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"
I would just like to interpret and comment on the picture at the top of the blog post. It seems as if this reference to the Matrix movie places libertarian human freedom and sovereign election in irreconcilable opposition. Yet this seems confused. Election is a a soteriological category about God’s loving choosing of a particular people in Christ to be his own for his glory’s sake. Human freedom and its primary negation–determinism–are metaphysical descriptions or explanations about the movement and interaction of human agents in the world. What’s being assumed, then, is that for sovereign election to be be possible, then it must be achieved by God through a deterministic metaphysic. But why assume this? Is it a biblical theological teaching?
I believe it is certainly incorrect to equate election with universal divine determinism since, exegetically, the Bible does not do so. At best, determinism may be a philosophical theological explanation of the biblical theological data about election, but these are not the same thing. One is the base from which we must work (biblical theology) which involves the exegesis and interpretation of the text. The other involves the conceptualisation of the biblical theological concepts in themselves and their corollaries (philosophical theology).
In my opinion, so many Calvinist writers who should know better conflate these two categories of biblical and philosophical theology without making explicit the distinction as I have just done. Whatever biblical theology of election you think there is, very good: you can argue that. But make sure you make clear that whatever philosophical theological add on you want to convey such as human freedom or universal divine causal determinism is indeed philosophical and not exegesis as such.
There has been nothing here that has really surmounted the full tents of Calvinism (which are somewhat Augustinian) themselves. As was Calvin, Augustinian, certainly, though of course his own breed. He liked to argue (in his mind) sometimes with Augustine’s theological ideas. But in the main, he held to a strong Augustinian construct. And yes, we cannot escape the philosophical aspects. This has been central in Christian Theology, and I would maintain this goes back to St. Paul’s Jewish Hellenistic and also Greco-Roman thought. Certainly the “how” of all this we will never fully understand, but again God’s Transcendence and Immanence are always the biblical tension.
Human freedom/responsibility are two sides to the same coin. They are both exegetically implied. Divine sovereign choice is, I believe, explicitly taught. Taking the two pills is, in theology, called compatablism. They are not contradictory, only mystery. That is the point of the article. No need, in this post, to get into a philosophical argument about freedom.
Most strong Calvinist apologists argue that the 5 points stand or fall together. Probably fair enough. The trouble is then, there are verses that are really hard to get around that teach falling away. So if you start off from that exegesis, and you accept the Calvinist argument that the 5 points stand and fall together, then Calvinism falls, by their own logic.
Of course, the Calvinist would argue perhaps that unconditional election is proven by Ro 9, and thus the other 5 points stand. Therein is the problem that sola scriptura can never resolve.
@JB Chappell: “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.”
I haven’t followed the debate in detail, but it sounds like someone agrees with my understanding of Ro 9. Paul is answering the question of why Gentiles are saved, and Jews are lost, even though they have the promises. Paul argues that God can do whatever he wants – yes, even save and damn people for no reason whatsoever. BUT, it looks hypothetical to me. “What IF God… etc etc”. But Paul’s final conclusion is not that God is arbitrary, only that he has the right to be, if he wants. Paul’s final conclusion is that it is by faith. (v30). I understand there are arguments against this interpretation, but I think the “What IF” language is quite powerful, and the conclusion of faith in v30 is important.
@Matt: John says, “they give lip service to ‘God desires all to be saved.’” You’re making Michael’s point. The reason you see it as lip service is because it doesn’t seem to fit with unconditional election. Calvinists believe both are true.
Not both in the sense of the ordinary meaning of the words. I could say Arminians believe in unconditional election given a broad enough brush to define that.
@Kurt “The Bible is clear that salvation is all of God and that damnation is all of man.”
It’s very difficult to define what “all of man” or “all of God” means. Ultimately, the whole universe is in some sense “all of God”. So this whole monergist vs synergist debate is ultimately ending in confusion of terminology. Supposedly Arminianism is synergist because faith comes from man. But where does man come from? From God, right? Calvinism is monergist because faith comes from God. But to whom does he give it? Man. And it all becomes a debate about the exact sequence and mechanisms these exchanges take place, which the bible doesn’t tell us about. So it all becomes a debate about concepts so abstract, at least as far as man’s understanding, that it is all doomed to fail.
A lot of theology is like that. We deal in abstractions that we only know vaguely about. We can’t put them under the microscope like in science and measure and analyse them.
It’s true that sovereign election and human freedom are not irreconcilable. But that graphic at the top of the page was, I think, simply alluding to the main ideologies discussed, which where Calvinism and Arminianism.
Calvinism obviously holds to a bit more than just Sovereign Election. “Total Depravity” would also seem to be a Calvinist tenet, depending on how it’s formulated, that speaks to human freedom. Irresistable Grace, Perseverance of the Saints… These are all doctrines which seem to be at odds with human freedom.
Now one can, of course, claim that TULIP tenets do not add up to “determinism”, and that is true. But Calvin himself defined “free will” according to a determinist ideology, and emphasizing God’s sovereignty as much as Calvinists do, it’s easy to see why “sovereignty” or “election” eventually get conflated with “determinism.
@Michael: Amen to #14, if we simply go off into scholastcism, we can end up like the Molinists with a philosophical libertarianism, and here historically are the socinians, etc., and our so-called modern process theolog’s. Aye, I will stick with the old Reformer’s myself! 😉
Btw, we simply should mention here the history of Protestant Scholastic Theology, this has itself been a theological process, but hopefully pressed along by both the desire for reform, and the need of the church and catholicity. This really was the spiritual essence of our top-tier Reformers! Myself, it is here I think myself of both a Theodore Beza and Francis Turretin. Personally I think it would be more helpful for today’s Reformed to reconnect with this early Reformational & Reformed Scholasticism. And again, myself, this goes before the TULIP.
I was wondering when someone might mention Molinism! I’m no scholasticist, but I think Molinism is underrated myself. If, when considering human freedom, God’s sovereignty, and God’s goodness, I think Arminianism balances God’s goodness & human freedom well, perhaps at the expense of some of God’s sovereignty. Calvinism accounts for sovereignty, but seems* to hold to human freedom only in non-moral situations (if at all), which would call into question God’s goodness.
Both perspectives obviously enjoy Biblical support, and obviously if Calvinism doesn’t seem to balance the three as well as Arminianism does, it is accepted because Calvinists believe their perspective is better supported by scripture. I only point this out, because I think many Arminians (Arminianists?) would still prefer their perspective, even with less scriptural support.
Molinism probably doesn’t enjoy much direct Biblical support, but neither do I know anything that would subvert it. It is more philosophical in nature, which might be why some don’t like it, or simply aren’t familiar with it. In any case, I think out of the three ideologies, it offers the best balance between the three concepts. I’m not convinced that it actually fully accounts for human freedom and probably still calls into question God’s goodness, but if it does sacrifices them in some way, it does so in a better way than Calvinism does, IMHO.
@Fr Robert: “ply should mention here the history of Protestant Scholastic Theology, this has itself been a theological process, but hopefully pressed along by both the desire for reform, and the need of the church and catholicity.”
Protestant scholasticism is in response to a need for catholicity? You’re going to have to explain that one. 🙂
“God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin”
I interpret this to say “god is the author of sin, but is not the author of sin”.
I don’t think any Calvinist can explain why this statement is not contradictory, except that they need it not to be, because that would not be a good look.
<>
Ditto. Basically, “God ordains all, EXCEPT sin… but “except” here is not to be thought of as an exception… and this is all to be thought of as a ‘mystery’, not a logical contradiction.”
@ JP Chapell
@Kelton (for real this time!)
Response: That’s funny.
JP: 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.
Response: Not really, we’re not denying it exist, we’re just defining it differently. And I think it’s the way scripture defines it. The will of man is bound by sin before regeneration. And man does actually choose, but he only chooses ungodly things, left to his own devices, natural man would never choose the things of God because he is unable to do so. (Rom 8:7)
=====================
JP: 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.
