The son of Charles Hodge, and himself a seminary professor, the orthodoxy of respected theologian A. A. Hodge is generally unquestioned. So we will go to him for fair and representative examples of the ridiculous errors in what is often called Calvinism.
In the context of discussing the doctrine that God created all things out of nothing, he writes:
Although the absolute origination of any new existence out of nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one whit more so than the relation of the infinite foreknowledge, or foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency of men, nor than many other truths which we are all forced to believe.[1]
In other words, he thinks that the biblical doctrine of creation is “inconceivable,” but this is not a problem because “many other” biblical doctrines are also inconceivable. However, if something is “inconceivable,” then you cannot even retain it in your mind. This is why he says that we are “forced” to believe these doctrines. But whether forced or not, if you cannot even have it in your mind, you cannot believe it. You cannot even think it. He expects us to swallow this.
The Bible never talks about its own doctrines this way. It never says that its teachings are rationally inconceivable. It never says that they are rationally so difficult to grasp or to accept that we must be “forced to believe” them. Since the Bible does not call its own doctrines “inconceivable” and that we are “forced to believe” them, this means that when Hodges speaks this way, he slanders the word of God and becomes a false teacher.
Rather, he is measuring biblical doctrines against some anti-biblical standard. Since what is biblical is incompatible with what is anti-biblical, if he insists on embracing both, then of course the biblical doctrines would appear “inconceivable,” and of course he would feel as if he is “forced to believe” them. The problem is in Hodge himself, and not in the Bible. He thinks that he has been forced to believe. He thinks that he has been forced to be a Christian.
There are many people like Hodge. They speak this way about God, but they regard themselves as scholars, theologians, and defenders of the faith. Then Christians follow their doctrines as pagans follow their idols, and in the name of orthodoxy they attack those who disagree with their nonsense. In contrast, I say that although God’s mind is infinitely greater than our minds, all that God has revealed – all biblical doctrines – are conceivable, understandable, reasonable, defensible, and undeniable.
The Bible teaches that non-Christians are sinful and stupid, so that it is impossible for them to affirm that which is holy and true, and therefore unless God directly acts on their minds and changes them, they will never believe. However, biblical doctrines are easy for the elect to believe because God has enlightened their minds and made them rational, and has given them the gift of faith.
Biblical doctrines are inconceivable only to a mind biased to wickedness and falsehood. If we take the principles and assumptions from two opposing worldviews and attempt to jam them together, then of course we will end up with something inconceivable. Of course a person would feel “forced” if he holds to non-Christians beliefs, but he is told that he must believe the Christian doctrines at the same time. But this has nothing to do with the biblical doctrines. This is not the Christian faith.
Hodge’s perspective is revealing, because it is autobiographical – the biblical doctrines are “inconceivable” to him. He feels “forced” to believe what God tells him, as if it is unnatural to him to believe in the Christian faith. What he says about the biblical doctrines is rubbish, but it exposes something defective within himself. Yet his errors are widespread, and common to most Calvinist and Reformed writers. There is something defective in these people.
The permission of sin, in its relation both to the righteousness and goodness of God, is an insolvable mystery, and all attempts to solve it only darken counsel with words without knowledge. It is, however, the privilege of our faith to know, though not of our philosophy to comprehend, that it is assuredly a most wise, righteous, and merciful permission; and that it shall rebound to the glory of God and to the good of his chosen.[2]
Scripture does not say that sin occurs by bare permission. Also, sin is not “an insolvable mystery,” since Scripture explains it. Hodge is the one who darkens the issue.
God possessing infinite foreknowledge and power, existed alone from eternity; and in time, self-prompted, began to create in an absolute vacuum. Whatever limiting causes or conditions afterwards exist were first intentionally brought into being by himself, with perfect foreknowledge of their nature, relations, and results. If God then foreseeing that if he created a certain free agent and placed him in certain relations he would freely act in a certain way, and yet with that knowledge proceeded to create that very free agent and put him in precisely those positions, God would, in so doing, obviously predetermine the certain futurition of the act foreseen….[3]
Yet God’s permissive decree does truly determine the certain futurition of the act; because God knowing certainly that the man in question would in the given circumstances so act, did place that very man in precisely those circumstances that he should so act.[4]
This is exactly the way Arminians, Open Theists, and many heretics explain God’s sovereignty, that God exercises his “sovereignty” over men by placing them in circumstances in which he could predict how they would behave, rather than by acting on their minds to determine their thoughts and actions.
