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"
“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. Or? You say what?”
I do not think this is an adequate answer. Do you declare the murder of children, the loss of a child, as part of God’s grace?
How do you tell a parent whose child has died violently that this is part of God’s providence?
@Bob A.
-“How do you tell a parent whose child has died violently that this is part of God’s providence?”-
Easy!
“There, there Mr. Anderson. I know you’re grieving, but it will be OK in the end. After all, there’s still a relatively small chance that your child was elect. And if not, your child is burning in Hell for eternity, which will give some Calvinist quite the sense of appreciation for God’s wrath.”
@Greg
-“The trouble is that the bible does.”-
No, your interpretation of the Bible does. And, as you have stated so succinctly, your interpretation of the Bible is not open to question.
-“God’s purpose is indeed itself holy righteous and good.”-
This is true, but as a Calvinist, these words are hollow. Because what “holy righteous and good” mean is “whatever God does.” It is tautologous. And, as you have pointed out, tautology is not knowledge. You know literally nothing about God’s so-called goodness.
-“I’m fine with that because I trust Him.”-
Not knowing anything about God’s goodness, I am curious why.
-“I don’t feel I’m owed intellectual, emotional or ethical answers satisfying to myself.”-
If there is a danger in asking questions, it is in being perceived as if we feel w are entitled to answers. Do not confuse the lack of satisfaction with the lack of answers or given answers as a sense of entitlement to answers. I realize that God is not entitled to answer my questions. My purpose in asking questions is simply to find out *if there are* satisfactory answers. Because if so, so much the better. If there are not, then I also want to know why. If I cannot know why, then I must live in that uncertainty, and of course we do with many questions. But that doesn’t mean I have to be satisfied with mystery, or that I am obligated to accept irrational explanations.
@Greg: “There are mountains of evidence of a God who never loses, through the whole of scripture from Gen. to Rev.”
Never loses? So if I find one time when he “loses” as you put it, then you concede? Well, the bible does say that God changes his mind. No reason to change your mind if you weren’t “losing”. Of course the Calvinist will write it all off as an anthropomorphism or something. That’s great, but don’t tell me about the mountain of evidence God never loses, if when a verse is quoted contrary, you just choose to write it off. Just admit up front the mountain of evidence is not true.
—–
It seems to me its hard for a Calvinist to criticise Westboro baptist church and their antics in this massacre. It means they are really right. This massacre is only God’s will and God’s judgement against sin. And if that’s the truth, then proclaiming it loudly must be the gospel.
@Greg
-“I live in absolute certainty. Everybody does…”-
No. Everyone does not. There are people absolutely afflicted with doubt in the world. If you are absolutely certain about everything, then fair enough, but I highly doubt that you have not experienced doubt at some point in your life.
-“ but I do it intentionally and not merely by necessity of creation.”-
Forgive me, but I have no idea what you mean by this. There is no “necessity” to live in absolute certainty. I live my life as if the sun will come up tomorrow, but I am not certain that it will. Pretending that you know it will is not the same thing as being certain. If you are certain the sun comes up tomorrow, then you are a prophet.
-“In fact much of my posting here thus far has been copying and pasting from previous work I’ve done.”-
I have no doubt. Perhaps you need to more seriously consider the fact that your responses are inadequate. I have read many of them now, and you do not actually justify any of your own positions. Tearing down others’ viewpoints is all well and good, but that does not simultaneously bolster your own.
[Hebrews 11:1-3] is the most concise and foundational definition of faith in the bible. “The conviction of things not seen” sounds suspiciously blind don’t ya think?
No, it does not, depending on what you mean. This is why I keep asking you to define your terms. Most people, when referring to “blind faith”, mean this: someone believes something for no reason at all. Nobody does this. People believe things for reasons, even if they are bad reasons. As a child, I may have simply believed in Santa Claus because my parents told me. But, my parents were a trusted source. Likewise, in Hebrews, the writer refers to OT saints who trusted their reliable source. Now, if by “blind”, you simply mean something that cannot be empirically tested or verified, then sure – Hebrews 11:1-3 is perfectly consistent with that.
