Introduction
I am a child of Western thought. Therefore, I like to figure things out. If possible, I like to figure it all out. This causes problems between me and God sometimes, and I need to deal with it better. Sometimes I only really follow or engage with God when I get it. When things make sense to me, my intellectual anxiety is eased and my will can engage. Who? What? Where? How? and especially Why?
Attempting to Look God Eye to Eye
Theological gurus call this “cataphatic” theology. Cataphatic theology emphasizes God’s revelation and our understanding of it. Taken to an extreme, we can find ourselves in the arrogantly awkward position of, as A. W. Tozer put it, “trying to look God eye to eye” (reference needed). When we have to understand everything, we attempt to trade our finitude for infinitude.
Accepting Mystery as a Primary Epistemic Category
And this should scare us to death. We need a healthy dose of “apophatic” theology. This emphasizes mystery. Our Eastern brothers and sisters normally get this better than we do. They are content without publishing a new theology book every year. They don’t normally write papers to explain the mysteries of the world, form societies to discuss the nuances of our faith, or engage in excessive arguments. For these, accepting mystery is their primary epistemic category.
The Dangers of Both Apophadic and Cataphatic Theology
I don’t mean to characterize either people from the east or the west. Of course, so far, I’ve spoken in generalities. Each of these characteristics, taken to extremes, can lead to down a dark path. Apophadic theology can lead to unexamined faith, where people know what they believe but they have no idea why. And God did go through a lot of trouble to explain quite a bit of himself to us. Cataphatic theology can lead to arrogence and mischaracterization as we force pieces of our theological puzzle in places they don’t belong or we introduce foreign pieces to the puzzle to make it fit together.
Finding Balance in the Secret Things and the Things Revealed
Deuteronomy 29:29:
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
While there are secret things that belong to the Lord (apophatic), the things revealed belong to us (cataphatic). We need balance. We need a cool yet passionate head about us. We need to hold some theological ropes very tightly, but we need to loosen our grip on others. There is quite a bit that we can know about God, but there are so many things that we don’t get and we will never get.
My Intent so Far
Why all of this? Because I am going to talk about something that is very divisive in the Christian life. And, for the most part, I am going to try to encourage some of my Western brothers and sisters to take a cue from my Eastern brothers and sisters, step down off the stool, and quit trying to look God eye to eye. I am going to encourage us to allow some tension in a very debated issue in Protestant Christianity.
Calvinism- Closed System?
Calvinism is not a closed, rationality-based system. I am a Calvinist. It is funny. I often hear people talk about Calvinism as a closed box system that forces everything to fall in line, even when we have to sacrifice biblical integrity to do so. I often hear the accusation that Calvinism is a system that makes rationality its primary goal. And this is sometimes true. Often, Calvinists do attempt to fit things into a system and engage in questionable, logic-driven hermeneutics to do so.
The Tension Allowed in Calvinism
However, I think we need to take a step back and see that while the shoe fits when it comes to some particular issues in Calvinism, these accusations are far from forming the bedrock of the primary issues in Calvinism. You see, one of the many reasons I am a Calvinist has to do with the tension that is allowed within the Calvinistic system that is not allowed in other systems.
The Central Issue
Calvinism centers on one primary doctrine: God’s sovereignty in predestination. While the general doctrine the sovereignty of God has its place, it does not ultimately determine where one lands. An Arminian can believe that God is sovereign to a similar degree as a Calvinist. But an Arminian cannot believe in unconditional election in the same way as a Calvinist.
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in predestination. In other words, whether or not God predestines people is not the issue. All Bible-believing Christians believe this doctrine. The issue has to do with the basis of this predestining.
Calvinist’s View of Election
The Calvinist says that God’s predestination is individual and unconditional. God did not choose people based on any merit, intrinsic or foreseen. This is called unconditional predestination, because there are no conditions man needs to meet. It does not mean that God did not have any reason for choosing some and not others. Election is not arbitrary. It is not a flip of the coin. It is simply that His reason is not found in us. It is his “secret” and “mysterious” will that elects some and passes over others. Once one believe this, for all intents and purposes, whether he or she calls themselves such, they are in the Calvinist camp.
The Arminian View of Election
The Arminian says that God’s predestination is conditioned in us. God elects either the person who chooses Him, Christ Himself, the Gospel, or the best possible world. All of these are options. In the end, his election is actionable, ultimately, because the faith of the predestined. For the majority of Arminians, here is how it works: God looks ahead in time, discovers who will believe and who will not, and then chooses people based on their prior free-will choice of Him. Therefore, God’s predestination of people is “fair” and makes sense. After all, there are too many questions left unanswered when one says that God chooses who will be saved and who will not. Why did he choose some and not others? Did God make people to go to hell? Is God fair? “Why does he still find fault, for who resists his will?”
Book Recommendation: Against Calvinism
The Arminian Solution
The Arminian chooses this position because, for them, it is the only way to reconcile human freedom and God’s election. Both are clearly taught in Scripture. Therefore, in order to have a reasonable and consistent theology, one or the other must be altered. If God unconditionally chooses individuals, then people don’t have responsibility in their choice, good or ill. Therefore, in order to make things fit, the Arminian defines (re)divine election or predestination in such a way to make it fit with their understanding of human libertarian freedom. The Arminian says that God’s choice is based on man’s choice. Alternatively, as I said, they say God’s choice is for something else like Christ, the Gospel, the Church, the best possible world (it gets confusing, I know).
Therefore, we have achieved consistency. The tension is solved. There is no tension. No mystery. Cataphatic theology trumps what seems to be an apophatic mystery. The “secret things are exposed. We have looked behind the curtain of God.
The Calvinist Solution
However, the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s election to make it fit. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. This creates a problem. It creates great tension. For the Calvinist, this tension cannot, and should not, be solved (although, some, unfortunately, do).
So how does the Calvinist live with this? How does the Calvinist answer the Why? questions? “Why does God choose some and not others? Why does he still find fault?” What is the Calvinist answer to the How? question? “How can there be true freedom when God is sovereignly in charge of election of individuals?” We have no answer. We have an option that the Arminians don’t. We can get off our stool and stop trying to look God eye-to-eye. We can and should punt to apophatic theology. The tension is left intact. We place our hand over our mouth here and say, “Though we have no answers to why God did not choose people he truly loves and how people are truly responsible for their rejection of him, we will trust that His gavel is just.” We will redefine neither divine election nor human responsibility to make them fit a more rational or logical system.
