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"
@greg ” In my own derivative dependent finitude I KNOW NOTHING. Being now raised together with Christ Jesus and taking every though captive to Him I KNOW that my Father KNOWS everything and therefore by faith so do I, even that which is out of the reach of my creaturely limitation”
It seems like what you are saying, is that you don’t know much at all, but because you believe in God, and he knows all, somehow you by fiat can claim possession of his certainty.
1) you can’t redefine reality so that you have certainty that you don’t really have just because you know that God does have that certainty. (I wish you could, then I’d be certain of next week’s lotto numbers).
2) it sounds like your true realm of certainty is actually extremely limited. Maybe it’s only that God exists. Maybe it’s a little wider than that. Either way, your assertion was that even ONE point of uncertainty makes everything uncertain. If we accept you on that then, you don’t even have that one certainty. That God does, doesn’t help you. Ate you sure you don’t want to retract that all or nothing claim?
Let’s go back to Ro 1. Lets be extremely generous with your interpretation and assume it means that all men ought to be certain of God’s existence and some rudimentary things about his nature. Fine, we’re all Christians here, nobody is particularly wanting to debate that. But that hardly means men have the ability to be certain about much else, let alone be certain about everything. I know, because nex week’s lotto numbers elude me. So what really is your point in regard to this thread?
@greg ” In my own derivative dependent finitude I KNOW NOTHING. Being now raised together with Christ Jesus and taking every though captive to Him I KNOW that my Father KNOWS everything and therefore by faith so do I, even that which is out of the reach of my creaturely limitation”
It seems like what you are saying, is that you don’t know much at all, but because you believe in God, and he knows all, somehow you by fiat can claim possession of his certainty.
1) you can’t redefine reality so that you have certainty that you don’t really have just because you know that God does have that certainty. (I wish you could, then I’d be certain of next week’s lotto numbers).
2) it sounds like your true realm of certainty is actually extremely limited. Maybe it’s only that God exists. Maybe it’s a little wider than that. Either way, your assertion was that even ONE point of uncertainty makes everything uncertain. If we accept you on that then, you don’t even have that one certainty. That God does, doesn’t help you. Ate you sure you don’t want to retract that all or nothing claim?
Let’s go back to Ro 1. Lets be extremely generous with your interpretation and assume it means that all men ought to be certain of God’s existence and some rudimentary things about his nature. Fine, we’re all Christians here, nobody is particularly wanting to debate that. But that hardly means men have the ability to be certain about much else, let alone be certain about everything. I know, because nex week’s lotto numbers elude me. So what really is your point in regard to this thread?
S. Wesley Mcgranor: Pelagius and his theology were later condemed by Rome and Catholicism. I have read my share of both Augustine and Pelagius, and most certainly in my opinion Pelagius and Pelagianism were as Rome contended, certain heresy. See btw Augustine’s work here, Causa Gratiae.
There was no conspiracy here, but theological differences, and the desire for orthodoxy, in the West. We should note again however, that the East and Orthodoxy, are somewhat friendly with Pelagius.
Reverend, Pelagius was not outside of a relevant context. His points are valid, and they disturb you.
As history would have it; it was Rome and that Church of Ceasar that would be condemned. I am skeptical about revering patriarchs to the point of a sainthood that co-reigns in heaven, anyway.
@Wesley: You are of course entitled to your opinion, but YOU cannot speak for me! And this does not “disturb” me, as it is just simply wrong biblically and theologically! I am not an Anglo-Catholic, or really Roman Catholic friendly, but a Protestant, and Reformed Anglican. I am an old “theolog” myself. So read and think carefully mate! 😉
@ John:
John: 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?
Response: Nope, man isn’t a machine at all, he just chooses according to his strongest desire. My point was that if you believe in libertarian free will, then what do you do with this passage where God over rides someones so called free will?
John: 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?
Response: Well in this case, the text tells us. Abemelech wanted to sin and God stopped him.
John: 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.
Response: No because it’s not a change of mind, it’s a spiritual resurrection so to speak that makes a man want to choose God. Eph 2.
@ John:
John: 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.
Response: Actually, it says “he makes known the beginning from the end.” And from the beginning that which has not happened yet. So it’s pretty clear, he knows the middle, ending and the beginning.
John: 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.
Response: And the answer to that is found in Isaiah 46:10. God ordains all events, nothing is outside of his will.