Note too, that each instance of these OT Saints exercising faith requires *action*. The fact that they were certain about anything is not mentioned. Confidence is not certainty. Neither is assurance. In fact, in one case, belief is not even mentioned:
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death…
Why was Enoch taken “by faith”? Because he walked “faithfully with God” (Genesis 5:24). What does that mean, in a Calvinistic sense? That God overrode his free will, so that he desired only God? How is that a virtue? No, here the virtue is clearly right action in accordance with right belief. As it is with every other saint mentioned. So, yes, Hebrews 11:1-3 is a succinct statement that addresses the belief aspect of “faith”. Looking at scripture as whole, however, it is quite clear that it involves action.
Belief not in accordance with action is not faith. If I believe that a chair will support my weight, but I do not sit in it, do I actually have faith in it? If I sit in the chair fully expecting (or with no expectation at all) that it will not support my weight, have I exercised faith? No, most likely that was simply hope.
Admittedly, part of the problem here is that often the authors of scripture use the term ambiguously. “Faith” is sometimes used synonymously with belief, right action, and even right action + belief, mystically-obtained knowledge, or even “the” faith – religion itself. There’s probably more. James and Paul clearly were emphasizing different usages of the term. So while I do think that the way I define “faith” is most consistent with how scripture uses the term to describe the *virtue* of faith, I acknowledge that it can be used differently. But, then we need to be clear about how we’re using it.
What it is never used to describe, however, is belief without evidence. If you believe that this is so, it is not on any scriptural basis.
-“… old testament saints whose entire lives were wrapped up in believing a promise for which the ONLY evidence WAS the promise itself.”-
You are extrapolating FAR too much from the text here. Hebrews 11 mentions too many people to get into too much depth here, but let’s consider Rahab:
Joshua 2:9-13 I know that the LORD has given this land to you …
Awesome! She’s got faith! It must have been completely unsupported by evidence, right?
… We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed.
Oops. Clearly, her impressions were being supported by some evidence. So this isn’t “blind” faith. None of the examples are.
You specifically mention Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Let’s ignore the interpretation that Abraham was simply willing to sacrifice his son and that this obedience is what was looked at as favorable (James 2:21-23). No, let’s focus on the alternative interpretation, that Abraham “knew” that God would preserve his son, because God had promised him a son.
Is it the case that the ONLY evidence for this promise of God was the promise itself? Obviously not! Abraham had a son! So, clearly, God had demonstrated that he could work miracles. That is what we call evidence. Furthermore, God had clearly worked in other numerous ways in Abraham’s life. Abraham had reason to trust God.
A better case can be made for “blind” faith, with the other Abraham story.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
So, is it the case here that the ONLY evidence Abraham had available was the promise itself? Did he really have no evidence to believe this promise”? Well, let’s see, God himself came and spoke to the man, apparently. Is that not reason enough to be motivated to do something? Furthermore, we simply aren’t informed about Abraham’s prior experience with God. To assume that Abraham had no prior interaction or evidence is to make sweeping assumptions about the scripture.
So, again, I would insist that if are speaking of faith as a virtue, then it necessitates belief + action, does not connote “blind” belief, and in fact I would say that such a thing does not exist. All of this things are supported by scripture.
-“Is 2+2 certainly 4?”-
Is the correct spelling “theater” or “theatre”?
Oh, my bad, I thought we were asking irrelevant questions!
In my mind, yes, 2+2=4. It is as certain as anything can be certain. Which is to say that nothing is absolutely certain.
I’m sorry, I must have missed the part where you actually proved your point. There is a necessity to live in absolute certainty BECAUSE…?
@Greg: For the benefit of some observers of your debate here, can you explain what you mean by certain? There are things that people believe are certain, but actually they are not. Because they are wrong. There are things that are certain, but in my mind they are not certain, for any number of reasons, including lack of information. There are things that can be demonstrated to be certain, via science or logic (although there is a dependency on your reasoning skills). There are other things that are beyond the scope of being certain about, either because we lack the technology at the present time, or because they are simply beyond the realm of things that we can be certain about.
Precisely what kind of certainty are we talking about? Then can you explain to me what the basis of the certainty is? (for bonus points, you could tell us how far the certainty extends in terms of knowledge of the faith).
Furthermore, I find it very odd that the “New Atheists” are lumped in with those who use Aristotelian epistemology and Arminians. Perhaps there’s a common denominator there, but I suspect it’s simply “People who Greg accuses of being postmodern liberals”. Aristotelian logic is the foundation of classical theism, and a New Atheist would reject it very quickly, no doubt. Furthermore, there still is no support for the notion that a Calvinist theology or presuppositionalist assertions can provide, much less require, absolute certainty about anything.