Revelation Over Reason
While there is nothing wrong with using one’s reason to understand truth, there are problems when reason takes priority over revelation. If the Bible teaches both human freedom and sovereign election, we leave the two intact. If the Bible teaches that God loves everyone more than we can imagine and that God desires all to be saved, yet He does not elect some, we trust God’s word and live with unanswered questions. These two issues, human responsibility and sovereign election, are not contradictory when put together, but they are a mystery.
Tweet “Calvinists will redefine neither divine election nor human freedom to make them fit a more rational system. ”
This is one of the mistakes I believe the Arminian system of conditional election/predestination makes. There is no need to solve all tensions, especially when the solution comes at the expense of one’s interpretive integrity.
The Mystery of Divine Election
There are many tensions in Scripture. There are many things that, while not formally irrational, just don’t make sense. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and creation out of nothing all fit this category. All of these are beyond our ability to comprehend. Once we smush them into a rational box and tell ourselves we have figured them out, we have entered into hererodoxy (I do not believe the Arminian view is heretical in the proper sense).
The issue of human freedom and unconditional election is in the same apophatic domain. We can’t make sense out of them and once we do, we have entered into error. There are many things God reveals that confuse us and baffle our thinking. They seem irrational. Yet we find God saying, “Chill. Just trust me. I’ve got this under control. While I have revealed a lot and I know you have a lot of questions, this is a test of trust. I love everyone but I did not elect everyone. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Will you trust me or will you redefine things?”
Book Recommendation: For Calvinism
Putting it all Together
God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction. We may not know how to reconcile these two issues, but that does not mean God does not know how. Their co-existence does not take away from their collective truthfulness.
Tweet “God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction.”
I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of understanding and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to abide for the sake of Biblical fidelity.
As I said before, I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human understanding. I think it is a good illustration of how West meets East. Revelation meets mystery. Cataphatic theology meets apophatic theology. While Calvinism is not formally irrational, it is emotionally irrational. I get that. But I think we need to take both pills.
Now, I must admit. I am confused as to why most of the “progressive” Evangelicals I know are more attracted to the rationalistic approach of the Arminians than the mystery-filled approach of the Calvinists. While Calvinism is not irrational in the former sense, it does cause tension as it recognize God’s ineffibility in the doctrine of election.
Let the assault begin . . .
Course Recommendation: The Theology Program Soteriology
502 replies to "The Irrationality of Calvinism"
CMP: Regarding the 5 proposed mysteries, i would draw some distinctions. If in using reason we encounter mysteries, we have some options:
a. withhold judgment (“i don’t know”) – genuine mystery
b. make a conclusion using reason, claim it does not need to be understood using reason, then try to defend this using reason (self-contradictory, it seems to me) – “divine mystery”
c. Reject certain options, like supernaturalism for instance, then make an inference to the best explanation (probably begging the question) – reject mystery
So, with respect to the mysteries you proposed:
1. A logical contradiction (but one which I don’t think the Bible teaches).
2. The “mystery” here is only in how it “works”, but that is the case with any miracle – but miracles aren’t necessarily illogical.
3. Uncertain of what this means, but suspect it’s circular (are you claiming the scriptures teaches its “duality”?)
4. I suspect this is similar to #2
5. Depending on how they are defined, these both cannot be true. they can be defined so that they are “compatible”, but generally this just ends up with a concept of “free will” that isn’t how people (or, apparently, the Bible) normally conceive of it.
So, tentatively, i would suspect that 1 & 3 are probably “divine mysteries”. i would claim that 2 & 4 are genuine mysteries in that we simply don’t know how they work, but reason does not necessarily dictate disbelieving such concepts. I would claim that 5 may not actually be a “mystery”, depending on how we define our terms. Based on common notions, however, I would claim that believing in both God’s sovereignty and human freedom are logically contradictory – so this commonly becomes a “divine mystery”.
Recently, I wrote an article outlining common mistakes those in the Calvinist camp can make, particularly in the area of erasing tensions.. What I enjoy about this blog post is its frankness, and also interesting spin on Arminianism and Calvinism. Honestly, I never thought of Calvinism as the more tension-embracing system, even though I myself am a “Calvinist.” Usually, the “resolved” tensions of semi-pelagianism in Evangelical Christianity today is presented as the more “balanced” and equal system. Thanks for your post! If anyone wants to read my post about “True Calvinism,” check out this link: http://thepresenceofgod.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/true-calvinism-what-does-this-mean/
JB Chappell,
You can taste and feel the bread and the wine. You can feel the water. In these real, earthly elements God has decided to make Himself present for us. To act for us, to be there, for us.
In these earthen vessels (along with the preached Word that is done …to us) God is doing His good and gracious will for us.
The Lord never commanded that we do anything, where He would not be there in it, for us. Giving what He commands.
Water…bread and wine.
Earthly elements that we can see, touch, taste, smell, ingest.
Given to us. Done to us. To make Jesus’ cross concrete in our lives.
I think you are making a few gross assumptions here. The article implies that Arminians are trying to rationalize and Calvinists are not. Frankly, in the common arguments, I find the opposite to be true.
But rationality is part of the process of understanding. It is making something intelligible, and both Calvinists and Arminians work towards a rational understanding of God’s Word. In truth, there are always tensions in belief systems and a few here have mentioned some of them (creation ex nihilo, etc.). I always tell people that a bit of mystery is a given in any theology that claims revelation. We simply do not need to know everything and cannot know everything. I think a bit of mystery is good for the soul.
But I am not a Calvinist. I consider myself an exegete. The focus of my post-graduate education was in Biblical studies, not systematic theology, although I studied it and taught it. I am not a Calvinist because my exegetical methodology differs from their hermeneutic. I personally think Calvinism is based on a non-contextual framework that lack intellectual rigor.