@ Mike B
Mike B:
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?
Response: predestination pretty much deals with God’s plan for humans decreed from eternity. And it also includes whatever comes to pass, the confusion you find is that it sort of becomes synonymous with election. So yes, I accept sovereignty (not sure what meticulous sovereignty is) and determination.
MikeB: 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”?
Response: Yeah I think so, I don’t think anything happens outside of his will.
MikeB: 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.
Response: Yeah I understand, I don’t subscribe to that view. Too many verses that seem to go against it.
@Mike B:
Mike:
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?
Response: Yep.
Mike B: 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.
Response: Yep. Just for different reasons, which against shows that God uses the evil intents of mean to bring about his purpose.
@ Mike B: 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.
Response; Sure but he still uses those choices to bring about the result that he wants.
Mike B: 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.
Response: But it clearly shows that God does override man’s supposed free will and gets rid of the idea that God never interferes with man’s free will and he just sits back and allows things to happen etc. In actually God stops man will all the time, if he didn’t we’d be wiped out as a race because we’d ultimately kill ourselves.
@Kelton “Nope, man isn’t a machine at all, he just chooses according to his strongest desire. ”
How is that different to a machine? I think I could write the machine code for it:
10 evaluate possibilities
20 evaluate pleasure from possibilities
30 do most pleasurable thing
40 goto 10
“if you believe in libertarian free will, then what do you do with this passage where God over rides someones so called free will?”
And my point is, of it wasn’t free to begin with, but just an inevitable outcome of God’s decree, how silly is it God needs to override his own decree?
The whole point of free will is that people can be influenced. That God can do so more effectively than me hardly is an argument against will.
“Well in this case, the text tells us. Abemelech wanted to sin and God stopped him.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure the text is saying that he did NOT want to sin, but he could have inadvertently by not knowing Sarah’s situation. We can only speculate how God “stopped him sinning”. Maybe he gave Sarah a headache. It doesn’t say he changed Abimelech’s will.
“No because it’s not a change of mind, it’s a spiritual resurrection so to speak that makes a man want to choose God”
And Calvinists oft quote Ezekiel 36:26 in support, but always ignore Ezekiel 16:19 -“make yourself a new heart”. Synergism. The two sides to the coin that scripture teaches when Calvinists only want to see one side.
@Mike B
[part 2/2]
Response:
MB: 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?
Response: Yep, and that’s how it goes, God uses the intention of man to accomplish his will and purpose. It’s just Abemelech isn’t trying to do God’s will.
MB: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: Except God over rode his LFW. So it can’t be LFW if God stops it.
MB: allowed or determined?
Response: What God allows is apart of what he determines because he restrains man’s sin.
MB: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.
Response: Except, when Abimelech choose freely, God stepped in and said “nope.” And God doesn’t have to protect his plan, (Isaiah 55:11)
MB: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?
Response: Because of the intent of his heart was not to do God’s will.
@kelton “So it’s pretty clear, he knows the middle, ending and the beginning.”
Knowing is not the debated point.
“Response: And the answer to that is found in Isaiah 46:10. God ordains all events, nothing is outside of his will”
Yes, god does what he wants in Isaiah. But sometimes what God wants is to let man exercise free will. You have a presupposition that God can’t want that.
“God uses the intention of man to accomplish his will and purpose.”
You are proposing two very different scenarios. One that men do what they wanted to do anyway, and Good wants them to do it, even if sinful, because he brings good of it. The other that men’s plans would break God’s plan, and he has to step in to change wills, and make everything turn out how he wants. Those are two very different views of how things go, and Calvinists often argue whichever seems to help their case without realizing it.
@John
John: How is that different to a machine? I think I could write the machine code for it:
10 evaluate possibilities
20 evaluate pleasure from possibilities
30 do most pleasurable thing
40 goto 10
Response: Except a machine doesn’t have a soul nor a conscious.
John:And my point is, of it wasn’t free to begin with, but just an inevitable outcome of God’s decree, how silly is it God needs to override his own decree?
Response: He didn’t. I just think people define free will incorrectly.
John: The whole point of free will is that people can be influenced. That God can do so more effectively than me hardly is an argument against will.
Response: Nope, it just means people have a faulty definition of free will.