@Greg
-“Tell me what your life would life would look like if 2+2 were NOT certainly 4.”-
It would look exactly like it does now.
-“Deny that. I dare ya.”-
You keep forgetting the part where you have to SUPPORT your own assertions! You’ve done NOTHING this entire time to actually bolster your case. You just make hit ‘n’ run assertions. Please explain how Jesus Christ would not be Lord if 2+2=5. I dare ya.
“Knowledge and doubt are inseparable to man. The sole alternative to “knowledge-with-doubt” is no knowledge at all. Only God and certain madmen have no doubts!”
– Martin Luther
There are so many ad hoc and even logical fallacies on this blog post! Btw, Calvinism in general is simply the belief in the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty! This is a biblical presupposition, taken both from the Jewish OT and the Apostolic NT. Indeed this was simply John Calvin’s baseline!
@Greg
-“Absolute certainty IS the human condition by creation.”-
Another assertion requiring justification.
-“Presuppositional Calvinism accounts for it and nothing else does. This will take a while if you wanna keep goin, but your head IS in my noose. Do not kid yourself.”-
I look forward to you actually presenting a justification for your argument.
-“I could not possibly care less what ANY historical thinker says in this regard in the context of this discussion.”-
Unless we’re talkin’ Van Til, can I get an Amen?!!
@Greg: That position is another logical and historical fallacy! WE all come from some “place”! Even Calvinists!
@Greg
-“You are then standing by your assertion that nothing can be known for certain?”-
For the love of God, just defend your argument! I will happily concede that you’ve proven me wrong if/when you do. I am honestly intrigued at what you have to say. I must be a sucker for punishment.
@Greg: Note, I am a “Calvinist! 😉 Note too, I am a Creedal Christian, and historic Churchman! Such is biblical and theological Protestantism! We can’t do this without some aspect of the Church, either! I hope ya get my points? 🙂
@Greg
-“If JB Chappell has taken the position out of hand that NOTHING can be known for certain, then why, pray tell, would I spend the time attempting to “prove”, that is, render certain, anything to him?”-
Probably because I’m not certain of it. But I’m willing to be proven otherwise.
@Mike B:
MB: 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.
Response: Well, I would argue that things that God allows to happen is apart of what he ordains to happen. In other words, God doesn’t have to force anyone to sin, but allow them to do so when he wants them too would also fit what he ordains.
Mike B@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?
Response: Easy, just look Gen 50. Joseph’s brothers intended on killing Joseph, God intended on training him to run Egypt. So we have man wanting one thing, God wanting another, so God took their evil intentions and used it for good.
MB: 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?
Response: Easy, imagine a dead man (Eph 2). God calls that dead man to life. Is that doing violence to the dead man? No, what God does is raise us up from spiritual deadness to spiritual aliveness so that we now choose him.
@Fr Robert: “Calvinism in general is simply the belief in the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty”
Sovereignty is just a word, like all the abstractions discussed around here, until the details are fleshed out. I’m sure everyone here believes in “God’s sovereignty”, yet we argue.
@Greg: I think 2+2=4, but I’m not certain. However I’ll continue to insist on $2 change when I give $4 at the shop for a $2 item, because I’m pretty sure about it, even if not certain. How exactly would my life change if I’m not certain? I’m not seeing it.
Greg, what EXACTLY are we certain of? You are saying that certainty is the human condition? Not about everything, surely? Surely not. Really? Or just certainty about some things? If so, which are those special things we have absolute certainty about? I mean, if you’ve got such absolute certainty, it should be trivial for you to list all those things. You are certain about bits of Christian dogma perhaps? Which ones?
@Kelton: “Easy, just look Gen 50. Joseph’s brothers intended on killing Joseph, God intended on training him to run Egypt. So we have man wanting one thing, God wanting another, so God took their evil intentions and used it for good.”
That doesn’t really tell us much though. Did God see that Joseph’s brothers were going to do evil, and thought, hey I can turn this to good? Or did God foreordain from the beginning of the world that Joseph’s brothers would do this thing? Or did God say, I want Joseph to go to Egypt, and I notice Joseph’s brother’s are going to do this thing, I can use this as a way to get him to Egypt? We aren’t really told. Gen 50 tells us God can use evil for good, it doesn’t tell us Calvinism. Even if Gen 50 did teach absolute predestination for this one event, it wouldn’t tell us if this was a general rule for all creation.