But I am not suggesting that everyone who wears the label of “Calvinist” or adheres to the five points acts irresponsibly with Scripture. I truly appreciate much of the work of men like Thomas Schreiner and Douglas Moo, and I use Wallace’s Greek Grammar extensively. Oddly, I tend to agree with these men very often in points of research. But I draw different conclusions than they do concerning some particulars of the text because I bring a set of information and factors to the text that they do not. That is going to be true in any discussion of the text.
What I am suggesting is that when people come to the text with different frameworks for understanding, then they will interpret the text within that understanding.
Perhaps the time has come to shed the old labels and presuppositions and do a serious discussion of what the text is really saying. For example, because God foreknows something – knows something before the writing of the text or the contemporary circumstances of the text – does that truly imply the author is speaking of a pre-temporal knowing, or is it a reference to a past event or promise? Note carefully my question – I am not suggesting God does not know pre-temporally. I asking what the text is actually saying.
For me, the proper starting place for interpretation is not Calvinism or Arminianism, but Second Temple Judaism.
Just some food for thought.
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth…” JPII, Fides et Ratio
There is one truth. If faith and reason are leading you in different directions (tearing the bird apart!) there is something wrong. Either your philosophy and/or logic is wrong, or your interpretation of revelation (like Biblical interpretation) is flawed.
But someone will say, “But God is so far above us! How could human reason understand him?” Then I say that yes, God is infinitely above us in all things, but revelation is not God’s personal diary, or his message to the angels. Divine Revelation is God revealing himself TO US. And we can all agree that God knows his audience. We know by reasoning. Revelation is full of wonders and marvels, and when we listen carefully to its echo, we may hear new harmonies and themes we never heard before. There are unknowns yet to discover, but faith and reason never contradict each other.
If faith and reason are two birds, and you’ve got a foot on each, and they begin flying apart, you’d better find a different ride to truth!
[…] Michael Patton writes about the Biblical fidelity Calivnism tries to uphold, while Arminianism forsakes Biblical integrity in order to reconcile two ideas: God’s […]
five great mysteries in the Scripture that we cannot resolve:
1. Creation ex nihilo
2. Hypostatic Union
3. Dual nature of Scripture
4. Trinity
5. Human Freedom/Responsibility and Divine sovereignty (unconditional election included)
Do you a agree that we cannot rationally understand the first four and that we have to punt to mystery?
Like JB Chappell, I am not sure that all of these are in the same category. And I do think that we can rationally examine these other “mysteries”. Now there may be some mystery because we can’t understand “the how” but the way the term mystery is being used here is not quite the same because they can still be shown to be logical. Maybe not acceptable to some, but still logical.
1. Most evidence points to a universe that had a start. When one allows for the supernatural then God is a plausible and logical candidate for creating. We may not be able to explain all of the physical/scientific reasons for how it happened but it is philosophically logical.
3. Assume you are talking about the idea of verbal plenary inspiration – the idea that fallible man could write infallible text. I am not sure what logical contradictions there are in this argument, though if we accept that prophets could verbally share what God revealed than writing it down is not too far a leap.
2/4. In these man is trying to describe God. God is undescribable. We should expect a great deal of mystery and difficulty describing Him. We do our best based on what is revealed by Him to us. However, though the explanations and definitions are difficult to fully reason through they are not necessarily logically invalid. In fact logic and reason are used to identify heretical views of God.
5. If God determines all things and is in control of all things, than logically man does not have the ability to choose otherwise (the common way to understand free will). If God determines/causes all things then logically God would be the cause/source of evil and bad things (vs just permitting them to be committed by agents with free will). Logically, God can both be sovereign and yet choose to give control to those He has created and permit them to act in ways He does not endorse. Nor does this require that God as sovereign could not still directly act on His creation in different ways to cause various events.
MikeB
Another point–if you are dangling your theology in irrationality, you must be sure you are distinguishing between irrationality and LIES. Saying, “Scripture says so here and here and here!” is no guarantee of truth, because heretics quote Scripture, too. And the Father of Lies also uses Scripture to tempt even Christ!
St. Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory:
Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture—through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of ….. and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old. (p. 64)
So, do you have an interpretation of Scripture that leads to an irrational truth, or do you have an interpretation of Scripture that is a falsehood? How are you distinguishing between the two and protecting your theology from lies?
It is interesting to see the Anout of effort there is on this post basically arguing “We can reason out everything about God’s revelation”. I would never say that we punt to mystery every time we think about God. I explicitly said that this is foolish and undermines the imago Dei. As well, if you read the post you see that I don’t really believe that ANYTHING about God and his revelation can be FORALLY irrational. However, those who want to deny the presence of mystery all together, looking God eye-to-eye need to rethink their understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. The cry of the man “Why does he still find fault” (a rational question trying to alleviate mystery) is and swerved by Paul by appealing only to mystery. We must often place our hands over our mouth. I think this is one of them.
CMP
I think that is the point most of the comments are making – God and His revelation are formally rational. Not that there is no mystery or that there are not things that God has not revealed.
The more I study the tenets of Calvinism regarding #5, I see them as logically irrational or at least leading to logical conclusions that are not supported in Scriptures, rather than just mysterious.
In Christ,
MikeB
@theoldadam: We must always seek to deal of course with Holy Scripture, itself. And here of course too both Luther and Calvin are not infallible! Note, I am always Luther friendly! But, again we must grapple with the Text itself, as I noted with 2 Cor. 13: 5, so I quote it literally:
“Test yourselves if you are in the faith, prove yourselves, or do you not realize yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless you are unapproved.”
Here of course the Sacraments are somewhat involved (but not spoken, but assumed), but there is more here than just this, are WE living in the faith? And finally does Jesus Christ, Himself, live within us, who confess Christ? This will always be a most central question!
*Note in this Text, how “yourselves” is pressed here! To use the philosophical, here is the I/Thou relationship, the existential: of God & us! And here I think, at least to my mind, both Luther and Calvin would agree, “theologically”. But that is of course secondary. But yes, faith.. but faith that can be “examined”, at least somewhat within ourselves, to show forth Christ Himself! And the so-called Christian can never really escape this! And I am quite aware that this is problematic for “Lutheran” theology! But, it should the same for any so-called biblical theology! 🙂
*be the same
@Michael: Note, I pressed the I/Thou, how can we escape the “existential”, the ground of our very being? It is here “within” that faith itself is an objectivity, even ‘In Christ’! – Even as sinful beings!