John:Actually, I’m pretty sure the text is saying that he did NOT want to sin, but he could have inadvertently by not knowing Sarah’s situation. We can only speculate how God “stopped him sinning”. Maybe he gave Sarah a headache. It doesn’t say he changed Abimelech’s will.
Response: It says, “I stopped you from sinning against me.” Doesn’t matter if it was inadvertent or not, sin is sin and God stopped him.
John: And Calvinists oft quote Ezekiel 36:26 in support, but always ignore Ezekiel 16:19 -”make yourself a new heart”. Synergism. The two sides to the coin that scripture teaches when Calvinists only want to see one side.
Response: Do you mean Ezekiel 18:31? Anyway, if so we can talk about that one tomorrow. Have to run, but it’s just a false proverb God is refuting.
@ John:
Ok before I go to bed.
John: Knowing is not the debated point.
Response: Actually it says declaring or making known. The reason he can do this is because he’s in control of all this. Eph 1:11.
John: Yes, god does what he wants in Isaiah. But sometimes what God wants is to let man exercise free will. You have a presupposition that God can’t want that.
Response: Depends on how you define free will. I have no problem with God allowing man to make choices, I just don’t think man has the ability to choose him. And whatever choices man makes, he either allows it for his purpose or restrains it for his purpose.
John:You are proposing two very different scenarios. One that men do what they wanted to do anyway, and Good wants them to do it, even if sinful, because he brings good of it. The other that men’s plans would break God’s plan, and he has to step in to change wills, and make everything turn out how he wants. Those are two very different views of how things go, and Calvinists often argue whichever seems to help their case without realizing it.
Response: Not at all ,God restrains man’s evil until the appointed time. When men devise evil plans, God uses their intentions to bring about his plans by restraining when and to what degree they will be effective. Much like the cross, Jesus walked through mobs basically whenever he felt like it. God was restraining their evil, until the appointed time. Christ could not have died any earlier or later. But according to Acts 4:27-28. God predestined this to occur.
Reverend Robert, intellectual theory can impede reality–and the reality of Christ–in ones mind.
As for your Catholicism; we Protestants will be here long after the complex about, not only an Anglicans identity, but all of Protestantism, as it has been manipulated by Rome.
@Kelton “Except a machine doesn’t have a soul nor a conscious.”
Conscience or consciousness? Anyway, how do you know if a machine can have one or not, and what is a conscience in your world view except an emotion that effects which things are pleasurable, lowering the utility of certain activities? Just one more subroutine in the machine.
“Doesn’t matter if it was inadvertent or not, sin is sin and God stopped him.”
I can stop you doing stuff as well. Does that prove anything? No.
“Actually it says declaring or making known.”
Same thing. They both amount to knowing.
“The reason he can do this is because he’s in control of all this. Eph 1:11.”
(A) running off to a whole new book is not impressive exegesis.
(B) there is no textual or thought link between these passages or concepts.
(C) eph 1:11 says he has to “work out” everything according to his will. How he achieves that and what his will is is the point of dispute. We say sometimes his will is to allow men free agency. That is his will.
“You have a presupposition that God can’t want that.
Response: Depends on how you define free will”
I don’t think it does depend. You have this presupposition, end of story. God can’t want libertarian free will to exist. Any passage that refers to god doing his will is presuppositionally assumed that his will is not to allow libertarian free will. In fact Calvinists are often seen to argue that libertarian will is logically impossible for God to implement.
John, you are libertarian free-will, whether you like it–or not. Such is the essence of Christ to man,and man to Christ. The belief that free-will is in opposition to Christ is erroneous. Authoritarian notions of the will are of license and tyranny… Either man is not free in Christ;and thus not free. Or he is Satanic without a struggle, yearning for grace.
@Greg
-“Not to an Armnian who operates his mind independently of God’s, like Adam did and Eve did in response to the serpent.”-
If Adam & Eve’s mind operated independently of God’s, it’s because God wanted it that way (if you’re a Calvinist). Regardless, this is simply another unverified assertion. Assumptions are not certain. If they were, they would be knowledge. Knowledge is justified, true belief. If something is “justified”, there is no reason for it to be an assumption.
-“Did God really say that?”-
Anyone who doesn’t ask this question is a fool.
-” And even if He did, why are you assuming God is right?”-
Assuming a traditional notion of God, anyone who would ask this is a fool.
