Much theological debate centers around the doctrine of election. No one debates whether election is biblical, but they do debate the meaning of election. I believe in what is called unconditional individual election (the Calvinistic understanding). Those who oppose my understanding normally believe in some sort of conditional election or corporate election (or a combination of the two; the Arminian understanding). Corporate election is the belief that God elects nations to take part in his plan, not individuals to salvation. So, when Romans 9 speaks of God’s election of Jacob over Esau, Paul is speaking of God’s choosing the nation of Israel to have a special place in salvation history. They will go on to interpret all of Romans 9-11 in light of this assumption.
However, I don’t believe that Romans 9-11 is talking about corporate election, but individual election. Here are eleven reason why:
1. The whole section (9-11) is about the security of individuals. Election of nations would not make any contextual sense. Paul has just told the Roman Christians that nothing could separate them from God’s love (Rom. 8:31-39). The objection that gives rise to chapters 9-11 is: “How do we know that these promises from God are secure considering the current (unbelieving) state of Israel. They had promises too and they don’t look too secure.” Referring to corporate election would not fit the context. But if Paul were to respond by saying that it is only the elect individuals within Israel that are secure (true Israel), then this would make sense. We are secure because all elect individuals have always been secure.
2. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact.
3. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.
4. Rom. 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.
5. Rom. 9:16 is dealing with individuals, not nations. “So, it does not depend on the one who desires or makes effort, but on the mercy of God” (my translation). theolontos (desire) and trechontos (effort) are both masculine singulars that is why it is translated “the one” rather than “those.” (BTW: I don’t like ESV’s translation of this (man’s) as it is misleading and, ironically(!) supporting of corporate election). It is hard to see national implications at all here. It is about individual desire and effort. The acquisition of God’s mercy transcends the ability of man.
6. Once again, Rom. 9:18, speaking in the context of the hardening of Pharaoh, Paul summaries what he is trying to say using masculine singular pronouns: “Therefore, the one God wishes to have mercy on, he has mercy on. The one he wishes to harden, he hardens” (my translation). It would seem that if Paul was merely speaking about national or corporate election, the summary statement would change from Pharaoh to nations (plural), but the summary here emphasizes the sovereignty of God’s will (theleo) over individuals (singular).
7. The objection in Rom. 9:14 makes little sense if Paul were speaking about corporate or national election. The charge of injustice (adikia), which much of the book of Romans is seeking to vindicate God of, is not only out of place, but could easily be answered if Paul was saying that the election of God is only with respect to nations and has no salvific intent.
8. The objection in Rom. 9:18 is even more out of place if Paul is not speaking about individual election. “Why does he still blame people since no one can resist his will.” The verb anthesteken, “to oppose or resist,” is third person singular. The problem the objector has is that it seems unfair to individuals, not corporations of people.
9. The rhetoric of a diatribe or apostrophe being used by Paul is very telling. An apostrophe is a literary devise that is used where an imaginary objector is brought in to challenge the thesis on behalf of an audience. It is introduced with “What shall we say…” (Rom. 9:14) and “You will say to me…” (Rom. 9:19). It is an effective teaching tool. However, if the imaginary objector is misunderstanding Paul, the apostrophe fails to accomplish its rhetorical purpose unless Paul corrects the misunderstanding. Paul does not correct the misunderstanding, only the conclusion. If corporate election were what Paul was speaking of, the rhetoric demands that Paul steer his readers in the right direction by way of the diatribe. Paul sticks to his guns even though the teaching of individual election does most certainly give rise to such objections.
10. Rom. 9:24 speaks about God calling the elect “out of” (ek) the Jews and the Gentiles. Therefore, it is hard to see national election since God calls people “out of” all nations, ek Ioudaion (from Jews) ek ethnon (from Gentiles).
11. In Paul’s specific return the the election theme in the first part of Romans 11, he illustrates those who were called (elect) out of the Jewish nation by referencing Elijah who believed he was the only one still following the Lord. The response from God to Elijah’s lament is referenced by Paul in Rom. 11:4 where God says, “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” This tells us two things: 1) these are seven thousand individuals that God has kept, not a new nation. 2) These individuals are kept by God in belief as the characteristic of their “keeping” is their not bowing to Baal (i.e. they remained loyal to God).
12. Using the Elijah illustration in Rom. 11:5, Paul argues that “in the same way,” God has preserved a remnant of believing Israel of which he (as an individual) is a part (Rom. 11:1). This “keeping” in belief of individuals is according to “God’s gracious choice” (11:5).