Of course theologically the “ordo salutis” must be seen, and here “regeneration” is God’s first work, as Calvin noted. But then too for Lutherans, this “ordo” is different. This so-called “sorting out” is never uniform really, even Luther from time to time, found it necessary to emphasize the demarkation lines between the three articles of the faith (W.A. XVIII. 203. 27 ff.), and to insist , upon the distinction between the merit of Christ and its “distribution” by the Holy Spirit.
CMP, I think you’re (unintentionally) caricaturing those who are emphasizing reason. I don’t see anyone claiming that everything can be reasoned out. I, for one, claimed exactly the opposite: there are genuine mysteries (things we do not know). That is a different claim then the one you are proposing, however: that we are obligated to believe irrational things.
Such a claim rests on (to me) an uncomfortable confidence in the processes that leads to such a conclusion. What is more probable: that a reasoning process that leads to an illogical conclusion is flawed, or not?
Hey Michael, I’m a Calvy and I think I can answer some of these questions of yours.
You say “However, the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s election to make it fit. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. This creates a problem.”
Response: Not necessarily, because it depends on how you are defining “free will.” If you are defining it as,” man chooses according to his strongest desire.” Then I think it fits perfectly. Man will only choose to sin, he will never choose God, once God changes this persons heart, then he will choose him.
Matt: “It creates great tension. For the Calvinist, this tension cannot be solved and should not be solved. So how does the Calvinist live with this? How does the Calvinist answer the Why? question?—Why does God choose some and not others? Why does he still find fault?—”
Response: I’m convinced that the reason why God chooses some and not others is that he wants to show both his wrath and his mercy. For those he condemns, he is demonstrating his wrath, for those he saves, he is demonstrating his mercy.
Matt: What is the Calvinist answer to the How? question?—How can there be true freedom when God is the one sovereignly in charge of election?—We have no answer.”
Response: because natural man is in bondage. So his freedom is actually bound. So now he only chooses rebellion. So he is totally free to choose to rebel, he can’t nor does he want to choose God. It’s not until God changes his heart that he then chooses God. Man always chooses according to his strongest desire.
“That is a different claim then the one you are proposing, however: that we are obligated to believe irrational things.”
I understand that it is hard to always read the entire post. I also understand the provocation of the title. But the post explains that there can never be formal irrationality, only mystery. I am not asking people to believe in things that are really contrary to logic. These things, the Trinity, Calvinism, Hypostatic Union, creation ex nihilism, dual nature of Scripture are transrational.
True logic and reason are a part of Gods character. He can no more violate it than he can violate his righteousness.
Please read carefully folks.
Amen Michael! Reason and Mystery are both central in true Calvinism, and most certainly short thru in the NT!
*shot
CMP, sometimes people just misunderstand each other. In any case, you’ll have to explain how there is any practical difference between “irrational” and “transrational”. Seems to me that they would probably look the same, and you seem to concede as much, claiming that often they “seem” irrational. Please explain how creation ex nihilo does not violate the logical axiom “out of nothing, nothing comes.” Perhaps you wouldn’t claim that we are obligated to believe this, but your inclusion of it with the others on your list seemed to imply as much. If that is unwarranted, I offer my sincere apologies.
But it is notable to me that you are not justifying the notion that revelation trumps reason (I trust that isn’t misconstruing anything?). To me, the idea that we need to embrace mystery depends on this.
I may be accused of trying to have it all figured out and “looking God in eye to eye,” but I don’t believe I am doing that ;P
1 Timothy 2:4 is not its own little book of the Bible that comes after Revelation. It has a context. The context clear states that God desires all men (without distinction, not without exception) to be saved. It teaches that even if you are treated harshly by rulers and kings such as hitler, NERO, and others, we should pray for all men, because God desires all men to be saved. All types of men. The context gives understanding to the text. Just a thought that most people probably have heard already.
Michael,
Let’s say a child asks you a question they cannot possibly understand. Would you reprimand them for asking? I doubt it. Likewise, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say Paul smacks down someone for asking a reasonable question. Rather the Romans 9:19 question shows a moral problem with the asker. The question challenges God – not so much His strength, but His authority (as many commentaries attest). Also, after the reprimand, Paul gives a good answer. So where’s the mystery?
God be with you,
Dan
Perhaps we might use the word “transcendence/transcendent” here besides mystery. And transrational fits perhaps too back here?
Michael, you wrote –
“It is interesting to see the [amount] of effort there is on this post basically arguing “We can reason out everything about God’s revelation”. I would never say that we punt to mystery every time we think about God. I explicitly said that this is foolish and undermines the imago Dei. As well, if you read the post you see that I don’t really believe that ANYTHING about God and his revelation can be FORALLY irrational. However, those who want to deny the presence of mystery all together, looking God eye-to-eye need to rethink their understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. The cry of the man “Why does he still find fault” (a rational question trying to alleviate mystery) is and swerved by Paul by appealing only to mystery. We must often place our hands over our mouth. I think this is one of them.”
First, let me suggest that all reasoning is fallible because we simply do not have all the information. Therefore, we can only “reason” with the information provided, which includes revelation from God in the form of the text, his acts in history, and the person of Jesus. We also must acknowledge that our toolkits for reasoning is often biased and inadequate. That is seen in much of our intellectual pursuits both within and outside of theological circles.
You have associated the Romans 9 question of God finding fault with the Arminian position. Yet that is patently a false assumption. No Arminian Christian would question the integrity of God. I suspect that you raise the question because it is implicit in your position on the text. But that does not mean that the question cannot be raised in other context, such as whether the covenant with Israel precludes God’s judgment. This is the case with Jeremiah’s argument against the kingdom of Judah (Jeremiah 7:1-15). This is also an echo of Ezekiel 18:25 and 18:28, where God’s ways are (rhetorically) considered unfair because he forgives the man who repents, in spite of his sin, but condemns the righteous man who sins. (See Ezekiel 18:20-32.)