-“All these assumptions based on God’s Word are a bit tenuous at best.”-
Assumptions are not “based on” anything. Conclusions based on “God’s Word” are extremely tenuous, because people simply assume that it is, in fact, God’s Word.
-“…’Enough with this presupposing the certainty of God and His word already’. You’ll dispute that, but it IS EXACTLY what he was telling them.”
Yes, I will dispute that. It’s not in the Bible, as a matter of fact. What is in the Bible is that the serpent told them something that God hadn’t, and they believed it. Perhaps they should have asked more questions. In addition, I would actually agree with you here that when God Himself tells you not to eat something… don’t eat it!
You don’t realize the insult it is to God when you tell Him that He has left you in ultimate uncertainty do you?
No, because it is clear to me that if God wanted everyone to be certain about His existence, He could easily accomplish that. The fact that He hasn’t done that means that, for whatever reason, God remains hidden to a certain extent. It is to this hidden-ness that Paul is referring in Romans 1.
@Greg
-“His invisible attributes, eternal power AND divine are not just vaguely visible, but CLEARLY seen.”-
Please explain how *invisible* attributes are “clearly seen”.
The critical part to me here is this: …”being understood through what has been made.” Paul says that we are without excuse because even if God now does not specifically reveal Himself to all of us (divine hiddenness), we *should* at least come to know God through “natural revelation”.
Paul had just discussed God’s judgement and is clearly addressing the age-old question of “what about those who have never heard the Gospel”. Paul draws the conclusion that God has provided enough evidence that all people can be held accountable.
-“What is God to think when He makes Himself unavoidably and certainly revealed, even in significant details of His being and nature and then you turn around and slap Him in the face by saying that NOTHING, including Him, is certain?”-
I don’t know what He thinks about that, but I’d imagine even God acknowledges the limits of human reason. That there can be no certainty does not mean that ALL doubts are *reasonable*. This is Paul’s point. We are without excuse. A reasonable person following the evidence will draw some general conclusions about God (He exists, He is powerful, knowledgeable, etc.). That these things can be “clearly seen” does not mean they are certain; in fact, it is because of the limits of our reason that they cannot be. But that does not mean we have an excuse (according to Paul).
“In the beginning God created the heavens and he earth” but in such a way that His having done so is uncertain to His creatures made in His image and likeness?”
Yes. God *could* have made it more obvious, could He not? But He didn’t.
-“You are THE quintessential poster boy for VAn Til’s “autonomous man”… I implore you, forsake this stiff necked rebellion and enthrone your master…”-
To be honest, it seems to me more…
Sorry, was cut off there. I was going to say that it seems like you want me to enthrone “your boy” Van Til.
@Greg
-“The idea of moving a mountain was a not uncommonly used metaphor of the day to signify the great trials of life.”-
Surely, you cannot find this to be a satisfactory response. First of all, I think the idea that this was a metaphor for overcoming difficult to be unsupported. BUT, despite that, I think it is obvious that Jesus spoke often in hyperbole. Let’s simply agree that it was a proverbial expression.
The problem here is that Jesus supported such a difficult notion with so many other sayings! Besides referring to the proverbial mountain, He stated that they would also be able to wither fig trees. Please don’t try to claim that, too, is a metaphor. Jesus also said to His disciples that they would do greater things than He did (did they?). Jesus said Peter could walk on water if he did not doubt? Also metaphor/hyperbole? So, the difficulty for you, not being a cessationist (which I would agree is the more Biblical approach), is that you claim to have God’s own certainty/faith, and yet I would imagine that you are not doing greater things than He. It is one thing to try and fail, yet I imagine too that you be even reluctant to be put to the test.
Nothing personal, but I think the proof is in the pudding. Vague references to answered prayer are not helpful. If you cannot walk on water with your certainty in God’s power, then there’s no reason to think Peter could… OR, that you’re not *really* certain.
@Greg
-“A non deterministic God is a contingent one and contingency is the opposite of certainty.”-
Let’s break this up: 1) “A non-deterministic God is a contingent one…”
A contingent being is one that could have been otherwise. It is not “necessary” for it to exist. We are contingent beings. I think. Yet, the Calvinist would claim that we are deterministic beings. So, it seems difficult to support the notion that contingency/necessity and determinism are in any way related. This position needs to be justified.
2) “…contingency is the opposite of certainty.”