438 replies to "Twelve Reasons Why Romans 9 is About Individual Election, Not Corporate Election"
Yes, well, I’ve said before, I’m more of an Augustinian than a Calvinist, but I agree with everything Calvin said there. I think you two are once again importing your concepts into what is being said. Calvin states right there in the quote that God is not pleased with the actions of these men, but He has complete control of them. He is the author of sin in a non-primary, indirect sense, as I’ve said the entire time. I think Calvin would agree.
Michael,
The philosophy department at Trinity has been made up of both Arminian and Calvinist professors, and I’m not saying that their Arminian education is the only factor. I said a lot of them already have it before they enter in. I’ve had quite a few friends in the field of philosophy and most of them have been Arminian from tradition, even those who attended what would be on the surface more Reformed churches. I’m not saying that one cannot change his mind either. For instance, Clark Pinnock had obviously run the full circuit. My point is that it seems to be a discipline that is inclined to believe in freedom of the mind and choice by virtue of what is studied and the way it is studied, not by a deep reflection upon the logic of the Scriptures, but due to views of man inherent in our culture that cause us to carry those traditions into philosophical study, a study that argues from what is perceived via experience. It does much of what you do, it takes perceived reality as primary and takes revealed reality as secondary. The logic of the first must accord with the logic of the second, or there is something wrong with the second. That is too much faith in self for me. I cannot resign myself to believe that what I perceive through experience has more authority than what is revealed.
Hodge,
1. I can’t possibly believe we are reading the same quotes by Calvin. How can one interpret “But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them” any other way then that Calvin is saying God is the author of sin? How can one interpret “God performs not by the hands of men the things which He has decreed, without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes the acts they are to perform” any other way then that Calvin is saying that God controls not just the actions of men, but the will which produces those actions? Honestly I find your assertions that Calvin teaches anything less then what me and Cheryl have accused him of is absurd in the extreme.
2. I think you to some extent confuse continental philosophy with which your lament might be somewhat fair, with the analytic school of philosophy of which the people I have mentioned are a part. Furthermore, do you not perceive Scripture through experience? Is it not your eyes which percieve the text and your brain which then gives meaning to the words on the page?
Here is another interesting site with multiple quotes by Calvin. It seems he did some vascillating back and forth on whether he actually believed God to be the author of sin or not. Can’t quite decide what he ended up with there myself.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/ac_sin.html
Regarding my last comment, I think what Calvin ended up saying was that God was the author of sin but was not guilty of sin himself.
God created the universe, and is therefore unavoidably the ultimate cause of everything including sin. Clearly, God is not the direct cause of sin, since there’s someone coming between Him and its commission. We need to ask whether God is the moral agent of sin, not whether He’s the ultimate cause.
Let me set up a different situation in order to explain why God is not the moral agent in human sin.
Suppose a book publisher publishes a book including a cartoon of Mohammed, and some extremist Moslems riot and kill Christians, claiming that it is blasphemous. The book turns out to be about how volatile some sectors of Islam are, and how they riot and kill on the slightest provocation; thus, the proof is already present to indicate that the publisher took an action whose results they already knew.
Is the publisher/author guilty of the deaths of those Christians?
The answer is NO. All of the actions of the publisher were moral (and legal), and the result was an illegal reaction by a moral agent.
In a similar way, God created us, sustains us even in our sin, has providence over the tiniest details in our life, controls disasters happening (including disastrous results of sin, such as the siege of Jerusalem) to an extent that He says He “creates” them (Is 45:7), and uses the sins of men to accomplish His ends — most especially and clearly in the Bible His redemptive ends.
But God did not create men as automaton programmed to move without moral reflection. Men would have to do that if they had a detailed plan; God is infinitely greater and did not need that. Rather, God created men as moral agents, who act according to their own desires and opinions. Because men are moral agents, they are responsible for their own actions…
…if a moral agent does not desire good (as the Bible says we do not desire good), and as a result does evil, that action is the fault of the moral agent, not of any influence on them earlier. Hitler is to blame for ordering the Holocaust, and his parents are NOT to blame for it — whether the cause was that they beat him when he was 3, or because they took him out for ice cream once when he was 3 (in other words, whether his parents were sinful or innocent on their own behalf, Hitler bears his own guilt).
Because God did not sin in ordaining the universe, and because there is no sin imputed to one who causes a moral agent to make a choice, therefore God does not sin even though the universe contains moral agents who sin.