Response: Only if you define free will as libertarian free will, which is where I think you are headed. Capatibalism doesn’t argue that there is a computer programmer making the decisions for you, but rather that what man chooses and what God predestines are compatible in the sense that God restrains man’s choices and either allows him to accomplish them or restrain them. Perfect example is Gen 20:6 where God stops Abemelech from sinning against him. God overrode his free will so to speak and restrained his evil.
=========================
JP: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…?
Response: LOL, not really, those people who don’t choose God actually and genuinely hate God.(Romans 8:7) So all God does is leave them in their rebellion.
==============================
JP:“…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.
Response: No you missed the point there. The idea is that cookie doe is your favorite ice cream, and even though there are other options, you’re going to pick cookie doe because that is what you want. Now, if given the option to do evil or do the things of God, man is always going to pick evil. He is never going to choose the thing of God. (By the way the example wasn’t meant to fit every scenario, it’s just to give you an idea of how man’s will works.)
JP: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.
Response: Correct, but the difference is in this case is that man isn’t being programmed by God. Rather imagine a person lying dead in the street, man is spiritually dead to God (Eph 2) and can’t respond. Sure he’s active in his rebellion, but he is spiritually laying there. Unless God wakes him up, he is going to continue laying there.
===========================
JP: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.
Response: No read the passage, God stops him from doing what he wants to do. (God literally stops his so called free will). God restrains man’s evil until the appointed time.
JP: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?
Response: Because God wants to show you what you are saved from. (Rom 9:22)
@John: Indeed as a Reformed Anglican, the reality of the Reformation was simply the Catholic Church! Check out the Anglican Articles 1615, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. And I love Philip Schaff’s quote, “The Reformation is the legitimate offspring, the greatest act of the Catholic Church.” (The Principle of Protestantism, 1845)
@Fr Robert: Catholic in what sense? The Reformers did not have a church that believed the same things as the early church that coined the term catholic. Neither was their beliefs catholic in any other sense that I can think of. Maybe you think they were catholic on certain important issues, but catholic in general? I think not.
@John: Ya really might want to read the early Reformed Creeds, like the Anglican Articles 1615! I don’t have it before me at the moment, but it states God’s great doctrine contingency-cies!
Sadly John, your ignorance is showing! 😉 This forum is not the place, but you surely don’t know Reformational or Reformed history or doctrine/theology! What do you think the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles where/are? As Again the Anglican Articless 1615! Do some homework here mate! See also Luther;s Schmalkald Articles, 1536.
@Kelton “Natural man would never choose the things of God because he is unable to do so.” (Ro 8:7)
Something that bothers me about Calvinist exegesis is that it often treats scripture like a computer treats a computer program. i.e. in a highly literal technical way, not allowing us to recognise that over-literalness is not how we talk in real life. It’s kind of like a game I play with my kids sometimes, interpreting every statement with complete literalness, and making it a game.
In the case of for example, Ro 8:7, yes taken to its final literal end, it means there is no proper free will. However here is the sanity test I always apply: If I as a parent said it to my kids, would I be making a statement to destroy free will?
In this case, if my kids are going astray, and doing the wrong thing all the time, and I said to them “Your trouble is, that your mind is governed by the flesh, and so you can’t submit to God’s law”, I don’t think that would mean I am denying free will!!! I think it would mean I am exhorting them to stop having their mind governed by the flesh! I realise you can take it that way, but I don’t think it passes the everyday sanity test to use it as a proof that way. And lots of Calvinist arguments boil down to that.
@Fr Robert: Calling people ignorant, but not explaining why, is rather tiresome and condescending. Don’t do that. Pointing to the 39 articles doesn’t cut it. I point you to Ge1:1-Revelation as a retort.
Btw, the Spanish priest, Miguel Molinos whose book Guida Spirituale is regarded as one of the founding documents of Quietism, (later condemned in the RCC) His controversial book traced the so-called mystic path of perfection or total submission to God, thru annihilation of the human will. Many of his followers gave up the practice of vocal prayer and observance of the sacraments, and some became accused of immorality. In 1687 Molinos was arrested, tried, and condemned, and forced to recant, was imprisoned for the rest of his life.
@John: But your “historical” ignorance (not to mention your theological ignorance) is obvious, as to Reformational history and doctrine! I said “this” was not the forum! Sorry.
@fr Robert, if this is not the forum to discuss it, then it’s not the forum to accuse others of ignorance about it. Arrogance is not becoming. I admit to being ignorant of what obscurity you are alluding to, because I don’t have ESP, but I don’t admit ignorance of the 39 articles.
@Kelton
“Not really, we’re not denying it [free will] exist, we’re just defining it differently.”
I understand that is what you think. However, you must answer this question (successfully) in order to preserve “free will”: in what significant sense is man’s will “free”? Stating that that there are real options available to a person does nothing to demonstrate freedom.
“… left to his own devices, natural man would never choose the things of God because he is unable to do so. (Rom 8:7)”
Consider John’s reply to you as a start here. However, I’ll add to his objections. You are pointing to one scripture, but surely you are aware of the ridiculous number of examples of people doing “right” things in the Bible. If doing right things is only possible if God does it for us, then you have to consider that much of the OT and what Jesus said were simply useful fictions. I’m not sure that’s the road we want to go down. So perhaps we might consider that’s not the road Paul was going down either?
If “the mind governed by the flesh” is truly incapable of doing anything good without God, then it would seem as if the opposite would be true, no? Wouldn’t the mind governed by the Spirit be incapable of doing wrong? Yet that is obviously not what Paul is communicating, because he (and everyone else) is painfully aware that even the mind governed by the Spirit is capable of falling – which is why so much of what he writes is exhortation to do better.
Presumably, Paul is writing to those who should be governed by the Spirit (he is referring to them as “brothers and sisters”, after all). If a mind governed by the Spirit is incapable of doing wrong, why is he addressing them so? If their minds were governed by flesh, and their right-doing is beyond their control, and if Paul truly believed that, what would be the point in his exhortations? “Hey, you guys need to do a better job of having God do good things for you!” The no-free-will doctrine simply doesn’t make any sense here, when considering the rest of what Paul says. It only makes sense on a literal reading in isolation.
“Capatibalism doesn’t argue that there is a computer programmer making the decisions for you…”
Not quite, no. Compatibilism would say that YOU are the computer. You are operated by “software”, and given any specific input, a specific result will *always* output. There is no way to overcome hard-wiring. This is determinism, plain and simple. The only difference between compatibilism and hard-core determinism – the only concession that it makes – is that it actually allows for options. But having options does not make someone “free” if they can only choose them given certain conditions that are also out of their control.
“…man isn’t being programmed by God.”
Man WAS programmed by God – surely you concede this? So, according to you, the programming was changed. Changed by man? Surely we don’t have the power to change our own programming, because that smacks of (libertarian) free will. So, if the only thing we can say about the Fall is that Adam and Eve were presented with a genuine choice, but that choice was determined by factors beyond their control, who was responsible for those factors?
“ Rather imagine a person lying dead in the street, man is spiritually dead to God…”
Here’s a better analogy: imagine a street full of zombies, but otherwise physically functional (they can see, taste, feel, etc.). These zombies hate “Steve” because their hard-wiring was corrupted as the result of an experiment gone awry. Who conducted the experiment? “Steve” did. “Steve” now chooses to wake some up to come live with him in his beach estate. In order to do so, however, he has to drain the blood from his body, run it through a machine to gain certain properties, then return it. In the process, he actually dies, but then returns to life as most of the blood returns to his body. The blood that wasn’t is used as The Cure. The Cure is sufficient to save all the zombies, but “Steve” decides to burn most of them alive. Why? Because he wants to demonstrate to the others how awesome he is. Those who “Steve” has chosen then sing his praises.
If that doesn’t sound like Calvinism, I’d like to know why. If it does, I’d like to know why/if we’d consider “Steve” as “good”.
“God restrains man’s evil until the appointed time.”