No, the opposite of certainty is UNcertainty. Or doubt. I *think* what you are trying to say is that contingency opens the door for uncertainty because of the possibility that things could have been otherwise. That, I think, is probably true. But “opening the door” is not to say that it is equivalent.
Because necessity does not make anything certain, so far as I can see. Despite the fact that nothing could be otherwise, that does not mean that a necessary being would know this.
The fact remains, however, that we are contingent beings. I do not HAVE to exist. I know of no one who would argue that *everything* is necessary. In fact, every theologian I know would confirm that if there is a necessary being, it is God and God only. But perhaps that is simply betraying my ignorance. Nevertheless, if there is contingency, then there would seem to be uncertainty.
@Kelton, you wrote to John:
-“Depends on how you define free will. I have no problem with God allowing man to make choices, I just don’t think man has the ability to choose him. And whatever choices man makes, he either allows it for his purpose or restrains it for his purpose.”-
What you are describing here is a situation where man’s will is sometimes controlled and sometimes free (“allowed”). In other words, you are an Arminian. Hate to break it to you.
Granted, it is probably a far more restrictive version than any Arminian I know. But, if you allow for free will more than in-name-only (like most other Calvinists), then you are no Calvinist. Calvinist acknowledge “free will” or “human freedom” only because they have to, but then redefine “freedom” to mean “free to do whatever God sovereignly wills”. In other words, they’ve defined “freedom” to be opposite of what the word is supposed to mean.
I suspect that Calvinists have the same frustration with Arminians and “sovereignty”. It should be noted (on both sides) that there are degrees of freedom and sovereignty. It isn’t as if these concepts are all-or-nothing propositions.
@Fr. Robert
Re: Pelagius
From what I have read, I would say that both Augustine and Pelagius needed correction. It seems to me that Pelagius was more influenced by the OT, and Augustine by Paul. Obviously, that is overly simplistic.
-“There was no conspiracy here, but theological differences, and the desire for orthodoxy, in the West.”-
“Conspiracy” is a bit inflammatory. But do you not think it a bit coincidental that Pelagius was generally denounced when Augustine represented his teachings, and not himself? Seems problematic, especially when the majority of what we have left is from Augustine.
Greg, no Arminian believes that he acts beyond God. Nor do we advocate that one can act without God–in such a way; even a heathen cannot do that. It may be of some concern as to how one can act with God; if that one does not believe. Still this does nothing against even full-throttle Palegianism. The Arminian promotes the understanding that creation’s natural law has a provision for man. That provision can make, or break. By being born to life in the world man has asserted God’s will–simply by such an introduction. Yet he is responsible for more then the Calvinist, or Lutheran would like to think.
@Kelton
[part 1/2]
I am going to walk through some of the latest responses. Along the way I may be assuming things you accept based on different responses you have made. If I mis-state anything please let me know, as I am not trying to mis-reprent only synthesize and understand. Thanks for this dialogue.
MikeB: Basically do you accept meticulous sovereignty and determinism or not?
Kelton: … So yes, I accept sovereignty (not sure what meticulous sovereignty is) and determination.
meticulous sovereignty = a view of sovereignty where God determines all things, basically theistic determination as opposed to naturalist view of determination (ie) Dawkins, Hitchens.
Arminians (despite some claims to the contrary) accept God’s sovereignty as well. They just don’t accept a meticulous/determinism view of it. In a nutshell, God does not determine all things that come to pass. However, in the Arminian view of sovereignty God is in control, holds the universe together, allows sin to occur but because He allows man LFW it eliminates God as the cause. God also intervenes at times when LFW choices would affect His plan of redemption (ie) see comments on Abraham/Abemelech the other day.
MikeB: 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”?
Kelton: Yeah I think so, I don’t think anything happens outside of his will.
I am going to equate “nothing happens outside of his will” with “He causes all things that come to pass” since you accept determinism. And keeping terms consistent will help us make sure we are clear in what we mean and intend to communicate. Going back to the original two premises I would think that you would agree with this statement since that is the basic definition of determinism:
#1 God causes (determines/ordains) all that comes to pass
This is saying more than God allows/permits…
@Kelton
[part 2/2]
And since evil and sin occur yet God determines/causes all things then evil and sin would logically be included in the “all that comes to pass”. If they are not then God does not cause all that comes to pass, He only causes some of the things that come to pass.