Paul is very explicit about the impartiality of God in Romans 2. God will judge both those who are within and outside the Law impartially in the basis of what they do (2:6-11; 9:14). So the argument in Romans 9 must depend in the impartiality and integrity of God – which is really what is at stake here.
To associate this question with the Arminian position is simply improper, unless you are contending, as Jeremiah’s opponents did, that God is covenantally required to sustain Israel in spite of her sin.
@Kelton
I don’t know of any one who defines free will as “man chooses according to his strongest desire.” That alone does not make it wrong, but it should give you pause. If man ALWAYS chooses according to anything, this choice is determined. You seem to concede this in stating later that we are in “bondage” (can you be slave and still be free?). Most (not all) would agree that if our actions are determined, they are not free. And if they are not free, it becomes difficult to justify that we are responsible for decisions. This is not a problem for those who want to emphasize God’s sovereignty. It is a problem if you want to exclude sin/evil from God’s sovereignty.
You also write: “I’m convinced that the reason why God chooses some and not others is that he wants to show both his wrath and his mercy.” Why does this seem like a satisfactory explanation to you? If I have two dogs, but I’m nice to one, but beat the other; i’m fairly certain no on will think it’s OK that I simply want to demonstrate my wrath.
We are in bondage to sin, and cannot free ourselves.
We don’t stop sinning because we don’t want to stop. We want what we want. We become little gods unto ourselves.
But the Lord has decided that He wants us, anyway.
Here’s the Lutheran party line:
If we come to faith in Christ, God gets ALL the credit.
If we do not come to faith, we get ALL the blame.
That is biblical. It may not be quite so rational. But it surely is biblical.
Michael –
I keep coming back to your post to contemplate the struggle you are presenting. You are an affirmed Calvinist, yet you see the inconsistency of your own system. An appeal to mystery may temporarily solve the problem, but I can see you are not satisfied with that. You are quite correct that what is unknown is reserved for God, but we are not dealing with what is unknown. When we do theology – Biblical theology – we are dealing with what is revealed, even if our knowledge of what is revealed is limited.
One of the fundamental problems I see you introducing is the conflict between human freedom and divine sovereignty. You say that as a Calvinist you want to let the tension stand. That is all well and good, but I do not think that is even an issue for many non-Calvinists. For us, we are not concerned overly much with human freedom. Many of us acknowledge that to be a given – just as you do, since you acknowledge the tension. We all recognize that human freedom is limited by our environment, which is multifaceted with a myriad of influences. That is the way life is. But we also recognize that we can choose between alternatives and are held responsible for those choices.
We also recognize that God is sovereign and can do what he wants to do. That is obvious, since he is God. But what is at stake here is not whether human choice somehow triumphs over the sovereignty of God. What is at stake is the character of God, as defined in the Scriptures, is violated by a philosophy of determinism that is equated with what Calvinists call “divine sovereignty.”
You see, the problem you are struggling with is an internal problem within your own system. It is not a problem introduced by Arminians or other non-Calvinists. And the problem will persist because even if there were no Arminians to contend against, the problem is paradigmatic to Calvinism, and even within your own ranks, you see the tension between the Scriptures.
As I have suggested in the past, perhaps you need to shed your preconceptions and embrace the text for itself. You do not have to appeal to mystery to do this. That is only necessary if you want to support a tottering paradigm.
I have often found that when I cannot resolve a conflict in theology, I am asking the wrong question. Perhaps you need to consider that your Calvinism has been asking the wrong question all along.
theoldadam: I would agree that even the redeemed still have the old sin nature, (Rom. 7: 13-25 ; 8: 7 / Gal.5:17). But as St. Paul writes of the redeemed ‘In Christ’: “So then, those who are the flesh cannot please God. But you [the Redeemed Christian] are not in the flesh [though we still have the sin nature within] but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ [within] he is not his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you. He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your moral bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” (Rom. 8:8-11)
The whole reality here, is that our redemptive “Sonship” (Adoption) makes us also, in Sonship, alive through the Spirit, which is most certainly the indwelling Christ within! But still have something of a dual nature, i.e. the sin nature, but he has been defeated and buried In Christ, this is the reality of our Baptism in Christ, (Rom. 6). He of course he can still raise his ugly head, but only as the Law of God is pressed. This of course can and must happen, when the Christian steps into sin, as the Law of God announces! But of course both positionally and practically the Christian is to live and walk in grace.
Both Justfication and Sanctification, are “alive” for the Christian, 1 Cor. 1:2 ; 6: 11!
Sorry “theoldadam”, I was busy and on the fly when I typed the above! But, I hope you get the basic bilbical approach? WE are close here, but Law/Gopsel always stands before the Christian! And by “faith” we simply MUST live the Christian life! No excuses of “the flesh”! But of course not one wiff of perfection however. WE are always sinful and sinners in this life!
And btw, since this is a post about Calvinism, the true Elect Christian best BE persevering in his salvation! (Jude 1: 1 ; 24-25)
*biblical
(Busy morning! Many people asking about how to process GOD, in yesterday!)
@Greg: Amen to Van Til! # 29 Would that I could get more student and theological types to read him! – As too, his great student John Frame.
@Greg: If you have not read it? Try reading John Frame’s book: Cornelius Van Til, An Analysis of His Thought. Just a grand intro into one of the great 20th century’s Reformed Theologians!
Btw, you bet.. I am a Presupper! 😉 God’s Word is our only presupposition in truth and knowledge! The only lasting evidence and real evidential, itself!
“All Scripture is God-Breathed” (2 Tim. 3: 16)
Btw, this whole discussion about the so-called Irrationality of Calvinism, I have not yet seen the word or concept of “Antithesis”! If one has read Tertullian, who of course pre-dates Calvinism, one can surely see it is his thinking! And later too, our Cornelius Van Til. Just an important point I think.
@Greg
It seems to me that you’ve missed the point in your reply to Bob. It doesn’t matter where one “starts”, if by that you mean chronologically. Bob made it clear that what isn’t an issue is whether human freedom can “triumph” over God’s sovereignty. What is at stake is God’s goodness.