Now, there is one more question: how can God accuse a moral agent of sin when that agent was corrupt and unable to not sin? Here the answer seems even more clear. If something is corrupt by nature, isn’t its treatment simply a consequence of its nature? We treat a hamster as an animal because it IS one. We treat a criminally insane person as corrupt because he IS. We do not have to stop and consider whether his actions were wrong; his nature is sufficient.
One more thing that answers a distinct set of posts, and then I’ll call it a day…
-Wm
Wm,
Not so according to John Calvin! From the article at the last link I posted:
Calvin writes: “But of all the things which happen, the first cause is to be understood to be His will, because He so governs the natures created by Him, as to determine all the counsels and the actions of men to the end decreed by Him.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.178, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.171-172, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.177, emphasis mine)
That doesn’t sound like man has a whole lot of moral choice to me in Calvin’s scheme of things.
And William, Calvin seems to have certainly believed in what is called double predestination too. Here are a couple of more quotes from that site:
Calvin writes: “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121, emphasis mine)
Calvin explains: “God had no doubt decreed before the foundation of the world what He would do with every one of us and had assigned to everyone by His secret counsel his part in life.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries
So these folks had no choice in which type of people they were to be from before the foundation of the world. How does that give any one a moral choice? Sure his nature is corrupt and he can’t not sin. However, according to Calvin, his nature is that way precisely because God made it that way.
I see the claim made above (in post #72) that if man is dominated by a fallen nature, therefore man would always fall to every temptation.
In response:
First, your argument is essentially fully Pelagian; if it were valid, it would prove that man’s good deeds can merit salvation. This has been denied by the Bible and the Church continuously. I know you didn’t make it that way on purpose, of course; I’ve interacted with you before and know you’re completely orthodox on this topic.
Second, the corruption of man’s nature is not such that he can neither do good acts nor resist doing evil acts; rather, it is such that he cannot look to God. Because of this, man’s acts are ALL corrupt, even the good acts; the “bad” acts are especially bad ONLY because they violate God’s revealed Law, which was revealed specifically to make man’s corruption evident and undeniable. In an ultimate sense, man’s lawful acts without God are just as bad as our unlawful acts.
Now, because fallen man is a rebel against God, he will naturally disobey His revealed Law, not because he cannot possibly obey it, and not because he doesn’t want to do anything it says, but rather because he cares more about himself than about the Author of the Law. But although this disobedience results in bad consequences, it’s not the worst sin, and as I’ve explained above, it’s not the true expression of man’s fallenness; rather, it’s the means by which God proves our fallenness beyond any doubt.
This is what Paul was talking about in Romans 7 when he said that before the Law came we were alive, but when the Law came “sin became alive and I died.” But Paul is clear: the sin was present and active before the Law was shown to us; it simply was not visible to us by any means. Therefore, God revealed the Law, not to make us good, but to make our essential corruption evident.
-Wm
Cheryl,
None of the quotes you cite say anything about whether man has moral choice; you’re drawing conclusions that are not called for by your evidence. They’re all talking about God, not man.
Furthermore, they’re all attributing to God “first”, “primary”, and “principal” causation, which although it goes a bit beyond the philosophical term of “ultimate causation”, is still not direct causation.
Finally, none of the quotes you give, including the ones in your second post, are responding to the question of double predestination. They simply didn’t have that in mind, and weren’t worded in such a way to make the distinction clear. That question is a separate one, and to some extent a later one. Calvin’s been quotemined by both sides in that, and I’ve seen quotations that appear to support both sides; I think the fact is that Calvin didn’t think of it and therefore didn’t try to take sides.
But, when you think about it, the question isn’t whether Calvin personally supported double predestination, but rather whether the person you’re talking to supports it. Of course, if you can prove that he MUST support it, that’s a forgone conclusion; but proving that kind of thing is very difficult, and it’s usually a better tactic to simply ask pointed questions. This is how I witness to Mormons and Muslims — I don’t simply assume that they hold the distinctive beliefs of their religion, but rather I ask pointed questions and interact with their answers. Many of them haven’t realized the implications of their doctrines, and some don’t even know what their doctrines are.
By the way, Michael T above shows a good example of how to correctly prove that your opponent must accept a distasteful belief in order to assert what he does — although he’s also a good example of why it’s very hard to do that :-).
-Wm
That’s what Van Inwagen seems to have intended in his original paper, but from what I see he later realized that his argument actually disproved the notion of free will entirely, because whether determinism or indeterminism prevailed, agent free will would not be the primary cause of an agent’s action. (Wikipedia has a summary of his development; that’s not my first source, but the summary matches well with what I read elsewhere, and makes sense out of what would seem a contradiction otherwise. In short, he used to assert that compatiblism was false and LFW was true, but later realized that the falsehood was in the very idea of free will.)