So that logically yields:
#1 God causes (determines/ordains) all that comes to pass
#2 therefore God causes (determines/ordains) the sin that occurs
Now, most don’t like premise #2 and advocate the following:
#1 God causes (determines/ordains) all that comes to pass
#2 God does not cause (determines/ordains) the sin that occurs
I understand that in compatibilism the person that sins (Abraham, Abimelech, Joseph’s brothers) does so because of their desires/will. But because of determinism those desires/will and the sin that results are determined/caused by God.
Based on this response below you would seem to agree with that idea:
MikeB: 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?
Response: Yep.
However, the second presentation of the argument contains a logical contradiction that can seemingly only be removed by denying determinism.
Am I missing something?
MikeB
@Greg
How am I answering back to God? I am attempting to read and rightly divide the Word. To be a good Berean and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.
@Wesley: I really dislike people (on the blogs) who are both historically & theologically ignorant, and seek also to judge and put words in other peoples mouths! It seems your ignorance of historical Anglicanism is profound! Again Sir, do your homework before you engage with me at least! I would suggest reading Diarmound MacCulloch’s book and bio: Thomas Cranmer, A Life. As to the Anglican Articles 1615 (Archbishop James Ussher).
@JB.. Let me suggest reading Peter Brown’s classic Bio: Augustine of Hippo. See chapter 29: Pelagius And Pelagianism, as chapter 30, Causa Gratiae.
Btw JB, I have simply never heard of Augustine being called “simplistic”! 😉 If believing in the Text and authority of the Bible and Holy Scripture is “simplistic”, then surely I am here! In fact, I like to call myself something of a “Biblicist”!
*I don’t say this too often on the blogs, but I hold both the D. Phil., and the Th.D. The former I did at the end, on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross. And the latter, I did on Roman’s Studies, especially Romans chapter 7. So I am surely “Reformational” and Reformed!
These were done or finished in the mid 90’s, I later taught in Israel in the late 90’s. Note too, I am a Gulf War 1 Vet (RMC, Royal Marine Commando, officer..Recon). I share the latter, since it had such a profound effect on me personally and theologically! And aye, I am Historic-Pre-Mill (with the PD…a “Biblical” Zionistl 😉
Greg: “Therefore when a man is most conscious of himself he is then also most clearly confronted by the God whose image he bears. I called that “mocking” for dramatic effect. I wouldn’t go to the mat over that point and no part of my arguments here depends on it.”
Yes, I have always found Calvinists to be a bit dramatic. 😉
I think the point of Romans 1:18f is that human beings reject the revelation of God that God provides universally to all persons.
I think from God’s perspective, he desires that the sinner repent. That is why “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (Rom 10:21 NRS)
@Greg
[Think I lost my last attempt to submit comment]
On this we agree –> that we are to worship God who saved us while we were sinners and enemies by grace thru faith in Jesus. Amen!
Notice that I am not questioning God and calling Him unjust or unfair in how He carries out His will. I am pointing out a logical contradiction in the Calvinist view. Big difference. I am also seeking to better understand this view from those who hold it.
Now, if there were no other possible and plausible interpretations of Scripture other then what Calvinists offer here then we might be stuck regarding being able to understand these topics based on what is revealed. But there are alternative views that are capable of being supported by Scripture.
Various comments have hit this pretty well, but God wants us to examine the Scriptures and use reason to understand Him as revealed in His Word and nature. Acts 17 makes that pretty clear. Paul went to the synagogues to reason, and to Mars Hill to reason, and the Bereans searched and compared what Paul taught with what the Scriptures said.
As to other views on Romans 9, Bob Andersen covered that already …
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/the-irrationality-of-calvinism/comment-page-3/#comment-79008
@Greg: Your argument about 2+2 and contingencies is so abstract and philosophical, that its whole basis is questionable, but let’s assume that somewhere in there you have the right idea.
I still think its flawed for the following reason. The reason that you claim one has to know everything to have certainty about anything is that in this universe everything is interrelated. We are all part of the same space-time. Everything effects everything else, gravitationally and in all sorts of other ways. So perhaps it is a reasonable statement that to know anything for sure, you must know everything. I’m not certain of that, but let’s go with it.
The trouble is, God lives outside space time. Thus he operates in realms where he is TOTALLY independent of what goes on in our universe. He could, theoretically at least, be 100% sure of stuff within his own realm, whilst leaving open contingencies in ours.