If by “God is good”, you include the notion that He determines our actions, but then holds us responsible for them, but then only punishes some of us for them… well, that simply doesn’t jive with any understanding we have of “goodness”. Some might say: no problem, God is good by definition – but that, of course, becomes tautological and “good” is meaningless. Others might simply add to the “tension” or “mystery” and say that the Bible says God is good – end of story. But that, too, becomes meaningless – because then we’re basically we’re saying that whatever God does is “good”, because the Bible says so.
Faith does not give us “access” to the unseen, at least not in any reliable way. It is the “assurance” (confidence/trust) about what we do not see. Which isn’t to say that it is merely intellectual assent either, as James makes clear. The classic example is the chair: if I look at it, I may *believe* that it can support my weight, but I’m not exercising faith until I actually sit in it. Faith does not provide me any special access into the nature of the chair – it could still break, after all. I could be wrong. Likewise, there are numerous Christians exercising “faith” about all sorts of things, and they are often fantastically, tragically wrong.
Finally, it is no problem to acknowledge that we have no place telling God what to do, or that we obviously limited in our knowledge. Of course, God can do whatever He wants. He is God; we are not. Again, however, this misses the point. What’s at stake is God’s goodness, at least in any sense that we understand it. One can say that “God is good”, but if by that you mean something other than what people mean by it, then why on earth are you using the term?
Another “tension” to consider (although not sure yet if it rises to the level of “mystery”): although the Bible is clear that we are to recognize our place, or not attempt to “look God in the eye”, it seems to me that there definite instances of men seemingly rising above their station, and God doesn’t bat an eye. For instance, Jacob wrestles with God and is rewarded. Abraham negotiates with God, and isn’t chastised for it. Gideon tests God by asking for signs. Etc.
This isn’t a fully-developed thesis, obviously, just something that came to mind as some were emphasizing our “place” as humble human folk.
Regarding Van Til and presuppositional apologetics, it is true that human reason “reduces” to tautology, if by that we mean that ultimately reason is self-referential. I cannot demonstrate why reason/logic “works” without using reason/logic. It isn’t clear to me why this should mean that revelation “trumps” reason, however.
Consider: either (1) revelation trumps reason because reason tells us this is so, or (2) it does because revelation tells us this is so (if this is a false dichotomy, please do point out other options). (1) is obviously self-defeating, if reason was necessary to demonstrate such a claim, then obviously it is still logically “prior” to revelation. And if (2) is true, then obviously revelation is tautological in the same way that reason is, so at the very least reason and revelation are on the same level.
And this isn’t even beginning to address the objection that presuppositional apologetics is basically an exercise in begging the question.
@theoldadam, re: the Lutheran axiom
“If we come to faith in Christ, God gets ALL the credit.
If we do not come to faith, we get ALL the blame.
That is biblical. It may not be quite so rational. But it surely is biblical.”
There isn’t necessarily anything irrational here. No logical contradiction. Rather, I would say that it appears immoral, if the phrase “we come to” is used consistently. If, in coming to faith, you mean that this is because of God determining such, then of course God should receive all the credit. But, if in NOT coming to faith, you mean that God determines such, then it isn’t clear at all why people should receive blame.
JB,
Yes, God draws us, gives us faith. His credit.
Or, we reject Him. Our blame.
We don’t say that God desires that some do not come to Him. Or that He predestines some to hell…because the Bible does not say that.
@JPChappell
JP wrote:I don’t know of any one who defines free will as “man chooses according to his strongest desire.”
Response: It’s called capatibalism. I think I may have spelled it wrong, but I believe that’s how Calvin himself defined it. And I think that’s what scripture portrays the will as.
JP:That alone does not make it wrong, but it should give you pause. If man ALWAYS chooses according to anything, this choice is determined.
Response: It’s no different than say if you went to the store and picked your favorite ice cream. Even though it’s surrounded by other flavors, you’re always going to pick your favorite ice cream. You choose according to your strongest desire. If it’s cookies and cream, you’re always going to pick cookies and cream. With natural man, he’s always going to choose sin.
JP:You seem to concede this in stating later that we are in “bondage” (can you be slave and still be free?). Most (not all) would agree that if our actions are determined, they are not free. And if they are not free, it becomes difficult to justify that we are responsible for decisions.
Response: Not at all, we are responsible for our actions because we are always going to sin. 100% of the time until we are redeemed. That’s a real choice, just like you choosing your favorite ice cream.
JP:This is not a problem for those who want to emphasize God’s sovereignty. It is a problem if you want to exclude sin/evil from God’s sovereignty.
Response: I don’t think so, because God restrains man’s evil until the intended moment and then either allows man to sin or not. Much like he did with Abemelech, God stopped him from sinning. God restrains man’s sin and then uses it to accomplish his purpose.
JP:You also write: “I’m convinced that the reason why God chooses some and not others is that he wants to show both his wrath and his mercy.” Why does this seem like a satisfactory explanation to you? If I have two dogs, but I’m nice to one, but beat the other; i’m fairly certain no on will think it’s OK that I simply want to demonstrate my wrath.
Response: How would you know what you are saved from? If God never showed you his wrath, how would you know what you are saved from?
@Kelton
Yes, God draws us, gives us faith. His credit.
There is no need to “draw us”, if God just gives people faith. And if He just gives people faith, then He isn’t to others. On what basis this is done is subject of much speculation, but surely you realize that this makes the claim that God desires all to be saved to be much more difficult to defend.
Or, we reject Him. Our blame.
So, either God gives us faith, or we reject Him. This dichotomy excludes the possibility that we can accept God. If we are *incapable* of such an act, on what basis could someone be judged/punished for it?
As for “double predestination”, I’m not sure who you are referring to when you say “we”, but I assume you are aware that there are many Christians who do, in fact, affirm that God predestines/foreordains some to Hell. http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=229 1 Peter 2:6-8 seems fairly clear on the matter.
Sorry, that last post was meant to be a response to theoldadam – not Kelton. My bad!