We have the fact distinctly revealed that God has decreed the free acts of men, and yet that the actors were none the less responsible, and consequently none the less free in their acts. – Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28; Gen. 50:20, etc.[5]
He talks like this throughout his text on theology. However, although some of these passages indeed state that God predetermined those acts, none of them suggest that those were “free acts.” Hodge smuggled “free” in there by force, as if no one would notice. In fact, it is natural to understand these passages as saying that God predetermined those acts such that the men were not free, the opposite of what Hodge claims.
Moreover, Hodge assumes that responsibility presupposes freedom, but he never proves it. This is an unbiblical premise that has tainted numerous Calvinistic writings. It is a premise that I have repeatedly challenged and refuted.
The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God is a great mystery, of which no explanation can be given. But that God cannot be the author of sin is proved –
1st. From the nature of sin, which is, as to its essence, want of conformity to law, and disobedience to the Lawgiver.
2d. From the nature of God, who is as to essence holy, and in the administration of his kingdom always forbids and punishes sin.
3d. From the nature of man, who is a responsible free agent who originates his own acts. The Scriptures always attribute to divine grace the good actions, and to the evil heart the sinful actions of men.[6]
The matter is not a mystery because Scripture explains it. Perhaps Hodge refuses to accept what it says. He remains puzzled, and so he declares that “no explanation can be given.” In other words, he holds himself up as the zenith of human intelligence, so that if he cannot solve it, no one can. If he cannot understand something, then it must be humanly impossible to understand. This is common among Calvinists and Reformed writers. It is often accompanied by a reference to man’s “finite mind.” This is obviously an attempt to project humility, but in reality it betrays a rare arrogance, since it suggests that these theologians define the limit of what man’s “finite mind” can achieve. But maybe they cannot grasp what the Bible plainly teaches because they are more stupid than everyone else.
He thinks the claim that God cannot be the author of sin is “proved” by these three points, but he does not even show how they are relevant. The first point does not show that God cannot be the author of sin; rather, if God is the author of sin, the first point shows us what he has authored. The second point also fails. It does not show that God cannot be the author of sin; rather, if God is the author of sin, it tells us that it is holy for him to be the author of sin, the sovereign ruler of all things and events. To “author” sin is not the same thing as to sin. The third point begs the question, because he has previously failed to show that man is a “free agent who originates his own acts.” Then, the second part of this third point, although commonly assumed, is false. Scripture indeed blames sinful actions on men, and says that God will judge them, but it often attribute these actions of men to the sovereign decree and active power of God.
Hodge is so crippled in his reasoning because he is dragging behind him all the weight of Arminianism, humanism, and his religious heritage while he tries to be a Calvinist. Many others are like this. In the best Calvinists, you will probably find at least one major blunder like those above every several pages. In the average Calvinists, you will sometimes find several on every page. And the worst Calvinists are really Arminians or worse. Yet Calvinists and Reformed Christians are so proud of their stance on divine sovereignty. They consider themselves the defenders of orthodoxy, when much of what they believe consists of human traditions, ideas that men made up.
The doctrine of unconditional decrees presents no special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any form of co-action causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing, him to sin.[7]
This contradicts both the Scripture and the Reformers.[8] The truth is that even the term “co-action” would be too weak to describe God’s active determination of the sinful acts of men.
It is a frightful but undeniable truth that multitudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up in such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no possible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truth, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow up, he foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or revealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for.[9]
Although Hodge did not write this paragraph, he is quoting Archbishop Whately with approval. Whately claims that no “system of religion” can explain the issue, but then he must have never heard of Christianity, and what it teaches in Romans 1, 2, 9, and other places. Again, since Hodge agrees with this, perhaps he is also ignorant of a religion called Christianity that clearly addresses the topic.
The decree of election only makes the repentance and faith of the elect certain. But the antecedent certainty of a free act is not inconsistent with its freedom, otherwise the certain foreknowledge of a free act would be impossible. The decree of election does not cause the faith, and it does not interfere with the agent in acting, and certainly it does not supersede the absolute necessity of it.[10]
I laughed aloud when I read this, and I smiled even as I looked at it again just now. This person is so stupid. This so badly begs the question.
He says that divine foreknowledge must be compatible with human freedom, or else divine foreknowledge would be impossible. That is, he first insists that there is human freedom – he must have this no matter what – and if this contradicts divine foreknowledge, then divine foreknowledge would be impossible. Then, since he is generous enough to also let God have his foreknowledge, he thinks that human freedom must be compatible with divine foreknowledge.