I still don’t know how this demonstrates that God is just or good. It certainly doesn’t demonstrate free will. The fact that there is “an appointed time” for evil doesn’t strike you as a bit disturbing? It’s one thing to say that God can use evil for good, another to say that evil is part of God’s will.
“…God wants to show you what you are saved from. (Rom 9:22)”
This passage does not say that God wants to show us what we were saved from, only that God chooses to show His wrath because He *MIGHT* (“what if…”) have wanted to “make the riches of His glory known” to those who he had “prepared in advance” for glory. How is he making that known? By destroying everyone else, apparently.
I do get that Calvinists want to affirm that people are responsible for their own predicament. And so, if God saves us, that would seemingly make us appreciate Him all the more. I just don’t get why He can’t do that for everyone. The only reason He wouldn’t is if for some reason He wants those He saves to appreciate He didn’t send them to Hell. But, according to Calvinism, He never was going to send to Hell! So, that was not a fate they were saved from! The whole thing is just wildly inconsistent and/or arbitrary, if not logically contradictory. But it has Biblical support, so…
@ John
John: Something that bothers me about Calvinist exegesis is that it often treats scripture like a computer treats a computer program. i.e. in a highly literal technical way, not allowing us to recognise that over-literalness is not how we talk in real life. It’s kind of like a game I play with my kids sometimes, interpreting every statement with complete literalness, and making it a game.
Response: Hey John, well the problem is, that is what it actually says. I don’t think there is any other way to interpret that passage. Natural man cannot do God’s will.
================
John: In the case of for example, Ro 8:7, yes taken to its final literal end, it means there is no proper free will. However here is the sanity test I always apply: If I as a parent said it to my kids, would I be making a statement to destroy free will?
Response: Depends on how you define free will. It fits perfectly with a capatibalistic view of free will, not so much with the libertarian view. Man chooses to rebel against God, and loves his rebellion.
John: In this case, if my kids are going astray, and doing the wrong thing all the time, and I said to them “Your trouble is, that your mind is governed by the flesh, and so you can’t submit to God’s law”, I don’t think that would mean I am denying free will!!! I think it would mean I am exhorting them to stop having their mind governed by the flesh! I realise you can take it that way, but I don’t think it passes the everyday sanity test to use it as a proof that way. And lots of Calvinist arguments boil down to that.
Response: Well it’s not so much they are going astray here. The passage says they are hostile towards God. That hostility is active rebellion, a hatred towards God. You know the atheist who wants to ban all things dealing with the nativity type stuff (that’s a joke, but actually sort of true.) They don’t want God, if they could spit on him, they would.
@JP
JP: I understand that is what you think. However, you must answer this question (successfully) in order to preserve “free will”: in what significant sense is man’s will “free”? Stating that that there are real options available to a person does nothing to demonstrate freedom.
Response: Oh easy, man is free to choose whatever he wants. It’s just that he never wants the things of God.
————————————
JP:Consider John’s reply to you as a start here. However, I’ll add to his objections. You are pointing to one scripture, but surely you are aware of the ridiculous number of examples of people doing “right” things in the Bible. If doing right things is only possible if God does it for us, then you have to consider that much of the OT and what Jesus said were simply useful fictions. I’m not sure that’s the road we want to go down. So perhaps we might consider that’s not the road Paul was going down either?
Response: Not at all, people do right things but for the wrong reasons, they don’t mean to please God. Romans 8:7 tells us that man is unable to choose God or do the will of God and as a matter of fact, down right hate God. What happens is God doesn’t do it for us, he changes our hearts so now when we choose, we choose the things of God. Man choosing according to his strongest desire.
JP:If “the mind governed by the flesh” is truly incapable of doing anything good without God, then it would seem as if the opposite would be true, no? Wouldn’t the mind governed by the Spirit be incapable of doing wrong?
Response: Um, no it says the mind set on flesh is unable to submit to the law of God. In other words, man can’t choose God like so many want to believe.
JP:Yet that is obviously not what Paul is communicating, because he (and everyone else) is painfully aware that even the mind governed by the Spirit is capable of falling – which is why so much of what he writes is exhortation to do better.
Response: That’s not what is meant in this passage.
JP: Presumably, Paul is writing to those who should be governed by the Spirit (he is referring to them as “brothers and sisters”, after all). If a mind governed by the Spirit is incapable of doing wrong, why is he addressing them so? If their minds were governed by flesh, and their right-doing is beyond their control, and if Paul truly believed that, what would be the point in his exhortations? “Hey, you guys need to do a better job of having God do good things for you!” The no-free-will doctrine simply doesn’t make any sense here, when considering the rest of what Paul says. It only makes sense on a literal reading in isolation.
Response: No, I think you’re off topic on this one. What Paul is saying is man can’t do God’s will here, as a matter of fact, natural man is hostile towards God. Like I told John, the rebellion you see everyday in the media demonstrates such. They don’t want Christ to be in Christmas.
JP: Not quite, no. Compatibilism would say that YOU are the computer. You are operated by “software”, and given any specific input, a specific result will *always* output. There is no way to overcome hard-wiring. This is determinism, plain and simple. The only difference between compatibilism and hard-core determinism – the only concession that it makes – is that it actually allows for options. But having options does not make someone “free” if they can only choose them given certain conditions that are also out of their control.
Response: I think you’ve been reading anti calvinist arguments who’ve set up straw men. Not at all. God doesn’t program us, he operates through man’s will in order to bring about a desired outcome. That’s why they are compatible. Like in Isaiah 10:6-7. God sends the Assyrians against Israel, but then tells them that it was not their intent to do his will, even though they wanted to go against Israel.
So Assyria’s will was to destroy Israel for their own purpose, God’s will was to punish Israel for his own purpose. The outcome was Israel got punished, so what God predestined took place through the will of an unwilling vessel.
JP:Man WAS programmed by God – surely you concede this? So, according to you, the programming was changed. Changed by man? Surely we don’t have the power to change our own programming, because that smacks of (libertarian) free will. So, if the only thing we can say about the Fall is that Adam and Eve were presented with a genuine choice, but that choice was determined by factors beyond their control, who was responsible for those factors?
Response: Not sure what you mean by programmed. But I would argue that again the two are compatible. What Adam choose was compatible with what God predestined. Adam made a real choice, he really wanted the fruit. What I think in these situations is that God didn’t restrain Adam’s choice. He could of, as he does sometimes, but in order for their to be a Messiah coming later, he allowed Adam’s choice to take place.
JP:Here’s a better analogy: imagine a street full of zombies, but otherwise physically functional (they can see, taste, feel, etc.). These zombies hate “Steve” because their hard-wiring was corrupted as the result of an experiment gone awry. Who conducted the experiment? “Steve” did.
Response: Well it wouldn’t be an experiment gone awry because God predestined the fall.
JP:“Steve” now chooses to wake some up to come live with him in his beach estate. In order to do so, however, he has to drain the blood from his body, run it through a machine to gain certain properties, then return it.
Response: But in this case, the fact that God saved any is a miracle because he has the right not to save any.
JP: In the process, he actually dies, but then returns to life as most of the blood returns to his body. The blood that wasn’t is used as The Cure. The Cure is sufficient to save all the zombies, but “Steve” decides to burn most of them alive. Why? Because he wants to demonstrate to the others how awesome he is. Those who “Steve” has chosen then sing his praises.
If that doesn’t sound like Calvinism, I’d like to know why. If it does, I’d like to know why/if we’d consider “Steve” as “good”.
Response: Because of the fact that he didn’t have to save any. In a court of law, God would win any case against any human. The fact he choose any when he didn’t have too is mercy.
JP: I still don’t know how this demonstrates that God is just or good. It certainly doesn’t demonstrate free will. The fact that there is “an appointed time” for evil doesn’t strike you as a bit disturbing? It’s one thing to say that God can use evil for good, another to say that evil is part of God’s will.
Response: Using evil for God is saying that evil is a part of God’s will. God uses evil for his purposes as well. Look at the story of Joseph. God used the evil of his brothers to make him ruler over a nation, to form Israel, and later a Messiah was born through the nation.