@Mike B
MB: Read through Genesis 20 based on this interaction.
MB: Not sure how the Gen 20 passage is a clear case for determinism/compatibilism and man’s responsibility?
Response: Because it demonstrates that God does override man’s free will. If free will is what people think it is, then God should have allowed Abemelech to have his way. But what God does is restrain man’s sin and allows only what he wants to allow for whatever purpose he may have.
MB: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?
Response: Because of the intent of Abemelech’s heart. He isn’t trying to do God’s will, but ends up doing it anyway because God stops him dead in his tracks. So we see what God predestined and what Abemelech does are actually in harmony.
————————————–
MB: 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.
Response: Nope, God allowed Abraham to lie and tell Abimelech that she was not his sister, Abraham wasn’t going to do otherwise.
– God (as the primary cause) caused Abimelech (thru secondary cause of attraction) to take Sarah. Abimelech could not do otherwise.
Response: Nor did he want to do otherwise.
– God (as the primary cause) caused Abimelech (thru secondary cause of fear) to release Sarah. Again, Abimelech could not do otherwise.
Response: Well God also appeared to him in a dream.
MB: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.
Response: But now you have a God who is waiting to see how man reacts and altering his plans around whatever man does.
MB: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.
Response: Well if God already knew what Abraham was going to do prior to that then he wouldn’t have to alter anything.
MB: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.
Response: Except your point doesn’t deal with the fact that the text says God stopped Abemelech from sinning. So what we have here is clear indication that God does override man’s so called free will to accomplish his purpose.
What am I missing?
@John
John:That doesn’t really tell us much though. Did God see that Joseph’s brothers were going to do evil, and thought, hey I can turn this to good?
Response: I don’t think so, God elsewhere tells us things like he ordains all things like Isaiah 46:10.
John: Or did God foreordain from the beginning of the world that Joseph’s brothers would do this thing?
Response: Probably more like it.
John: Or did God say, I want Joseph to go to Egypt, and I notice Joseph’s brother’s are going to do this thing, I can use this as a way to get him to Egypt? We aren’t really told. Gen 50 tells us God can use evil for good, it doesn’t tell us Calvinism. Even if Gen 50 did teach absolute predestination for this one event, it wouldn’t tell us if this was a general rule for all creation.
Response: Well you have to remember it’s not just about Egypt. God used this whole thing to train Joseph to be able to run Egypt. So he was over his brothers, over the potipher’s house, over the jail cell and then over Egypt. God was training him all along and used their evil intent to accomplish this.
But if you take this verse along with Isaiah 46 and a whole host of others, I think you get a clear picture that God is a lot more sovereign than we give him credit for.
@Kelton: “So what we have here is clear indication that God does override man’s so called free will to accomplish his purpose.”
Since in Calvinism man is a machine with predictable outputs. Given certain inputs, the outputs are inevitable. Since God made man how he is, and he therefore ordains the outputs. How is it even interesting to discuss God “overriding” man’s free will? Because it wasn’t free to begin with. It was exactly what God made it to be. Since God knew what he was going to do, how can we even talk about what man’s will would have been in a hypothetical future that was never to be? We’re just substituting one illusory non-free “free will” with a new illusory non-free “free will”. Makes you wonder what the point was. God could just foreordain you with a will which would change its mind, and repent under conditions A, B and C. Hey maybe he did. Tis called Arminianism.
@Greg: Am I a Christian? Yes I believe so. Of course Christian is just a word, and we don’t know if we agree on terms.
Is certainty about 2+2=4 really a good benchmark for these discussions? Even if I am certain 2+2=4, I’m not certain what 23456+65574 equals. If I get out a pen and paper, I might make a mistake. If I use a calculator, it could have an error in the circuits. I could check quite a few times and get a high degree of certainty, but not 100%. Most things are not as trivial looking as 2+2.
Again, if you have such certainty, please list for us all the things you are certain about.
@Kelton: “Response: I don’t think so, God elsewhere tells us things like he ordains all things like Isaiah 46:10.”
Isaiah says he knows the end from the beginning. Not the bit in the middle. I think it is general human intuition that a powerful God can make the end turn out how he wants. The debated bit is whether all the middle bits are how he wants too.