I agree with Edwards and Von Inwagen — free will is a contradiction in terms, or (according to Edwards) at best a gross oversimplification. The only reason I use it is to minimize the length of my arguments.
Free agency is real; free will is not. Humans are free moral agents in the sense that they are free to exert their will to choose what they desire. The will is not a thing that can possibly be free; a will is a philosophical construct used to describe an agent’s power of choice. As such, it is entirely under the control of the agent and NOT itself free.
More…
-Wm
…
Ascribing freedom to the will is only correct when it’s shorthand for ascribing freedom to the agent. And the freedom we ascribe to the agent must be very carefully described. Obviously, it’s not freedom to act (since that can be physically prevented); it’s therefore only freedom to choose (which is another way of saying freedom to exercise the will, since the will is defined as the facility of choice).
Enough for now. Let’s interact on this.
-Wm
William,
Twice now I have been writing a comment in reply to you and twice it has somehow gotten deleted! Don’t have the time to do it again, at least not now.
Must be predestined not to be, huh? 🙂
I’m sorry, Michael, I just saw that my long post didn’t answer your question. Oops.
May I pretend you asked “in what manner can we possibly claim that man is a free moral agent, and therefore can be held responsible for his choices?” If that’s not a correct summary of what you asked (in a way which deliberately doesn’t refer to free will), let me know.
To answer my rephrasing of the question: Man is a free moral agent because he has desires which are his own, can know moral principles, can reflect on those desires according to those principles, and can act to increase or decrease lesser desires if he has overriding greater desires. (For example, if man loved God more than himself, he could decrease the desire to honor himself to the point that he could choose to honor God.)
However, this moral agency does not grant man complete freedom. You can clearly see that man does not have complete freedom of action. Man also doesn’t have complete freedom of knowledge (that is, man doesn’t know all moral principles). Man also doesn’t always correctly reason from the moral principles he knows, sometimes because he simply errs, sometimes because he desires ease more than rigorous logic, and sometimes because he hates the true conclusion. Finally, man sometimes can’t act to decrease or increase the correct desires because he doesn’t desire to make that change (i.e. he lacks an overriding desire).
In the long run, we must attribute this state of affairs to God: He created it originally, allowed the fall in which the wrong desires became established, and knit each of us together in the womb, thus showing that he approves the continuation as things are for now. At the same time, we cannot blame God for our choices; they truly belong to us personally.
And this is proper.
-Wm
Just one quick question,
How do you think free agency gives a person freedom to choose, what I called moral choice, in Calvin’s way of thinking when he says that God works on the affections and will to do exactly what he has ordained is going to happen?
I have quoted him as saying this in some of my recent comments.
If God rules their internal affections and works on the will to conform to what He wants done, how is the man in any way free to make a moral choice?? You can say the man is making the moral choice, but it is only the choice that God beforehand has put in His affections and will to accomplish His purposes. Making a choice that has already been made for you is not much of a choice. is it?
I just don’t get the argument you guys keep making that this conclusion does not follow.
Cheryl,
This is getting kind of humorous. You are reading Calvin with a preset definition of what he means by all of this. To you, it means that God controls the man like a robot and makes him sin. To Calvin, it means that God has decreed the actions of a knowingly perpetual sinful man in order to produce a divinely desired outcome of good. He GOVERNS the will, meaning He rules over the thoughts and decisions of a man. He does not MAKE those thoughts and decisions. I don’t know how to explain it any more thoroughly than I already have. You are misreading us and then acting as though it is we who do not accord with Calvin. Now, I may not explain things the way Calvin does, but I do agree with him. And, for the tenth time I think, God is the author of sin. He is not the direct author, or as Wm put it, He is not the agent that is sinning.
I said “and this is proper”, and then I ran out of space.
What if man actually DID have libertarian free will — if man’s will could, at any point, choose otherwise? Then our actions would not be attributable to anything in us (since who we are is constant), but would rather be a property of our will. It would be unjust for God to punish us according to our actions; rather, he should punish our free will. (Bizarre!) Furthermore, if the afterlife is eternal, couldn’t man’s free will change at any time, whether in heaven or hell, to choose the other place?
Because man’s free agency is in accordance with his heart’s desires, we can be assured that his eternal destiny is fixed because his heart is fixed (and not free).