JP:This passage does not say that God wants to show us what we were saved from, only that God chooses to show His wrath because He *MIGHT* (“what if…”) have wanted to “make the riches of His glory known” to those who he had “prepared in advance” for glory. How is he making that known? By destroying everyone else, apparently.
Response: Yeah, but notice it says they were prepared before hand. God wants to demonstrate both his wrath and mercy. But we’ll see both.
JP:I do get that Calvinists want to affirm that people are responsible for their own predicament. And so, if God saves us, that would seemingly make us appreciate Him all the more. I just don’t get why He can’t do that for everyone. The only reason He wouldn’t is if for some reason He wants those He saves to appreciate He didn’t send them to Hell. But, according to Calvinism, He never was going to send to Hell! So, that was not a fate they were saved from! The whole thing is just wildly inconsistent and/or arbitrary, if not logically contradictory. But it has Biblical support, so…
Response: Put it this way, those God doesn’t choose, don’t care. They hate him, they despise him, no love lost. The fact God saved some is a miracle because I sure as heck don’t deserve it. God wants to display both his grace and his mercy and when I’m in heaven and see his wrath that I escaped, I’ll appreciate it all the more.
@Kelton: “Hey John, well the problem is, that is what it actually says. I don’t think there is any other way to interpret that passage. Natural man cannot do God’s will.”
Well, if you insist on being so literalistic, it doesn’t say how you transition from being “natural” to spiritual. I think the Arminian says you can take that first step of faith, and from there acquire the Holy Spirit and so forth. The Calvinist says, nope, even taking that first baby step is part of God’s law, so therefore, we can’t do it. Perhaps that is technically true. But since the passage doesn’t explicitly tell us if we should take it that far, it raises the question of whether we should limit it in light of other passages that exhort us to faith as the first step towards a new holy life.
In other words, it is the same old story. Which theology you end up with depends on which verses you choose as central, and which thereby inform and colour your interpretation of other verses you consider less central.
And again, I do the kid test. If I said this to my son, I’d assume he understood me as exhorting him to change his mind, and apply his spirit to God, so that he could obey God’s law. He wouldn’t assume that I am saying to him “I know I’m talking to you, but don’t bother listening, because you can’t do anything about it, you are captive to your sinful nature!”. Of course not!!!! He would understand me to mean, repent! Change your mind! Then you’ll be able to discern the things of God and obey them.
@Kelton
“… man is free to choose whatever he wants. It’s just that he never wants the things of God.”
What you have is a libertarian definition of free will here! Yes, in this sense, man is truly free. However, this is not how you defined it earlier, saying that “man always chooses according to his greatest desire.” That is not the same!
We have to account for how desires form. The determinist/compatibilist actually does this better than the libertarian, IMHO. A determinist would say that our desires are formed by a combination of nature/nurture, but that this confluence of factors ultimately determines someone’s choice. In other words, if somehow you could guarantee two people shared the same genes and environment, they would make the same choices. Every time. If you don’t believe this, then you aren’t a determinist. If you aren’t a determinist, then you aren’t a “compatibilist” in the commonly-understood sense.
In any case, if you want to assert libertarian free will is compatible with divine sovereignty, you have a pickle. You’ve already stated that mankind is *incapable* of desiring God on his own, and that man *must* choose according to his greatest desire. So, how does this desire form? Can a person affect it by using their own willpower? It doesn’t seem like freedom if our desires form apart from our will, and then we are controlled by them.
“…people do right things but for the wrong reasons, they don’t mean to please God.”
So, when Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness for Him, he actually did this for the wrong reasons? And when David was a man after God’s own heart, he wasn’t actually trying to please God? C’mon man, you are re-interpreting the plain reading of the Bible in light of an uber-literalistic reading of ONE passage.
“What happens is God doesn’t do it for us, he changes our hearts so now when we choose, we choose the things of God. Man choosing according to his strongest desire.”
It doesn’t matter, the result is the same: we do not deserve the credit. We are not free in any sense of the term. That is fine if it’s true, but the implications for morality should be obvious. There is no reason to credit Abraham with righteousness if nothing He did was ultimately the result of his own doing. Likewise, there is no (just) reason to hold Adam & Eve morally culpable (much less everyone else!) if they choose according to their strongest desire, and their desires formed apart from their (free?) will.
“… it says the mind set on flesh is unable to submit to the law of God. In other words, man can’t choose God like so many want to believe.”
You are dodging the question. The point is, the opposite would seem to be the case for the mind governed by the Spirit, no? So, if it is impossible for the mind governed by the flash to submit to the law of God, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that it is impossible for the mind controlled by the Spirit to NOT choose the law of God. Yet Paul isn’t addressing them as such. Likewise, he doesn’t address unbelievers as if they are unable to respond. What can we conclude from this do you think?
“God doesn’t program us, he operates through man’s will in order to bring about a desired outcome.”
Again, you’re avoiding the questions I’ve asked. Where does the “will” come from, exactly? And God DID, in fact, “program” man & woman originally, no? He created our nature, and set up the environment (nurture). So, when Adam & Even went to choose, how is it that their greatest desire wasn’t to please God? Saying God simply operated through their will while trying to distance His role in creating it is awfully convenient. Unless He didn’t create it. Or unless He created it to operate independently. Which of those options do you find compatible with Calvinism, because you have to choose one. If you think their will was created to be independent, then certainly God can still operate through their will to achieve certain ends – but welcome to the Arminian or Molinist camp.
“Not sure what you mean by programmed.”
What isn’t to understand about this?
“But I would argue that again the two are compatible.”
Well, you can’t argue for compatibility unless you know what I mean, right? I think you know exactly what I mean, you just don’t want to concede that if Calvinism is true, we are all programmed to operate a certain way. Our choices are output that are determined by specific input, and if the input is the same, so too will the choices. This concept is not compatible with libertarian free will. It is not compatible with moral responsibility.
“Adam made a real choice, he really wanted the fruit.”
WHY did he want the fruit. This desire must have been greater than obeying God. But this desire must have arisen in him somehow. Either it is a part of his free will, in which case he bears the blame, or it is part of his nature/nurture, or a combination I suppose. But if his free will is simply to do what he most desires, the combo doesn’t help here. The critical question is this: if his desires form as part of his nature/nurture, then does that process DETERMINE his choice? You say “Yes” to this. So, then, Adam had a specific input that determined a specific output. That this output was a “choice” is not helpful. Computers make real choices too; no one considers them free. The only way around saying Adam was programmed is try to claim that randomness could somehow intervene, but then that obviously undermines sovereignty again.
“ … he allowed Adam’s choice to take place.”
A concept that is just as compatible with Arminianism. The question is whether the choice was freely made or not – and if so, in what significant sense.
“…the fact that God saved any is a miracle because he has the right not to save any.”
We generally acknowledge that there is a moral obligation to save those who are able to save. One can try to subvert this by saying that God has no moral obligations, and that may be true. But supposedly our moral intuitions come from God, yes? So if our moral intuitions conflict what we consider the nature of God to be, then either there is a significant problem with our moral intuition, or a problem with how we are considering God. Call me crazy, but I do not think the problem lies with considering it a moral obligation to save those who we can.
“In a court of law, God would win any case against any human. The fact he choose any when he didn’t have too is mercy.”
This is ridiculous. You aren’t really answering my question. I’m not disputing the fact that God shows those whom he spares mercy. I’m not even claiming that God is morally obligated to save any. I am claiming that, given such a scenario, there’s ample reason to consider such a person/being capricious/arbitrary, and precious little to support that they are “good” – much less *perfectly* good!
“Look at the story of Joseph. God used the evil of his brothers to make him ruler over a nation, to form Israel, and later a Messiah was born through the nation.”
Right, but from an Arminian perspective, the evil wasn’t part of God’s plan, even though He can still use it for Good. Thus it is much easier to contend that God actually is good. The Calvinist claims that God wants the evil, uses the evil. Much more difficult to claim that a being who wills for evil is good. But, at least He’s completely sovereign, right?
