, with its concomitant eternal loss and damnation, all other blessings are doomed to eternal meaninglessness, and to talk otherwise is at least a massive distraction.
That is to say, benevolence that provides only such temporal items as sunshine, food, and water is eternally meaningless since, in the end, only salvation matters. Unfortunately, Calvinists often echo the sentiments of Hodge and Erickson, which confuses the issue because their sentiments are inconsistent with Calvinism’s exclusive salvation. They are, however, perfectly reflective of Extensivism. Moreover, the difference is not merely what omnibenevolence encompasses but the nature of the omnibenevolent being.
God’s choice to endow man with either compatible freedom (as Calvinism claims) or libertarian freedom (as Extensivism claims) says more about who God is than who man is (though the differences in man are substantial as well).[1] Each time I contrast the essence of these different soteriological (salvation) perspectives, it always leads me to contemplate the nature of God. Thus, I am unwilling to categorize our differences as secondary or tertiary (in the same way we do ecclesiology or eschatology) because, to me, that would be to contemplate God irreverently. Therefore, I might categorize the importance of our soteriological differences as a tertium quid or a primary-minus, neither heretical nor secondary. I mention three significant areas in which the nature of God plays a significant role, which I believe Calvinists complicate and confuse.
Goodness and Omnibenevolence
Charles Hodge says, “Goodness, in the Scriptural sense of the term, includes benevolence, love, mercy, and grace. By benevolence is meant the disposition to promote happiness; all sensitive creatures are its objects”[2](italics added). Similarly, Millard Erickson says regarding benevolence, “By this we mean the concern of God for the welfare of those whom he loves. He unselfishly seeks our ultimate welfare”[3] (italics added). Erickson then quotes John 3:16 as an illustration of this benevolence, which strongly indicates he includes people’s salvific welfare.
I agree with Hodge that benevolence is the promotion of true happiness for all humans. I also agree with Erickson. But these explanations generate questions in my mind. For example, does providing for the “happiness” and “ultimate welfare” of a person not necessitate giving an opportunity to experience salvation? Does this benevolent act not tower exceedingly over all other promotions of “happiness” and “welfare?” Without such benevolence, with its concomitant eternal loss and damnation, all other blessings are doomed to eternal meaninglessness, and to talk otherwise is at least a massive distraction.
That is to say, benevolence that provides only such temporal items as sunshine, food, and water is eternally meaningless since, in the end, only salvation matters. Unfortunately, Calvinists often echo the sentiments of Hodge and Erickson, which confuses the issue because their sentiments are inconsistent with Calvinism’s exclusive salvation. They are, however, perfectly reflective of Extensivism. Moreover, the difference is not merely what omnibenevolence encompasses but the nature of the omnibenevolent being.