@Greg
I can understand that someone who has already fought these battles doesn’t necessarily feel like covering the same ground again. So no problem if you don’t feel like responding to my objections, you are obviously not obligated to do so. I did read your document, thanks for providing it. I found that you are very adept at poking holes in the arguments of those you engage, but while you make many assertions, you do not typically justify them
“Every last particle of human knowledge and experience is taken wholly on faith.”
What do you mean by “faith” here? Blind belief, based on no evidence whatsoever? Then I disagree entirely. If you mean that there is always an element of uncertainty to “knowledge”, then sure. I would not accept that “faith” must be blind.
“Tautology is NOT knowledge.”
It can be. “It is what it is” would be a justified, true belief. It is also completely trivial. Regardless, the fact that reason eventually becomes self-referential highlights the fact that our rational efforts are constrained. There is no shame in acknowledging that.
“Faith is the only escape.”
Escape from what? Self-reference? Obviously not, because eventually God becomes self-referential. We just have no issue with that, because we like God’s aseity. And, as I pointed out before, “revelation” is just as tautological.
Furthermore, you haven’t actually demonstrated how “faith” (however you define it) actually helps. There’s no reason to think that God would want us to use logic or math, specifically. So you have to add more assumptions (i.e. beg the question more). Eventually, the presuppositionalist moves the goal posts exactly where he/she desires them to be, which is in assuming the God of the Bible to be true. It is “taxi-cab” reasoning, plain and simple (you get off at your desired destination).
“2+2 IS 4. We live pragmatically pickled in that truth and yet have no objective reason to do so without faith.”
I have objective reasons to accept that 2+2=4. It works. When I use this equation, it gets results that are consistent with the world around me. I can make accurate predictions with it. Etc. These are objective reasons, even if they are inductive. Now, is it *possible* that 2+2=5, but that the wool has simply been pulled over my eyes? I suppose that’s possible, but I would argue that I have no objective reasons to believe so. So, while there is an element of uncertainty to my knowledge, it is nevertheless well-grounded.
How does “faith” (in your sense) help? How does inserting “God” into the equation make it more likely to be true, or better grounded (i.e. 2+2=4 IF “God”)? God is equally capable of pulling the wool over my eyes, is He not? And, Biblically speaking, we have reason to believe that He does this to people. So, there is an element of uncertainty in any worldview.
@Greg
Forgive me, I was unclear. By asking “on what basis”, I was referring to a *moral* basis. Clearly, God can do whatever He wants. So, He can send people to everlasting torment based on the fact that they like chocolate. But we would probably find this not very suitable for a Being that is supposedly just & omnibenevolent.
Furthermore, it should be obvious that Paul is not really answering my question:
v22: “What if….”
Asking “what if” is offering a possibility, not answering with any finality. It obviously betrays uncertainty. He is not providing revelation here, he is offering speculation.
Furthermore, does it not seem obvious that this possibility is unsatisfactory? Why would God need to unleash such wrath on some in order for His “vessels or mercy” to understand His glory? It seems obvious that in real life we do not necessarily come to know/understand someone’s more pleasant traits by contrasting them with the negative. I do not appreciate my wife’s beauty because I fear her anger (and I do!).
@Kelton (for real this time!)
Calvin did not believe in “free will”, and that is partly my point. Defining “free will” to eliminate the “free” is to simply deny it exists. By declaring that someone always chooses evil, one is simply defining the will, not describing how it is free.
Compatibilism does likewise. It doesn’t really describe a reality where determinism and free will coexist. Rather, it re-defines “free will” to be “NOT free will”. It does, however, acknowledge that we have real choices that are made… even if how we assess and decide are determined in advance. It is almost precisely like a computer makes decisions: based on a program. And if one’s idea of “free will” is closest to a computer analogy, I think you can see how it isn’t really free will.
In reality, we make fun of those people who would kick a computer because it wasn’t running properly. But that is essentially what God is doing when we say He punishes those who could never choose Him. But apparently some would justify this by saying, “yeah, but those computers who don’t get kicked are going to be REALLY impressed with the force of the kick, and are going to be REALLY appreciative of the fact that it didn’t happen to them.” What an awesome God…?
“…you’re always going to pick your favorite ice cream.”
My favorite is cookie dough. But I do not always pick cookie dough. My guess is that you would counter-claim by stating that wasn’t my greatest desire at the time. That this is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy should then be clear. There is no way to prove this false. But it should be clear the free will is precisely the idea that one can “rise above” one’s greatest desire – or at least somehow willfully adjust their desires.
“…we are responsible for our actions because we are always going to sin…. That’s a real choice, just like you choosing your favorite ice cream.”
That there are genuine alternatives does make something a “real choice”, that I am willing to concede. So, much like a computer, people are capable of executing assessment programs and making real choices, provided alternatives. But, again, it should be obvious that we would not hold a computer *morally* responsible for anything. We would blame the programmer. We do not prosecute computers for downloading child porn.
“…God restrains man’s evil until the intended moment and then either allows man to sin or not.” Much like he did with Abemelech, God stopped him from sinning. God restrains man’s sin and then uses it to accomplish his purpose.
This explains nothing. That God uses sin for His purposes speaks to the idea that God can make the best of bad situations. Not that He is perfectly good. Nor that He is just.
“If God never showed you his wrath, how would you know what you are saved from?”
How do you know now what you were “saved from”? Supposedly, you were not just “saved” from a sinful nature, but also from eternal damnation. Do you need to experience this in order to know that you were saved from it? No. You “know” that you were saved from this, because God tells you so. Why could it not be the same with sinful natures?
@Greg
You are still failing to define “faith”. There are people who have “faith” that they don’t need doctors, because God’s will is to heal their child. Then their child dies. Faith is not knowledge. People live in uncertainty, and that is why everyone also lives in faith. Faith is not an escape from uncertainty, it is living with it.
“And the reasons you gave for believing that 2+2=4 are themselves unverifiable statements of faith.”
It is not unverifiable that I have found 2+2=4 very useful. It is perfectly verifiable, and it is objective evidence. It is not, however, proof. That I am willing to concede. But that is different than what you are trying to claim.
“You have no objective basis on which to “prove” what 2 + = and 4 even are.”