“But if you take this verse along with Isaiah 46 and a whole host of others, I think you get a clear picture that God is a lot more sovereign than we give him credit for.”
I don’t think anybody here wants to debate that God is really powerful, and can do what he wants. The hotly contested part is if he ordains sin. In fact, the debate is whether God is a bigger God if he ordains even sin, or if he is a more powerful God if he can actually allow there to be “first mover” creatures, that he responds to, and *still* gets the outcome he wants.
@Greg: “Are you certain that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?”
Well let me respond to that with a question. It may seem like an odd question, but I think it gets to the heart of the matter. How would I know if I am certain? I think human beings are continually in the process of questioning everything around them. I might go through long periods not questioning that the sun will come up tomorrow, but then one day I might see a cosmological documentary, and I might rethink that. Does the mere fact I rethought something mean I am not certain? Some would say it does. In short, I’m not certain how I could know if I am certain about something, because I don’t know what I will discover next. Some of my behaviour would indicate I am certain. Other parts of my behaviour might sometimes make it look like I’m not so certain. Tell me how to find out the answer to your question, and I will most certainly provide it to you!!!
Greg: “Assuming the equation is executed accurately ANY mathematical problem IS certainly true.”
Assuming!!!! Yes, assuming anything is correct, then it is certainly true! No argument there. ha ha.
“The engineers that build the stuff we trust our lives to all the time are also certain as is everybody that gets in a car or airplane.”
Really? I don’t think they are certain. I think they do their best given their knowledge, and have a high confidence. I don’t think they are certain.
“Don’t lemme down now. Ya jist gotta gimme an argument about how their stuff breaks sometimes. It’ll be perfect.”
Well, whether it breaks would indicate whether they were wrong, not about whether they were certain. People can be certainly wrong. It’s called hubris.
“Either everything is certain or nothing is. Why? Because all knowledge is interdependent”
I’d probably agree with that. Thus I’d vote for “everything is uncertain”, if given only two choices. Frankly, if you want to go there, then you MUST lose, because you don’t know everything. If one little bit of knowledge can throw everything, and if you don’t know everything, ergo, everything for you is uncertain. I think you just defeated yourself.
“Our certainty derives from the one true and living non contingent all governing God for whom nothing is uncertain because everything is ultimately His will. ”
That would be great if you knew everything God knows. But you don’t.
The trouble with both sides is they forgot to “lean not on your own understanding”. Everyone who argues based on reason rather than scripture is badly mistaken. The truth is – we don’t truly understand. Reading the Bible gives me the understanding that the Holy Spirit allows me at the time. But I have learned one thing – God doesn’t reveal all at once.
However, I do believe that there is a lot of false teaching in churches today. And so I turn first to scripture, not to man and his arguments, to increase my understanding and for instruction. Don’t get me wrong – I also listen to others for their interpretation of scripture. And I quite enjoyed Adrian Rogers’ sermon “Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!” on the subject.
But I belong to the one church – the body of believers in Christ. Not to the body of Calvinists, and not to the body of Arminianism. Focusing on the issue of election – which we don’t fully understand – and which is divisive – takes our focus from the Kingdom of God.
@Greg: John beat me to the punch, but here you are anyways…
-“Assuming the equation is executed accurately ANY mathematical problem IS certainly true.”-
Given certain assumptions, anything can be made to appear certain. The problem is, the assumptions aren’t certain.
-“Either everything is certain or nothing is.”-
I dunno, smells like a false dichotomy to me. Even if one thing can be known for certain (“something exists”, for example), that doesn’t mean that all knowledge can be derived from that one certainty. But, admittedly, I have not looked into the “problem of the one and the many”.
-“Our certainty derives from the one true and living non contingent all governing God for whom nothing is uncertain because everything is ultimately His will.”-
His certainty does not equal our certainty, however. And you have not demonstrated how God makes anything certain for us. Citing a confession does not make something true. And, yes, you violated your own principle!
-“God is the one and only source of certainty because He and He alone is entirely independent and non contingent.”-
These are unrelated concepts. That God is independent of us does not mean He offers us certainty. That God is a necessary being does not mean He offers certainty for us. But I would grant that IF there is a source of certainty, it can ONLY come from God.