This is why Paul says whoever is free from sin is a slave to righteousness. Whoever is free to sin, is a slave unto sin. There is no libertarian middle ground, where one is free to sin or to do righteousness at one’s own discretion.
-Wm
And William, just for the record, I am trying to point out the problems I see with Calvinism as a whole, not just with one man’s particular “take” on it. As such it would seem to me that it is only fair and necessary to point out things like what the founder of the whole belief system thinks or what other very well known Calvinists think. When Hodge consistently says that I misunderstand and don’t get the point, what in the world is wrong with pointing out quotes that show that Calvinism, at least in some people’s minds and in the founders mind, says exactly what I am saying it does?
Again, I am not addressing just one man like Hodge. I am trying to address the system as a whole.
Does that help? Or am I still just all wrong in my approach? 🙂
Let me try another hopeful analogy (I say “hopeful” not because it’s a good analogy, but because I’m hopeful that it will be :))
Let’s say your kid was swimming in a pool when he wasn’t supposed to do so. You told him not to, and he’s decided to go out and swim in it all day anyway. You lose your keys in the pool, and while he is in the pool, you send another son to go and entice him to get your keys. Now, did you make him disobey you by going in the pool? No, he’s already in the pool. You just created an influence that would have him direct his disobedience to a good purpose. He’s still in the pool via his rebellion. He will still get a smack on the toosh when he gets out; but you have used his evil act for good.
That is similar to what God does. I don’t believe that God decrees in logical order, not chronological, first for man to sin and then to use it, but rather He decrees what He does in light of man’s sin. The problem is that you are viewing sin as individual actions rather than an entire life of rebellion. Man does not dip his feet in the pool every now and again. He’s swimming underwater from conception to death.
You heard that from Christ, not Calvin. God is meticulously sovereign; He approves of everything that happens, and nothing is outside of His control.
Now, some Calvinists say that God ordained all things from before the beginning of creation; but the Bible isn’t clear and specific on that. It seems like a logical conclusion, but it isn’t clearly stated in the Bible.
I personally prefer not to come down hard on a conclusion which isn’t directly stated; thus, I side more with the Calvinists who aren’t certain on that question.
I could see a different possibility: perhaps God ordained from the beginning only the bare minimum the Bible says (which people were elect), and then He created, and then He providentially watches over His creation and acts to ensure that His elect are indeed regenerated, and are indeed presented with the Gospel so that they may choose it (and indeed will choose it, since they are regenerate). This seems to me to be philosophically unlikely (I think Van Inwagen’s argument is convincing), but the argument may not be valid, so I can’t simply dismiss the possibility.
-Wm
Yep, Hodge, his entire life is one of rebellion because according to Calvin God determined it would be that way before time began.
“As such it would seem to me that it is only fair and necessary to point out things like what the founder of the whole belief system thinks ”
Whose the founder of the belief system? Calvin? That’s not why we call it Calvinism.
“Yep, Hodge, his entire life is one of rebellion because according to Calvin God determined it would be that way before time began.”
God determined that men He knew would choose rebellion would be made and then determined that their choices would be brought to serve His will. He determined who He would leave in that rebellion and who He would save, etc. Sure, I agree with that. Don’t you? Don’t you believe that God determined evil men to crucify Christ?
William,
But Calvin said God ordained all things before the world began, down to the last detail of what every man will do. That presents a huge problem does it not with this whole idea of free agency?
Now remember, I am talking about Calvinism as a whole here and not just your version of it!
By the way, it would seem to me that it would present a huge problem for Hodge too, as he said he believes in double predestination way back up there somewhere. (If I remember correctly.)
Michael,
I’m talking about experience that is ungoverned by what is revealed versus that which is governed by it. We can experience the Bible, but we also need the Holy Spirit and the Church to interpret it correctly in obedience. God never promised that you will be given the HS and the Church to interpret external truths to what has been revealed.
Cheryl,
“Ordained,” please define.
I understand, Cheryl; but there are at least three problems. First, since Calvinism is not Catholicism, we do not have an inerrant magisterium; we admit that Calvin may be wrong. Second, as I pointed out, Calvin wasn’t addressing what you were claiming; he didn’t refer at ALL to some of the conclusions you claimed to advance, and only referred indirectly to others. Third and finally, you are not the best interpreter of Calvin, because you’re attempting to characterize him in a short blog comment. A real interaction would have to engage him at length, not merely in a few isolated quotes.
