We have no right to sit in judgment of God

I haven't blogged about Reformed theology in a long time. I kind of beat it to death. That doesn't mean I don't pay attention to stuff. I was checking out the blog from Peter Kirk, a Brit that wrote an interesting guest post for Alan Knox. He linked on his blog to a different post by Roger Olson wherein Roger seems ambivalent about whether universalism is really a heresy or at least if it is a heresy, it is kind of a mild one (i.e. that every single person is saved, in direct contrast to some of the most explicit Biblical langauage on a topic on can find on any topic) but Roger is sure that Calvinism is a heresy, at least if one actually believes it. Here is part of what he wrote...

Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct. I had to say no. Sheer power is not worthy of worship. Only power controlled by love is worthy of worship.

Well, that sounds dandy. No Scripture to back it up mind you, but lovely to our ears. What about sheer power coupled with love? What Olson is promoting is "love" that is divorced from power. God is either impotent to save whosoever He wishes or doesn't care enough to do so for fear of being labelled "unfair" or worse being referred to as "monstrous" by one of His creatures. That is so grotesquely inaccurate a portrayal of Calvinism that it hardly deserves notice.

Peter wrote a response, in a head scratchingly titled post: Better a universalist than a Calvinist

Indeed. Universalism born from optimistic hope may be unrealistic but it is not a serious heresy. Believing in a God who condemns most people to everlasting torment without offering to them the grace they would need to be saved is a serious heresy because it turns the God of love into a monster. Like Olson, I could never worship a God like that.

So universalism which directly contradicts the overall teaching of the Bible and the explicit teaching of Christ, a heresy that has been universally condemned by the church for 2000 years, is preferable to Calvinism, which has been held by Christians in some form for centuries and which has ample Biblical support? Which is more "monstrous", that God elected a certain people out of the mass of humanity lost in sin to effectually save and passed over the rest? Or that He really, really wants to save everyone but leaves the eternal fate of billions of people in the hands of sinful humans, knowing full well that billions of people will live and die and never hear the Gospel and be lost all in the name of "free will" and fairness? How is that just?

Both Peter and Roger make the same categorical error. We don't worship God because we find Him acceptable to our sensibilities. Our worship of God is a result of who He is, based on His acceptance of us in His Son, not on His acceptability to our sinful and limited notions of fairness. That any human, and especially a born again Christian, would stand in front of God and dictate the terms of our worship to Him makes me shudder.

Did God sit on the shore of the Red Sea hoping His people would decide to flee Egypt and that the Pharaoh wouldn't pursue them?

Did God sit around hoping Saul would have a change of heart and stop persecuting Christians?

I am not going to spend a lot more time extolling Calvinism. I think there are more important things to worry about and I am uninterested in convincing people of it. I do however question those who both misrepresent Calvinism and make it an issue of heresy, thus painting people like me and millions of other brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics.