Huckabee 1st in the Nation?! Go Huckabee!

Mike Huckabee is now 1st in national Republican Primary Polls (Rasmussen Reports) [picture above borrowed from Huckabee’s website]! He’s a close second in two other national polls (details here).

I’ve got more to say on Huck, but for now, let me point you to my Huckabee blog: Go Huckabee! I compile links, videos and other posts relating to Huckabee there. You can also see the latest posts on that blog in the sidebar of this one.

Go Huckabee!

Before I go, one more link. Be sure to read my assessment of why Huckabee can win the General Election.

Calvinism: A Man-Made Philosophy??

Recently in the comments of an earlier post of mine “Regeneration, Reception, and Faith“, the charge has again been made that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy.

Many of the Calvinist faithful are rolling their eyes and muttering “not again!” Yes, again.

I’m sure we’ll continue to hear this charge, and so I think it is worth addressing in a post. Hence I’m breaking my blog-silence and giving you a substantive post for a change!

Before I begin, let me say I have nothing against C. Hartline. She levied the charge (you can see the relevant exchange by clicking here and scrolling all the way down until you see comments from October 2007–about the last 4 or 5 comments) and I do plan on addressing many of her specific comments. But I will keep that in the comments of the post in question.

Here I hope to address the larger issue: the common claim that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy. So let’s begin.

The Anatomy of the Charge

Now I will attempt to be fair to the non-Calvinist side in this post. But it should be obvious that saying Calvinism is a “man-made philosophy” is designed to be a pretty strong blow to our side. The charge insinuates that we don’t follow the Bible, but man. And to be frank, the charge is often hollow: there is little or no proof. It’s just thrown out there as fact, and it is designed to predispose people to not trust Calvinism. That is called “poisoning the well”.

When a proof is given for this assertion, often it is given “pit bull style“. I’m referring to “verse pitting“. I suppose a whole post could be devoted to this one thought, but let me try to explain. “Verse pitting” involves throwing proof texts at someone in a debate. I’m not saying whether context is considered or not, quantity is the issue. Rather than dealing with each text brought up for either side, one side just dodges the bullets and keeps firing yet another proof text. If one text gets explained away, fine, they reach for another. And they feel no compulsion to deal with texts which might contradict their side, because after all their verses need answering too. Jehovah’s Witnesses are master of this technique, by the way.

What’s wrong with this approach is that Scripture is belittled. Based on Scripture’s testimony to itself, we would expect all of Scripture to harmonize and agree. Rather than compiling a list of texts that prove our side and contradict the opposing side’s texts, we should seek to harmonize all the texts and really do honest exegesis.

The Myth of Neutrality

Moving beyond the logic of the charge itself, we must consider the claim to neutrality. Non-Calvinists who levy this charge turn around and set up their own man-made philosophy in the place of Calvinism. You can say “it’s just plain Bible” until you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make your interpretation obviously neutral. All of us are men, and all of us are trying to fit together verses and passages from all over the Bible into an intelligent system of thought.

We all are trying to follow what the Bible says. Just because you think you are right and I’m not, doesn’t let you impugn motives on me, or assume that I am just resisting the plain teaching of the Bible. We all come to the Bible with different assumptions and with holes in our thinking. I know what I’m saying here won’t really make sense until I move on to the next point. So let’s do that.

The Evidence to Explore

It’s time to back up what I’m saying with some evidence. Let me do it this way. Non-Calvinists will unfurl their list of proof texts that they claim Calvinists “explain away” in favor of their man-made philosophy/system. Then they point to the Calvinists’ explanation of these texts as proof that Calvinists really are all about “logic”, “intellect”, or whatever. And they very neatly conclude that Calvinism is just a man-made philosophy that doesn’t come from Scripture.

With this background, let me marshal some of the non-Calvinist texts for you. Then I’ll show what Calvinists do in explaining them that seems so “man-made” to the other side. Next I’ll turn around and marshal some Calvinist texts for you, and show that non-Calvinists do a similar job of explaining away texts in a “man-made” fashion. Finally, I will list some texts that both sides of this debate “philosophize” together on. You be the judge!

Calvinist “Philosophizing”

John 3:16 — Calvinists explain away “whosoever will”, claiming only the elect can believe and be saved. In this verse, and others, Calvinists redefine “whosoever” to mean “the elect”.

2 Pet 3:9 & 1 Tim 2:4 — Calvinists explain away “[God is] not willing/wishing that any should perish” and “[God] desires all (people) to be saved”, claiming that God only wants the elect to be saved. In these verses Calvinists either redefine “all” or “wish/desire”.