I do suggest that the best thing to do is to interact with the people here as they profess to believe, rather than attempting to interact with “the system as a whole”. By all means use your knowledge of the whole system to catch us in misstatements, but respect our claims about our own beliefs. After all, you actually DO disagree with us. There’s something interesting to decide here.
Meanwhile, your ideas about the “entire system” are largely invalid. Calvin wasn’t attempting to address the things you think he was addressing; those were later innovations in thought. Calvin might have (in his head) believed the right thing or the wrong thing; we can’t tell, because he doesn’t seem to have thought it out on paper.
-Wm
Ooh, interesting! I didn’t notice this.
By the way, your emphasis seems to have been omitted — the entire paragraph was italicized.
What’s interesting here is that your reading is so hostile you miss completely what Calvin is saying. He’s not saying that “the providence of God rules here” or that “the providence of God does not rule here”; rather, he’s saying that “there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here.” His statement as quoted is ONLY about the difficulty of seeing the truth, not actually about the truth.
The entire passage you quote actually gives almost no information about how Calvin believes. Now, I suspect I know what he believes; but only more context would actually show it. Is he about to say that it’s difficult to see because it’s false, or because something else obscures the truth, or because the truth is more subtle?
This is an illustration of why quotemining in comments is a poor way to find anything about a system of thought.
-Wm
Keep in mind that Calvin wasn’t speaking English (the language in which the Westminster Catechism proclaimed the God is not the author of sin), and in fact when Westminster proclaimed that the word “author” has a different meaning than it does now (more related to the modern word “authorize” than to the modern concept of writing a fictional book).
The big question is then not what words you disapprove of, but what concepts. Why is it offensive for Calvin (or myself) to say that God is the author of sin, yet is not guilty of sin? I’ll stand behind Calvin’s statement for this argument — I’m not sure what it is in context, but I’ll interpret it according to my understanding as I’ve given it above.
If Steven King writes a horror novel, and is therefore the author of horror and sin (in it), is he guilty of that sin?
-Wm
“but respect our claims about our own beliefs.”
I know you both have your own individual beliefs. Never said other wise.
But just addressing one person’s individual beliefs is rather like trying to refute the whole system of Mormonism by just speaking to the beliefs of one indiviual Mormon. It just doesn’t work.
Hodge and Wm
There’s almost too much to respond to here. So I will just make three responses.
1. WM, I’m aware that Van Inwagen has issues with both Free Will and Compatibilism. Most of the issues of which I am aware about Free Will have been addressed elsewhere by other authors. Not the case for Compatibilism.
2. Here’s the thing. Either God is in meticulous control of every event which comes about or he is not. If he is meticulously in control then he is in control of every event which contributes to shaping our desires and our will. He is therefore meticulously in control of shaping our desires and our wills. Our desires and our wills then inescably determine how we act given any set of circumstance (circumstance which themselves are determined by God).
If this is not the case then the Calvinist must at some point place into the puzzle some transcendent human quality which interprets the events and can in some manner choose how to be affected by those events. This is really no different, nor does it create less problems, then the transcendent quality of free will claimed by LFW. In fact one could argue that if human have the ability to interpret events in a non-causal manner, independent of God, then they in some sense have LFW.
3. I agree with Cheryl here – trying to debate individual people is impossible. Most people (myself likely included) are buffet like in their beliefs. They take some from one place and some from another place. On can only respond to the belief system that is being discussed, not any individual person, in the forum context we are using here. Otherwise we’d have to have a 500 post thread for every single Calvinist that walked in.
Hodge,
From the Free Online Dictionary:
or·dain (ôr-dn)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains
1.
a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
b. To authorize as a rabbi.
2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
3. To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.
——————————————————————————–
Obviously # 2 or 3 are the applicable ones here.
Hodge,
Quick counter example.
1. Person A undertakes the following actions with the full knowledge and intent that they will likely lead to the death of Person B.
2. Person A knows that Person B has a fragile heart condition.
3. Person A also knows that Person B is deathly afraid of heights and if placed in a high position will uncontrollably panic.
4. Person A causes Person B to unknowingly climb to a high position (lets just say he said outside the door at the top of the stairs there was a early birthday present).
5. When Person B goes outside and realizes how high up she is she goes into a panic and dies of a massive heart attack.
Is Person A morally culpable for murder?
Paul is quoting Exodus to say that; but it doesn’t stop with what Exodus taught us. He adds that “it does not depend on desire or exertion.” If God only showed mercy to those who first humbled themselves, then wouldn’t his mercy depend on our desire and exertion? (BTW, Psalms 32:10 doesn’t teach anything like that. It says that God floods the one who trusts with faithfulness. It doesn’t say that every human can trust without help from God.)