If God exists, and He is a necessary Being, if He created the universe, etc., then – yes – we can posit that God is the ground of existence, and that if God is good and desires for us to reliably ascertain reality, then He can provide us with such certainty. He is capable. But, obviously, there are many hypotheticals here.
-“I am certain of everything in a derivative sense of intentionally adopting His certainty as my own by faith.”-
Please explain how this process works. You cannot possibly be sure that you are adopting “God’s certainty”. Not only does this not make any sense, it’s completely unbiblical. Faith is no guarantor of certainty. How many times did Jesus say “if you have faith AND do not doubt”? Didn’t he ask Peter “Oh ye of little faith, why did you doubt?” Note that in the latter phrase doubting does not negate the presence of faith (however minute it may be). They are not mutually exclusive! So, when Jesus says “have faith AND do not doubt”, He actually seems to be asking for certainty… IF you want to cast mountains into the seas and wither fig trees with a rebuke. Since you have assumed God’s own certainty, I will assume that you are capable of these things! I will await the YouTube video…
-“OR, I can, like every unbeliever and Arminian, have faith in my own finite AND sinful logic to provide the source of my certainty which is laughable.”-
Except that we’re not claiming we’re certain. We’re claiming that we have degrees of certainty, given certain assumptions!
-“OR, I can simply deny that certainty is possible anywhere like every thinking modern atheist/skeptic non Christian ends up declaring once we get ways down this road.”-
I know plenty of atheists/skeptics who would argue that we can know things for certain.
-“To them absolute uncertainty is preferable to moral accountability to the living God.”-
I would ask you how moral accountability works on system with no free will, but we can save that for later. 😉
And go get some sleep, bro
@Tore
-“Reading the Bible gives me the understanding that the Holy Spirit allows me at the time.”-
The problem that I see with this is that reading requires some reason. Comprehension doesn’t come magically, otherwise those who couldn’t read would know the same things the rest of us do.
There isn’t any way around it, revelation has to be subject to reason. Otherwise we wouldn’t even know it was revelation. Test everything.
-“But I belong to the one church – the body of believers in Christ.”-
Well said!
@Greg
-“I’ve never heard an Ariminian prayer from a person with a credible testimony. ‘Oh Lord I thank thee that thou hast blessed me with a glorious free will whereby I have chosen more righteously and wisely than my unbelieving neighbor’.”-
That’s because it makes no sense to thank God for something He did not do (make my choices for me). It does, however, make perfect sense to thank God for salvation and so many other things that He provides for us.
It should also be noted, I have never heard a Calvinist say, “Thank you Lord, for causing so many to sin and cause so much suffering for others, that way I understand your wrath better!”
Hmm, Greg says he is CERTAIN and he does not doubt. Jesus says if you do not doubt you say to a mountain “throw yourself into the sea” and it will happen.
I think we can scientifically test Greg’s claim. Which mountain will you be throwing into the sea, Greg? Everest would be impressive, but any ‘ol one will do.
@Greg
-“God doesn’t cause anybody to sin. NO Calvinist has EVER taught this.”-
Of course not! Because it is completely unbiblical!
Instead, the Calvinist will draw every conclusion EXCEPT for the one that follows from the rest: if God is the cause of everything (or if he “ordains” or “authors”… WHATEVER terminology you want to use), then He HAS TO BE the cause of sin, unless God can do nonsense. If God can square a circle, then – sure – He can cause everything, but not sin.
Calvinists teach everything else, because it has Biblical support, but can’t teach what obviously follows from it, because it is completely unbiblical. Rather than reasonably concluding that there must be some problem with their exegesis (problem can’t be with them!), there must simply be some sort of “mystery” to it all. But not “logical contradiction”. Because, you know, there ‘s no formal contradiction in saying “ALL of everything” doesn’t preclude “NOT something”.
In any case, the prayer doesn’t actually sound any better if one softens the terminology. In any case, if there’s a point to be had here, it’s that all of us are probably inconsistent to some extent. James tells us to be thankful for trials and tests, but I’d wager most of us aren’t. 😉
@John
-“I think we can scientifically test Greg’s claim. Which mountain will you be throwing into the sea, Greg? Everest would be impressive, but any ‘ol one will do.”-
Methinks Greg will claim that these sorts of things stopped with the apostles. How convenient, if so. But I could be wrong. I’m not certain 😉
Unless we’re talkin’ Van Til, can I get an Amen?!!