To get even more specific, I could design a computer chip and a computer that works perfectly, that always adds 2+2=4, and which I prove mathematically will always run software according to the proper rules. There are no contingencies, because I as the designer, figured it all out in my hermetically sealed laboratory, with no contingencies. However, I could then ship this computer out to my users, who will run software on it that I never imagined. Sure, it will for sure run the software correctly, and for sure always add 2+2=4, but the details of what software will be run, and why it will add 2+2 to be 4 may be contingent on others. I am still an uncontingent being within my realm and within my laboratory. But I choose to ship my uncontingent device to some contingent beings to do stuff with.
Your error is to equate God’s reality with our reality, when actually, there is a hierarchy of reality. In the Warcraft computer game, the correctness of the rules of reality is not dependent on the contingency of how people play the game.
@Greg: I’m not sure how that response really is any kind of response.
Since in this day and age we have simulated realities, we should be able to think fairly clearly about what you are proposing. Simulated realities and games like Warcraft allow contingent beings interact within a framework of simulated laws of physics and rules. If I am playing the game, and I observe that these “laws of physics” and “rules” always work, what does it say about the designer of the game? Does it mean he is contingent or uncontingent? No, it doesn’t say anything about that at all. It might say that he is uncontingent in so far as his relationship to the warcraft universe is concerned – i.e. he created the warcraft universe out of nothing. But it doesn’t say if he is or is not uncontingent in his own universe – maybe he is, or maybe he isn’t. Nor does it say if he will always act uncontingently in his relationship to the warcraft universe. In fact he probably won’t. He’ll observe what goes on in the game, and if things are going awry, he might intervene. But the existence of these contingencies really has no impact of the reality that he is the creator of the game, and the reality that the rules of the game work, they always work, and they are inviolable because I as creator made them so.
Also, I have to point out that the theology of the old testament especially presents a picture of a God that is contingent with respect to the world. I really think it is unarguable that the OT presents this view and that the Jews, reading the OT could have nothing other than this view, if they were good biblical students. Why did God mislead us so in his Word?
Re: “You, as yourself a contingent being, CANNOT EVER under any circumstances for the rest of eternity become capable of an illustration that properly portrays a God who “upholds the universe by the word of his power” and “works all things [in it] according to the counsel of his will”. ”
Incorrect. God made us in his image with the ability to do this very thing. Our portrayals are necessarily limited by not being infinite, but that does not mean that they are inaccurate or seriously misleading. Greg’s theology is so transcendent that he “out-Barths” Barth, and hence is not compatible with God’sown revelation of himself.
Besides which, he is getting this thread totally off track.
and what is up with the bizarre headers that I see on my posts when I submit them?
Does this website hate Google Chrome?
Testing Firefox headers
@Greg: If your response is that you don’t like my realistic illustration, because the situation with God is different, then you are basically admitting that your mind is inadequate to be philosophising about such things. You don’t really have revelation about this theory of God being incapable of contingency, and I think you conceded that the OT seems to teach contingency. So your last hope was really air-tight philosophising. But you can’t do air-tight philosophising when you have to assume that things with God don’t work like anything we can imagine in this world, and you have to philosophise what those rules might be. People can only philosophises from their experience. All the avenues available to you are cut off – direct revelation, and philosophising based on the rules of this world.
I’m not seeing any “torn veil” as far as the NT revealing that God never acts contingently. I think lots of the NT has a very contingent feel. Just off the top of my head the parable of the wedding feast where he has to go get new people to attend. What is your proof text that nothing is contingent? Isaiah? Nowhere near good enough.
John I: I’m seeing the wierdness thing too, on Safari. I think we just have to ignore until someone fixes.
Re Greg @ #42
What you are not getting Mike is that there is a logical contradiction in 2+2 equaling 4 on the Arminian view.
?
And what would the contradictory premises or conclusions be? I haven’t read any in what Greg has posted.
The contingent God of Arminian soteriology is not capable of independent certainty and therefore provides no basis for ANY knowledge whatsoever.
Again, “?”
How is it so that the Arminian view describes a God who is not capable of independent certainty? I’ve not seen Greg put forward an actual argument to prove this conclusion of his. The same goes for his bald assertion that the God described by Arminius has no basis for knowledge.