Furthermore, the Bible is very clear, repeatedly and through many authors, that God acted in our favor while we were his enemies — before we humbled ourselves.
-Wm
You’re not going to refute the system of Mormonism by responding to uncontextual quotes in a blog forum. Your idea of Calvinism is fundamentally _wrong_, and the more you argue it the worse you’re going to look to informed Calvinists. You’re accomplishing nothing more than sounding good to your fellow Arminians.
And you will _never_ present the Gospel to anyone by refuting a system. You have to speak to the person, not the system. Mormons who have their system refuted turn into disaffected atheists, not Christians.
-Wm
William,
Regarding comment #129 above and your statement that I totally misunderstood what Calvin was saying there. If you read these quotes below and put the other one from that comment in context, I don’t think I necessarily misread him at all. Saying something is more difficult to see doesn’t mean he doesn’t see it. The quotes below from the same links certainly sound as if he does.
Calvin writes: “He has plenty of reasons for comfort as he realises that the devil and all the ungodly are reined in by God, so that they cannot conceive, plan or carry out any crime, unless God allows it, indeed commands it. They are not only in bondage to him, but are forced to serve him. It is the Lord’s prerogative to enable the enemy’s rage and to control it at will, and it is in his power to decide how far and how long it may last, so that wicked men cannot break free and do exactly what they want….” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch.17, Sect. 10
Calvin also says the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of all things.
And this: Whence that which I have just stated is perfectly plain: that the internal affections of men are not less ruled by the hand of God than their external actions are preceded by His eternal decree; and, moreover, that God performs not by the hands of men the things which He has decreed, without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes the acts they are to perform. Wherefore, the sentiments of Augustine on these momentous points are to be fully received and maintained. ” When God (says he) willeth that to be done which cannot be effected, in the course of the things of this world, without the wills of men, He at the same time inclines their hearts to will”
These quotes come from several of Calvin’s writings.
Michael T, unmistakably yes — person B was not a moral actor in the situation at all, and did not do anything wrong anyhow. Person A was the only moral actor, and although none of his actions were individually wrong, he is guilty of either manslaughter/murder OR negligent homicide, depending on whether he intended his victim to die.
Here’s another situation:
Shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theatre. Here the person shouting doesn’t kill anyone, but because none of the actual killers are capable of moral calculation, the guilt reflects only on the moral actor, the person who shouted (even though each of his actions in isolation were not immoral).
This is in contrast to the example I gave earlier — the Mohammed cartoon. There the initial actor doesn’t do anything individually wrong, but people die as a result — yet he’s not guilty simply because the actual moral calculation is carried out by the people who actually do the killing.
-Wm
Cheryl, in response to #137 — you may have missed my earlier posts on the meaning of “primary cause”, “ultimate cause”, and such. You seem to think that they mean “only cause” or “moral cause”. They don’t mean that.
-Wm
Michael,
I believe that God is even more removed than that. I believe God is more like Person A who tells Person B, who wants to get Person C to climb the latter so that the events would bring him to his death, that Person B can go ahead and do so. I believe in the act of an individual sin, there are three beings at work: God, the devil/demonic, the person. That’s what I can get from Job 1 and 1 Kings 22, the only two passages that actually allow us a glance at how God may do this (although we there may be a delineation of numerous human agents in any given act as well).
So I actually believe that Person B who wants to murder Person C is liable. Person A, since He has the right to give life and take it, is not.
The other flaw in the analogy is that it assigns a sinful intent to Person A, i.e., God. God’s intent is to use the person’s evil intent and action to bring about good, not evil.
Hodge,
Many have in the past, and a select few do today, interpret the Bible to mean that the world is flat. Now we could talk all day about why this isn’t so, yet ultimately isn’t it our observation that the world is in fact round which leads us to find these interpretations absurd. Furthermore, even if we argue that it is simply because the Bible is not a science book are we again not making a statement about the content of the Bible based upon logic??
BTW, I’m so disappointed my analogy didn’t end the conversation by bringing immediate enlightenment and obedience to the Scripture. Even with all of its flaws, I did love it so. 🙂
Michael,
Ha, ha. I was just thinking you were going to say that. That is so funny. Here’s what i was just thinking I would say in response: 🙂
Sure, external factors can cause us to look again at the text to see if that’s what the text is really teaching. No one is saying otherwise. It’s when we look back and back and back at the text and it is clear to be teaching X that we don’t deny X because we think Y is true. In the case of your flat earth analogy, we look at those texts, as well as the hermeneutics and concept of the Bible behind the flat earth interpretations, and we are able to see that this is not what the Bible is attempting to teach. We cannot do the same for Rom 9 or John 6, or John 12 for that matter, which btw you have yet to answer.