Neither does the presuppositionalist! This is my whole point, you are wonderful at pointing out shortcomings of the epistemology of others. You do nothing to *demonstrate* how “faith” is somehow better. “You live in uncertainty, therefore you should believe in the God of the Bible” is a non sequitur.
“Your perception of the world is entirely subjective too. Perception is not certainly and uncertainty is not proof.”
Of course. But certainty is not required for “knowledge”.
“I say it IS the image of God in which we are all created.”
Clearly, you “know” much more about the “image of God” than anyone else to make such a claim.
@Greg
“ALL men are deserving of hell.”
If you say “deserve”, this implies there is a basis for it.
“The question is not, ‘on what basis does God send people to hell?'”
If the above is true, then obviously my question is not illegitimate.
“Once our sin and His holiness is understood the question becomes ‘WHY does he save ANYBODY?'”
Flipping the question around does not help. The fact that God chooses to save some, but not others begs the question (not in a logically fallacious way) of “why?” You concede as much. To answer “because He chooses to” is no answer at all. “Because He desires to show mercy” begs the question of why He wouldn’t simply do so for everyone.
Answering that with “because He also desires to show His wrath” is helpful, because now it brings His goodness into question. How is it “good” to kick a computer for running a program you set up in the first place?
Again, one can claim that God is good and we can’t question what He does, but then you’re using “good” in a meaningless way. One might as well call God “blue”.
“He would NEVER relegate something like this to a hypothetical.”
Know Paul so well, do you?
“It’s a rhetorical statement with the answer being assumed before it’s asked.”
No. The evidence you need comes before the “What if” statement. Paul says: ‘who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?’ It’s a fairly clear allusion to God’s reply to Job. Did God ever actually answer Job’s question?
No, He did not. In fact, the whole point of the story is that we DON’T know the answer to the question.
“What we experience with other humans is utterly inapplicable where God is concerned.”
This obviously isn’t true. It is at least analogous, even if imperfect. God became a man, after all. Otherwise, why ask us to “love” God? To “obey” Him? These are things we understand (to a certain extent) because of our relationship to others. Or am mistaken in that Jesus was fairly persistent in speaking in parables, drawing analogies with our relationship to God by using human relationships. Why would He do that, if it was “utterly inapplicable”? Clearly, there is something to learn about God from what He has put on this Earth.
@Greg
“A God that fits between your ears friend is created is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is one of your own creation in your own image.”
That God cannot be fully comprehended, I have no problem with. So, it is not the case that I expect God to “fit between my ears”.
Heck, I don’t even necessarily expect God to be rational. I think Descartes may have been onto something when He considered that if God truly transcends reason, is truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there are NO constraints on Him. The law of non-contradiction need not apply. God CAN square a circle. He CAN create a stone heavier than He can lift… and yet still be omnipotent.
But it is clear to me that if God operates as such, then not much can be said of Him. What does it mean for a Being to be “good”, when there are no constraints on this? It means nothing.
So, while I acknowledge that possibility, I also acknowledge value in the pursuit of God. That effort requires that I use the tools available to me. So I have to use reason, I don’t think anyone disputes that. I don’t think anyone disputes that it has its limits, either.
So the question is where to draw the line. For so many Christians, it’s in “what the Bible says”. As you said: “It’s Biblical”. Nuff said. Right…?
Wrong, because obviously interpretations change. Furthermore, if in interpreting the Bible one comes to a position that has logical contradictions or ideological tensions in it, then that *should* be a red flag. One should at least entertain the following notions:
1. that perhaps the source documents are flawed
2. That the process was flawed
3. That the conclusion is true, just illogical
4. That the conclusion is true, just mysterious
Where I depart ways from orthodoxy is in considering #1. For most Christians, this is a non-negotiable, even there is no good reason for it to be so. It is simply dogma.
Sorry to see that you are reluctant to continue commenting here. Please, don’t make that decision on my account. I have only commented on a few posts (although admittedly very actively on those posts. It should be clear that the majority of those you’d interact with are more orthodox Christians, which apparently is what you were expecting.
Greg, Thank you for responding. I have a class to teach this morning, but let me suggest a few things over a series of posts.
Let us make sure we get our facts straight. Paul does not have an Arminian opponent. His interlocutor is seen as the man under the law, a Jew or Jewish convert, depending on the particular scholar to whom you appeal. He is echoing a concern raised by Ezekiel. You need to understand that Paul is arguing from the Jewish scriptures here.
Second, I think I can tell you why 2 + 2 = 4. The symbols 2, +, =, and 4 are intelligible to me because they have commonly held definitions within our language. When I place two objects (represented by the symbol 2) next to two other objects, I can infer that they consistently present me with a quantity of objects represented by the symbol 4. That is the way language works. It is symbolic of reality. To suggest this is an unproved epistemological principle is to suggest language itself is a mystery and cannot be understood. That is not really reasonable. If that were the case, we could not be having this dialogue.
Concerning your first point, let me first state that is was CMP who raised the issue of free will as a tension with respect to the sovereignty of God. That means that even as a Calvinist, he acknowledges this underlying basis of human morality to some degree. That is why many Calvinists I encounter appeal to compatibilism rather than absolute determinism. The fact that the tension is there means that it is inherent in the Calvinist system of thought. To address it as mystery is simply the way CMP has chosen to explain it. It is not that I have begun with the free will of man as a given. It is the issue raised by CMP. What I have suggested is that moral choice is a given. We do make choices that make us responsible to God. God’s impartial judgment of those choice are clearly indicated in Romans 2.
Second, the only boundary to God’s sovereignty is his own righteousness. This is truly the issue at stake for Arminians and other non-Calvinists. We simply state that God will not act out of character. Why not? Because he is not capricious. We worship the God of Abraham, who counts faith as righteousness. If the character of God is revealed in scripture and history and Jesus Christ, then we have a pretty good basis for defining the character of God.
It seems to me that in your first point you are creating a philosophical entity called God with a series of assumed absolutes – which appear to be part of those mysteries that you and CMP admit cannot be known – and then move towards an interpretation of the text based on what you both say cannot be known. But what Paul is arguing for in Romans is the righteousness of God, his faithfulness to the covenant.
I will deal with your second point sometime later this afternoon.
Again, thank you for commenting.