“Yeah, but notice it says they were prepared before hand. God wants to demonstrate both his wrath and mercy.”
Yes, I specifically pointed that part out. This doesn’t help your case! Saying He *might* have just wanted to demonstrate both his wrath and mercy doesn’t mean that He wants to show what He saves people from – because if sovereign election were true, then they were never in danger of His wrath in the first place!
“Put it this way, those God doesn’t choose, don’t care. They hate him, they despise him, no love lost. The fact God saved some is a miracle because I sure as heck don’t deserve it. God wants to display both his grace and his mercy and when I’m in heaven and see his wrath that I escaped, I’ll appreciate it all the more.”
That you don’t find this to be an absolutely disgusting sentiment is just mind-boggling to me.
That God saves some is a “miracle”, sure. But it would be like Jesus restoring a blind man’s vision in one eye, so that he can simply perceive light and motion. Or removing one lesion from a leper. Still a miracle? You bet. Would it make you think this is an awesome God? If you thought that was all He was capable of, then sure, because obviously that is still more than others are. But that isn’t what Calvinists affirm! No, Calvinists are ready to say that God is perfectly capable of saving everyone. He just chooses not to, because He wants to demonstrate His wrath. And that’s “good”, because it’ll make you feel better about not being one of those people – despite the fact that you never had a chance to be one of those people.
I’m not sure that’s even the biggest problem. The biggest problem may be that somehow looking at others suffering is not going to dampen your experience in eternity, but enrich it. Look at those suckers burn, sister, Hallelujah that’s not me! Praise God, isn’t it awesome, the way He burns some, and not others?! Most people come away from visions of suffering with appreciation they are not in that situation because they are simply trying to salvage what good they can from an awful situation. But not so here. No sir, because here there never was any danger of being in that predicament, because God had chosen you from the beginning. Here it is simply “good” to appreciate God’s wrath being inflicted upon others. You know, because they deserve it, being people that He made and all. Here, there is no “awful” situation, it is simply good to watch others burn. SMH
@Greg
“Oh no He ordains sin too. He rendered the fall of Adam immutably certain while not being in any culpable for it’s evil. He can do that ya know.”
No, I don’t know that. And neither do you. What I do know is that IF morality is something that is written on our hearts because it is something that emanates from God’s nature, then culpability is directly related to intention and responsibility. Now, you can try to claim that God writes this on our hearts ONLY for us, that none of it is binding on Him. But then we lose the connection that is also *reflective* of Him.
It also seems to me that you are conceding that the Confession is wrong. The Confession holds that God is not the “author” of sin, even though he ordains *everything*. So, there must be some significant difference between “author” and “ordain”. Yet you arequite clear that God very much wrote this story in advance, with sin being immutably certain. In what way, then, did God NOT write this story? How is He not the author?
In any case, I will grant that you can be consistent. Because if determinism is true (and in your perspective it obviously is), then morality is relative and/or arbitrary. You would, I assume, claim that whatever God commands is “good”, and we just have to like it. Sacrifice your firstborn? Do it. Save the virgin POW’s for yourselves? God said it, so it’s good. There is nothing inconsistent about that, I grant you that. Heck, it even has Biblical support.
“It is the most unfortunate of misconceptions to view the cross as having been ordained to remedy sin. I tell you nay. The fall was ordained so that there could a be a cross.”
This is just wordplay. Surely there was a reason for this? And surely this was related to a purpose for the cross. It isn’t as if the cross was meaningless.
“This is so utterly basic to my understanding of reality that it governs all else. This is called renewing your mind, having the mind of Christ and taking every thought to the obedience of Christ.”
Got it. Your understanding of reality = having the mind of Christ. Nothing problematic there. Moving on.
“A child does not know what his father knows, but he knows his father knows it.”
No, a child doesn’t. You’ve never seen a child give a parent the skeptical eyebrow? In fact, most times kids simply start asking more questions. And God forbid one of them not be consistent. Because they’ll notice. And that’s a good thing.
Of course, none of that is to say that kids don’t trust their parents. Of course they do… depending on the kid. And the parent. A parent who consistently utters nonsense is not going to get very far, and – yes – eventually the children will learn to stop asking questions. But not because of trust.
“That’s one of the freeing and beautiful things about the reformed faith. The gospel in other words.”
Gotcha. So when Jesus was preaching the “good news”, what He actually meant was TULIP. Yes, Jesus seemed to emphasize Romans 9 a lot.
“In your quest to help God out you have stripped His Word of it’s power.”
If I have done so, my only consolation is that I did not do so out of my own free will. It was my destiny, after all. That’s the Reformed faith! Good news everyone – most of you were doomed before you were born! But it’s OK, because your flaming carcass will serve as a wonderful, appreciative moment for a small minority of elect.
“It’s not my job to convince anybody. It’s my job to Tell them.”
BS. You’re job is to “make disciples”, according to Jesus. Last I checked, Paul seemed to be interested in persuasion. Last I checked, Jesus was interested in persuading Thomas. You are an ambassador for Christ. Ambassadors do dabble somewhat in the art of diplomacy and persuasion. That involves a lot more than just spewing hateful invective at those who disagree with you.
Faith may begin with hearing, and hearing with the Word of God – but that is just the beginning. My guess is even you think we should do more than quote random Bible verses at people, which technically would be consistent with that passage. But not the entirety of scripture.
C. Michael Patton, I have no idea what you mean by “They [responsibility and sovereignty/determinism] are not contradictory, only mystery.” What does it mean to be a mystery?
Greg – Concerning your second point in your post to me.
I do not see how I implied the question of Romans 9:19. In fact, I thought I had referenced Romans 2, with God’s impartiality in judgment, as being inherent in the argument of Romans 9-11. The question arises only if one has a sense of entitlement to God’s salvation – which is exactly what the Jews in Jeremiah’s time argued (via the temple). Paul seems to be framing a similar argument in Romans 9. Romans is a very detailed argument from Jewish scriptures. Of the 89 times Paul uses scripture in his writings, 59 of them are in Romans. The only other place the vocative “O Man” is used in Romans is Romans 2:1-3, where the reference is to the man who judges another in hypocrisy – doing what he condemns the other of doing. You have the same sense here, where the individual is judging God for his condemnation of those born into Israel but lacking faith. The God here is the same impartial judge of Romans 2.
If Israel does not have faith, then God has every right to judge them and to choose those of faith above another. That is the paradigm God has established with Abraham (Romans 4). This is seem quite clearly in Paul’s conclusion to Romans 9, which is found in Romans 9:30-33. Israel’s failure is not because of some election or lack of election on God’s part. They are elect (11:28). Israel’s failure is because they lacked faith. Gentiles who had faith in the Messiah are declared righteous – just like Abraham. One’s lineage is not relevant to whether one discovers the righteousness of God.
The potter reference goes back to both Isaiah and Jeremiah. (I often think Jeremiah is leveraging Isaiah’s metaphor of the potter.) Isaiah consistently uses the metaphor to describe God’s making and molding of Israel – not individuals. Jeremiah suggests a remolding of Israel on the basis of its disobedience to the covenant. But Jeremiah also suggests that Israel can be redeemed and remolded again if it repents.
My point is this. The “O Man” in both of these places is the interlocutor, who is representative of a particular position from within Judaism, a view which in this case, is claiming the right to God’s grace in terms of the covenant with Israel. But no one (particularly those without faith) has the right to God’s grace. Otherwise, it simply would not be grace at all. God is free to choose Gentiles or Jews and it is His criteria that counts, not ours. I think we can agree here. But the discussion does not end at verse 21 or 29. Paul draws an explicit conclusion we must acknowledge and accept. He does not conclude that Israel was not elect. He later explicitly states that they are, in spite of their unbelief. His conclusion is that they failed to obtain the righteousness of God because they strove in the wrong way. This, of course, excludes the remnant of Israel.
Perhaps you should consider that one can be elect, yet not saved. That is how the covenant with Israel operated. God chose them to be his people, but there was a criterion for blessings and wrath within the covenant.
