Today, I read a fascinating volume from 1856, Objections to Calvinism by R.S. Foster, a Methodist This is one of the best books I have read refuting Calvinism (perhaps the best, pound-for-pound, would be Why I am not a Calvinist by Walls and Dongell and Robert Shank's Life in the Son and Elect in the Son). Here are some excerpts that show the illogical nature of Reformed theology (a topic I have discussed quite a bit here on this blog):
[On the topic of election and reprobation] But hear Mr Dick, a modern. He says, in answer to the objection that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, “I confess that the statement may be objected to as not complete; that there are still difficulties that press upon us; that perplexing questions may be proposed and that the answers which have been returned to them by great divines are not satisfactory in every instance, as those imagine who do not think for themselves, and take too much upon trust. The subject is above our comprehension. There are two propositions of the truth of which we are fully assured—that God has foreordained all things which come to pass, and that he is not the author of sin. There can be no doubt about either of them in the mind of the man who believes the Scriptures. He may not be able to reconcile them but this ought not to weaken his conviction of their truth.” Was ever argumentation more transparent! Ye Arminians, how can you withstand such reasoning! How are you open your lips again! Where shall you find an apology for such temerity!
Since writing the foregoing, I find Dr. Rice has favored us with his mode of escaping from the charges I have brought upon his system. Hear him: “Are these representations true?” he asks; and replies, “This question might be answered by a fair statement of the doctrine, and a comparison of its principles with the word of God. There is, also, another way of answering the question satisfactorily, namely by inquiring what have been the fruits of this and kindred doctrines called Calvinistic?” Then follows a long article to show that the fruits of Calvinism have been good; and, therefore, the inference is drawn, it is not liable to the charges we have preferred against it. Now, I ask my readers, is not this a novel mode of escaping logical consequences? “The fruits of the system are good; therefore, the logical consequences, deduced from its premises, are not legitimate!” Verily, this is logic!) (pp. 108-9)
Sovereignty of God.—This subject, though of sufficient importance to claim a separate and distinct notice, must, for the present, be disposed of by a brief notice, in connection with the foregoing.
In Calvinism, all things are resolved into sovereignty. No difficulty so great, but the sovereignty of God explains it. No absurdity, or contradiction, or blasphemy so appalling, but here is its defense: “Even so, Father, for it seemeth good in thy sight. “Who art though that repliest against God?” “Shall the things formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?”
That God is sovereign, no one disputes. That he has a right to rule, and does rule in heaven and earth, is not even questioned. But we protest, in the name of reason and religion, and for the honor of God, against appealing to his sovereignty for the purpose of propagating slanders against his character—against so understanding and construing it, as to bring it in conflict with his justice and other attributes of his nature. He has no rights inconsistent with his own glorious nature—he has no sovereignty that can act adversely to his glorious perfections. He is a sovereign. But he is a sovereign God, not a sovereign devil. His is not an irresponsible, blind, capricious sovereignty. His rights and his rule are not resolvable into mere arbitrary acts of will. He rules in righteousness, and wisdom, and truth. And what conflicts with these, God claims no right to—he has no right to; to say to the contrary would be to dishonor him. The sovereignty of God, therefore, never should be quoted in support of, or excuse for, what is manifestly contrary to these. He has no such sovereignty. When anything is charged to him which requires such a supposition, it is false and slanderous to God. Here is where Calvinism commits one of its greatest practical blunders—a misapprehension of the nature of sovereignty! It assumes that such and such things are so—revealed in the Bible; and, it matters not how horrible the assumption, it holds itself under no obligation to consider the consequences, however glaringly false, and inconsistent, and dreadful. It is all referred to God’s sovereignty. It is all answered in a breath: “Even so, Father!” Shame on such trifling and profanation of holy things! Suppose ye that the God of the universe feels himself honored with such sacrifice? Does he esteem such a defense—a defense which demonizes his character to illustrate his sovereignty? No, no it is a mistake! God’s sovereignty explains no principle that is manifestly wrong—sanctions no fact that is inconsistent with justice “The Judge of the whole earth will do right;” he cannot do wrong His sovereignty gives him no such power. (pp. 212-13)