1 Jn 2:2 — Calvinists explain away the truth that Christ is a propitiation for “the sins of the whole world”, claiming that Christ died only for the elect. Here Calvinists twist “whole world” into “world of the elect”.

1 Pet 1:1-2 — Calvinists explain away the qualification that people are elected “according to the foreknowledge of God”, claiming people are elected apart from God’s knowing beforehand that they will choose to believe. Here Calvinists ignore the above phrase altogether.

Heb. 2:9 — Calvinist’s explain away the assertion that Jesus died to “taste death for everyone”, claiming instead that Jesus only tasted death for the elect. In this verse Calvinists redefine “every”.

Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Acts 13:48 — Non-Calvinists explain away “as many as were appointed/ordained to eternal life believed”, claiming instead that because people believe they are elected/ordained. In this verse they redefine “appointed/ordained” to mean “predisposed to”.

Jn1:13 & 1 Jn 5:1 — Non-Calvinists explain away both that the new birth is “not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God” and that belief in Jesus indicates one “has been born of God” (rather than resulting in a subsequent new birth), claiming that the new birth results from human-originated faith. In these verses, non-Calvinists seem to ignore the above phrases altogether.

Jn 10:26 — Non-Calvinists explain away Jesus statement that people “do not believe because [they] are not part of [Jesus’] flock”, claiming instead that it is belief which makes people members of his flock. Here, non-Calvinists ignore the cause relationship between being of Jesus’ flock (which comes first) and believing. [Cf. Jn. 8:47]
2 Pet 2:8b — Non-Calvinists explain away the statement “they disobey the word, as they were destined to do”, claiming rejection of the Gospel and disobedience in general does not result from any choice on God’s part or any outside force at all. In this verse, non-Calvinists either redefine “destined (or appointed)” or explain this as referring only to national Israel.

Rom. 9:11,15-16, 22-23 — Non-Calvinists explain away such clear statements as “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy….So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”, and “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction…vessels of mercy, which [God] has prepared beforehand to glory”, claiming instead that the passage does not touch on individual election or salvation at all. For these verses non-Calvinists claim that only national Israel and national election is in view, not individual salvation.

Calvinist & Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Rom. 5:18 — Both groups explain away the statement “one act of justification leads to justification and life for all men”, claiming instead that only some men receive justification and new life. In this verse, both groups redefine “all” to be referring to a specific segment of humanity: “the saved/elect”.

1 Cor. 15:22 — Both groups explain away the truth that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”, claiming that only some men will be made alive in Christ. Here both groups claim the first “all” refers to all people and the second “all” only refers to “the saved/elect”.

Jn. 14:28b — Both groups explain away Jesus’ statement that His “Father is greater than [He]”, claiming instead that Jesus is co-equal in essence with God the Father in the Trinity. In this verse, both groups look at the larger context of the phrase and define it in light of Jesus’ subjecting Himself as a man under the authority of God the Father.

Rom. 2:7 — Both groups explain away the assertion that those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, [God] will give eternal life”, claiming rather that eternal life is given on the basis of faith alone not as a reward for “well-doing”. Both groups interpret the verse in light of the whole teaching of Romans and harmonize it with other clear verses which say salvation is given on the basis of faith in Christ alone.

A Final Appeal to Non-Calvinists

Now we come to the conclusion. From the above list of texts let us make a couple points. First notice that both sides do some “philosophizing”. We cannot escape the need to fit the various texts into our heads and try to harmonize them. So no side can truly claim neutrality. There isn’t just a completely simple “Biblical” interpretation that can be taken for granted.

Secondly, I hope you would agree that we can’t just “keep score”. We don’t give the prize to the group with the longest list. Each and every text on both lists must be brought into harmony with one another. We can’t ignore Acts 13:48 if we don’t have an answer for it, simply because we can find 20 verses that have “whosoever will” in them.

Finally, let me encourage any non-Calvinists to do some homework. Don’t lash out against the imagined evils of Calvinism. Seek to truly understand our position. Many of us, myself included, used to dwell in your ranks. It was Scripture which caused us to change our thinking in this area. It is so easy to just attack the opposite position and claim they’re just plain wrong, and go on to imply they’re unBiblical. I have to guard against the temptation to be lazy in my debating myself, as well.