Again, thank you for commenting.
Correction –
I wrote – ” Of the 89 times Paul uses scripture in his writings, 59 of them are in Romans.”
That should say “51 of them are in Romans.” I actually think that there are more allusions to the Jewish Scriptures that are commonly cited.
@ John: My point was “THIS” is not the forum for an ad hoc debate on the “history” of Calvinism, and especially the Anglican history & theology therein. Which you appear to be simply lacking in? I could have brought forth (quoted) the Anglican Articles 1615 (Archbishop Ussher), but I am sure Michael does not want me to press into this. Note, I brought forth much earlier the idea of the “Infralapsarian”, which is the majority of the Reformed Creeds. As the quote by the great theological historian Philip Schaff. I could have gone to the Mercersburg Theology (19th century), which was itself a Protestant effort and quest for a Reformed Catholicity. See the book by W. Bradford Littlejohn, with foreward by Peter Leithart, ‘The Mercersburg Theology and The Quest for Reformed Catholicity (Pickwick Pub. 2009).
Incidents like the recent shooting in Newtown put the inadequacies of Calvinism front and centre. According to Calvinism, before the universe was created God had already determined every event. God had determined that little kids would be shot multiple times by Lanza and die painfully and full of fear. However, it Calvinists allege that despite determining this event God is not morally responsible because he has interposed Lanza between himself and the morally evil actions of Lanza and the evil that the children’s deaths represent.
So Lanza is morally responsible even though there is no possibility whatsoever that he would do otherwise. I don’t buy that this is what God has revealed in his Word. It has been inevitable, as foreordained by God, for millions of years (or thousands if you’re Young Earther) that these specific children would die on that specific day in that specific manner at the hands of that specific killer. I don’t buy that God’s Word reveals that that he has that sort of nature.
I also don’t agree with Greg that we just throw up our hands and believe. If that were so, we’d have no apologetic to believers in the various religions or cults. Furthermore, that is not how God reveals himself. God reveals himself using language, using logic, using reason. And his Word indicates that we are to use these gifts of his in our attempts to understand and relate to him.
And nowhere in his Word does God indicate that irrationality is a criterion of the validity of his revelation or of a set of theological beliefs. And if that were true, then the Calvinist has no response to the Arminian. The Arminian just has to respond in kind, “our set of beliefs is more true because our belief entails a great deal of mystery–and even irrationality and contradiction from the Calvinist point of view.” Calvinists can’t allow for irrationality and then claim that Arminianism is false.
Finally, even though human free-will is not the crux of the issue for Arminians, it is important to note that the definition of free-will used by Calvinism bears no similarity or relationship to the definition used either by Arminians or ordinary average people around the world.
Btw John, I was not seeking to be “arrogant” as pointed! Again, this subject is in my place and genre somewhat as a classic Reformed Anglican. And I have been in this place for close to 35 years, and a regenerate Christian for over 40. So yeah, I am going to be “pointed”, and fervent! 😉
I should note, that in my close to 35 years as an Anglican, I have been an Anglo-Catholic also (6 years or so? I was raised Roman Catholic). And here I was in a group of Anglican and Orthodox dialogue, mostly clergy. I say this just to point out that I have had my EO contact and studies. Which as I have noted I am close to the Orthodoxy on the Trinity of God and Christology! I almost went to Orthodoxy several years back, but I realized it was more of a reaction against the liberal Anglicanism. And I just could note see their lack in the Pauline doctrine’s of both Imputation and Adoption.
Indeed we all come from somewhere!
@John I., Before we start attacking “Calvinism” here in general life and application, we had best understand it, historically and theologically, and it is simply varied! As I noted both the “Infralapsarian”, and God’s “contingencies”… see here the Anglican Article 1615. Also our modern R.C. Sproul has written on God’s contingencies.
@Articles
There is really no other theology that comes near to understanding our fallen and broken world, than an Augustinian Calvinism! This challenge is upon us! I think this is Michael’s desire with this article, and the “two pills”! Thanks again Michael! These are days and times of deep water!
According to the Westminster Confession of Faith given above these two assertions are made:
1. God causes (ordains) all that comes to pass
2. God is not the cause (author) of sin
The logical contradiction (aka tension/mystery) is clear. If #2 is true then #1 is logically false. God cannot logically cause all things and not cause all things.
JP: … in what significant sense is man’s will “free”? Stating that that there are real options available to a person does nothing to demonstrate freedom.
Kelton: Oh easy, man is free to choose whatever he wants. It’s just that he never wants the things of God.
and this:
Greg: In other words God had predetermined the movement of every last subatomic particle AND decision of men from eternity, including and ESPECIALLY as relates to the redemption and perdition of every individual by name, face and DNA.
@Kelton / @Greg
How can “man is free to choose whatever he wants” be true, unless whatever man wants = what God wants. Doesn’t God cause (ordain) all that comes to pass? At least as the first/primary cause if not the secondary cause?
@Kelton:
What happens is God doesn’t do it for us, he changes our hearts so now when we choose, we choose the things of God. Man choosing according to his strongest desire.
How is God changing our hearts (aka desires) so we choose what He wants us to choose not doing “violence to the will of the creatures”? Since prior to God changing the heart, that heart wanted nothing to do with God?
@Kelton
Read through Genesis 20 based on this interaction.
JP: 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.
Kelton: 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.
Kelton:… God stops Abemelech from sinning against him. God overrode his free will so to speak and restrained his evil.
Kelton: No read the passage, God stops him from doing what he wants to do. (God literally stops his so called free will). God restrains man’s evil until the appointed time.
Not sure how the Gen 20 passage is a clear case for determinism/compatibilism and man’s responsibility?
First this account (IMO) can be read as Abraham and Abimelech freely choosing as LFW agents throughout the narrative. I may be wrong about that, but what in the text requires me to adopt a compatibilist reading? And even if I adopt a compatibilist reading how does that require I infer that the agents are responsibile for determined actions?
If God ordains/determines/causes all things then I assume a reasonable description of this passage as a Calvinist would go something like this:
– God (as the primary cause) caused Abraham (thru secondary cause of fear) to tell Abimelech that Sarah was his sister. Abraham could not do otherwise.
– God (as the primary cause) caused Abimelech (thru secondary cause of attraction) to take Sarah. Abimelech could not do otherwise.
– God (as the primary cause) caused Abimelech (thru secondary cause of fear) to release Sarah. Again, Abimelech could not do otherwise.
However, if God does not cause (determine) all things but does sovereignly allow for LFW, then God allowed Abraham to choose between two options. Abraham could have chosen to trust that God would keep His promises in the Abrahamic covenant and tell Abimelech that Sarah was his wife. Instead Abraham chose out of fear to tell Abimelech that Sarah was his sister.
Then God acted to protect His overall plan of redemption because Abraham’s LFW choice directly affected God’s plan regarding how the nation of Israel would come to be and ultimately how the Messiah would be sent.
Abimelech could have chosen between two options. He could have kept Sarah, making him responsible for his death so that God’s plan would ultimately be protected. Or he could return Sarah, which Abimelech wisely chose and was allowed to live.
What am I missing?
@Fr. Robert
-“There is really no other theology that comes near to understanding our fallen and broken world, than an Augustinian Calvinism!”-
Perhaps you can elaborate on this? What is it about Calvinism that understands our world better than, say Arminianism or Molinism? Does Calvinism make more sense of events like those in Newtown, CT than do these other ideologies, and – if so – how?
@MikeB
-“What am I missing?”-
Easy: Romans 8-9! Don’t you know that, as a Christian, you’re supposed to interpret the rest of the Bible through Paul? And these two chapters in particular? 😉
@Bob (directed to Greg)
-“Perhaps you should consider that one can be elect, yet not saved. That is how the covenant with Israel operated. God chose them to be his people, but there was a criterion for blessings and wrath within the covenant.”-
OK, I saw your comment in my e-mail, but I don’t see it on the website. Which is a shame, because I thought it was a fantastic summary of Paul’s discussion here, thanks.