LOL. Amen!
How does God “allowing” things to happen, such as allowing humans to sin, get him off the hook?
In order for God to “allow” something, he has to create the circumstances and the chain of causation first. He has to set it all up before there is anything that can be “allowed” to happen. Furthermore, in order to foreordain events, he has to render them certain.
The Arminian has no such problems. The Arminian agrees that God could create a Calvinist type world if he wanted to, but the Arminian believes that God has revealed in his Word a different kind of world.
@Kelton
Will try to respond in a series of comments given the character limits… 🙂
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.
Response: Well, I would argue that things that God allows to happen is apart of what he ordains to happen. In other words, God doesn’t have to force anyone to sin, but allow them to do so when he wants them too would also fit what he ordains.
Help me out. I think this is where we can get confused and talk past each other. Calvinists like to use words like ordain, author, determine, predestine, permit, and allow.
So let me ask, what does it mean to ordain, author, determine, or predestine all things that come to pass?
Basically do you accept meticulous sovereignty and determinism or not?
Because if you do, then how can anything be “apart from what He ordains” if He also ordains all that comes to pass? Does “all that comes to pass” really mean “all”?
The non-Calvinist view does not accept determinism so it is this view that would more logically assert that God sovereignly allows/permits people to commit evil/sin apart from His plan because He gives them the ability to have a LFW choice.
Thanks for helping a brother trying to understand.
MikeB
@Kelton
I think the prior comment and responses will provide clarity on these other questions, but the Joseph story may prove to be a good Scriptural case study.
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?
Response: Easy, just look Gen 50. Joseph’s brothers intended on killing Joseph, God intended on training him to run Egypt. So we have man wanting one thing, God wanting another, so God took their evil intentions and used it for good.
John: .. Gen 50 tells us God can use evil for good, it doesn’t tell us Calvinism. …
Response (to John): Well you have to remember it’s not just about Egypt. God used this whole thing to train Joseph to be able to run Egypt. So he was over his brothers, over the potipher’s house, over the jail cell and then over Egypt. God was training him all along and used their evil intent to accomplish this.
But if God caused (as the primary cause thru ordaining/authoring/determining) the brothers (as the secondary cause of hate,pride) to sell Joseph into slavery to bring about all you say above then He also planned and wanted that event to happen right?
His motives and purposes might be different (train Joseph, rule) than the brothers motives and purposes (get rid of Joseph) but they both wanted Joseph to be sold into slavery.
Logic alone will never lead us into the doctrine and mystery of God, we must somewhat use it, but God alone transcends it! I like scholastcism myself, especially the Reformed Protestant version, but as Michael has been seeking to show, God’s mystery trumps all and always! Even in 2+2 = 4. Do two parallel lines meet in infinity?
@Kelton
[part 1/2]
MB: Not sure how the Gen 20 passage is a clear case for determinism/compatibilism and man’s responsibility?
Response: Because it demonstrates that God does override man’s free will. If free will is what people think it is, then God should have allowed Abemelech to have his way. But what God does is restrain man’s sin and allows only what he wants to allow for whatever purpose he may have.
…
Response: Except your point doesn’t deal with the fact that the text says God stopped Abemelech from sinning. So what we have here is clear indication that God does override man’s so called free will to accomplish his purpose.
God is sovereign (though we understand that very differently) and being all powerful can override man’s LFW. The non-Calvinist/Arminian just doesn’t see this happening all the time. God allows/permits man to commit a lot of evil and sin without overriding these choices.
In this account we see that God’s redepmtive plan was going to be affected and God intervened. He did stop Abimelech from sleeping with Sarah so there could be no question that Isaac was the son of Abraham and Sarah. However notice that Abimelech would not even have been aware that he would be committing adultery based on the information he had. Nor was his intent to stop the nation of Israel from being formed as God intended. It was Abraham’s choices and sin that God had to deal with.
@Kelton
[part 2/2]
Response: Because of the intent of Abemelech’s heart. He isn’t trying to do God’s will, but ends up doing it anyway because God stops him dead in his tracks. So we see what God predestined and what Abemelech does are actually in harmony.
Abimelech’s intent was based on his seeing an attractive (and from his point of view) available woman whom he took into his harem. But if God ordained that he take Sarah then in effect isn’t he doing God’s will since that is what God wanted him to do?