Hodge maintains that the two are compatible, but he does not demonstrate that they are compatible. Rather, he asserts that they are compatible by force because he is unwilling to abandon either divine foreknowledge or human freedom, especially human freedom. However, one could say that since divine foreknowledge is true, then human freedom is impossible. Scripture teaches human responsibility, not human freedom, and responsibility does not presuppose freedom. As for the statement, “The decree of election does not cause the faith,” this contradicts the Scripture, but also the Calvinism that he claims to represent.
There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling God’s certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great majority of those to whom he offers and upon whom he presses, by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer; especially when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly increase their guilt and misery.[11]
This is just a convoluted admission that the unbiblical doctrine of the “sincere offer” is nonsense. Falling in line with his religious heritage, Hodge thinks that Scripture teaches it, and so he is compelled to swallow it. This is not an “apparent difficulty” – the thing that Hodge thinks God is inflicted with is called schizophrenia. The problem is compounded when he realizes that God foresees that the reprobates’ rejection of the gospel will increase their sin and punishment.
The biblical doctrine is straightforward. There is no “sincere offer.” God commands men everywhere to repent – the ones chosen for salvation will obey and be saved, but the ones chosen for damnation will disobey and be damned. By God’s active decree and control, the reprobates are already sinful and prepared for hell, and their rejection of the gospel increases that guilt, and this is what God wants to happen (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). There is no “apparent difficulty.”
[Continuous creation] is inconsistent with our original and necessary intuitions of truth of all kinds, physical, intellectual, and moral. Our original intuitions assure us of the real and permanent existence of spiritual and material substances exercising powers, and of our own spirits as real, self-determining causes of action, and consequently as responsible moral agents. But if this doctrine is true these primary, constitutional intuitions of our nature deceive us, and if these deceive us, the whole universe is an illusion, our own natures a delusion, and absolute skepticism inevitable.[12]
Hodge attempts to refute continuous creation. He says that continuous creation contradicts our intuition, so that if continuous creation is right, then our intuition is wrong, and if our intuition is right, then continuous creation is wrong.
So what? First, he fails to show that our intuition is universal. My own intuition contradicts what he is saying here. It could even agree with continuous creation. In any case, he cannot speak for me. Second, he fails to show that our intuition is infallible – perhaps we have no idea whether it is right or wrong. Third, he fails to show that our intuition is necessary. He claims that if we deny our intuition, then “absolute skepticism” is inevitable – absolute! – but he fails to show this.
He claims that if our intuition is false, then “the whole universe is an illusion” – not that our sense of the universe is an illusion, but that the whole universe is an illusion. It is as if the ontological status of the whole universe – not just our sense of it – depends on our intuition. This can be true only if Hodge himself is God, so that the status of reality stands or falls along with his sense of reality. Even if he means only our sense of it, it still does not follow that if our intuition is wrong, then the whole universe would be an illusion. Perhaps only a sense of certainty is lost. In any case, he fails to show that we must reject absolute skepticism in the first place, or that belief in our intuition is the only way to escape skepticism. It seems he does not only want us to trust our intuition, he wants to become the voice of intuition for all of us.
Then, he attempts a positive construction. As before, he imposes his intuition on all of humanity:
The properties or active powers have a real, and not merely apparent, efficiency as second causes in producing the effects proper to them; and the phenomena alike of consciousness and of the outward world are really produced by the efficient agency of second causes, as we are informed by our native and necessary intuitions.[13]
He fails to show that our intuition tells us all of this – my intuition does not. And he does not establish that this intuition or what this intuition allegedly tells us is “native and necessary” even to himself. Nevertheless, he declares his doctrine of divine providence on this basis.
Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend’s character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though absent from us.[14]
Hodge is addressing the topic, “Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree inconsistent with the liberty of the agent in that act.” He fails to prove this. Just because he inserts the word “freely” does not mean that it belongs there. I can just as easily say, “Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend’s character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will act, though absent from us; therefore, his action is not free but determined.” Thus he again begs the question.
[1] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999 edition), p. 240.
[2] Hodge, p. 160.
[3] Ibid., p. 203.
[4] Ibid., p. 210.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., p. 211.
[7] Ibid.
[8] See Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians and Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will.
[9] Hodge, p. 227.
[10] Ibid., p. 228.
[11] Ibid., p. 229.
[12] Ibid., p. 261.
[13] Ibid., p. 261-262.
[14] Ibid., p. 291.