Interesting note that I’d add regarding whether or not it’s possible to be “elect” and not be “saved”: Jesus mentions the elect in just such a way in the Olivet Discourse.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
So is it possible that even the elect can be led astray? Seems to me that even Jesus left it as an open question. Just a thought. I know some (Calvinists) would interpret this as Jesus insisting that this ISN’T a possibility. Thus, there is an interesting pattern developing: when Paul and Jesus seem to crack open a door of possibility/uncertainty by using the word “if”, Calvinists insist on shutting it, because it simply *must* be a rhetorical device.
@Greg
-“Sinners don’t care nearly as much about what you know as they do about how you live. Even if they don’t consciously realize it.”-
Well, this may be one of the only things you said that I agree with, but it was well said! Agree 100%.
@JB Chappel: Of course this is my theological opinion, but Augustine with Calvin/Calvinism simply but profoundly sees the depth of sin in this thus broken, fallen world, and still within the life of the believer, also. The Judeo-Christian theology sees this reality most fully! This is one of first biblical presuppositions!
Historically we can see this with Augustine and Pelagius/Pelagianism, debate. Btw Pelagius was a Brit. And he believed human nature was capable of obedience and perfection. And of course Augustine knew this was not true, both by revelation and experience. And we can see Pelagius is still rather friendly received with the EO. Again the Pauline Doctrines surely seem closer to Augustine, noting too Augustine’s battle with the Donatists, etc. We should see and read Augustine’s great work: Causa Gratiae, in the end Augustine really thought that his fight with and against the Pelagians was the “Fundatissima fides”, ‘the most firmly established faith’. Here was, as later with Calvin, a cast-iron case! The causa graitae, the’case for grace’. This work btw was Augustine’s high-water mark in his literary career!
And in and with Calvin, we can see many of Augustine’s thoughts pressed in and near/with Scripture!
Sorry this is quick and rather short, but you can read between the lines surely. The battle is always within the doctrine/doctrines of Grace!
@JP Chappell
JP:What you have is a libertarian definition of free will here! Yes, in this sense, man is truly free. However, this is not how you defined it earlier, saying that “man always chooses according to his greatest desire.” That is not the same!
Response: Sure it is, man never desires God so man never chooses God.
JP: *Snip* In other words, if somehow you could guarantee two people shared the same genes and environment, they would make the same choices. Every time. If you don’t believe this, then you aren’t a determinist. If you aren’t a determinist, then you aren’t a “compatibilist” in the commonly-understood sense.
Response: I shortened it up a bit to stay within 1000 characters. By determinism I just simply mean that God predestines all events. I think your more thinking of materialism’s view of determinism here.
JP: In any case, if you want to assert libertarian free will is compatible with divine sovereignty, you have a pickle. You’ve already stated that mankind is *incapable* of desiring God on his own, and that man *must* choose according to his greatest desire. So, how does this desire form? Can a person affect it by using their own willpower? It doesn’t seem like freedom if our desires form apart from our will, and then we are controlled by them.
Response: Sure man can affect their desires by their own will. Say like if they are trying to lose weight or something and they use willpower to stop eating. But when it comes to sinning, man revels in sin and loves it. He doesn’t want to stop.
JP: So, when Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness for Him, he actually did this for the wrong reasons? And when David was a man after God’s own heart, he wasn’t actually trying to please God? C’mon man, you are re-interpreting the plain reading of the Bible in light of an uber-literalistic reading of ONE passage.
Response: Nope, God changed their hearts so that they now desired God. Man chooses according to his strongest desire, when God changes a man’s heart they now desire him.
JP: It doesn’t matter, the result is the same: we do not deserve the credit. We are not free in any sense of the term. That is fine if it’s true, but the implications for morality should be obvious. There is no reason to credit Abraham with righteousness if nothing He did was ultimately the result of his own doing.
Response: Sure it was, because Abraham chose according to his strongest desire, he chose God.
JP:Likewise, there is no (just) reason to hold Adam & Eve morally culpable (much less everyone else!) if they choose according to their strongest desire, and their desires formed apart from their (free?) will.
Response: Nope it’s chosen according to their will. Man’s will is bound by sin and as a result he freely chooses to sin.
JP: You are dodging the question. The point is, the opposite would seem to be the case for the mind governed by the Spirit, no?
Response: Well you misread the passage. It’s just talking about submitting to God’s law.
JP: So, if it is impossible for the mind governed by the flash to submit to the law of God, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that it is impossible for the mind controlled by the Spirit to NOT choose the law of God. Yet Paul isn’t addressing them as such. Likewise, he doesn’t address unbelievers as if they are unable to respond. What can we conclude from this do you think?
Response: Well sort of, when God draws you, you will submit to God’s law and never fall away.
JP: Again, you’re avoiding the questions I’ve asked. Where does the “will” come from, exactly? And God DID, in fact, “program” man & woman originally, no? He created our nature, and set up the environment (nurture). So, when Adam & Even went to choose, how is it that their greatest desire wasn’t to please God?
Response: Adam and Eve weren’t under total depravity, their will was different than ours is now.
JP: If you think their will was created to be independent, then certainly God can still operate through their will to achieve certain ends – but welcome to the Arminian or Molinist camp.
Response: No, I just don’t think their will was bound, ours is until God changes it.
JP: What isn’t to understand about this?
Response: Doesn’t compute, lol.
JP: . Our choices are output that are determined by specific input, and if the input is the same, so too will the choices. This concept is not compatible with libertarian free will. It is not compatible with moral responsibility.
Response: Sure it is, because men are actually making choices, just like when you pick your favorite ice cream, you really choose cookie doe.
JP: WHY did he want the fruit.
Response: Adam’s will is different than ours is. He was not bound by sin.
JP: A concept that is just as compatible with Arminianism. The question is whether the choice was freely made or not – and if so, in what significant sense.
Response: It’s after the fall that man’s will became bound. Not prior to it.
JP:Call me crazy, but I do not think the problem lies with considering it a moral obligation to save those who we can.
Response: Sure, but that’s because we don’t know who the elect are.
JP: I am claiming that, given such a scenario, there’s ample reason to consider such a person/being capricious/arbitrary, and precious little to support that they are “good” – much less *perfectly* good!
Response: I think the mistake you’re making here is that you think people want to go to heaven, they don’t they hate him, God could send everyone to hell and still be considered perfectly good.
JP: Right, but from an Arminian perspective, the evil wasn’t part of God’s plan, even though He can still use it for Good. Thus it is much easier to contend that God actually is good. The Calvinist claims that God wants the evil, uses the evil. Much more difficult to claim that a being who wills for evil is good. But, at least He’s completely sovereign, right?
Response: But that’s not what the text says, the text says God meant it for good. Doesn’t say it was outside the plan and God had to adjust. God uses evil for good and uses it to shape up into the person he wants us to be. Without evil you’d never know things such as compassion, mercy, or heroism
JP: Yes, I specifically pointed that part out. This doesn’t help your case! Saying He *might* have just wanted to demonstrate both his wrath and mercy doesn’t mean that He wants to show what He saves people from – because if sovereign election were true, then they were never in danger of His wrath in the first place!
Response: If he wants to demonstrate it to them then that’s the only option for doing so. We’ll be in awe of his anger.
JP: That you don’t find this to be an absolutely disgusting sentiment is just mind-boggling to me.
Response: LOL.
JP: That God saves some is a “miracle”, sure. But it would be like Jesus restoring a blind man’s vision in one eye, so that he can simply perceive light and motion. Or removing one lesion from a leper. Still a miracle? You bet. Would it make you think this is an awesome God?
REsponse: Of course, he doesn’t have to do any of that.
JP: If you thought that was all He was capable of, then sure, because obviously that is still more than others are. But that isn’t what Calvinists affirm! No, Calvinists are ready to say that God is perfectly capable of saving everyone. He just chooses not to, because He wants to demonstrate His wrath. And that’s “good”, because it’ll make you feel better about not being one of those people – despite the fact that you never had a chance to be one of those people.