If you really want to understand Calvinism, please do yourself a favor and read one or two articles written by Calvinists. Get the scoop from the horse’s mouth himself! I recommend this short booklet written by my pastor John Piper. In the comment thread linked to at the top of this post, there is evidence of a non-Calvinist reading that booklet and coming to understand he was much closer to being a Calvinist than he thought. At the least he gained an appreciation for Calvinism and understood us better.

So please, before you claim we’re just a man-made philosophy, check out the evidence for yourself. Try to understand how we arrive at our conclusions. If you stop and listen, at the least you will have to see we are moved by many many texts to come to the conclusions we arrive at.

Why Mike Huckabee Can Win the General Election

Update: For a post which lays out the reasons why Huckabee is a genuine conservative and can appeal to all 3 conservative factions, check out this post from Evangelical Outpost (Joe Carter, with Matt Anderson and Justin Taylor).
Momentum is Mike Huckabee‘s friend right about now. He’s been riding it for quite some time.

Huckabee scored big in yesterday’s Iowa Straw Poll by finishing solidly in 2nd place, with 18% of the vote. Romney spent literally millions more than Huckabee, and won first place with only 31% of the vote, even though the two other big name, top tier candidates didn’t participate.

With characteristic charm, Huckabee remarked, “For us to finish second, for all intents and purposes, we won the Iowa straw poll. This is David and Goliath and one smooth stone.” (source, David Chalian of ABCNews.com). Huckabee may not be over exaggerating either.

Chris Cillizza on his Washington Post political blog “The Fix”, suggested that Huckabee may well be the biggest winner from the straw poll. And “The Blue State”, a progressive blog without bias, predicts “Mike Huckabee is about to receive a huge bounce in the polls after finishing second…“. Blue State went on to discuss how Huckabee can position himself as “the leading conservative alternative to the frontrunners“. After highlighting evidence which may suggest hundreds of voters actually changed their minds to vote for Huckabee, Noam Scheiber of The New Republic‘s political blog “The Plank”, went on to describe how, “The political press is absolutely head over heels for Huckabee.”

So with all the buzz surrounding Mike Huckabee and his bid for the Republican nomination, now might be a good time to raise the question: “Can Huckabee win the general election?” I suggest he can, for the following reasons.

  • With a Republican party lagging in morale and political viability, the best chance Republicans have for winning must be a united front. They would need a candidate who appeals both to their base and to middle-of-the-roaders. Huckabee is that man. Conservatives have nothing to fear, and moderates will warm to Huckabee’s optimistic emphasis on vertical politics.
  • Who can say what it takes to win on the big stage, but a healthy dose of charisma, charm, and a quick witted humor never hurt anyone. Huckabee has that and more. He has consistently over achieved in the debates, and displays a presidential tone.
  • Huckabee is not connected to Washington. And he’s a governor — a governor’s governor, really. With 10 1/2 years of executive experience to leverage, Huckabee will convince the public that America needs a proven leader.
  • Since Huckabee isn’t a Washington insider, he isn’t in Bush’s back pocket. He’s been loathe to openly criticize the sitting president, but one can tell he has some significant differences and disappointments with Bush. Republicans and Democrats alike will need to be assured that Huckabee doesn’t represent more of the same.
  • Huckabee is also one of the few Republican candidates with a full-orbed political plan for change. He emphasizes vertical politics and the importance of actually governing and getting things done (see this video clip of Huckabee on this very point).
  • What’s more he is extremely believable and likable. The media love him. He has a great story of losing 100 pounds, and he would also have an underdog turned contender storyline going into the general election.
  • And Huckabee is not a cookie-cutter Republican. Sure he is solidly pro life, but he emphasizes the need to support life from the womb to the grave and everyplace in between. He also is calling for Republicans to take the lead in the stewardship of our environment, and the fighting of corporate greed. He even advocates an emphasis on art & music education in public schools. As for his faith, he stresses that it will influence him to “do what’s right” in office.
  • Early media reports have tried to paint Huckabee as a member of the radical right, with him being an ordained Southern Baptist preacher and all. They’ve made much of his personal belief in God’s creation, over and against evolution. Yet Huckabee’s record will prove them wrong. He won election twice in a solidly democratic Arkansas, and worked with Democrats to get things done.
  • He has a clear across-the-aisle appeal. Huckabee, his bass guitar, and his quick wit proved enough to win applause and more in a must-see interview with Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”.
  • To sum it all up, Huckabee is the only conservative who can genuinely appeal to his party’s base as well as reach out to independents and moderates. It’s like Huckabee says, although he’s a conservative, he’s not mad at everybody!

AddThis Social Bookmark Button