Calvin was a heretic. His theology was completely against what the early Church fathers taught. Calvinism (especially Baptists) is another form of the Donatist heresy that Augustine fought against. What does Calvinism have in common with church practice before his time? Nothing. What was the point of church? The sacraments. He changed the meaning of them or removed them from what every church father held dearly as part of orthodox Christianity. Why would anyone want to follow an iconoclastic/gnostic heretic like Calvin. His followers destroyed Bibles, churches, musical instruments. Why would anyone argue for Calvinism? It’s like arguing Joseph Smith to Paul.
re greg @ #1 (301)
““Inadequate” is the word I used and they are. Wholly inadequate.”
Asserting something does not make it true. Provide examples or illustrations, or stop trolling.
Re Greg’s asserting that he has provided support for his conclusion (@ #2 / 302)
I’ve been following this thread, and have not read a supporting argument in favour of your conclusion, but it is possible that I missed it. Please provide a reference number to the paragraph that I should read, or a bit of text so that I can conduct a search for it.
@ John
John: Conscience or consciousness? Anyway, how do you know if a machine can have one or not, and what is a conscience in your world view except an emotion that effects which things are pleasurable, lowering the utility of certain activities? Just one more subroutine in the machine.
Response: Because a machine is not self aware nor does a machine have a will.
John: I can stop you doing stuff as well. Does that prove anything? No.
Response: Yes it proves men don’t have libertarian free will and God just sits back and allows them to do whatever they desire.
John: Same thing. They both amount to knowing.
Response: Not really, it amounts to him “Making known.” Not him knowing. He’s declaring it because he’s in control over it.
(A) running off to a whole new book is not impressive exegesis.
Response: Wasn’t doing exegesis, but rather answering your thoughts about God knowing the middle.
(B) there is no textual or thought link between these passages or concepts.
Response: Right, but you brought up whether or not God knew the middle, and that verse answers that question.
(C) eph 1:11 says he has to “work out” everything according to his will. How he achieves that and what his will is is the point of dispute. We say sometimes his will is to allow men free agency. That is his will.
Response: I don’t know how you figure this when it’s clear that he stops men from their so called free will in order to bring about the desired outcome.
John:“You have a presupposition that God can’t want that.
Response: Nope, just reading the verse.
John: I don’t think it does depend. You have this presupposition, end of story. God can’t want libertarian free will to exist. Any passage that refers to god doing his will is presuppositionally assumed that his will is not to allow libertarian free will. In fact Calvinists are often seen to argue that libertarian will is logically impossible for God to implement.
Response: No…
@JP
JP: What you are describing here is a situation where man’s will is sometimes controlled and sometimes free (“allowed”). In other words, you are an Arminian. Hate to break it to you.
Response: LOL, that’s funny. No I’m no where near an Arminian. In other words, God sometimes restrains man’s chooses and sometimes he doesn’t.
JP: Granted, it is probably a far more restrictive version than any Arminian I know. But, if you allow for free will more than in-name-only (like most other Calvinists), then you are no Calvinist. Calvinist acknowledge “free will” or “human freedom” only because they have to, but then redefine “freedom” to mean “free to do whatever God sovereignly wills”. In other words, they’ve defined “freedom” to be opposite of what the word is supposed to mean.
Response: No I mean their free will under the concept of choosing according to their strongest desire, not Libertarian free will. Like when Jonathan Edwards said “Our choices are determined by what we think is most desirable at any given moment.”
JP: I suspect that Calvinists have the same frustration with Arminians and “sovereignty”. It should be noted (on both sides) that there are degrees of freedom and sovereignty. It isn’t as if these concepts are all-or-nothing propositions.
Response; Maybe so, but I don’t think we’re frustrated, call it a hunch.
@ MikeB
Mike: meticulous sovereignty = a view of sovereignty where God determines all things, basically theistic determination as opposed to naturalist view of determination (ie) Dawkins, Hitchens.
Response: Sure, got it.
Mike: However, in the Arminian view of sovereignty God is in control, holds the universe together, allows sin to occur but because He allows man LFW it eliminates God as the cause. God also intervenes at times when LFW choices would affect His plan of redemption (ie) see comments on Abraham/Abemelech the other day.
Response: Sure but if God interferes with man’s free will then man doesn’t have free will.
MikeB:
#1 God causes (determines/ordains) all that comes to pass
This is saying more than God allows/permits…
Response: I think whatever he allows, is apart of what he ordains.