Response: And remember, they don’t want him, they hate him. They’d rather be in hell without him than in heaven with him.
JP: You know, because they deserve it, being people that He made and all. Here, there is no “awful” situation, it is simply good to watch others burn. SMH
Response: Please, they are in hell giving God swearing at God, blaspheming his name, they don’t love God, if they could get rid of him they would.
Since the topic of this thread is “tension” so forth, I have a challenge for the Calvinists. Even if I assume that somehow, everything is determined by God, etc, why should I believe in the “P” in TULIP? Y’all know that there is way better scriptural support for the notion that believers fall away than the notion that they don’t.
Furthermore, there is a massive philosophical problem if they don’t, because we all know that they *seem to*, and we’ve all seen atheists talk about how they experienced the same things in the Christian life that we do, and now they don’t. So if you have to say that they deceived themselves in thinking they were Christian and elect, then y’all could be deceiving yourselves too. So nobody can ever have any way of knowing if they are a Christian. Sure, if you are a Christian you will remain so. Great. But you don’t know if you are one, so it’s not very comforting.
So what about it? Why should I accept “P”?
@JB Chappell: Some really good thoughtful posts there!
@Fr Robert: Even Leithart seems to admit that something practiced according to the Vincentian canon, everywhere, always and by all must be considered catholic. He argues that there aren’t many such things. Whatever. But I come back to paedo-communion was definitely catholic and practiced by all, yet is not practiced by you and him. So I reject any attempt to acquire the term “catholic” without a good consistent argument!
@John: The etymology of catholic is simply universal/universality. I think it is used biblically and theologically in the sense of a comprehensive quality! Thus the early church and even after is about this quality or fulness and truth, which is as our Lord said, “in spirit and truth”! And the Church must always renew itself here… ‘Ecclesia semper reformada est’.
Again the true Church is always both visible & invisible, but foremost invisible with Christ above, on the Throne of Grace & Glory! HE is the Mediator, alone! (1 Tim. 2:5-6)
@Fr Robert: If catholicity just refers to the universality that supposedly just exists and includes you and me, then how can you possibly “recover catholicity”?? You can’t recover it, it just is.
But if catholicity refers to something more specific – i.e. the things that are or were actually universal to the whole church, then you are not catholic.
Which way do you want it?
Gee, somebody on this thread seems to have had a stick poked in his eye. Whatever.
The Calvinist description of God is of one who is weaker, less capable, less omnipotent, and less creative than that described by Arminians. The Calvinist God cannot create any being who is a “prime mover” or “originator” of her own actions. God cannot only beings who are bags of chemicals that, like machines, have only one possible output for a specific set of inputs.
The Calvinist human is incapable of doing anything other than what is described as her “strongest desire”. Moreover, the Calvinist God can only exert sovereignity in a world where He has determined the exact course of all events, including the occurance of every specific horrid evil. Every rape, every beating, every massacre, every suffocation, every torture here on earth, the nature of every torment in hell, the identity of all persons who would consciously suffer forever in hell. God foreordained all these things, and then allegedly insulated himself from moral responsibility for all this evil by interposing other conscious beings–humans. And to ensure that all the evils he foreordained would take place, he determined their every action. There is nothing that any human can do that God has not determined to occur before creating the world.
Calvinism proposes no tension in God’s sovereignty. What God has decreed will come to pass, and everything that comes to pass has been decreed by God.
The alleged tension only arises because God’s revelation of himself does not support such beliefs about his sovereignty. Consequently, Calvinists take take a biblical concept–God presenting people with a choice to follow him or not, and redefine all the relevant concepts.
The Calvinist “freedom” is not the freedom to choose one thing or another, or another, but only the ability to do something without a physical obstruction. That is, if I want to leave the room and do so because the door is unlocked–then the Calvinist says I am free. But if I want to leave the room and the door is locked, then I am not free–simply because something is preventing me from doing what I desire.
The Calvinist would never say that I am free to stay in the room even though the door is unlocked and my strongest “desire” is a desire to leave. Nope. It is inevitable that I will get up an leave.
The Arminian, however, points to a much deeper meaning of freedom, and to a created being that is very much like God in her ability–a gift from God–to be a prime mover and originator of her choices and actions.
The Arminian does not describe God in terms of a being who, eons ago, determined that a five year old in Connecticut would stare terrified at a rifle barrel and then feel the slugs throw her back against the ground as they ripped through her flesh and then bleed to death in intense pain. When the agonized parent cries out “why”, God’s response is “because I determined to, that’s why; because I need to show my justice I need evil to punish.” That God is the one described by Calvinism.
lol Neither, from your supposition! Indeed Christ is always that greatest “comprehensive quality”! HE is the Universality of the Church in Himself! Risen, Ascended above…prophet, priest & king forever!
“As a parent I would take the greatest of comforts in knowing that the brutal death of my child had a holy righteous purpose in the providence of my holy righteous master.”
I think this is a double-edged sword. It is true that a benefit of Calvinist thought is that there is purpose in all. An Arminian might say that God works evil for good, but nonetheless there was no actual purpose other than a deranged lunatic doing something terrible.
The other side of the sword is that a Calvinist has no confidence that their child is elect. For all they know, the “holy righteous purpose” that their child’s death served is so that others’ experience in heaven can be enriched while they watch the poor child burn.
If that brings anyone comfort, then they are sick in the head.
@Greg
-“There are mountains of evidence of a God who never loses, through the whole of scripture from Gen. to Rev.”-
Agreed! But a “God who never loses” does not need to be a Calvinist. The Arminian or Molinist conception of God never loses either. In fact, one could make an argument that the Arminian view especially is a God who legitimately “wins”, whereas the Molinist or Calvinist views essentially reduces Gods work to a stage play. One can try to argue that there is value in it, but there is no “winning” in entertainment.
-‘My contention is that that God then governs what we see there about man and not the other way around.’-
Not sure what you mean here. I would accept that man does not govern God, but obviously that’s not what Arminians or Molinists claim. As for man governing himself, that depends on what you mean. It certainly seems obvious to me from reading scripture that God grants us the freedom to obey or disobey. In that sense, we do “govern” ourselves.
-‘… but I haven’t yet gotten from any of them an answer to why 2+2=4 which translates as “why are we axiomatically bound to pragmatic certainty while having literally no objective reason for that certainty to exist?” Without faith that is.’-
“Faith”, as you are using it (although you insist on not defining your terms), is not an objective reason either. It is blind acceptance. So, as you admit, everyone simply blindly accepts certain facts to be true. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that I have no objective reasons to assume 2+2=4. I also have no objective reasons to believe my brain is not in a vat right now, and everything I see/feel is an illusion. I could be in a Matrix for all I know, where in the “real” world, 2+2=5.
What you have not demonstrated, and what you cannot demonstrate, is how faith “fixes” this uncertainty. Faith is – I repeat – NOT an escape from uncertainty. Blind acceptance and presumption of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior does nothing to “fix” or “escape” the uncertainty that I might still just be a brain in a vat. Jesus Christ can be Lord, 2+2=5 are not necessarily mutually exclusive claims. If you want to demonstrate otherwise, feel free. Insisting that others *justify* their (allegedly) blind acceptance of facts while you do the same, also without justification, is fundamentally hypocritical.
So stop insisting that no one else can *prove* why 2+2=4 is somehow a point in the presuppositionalist’s favor. Unless you can also do so, it remains a properly basic belief for everyone.
Stop pretending as if faith removes doubt from the equation. Faith is not the absence of doubt. Faith is not certainty of things for which there is no evidence. Faith is action in accordance with belief. This is why faith without works is dead.
Faith is the bridge between uncertainty and action. We live in uncertainty, but we still “leap” to action. Why? Not necessarily because we are certain of anything, but because we have “confidence” or “assurance” about that which we cannot see. There no “blind” leaps, because everyone believes something for a reason, even if those reasons are terrible. So there is no “blind” faith.