How do we explain God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, even if we say that He does it after Pharaoh does it? What if Pharaoh would have turned afterward? In fact, isn’t that the very reason God hardens? So that he wouldn’t turn?
What do we do with Egyptians running into the crashing waters of the Reed Sea? If they are choosing on their own using their LFW, why madly run into them?
What do we do of God causing Saul to fall asleep, or sending him an evil spirit that he knows will try and harm David?
What do we do with God telling evil spirits to go and lie in the mouths of prophets? Or sending the Assyrians and Babylonians to kill Israel? Or purposely leaving Canaanites in the land of Israel in order that He/they might test/tempt them? What do we do with the evil men who were predetermined to crucify Christ? Or of Christ’s statements that those who believe and do not believe do so because of what God has decided? What do we do with the logical question that if the butterfly effect occurs, how is it that God can control anything if He does not control everything (I know, Michael’s answer is Quantum Physics ;)).
I see no serious interaction with these texts except to dismiss them, or completely ignore them, in an effort to replace them with philosophical musings, those which come from fallen human minds that are deceitful and sick above all things, which no one seems to grasp.
William,
I have been told repeatedly by you that I am wrong about everything pretty much all day now. My understanding is wrong, my methodology of discussing is wrong, and for goodness sake, I even merited a mini lecture on how wrong I am in any dealings with Mormon’s I might have!!
I think I have been lambasted about enough for one day. You have succeeded in getting rid of me now. 🙂
Cheryl, I’m truly sorry to see you leave. I’d like to interact with you, but as long as you insist on only interacting with your own understanding of a dead man’s writings without accepting corrections from the people who actually do believe what he wrote, you’re only talking to your own side, perhaps even only yourself. (You’re certainly not about to convince Calvin!)
-Wm
WM,
Here’s the problem. When I read Calvin I’m sorry I can’t read German, Swiss or whatever language he wrote Institutes and his other works in. I have to read in English and assume that the translators knew what they were doing. I can not take the ordinary meaning of those quotes to mean anything other than what Cheryl asserted them to mean. I simply can’t and herein lies another problem I have with Calvinists. You want to constantly twist the meaning of words.
So for instance what does it mean when we say God is good?? The understandings of this offered by Hodge and others in past debates means something so far removed from “good” that it would be unrecognizable by any English speaker as being “good”. Calvinists are deceptive in their language. It God isn’t good in the sense of the English word “good” don’t call Him “good”. Find some other word to use in your translation because the English word good is, by the very definition of the English word, not appropriate to apply to the Calvinist God.
“So for instance what does it mean when we say God is good?? The understandings of this offered by Hodge and others in past debates means something so far removed from “good” that it would be unrecognizable by any English speaker as being “good”.”
Oh No, we are not returning to this again, are we? God is a fluffy papa smurf in our society so much that any other concept of God is a twisting of words then. Don’t use the word God anymore, Michael. This is again the idea that Dan addressed on the other post where there is a link between a single concept and a word that, frankly, can carry many concepts, especially when you need to correct someone’s misunderstanding of it. I could find a different word to use, but the false concept of “good” that one has in our culture would continue. So educating one on the biblical use of a concept, while using that term, is more appropriate. But let’s not get into that again.
Very well said. God is indeed good, but “good” does not mean “safe and simple”. Our concepts of moral fault and credit are derived from His image in us, but it’s the true concepts, not the modern wishful thinking distortions — the ethical dilemma, not the gushy compassion that sees only one side of every issue (awww, why does the mean lion have to kill the cute antelope!).
God in His love created a universe that is NOT a bed of roses. There’s no evidence either in the universe or the Bible that it ever was, outside of the very small Garden of Eden.
-Wm
Cheryl didn’t assert them to mean anything; she just threw out a slogan as if they were conclusive refutation. (I’m not saying she always argues like that, by the way.) My response was to ask her what she meant and why she felt that it was insulting to God to say he is the author of sin. She’s never even attempted to answer.
We can’t help it — we’re totally depraved, remember?
(I’m just joking, but there’s nothing else I can do. This is as shallow of an ad-hominem argument I’ve seen in a long time. Hmm, you take after St. Paul: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”)
-Wm