However, I interpret this as God’s predestined plan to have the nation of Israel come thru Isaac the son of Abraham and Sarah being protected when God gave Abimelech a LFW choice – 1) give her back and live or 2) die. Despite Abimelech having a LFW choice God’s predestined plan was protected.
Response: Nope, God allowed Abraham to lie and tell Abimelech that she was not his sister, Abraham wasn’t going to do otherwise.
allowed or determined?
Response: But now you have a God who is waiting to see how man reacts and altering his plans around whatever man does.
Response: Well if God already knew what Abraham was going to do prior to that then he wouldn’t have to alter anything.
God knew that Abraham would choose to lie (foreknew), allowed him to make that LFW choice (sovereign), and knew that He would have to act to protect His predestined plan of redemption (foreknew). Because Abraham choose freely (and could have chosen otherwise) he is responsible for his actions. As is Abimelech.
This is different than God “ordained/determined/caused” Abraham to lie which is why we are having this ongoing discussion. How would Abraham (since he is actually the one who sinned here) responsible for the sin if God caused it through his fear and he could not do otherwise?
RE FRA @ #31
To say that God is beyond logic is to make him so transcendent that he cannot relate to us and we cannot understand who he is.
Logic is part of God’s character, and he can no more be illogical than he can lie. When he created, he endowed his creation with this aspect of his character. Our physical world is logical and understandable, because it reflects God. We can communicate and use reason and logic because we are images of God.
Who said God is “beyond” logic? Not me, but He does simply transcend it, and often! What human logic is there is in the “theologia crucis”? Again, religious man’s logic is more towards the “theologia gloriae”! As Luther knew!
Greg – You are not making much sense here. You say –
“I KNOW 2+2=4 AND WHY. I have been given the mind of Christ Himself by faith.”
Then you turn around and say, “Everybody IS certain that 2=2=4 regardless of what kinda screwball denial they engineer to attempt to say otherwise. This is true for those still dead in the 1st man Adam because of the remaining image of God in them broken though it is sin. They CANNOT avoid God no matter what they try.”
Your knowledge cannot be based in the mind of Christ if those who are separated from Christ also share this knowledge. I understand your point about the imago dei, but how that is defined is a well argued topic.
It seems to me that you are on a slippery slope here, with a highly deterministic system that might actually lead to a mystical view of God, where humanity itself is just a derivative of God’s mind.
As for Romans 1 – I do not see God mocking anyone in this chapter. Where did you get that idea from?
It seems to me that Romans 1 teaches that we CAN know God, that he reveals his invisible attributes to us, but we reject them. This is a willful rejection of knowledge, not a lack thereof.
Greg, you said –
“My conscious and deliberate acknowledgement of how and why 2+2=4 is the philosophical component of resurrection in Christ. It has been transformed from a repugnant knowledge from necessity, being forced upon me inescapably and from which I once desperately hid, to a joyous knowledge as my Lord and master has freed me to use it properly to His glory.”
So are you saying you actually tried to hide from the fact that 2 + 2 = 4?
How is 2+2=4 a moral statement?
Arminianism shows a spiritual reality, that Calvinist intellectual theory cannot truly deny.
Somehow, in the mystery of God, the sovereignty of God and responsibility of man touch, and the result is salvation.
Men and women who are far more intelligent than I am have grappled with this issue for thousands of years. I simply admit that I am not going to be the one to settle the debate.
It seems to me that it is far more valuable proclaiming the Gospel than arguing about how precisely a person comes to accept the Gospel.
Am I saved because I chose God, or because God chose me? Yes.
If we must have a label, then why not the label “Calminians” or CALminians?
The Irrationality of Calvinism = The Irrationality of the Cross.
Greg – I am just trying to understand your position.
I really do not think numbers have much to do with the knowledge of good and evil.
However, you have not addressed my question about how you see God mocking in Romans 1.
Funny, some are pro-Arminian and some pro-Calvinist (as myself), but the issue is the Holy Scripture, and the doctrine of God In Christ! As I have noted in history we can see some of this in the positions of Augustine verses Pelagius! And here btw, Wesleyan Arminianism is certainly closer to Calvin, etc. And too, people should read John Wesley’s great thesis on the doctrine of Sin!
Reverend Robert, Pelagius had a point; so much in fact they conspired to silence him. What did they not want to come to terms with?