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: “That’s one of my main weapons. ALL men LIVE as if 2+2 is an utterly unassailable certain fact. Of course they do LOL! IT IS.”
I’m not sure why the observation that all men live with a certain belief automatically provides fodder for any argument. I’ve just so happened to be reading some Romanian history lately. Because of vampire theories, when weird stuff happened, villages would sometimes dig up the graves and drive stakes through them. I guess all men were living like it was an unassailable fact that there are vampires. I’m sure there is a lot of stuff that men assumed as unassailable fact, that is now known not to be unassailable.
What is 2+2=4 anyway? I mean, its just some squiggles on paper. Why does 2+2=4? Is it because God made it so? Or is it really because men defined “4” to be that number you get when you add 2 and 2? I can define some squiggle, let’s say “~~” to be the temperature in New York at midday Christmas 2012, and guess what? It will be! Does 2+2=4 in other dimensions? Some scientists reckon that inside subatomic particles there might be 16 dimensions or something. Does 2+2=4 in there? Maybe that rule is so inviolable that it does. I don’t know about such things. Yes, for now, I always assume 2+2=4. I don’t know if its an inviolable truth. That may be my ignorance of mathematics or high philosophy. That’s great, but that proves my point. We’re all ignorant. Your certainty about 2+2 might be more like the vampire killing villagers if we knew it all.
Mike BL
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.
Response: Correct, I just think God uses evil and sin for a greater good.
Mike B: 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.
Response: For a greater good. God uses the sins of men to bring about a greater good. i.e. Joseph and his brothers. They intended evil, but God predestined to use their evil intent to bring about a good.
Mike B:However, the second presentation of the argument contains a logical contradiction that can seemingly only be removed by denying determinism.
Am I missing something?
Response: Maybe, I’m not seeing it. The idea is that God predestines all events. Man intends one thing to happen which is not God’s will. Yet God intends on another thing to happen and uses man’s sin to bring about what he wants to happen for a greater good.
So like the cross, God predestined Christ would die on the cross. The Jews intended for Christ to die because they hated him. God intended for Christ to die for our salvation. God used their intent (which was not intended on doing God’s will) to bring about his goal which he predestined before hand. Read Acts 4:26-28
26:for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
They did not want to do God’s will, their intent was to kill him but God used their intent to murder him to bring about salvation. Make sense?
@Kelton: “Response: Because a machine is not self aware nor does a machine have a will.”
Prove it. First you’ll have to clearly define those terms, then define a test for it.
“Yes it proves men don’t have libertarian free will and God just sits back and allows them to do whatever they desire.”
That I could stop you doing something is proof you don’t have libertarian will? Really. What exactly would be the contrary proof if libertarian free will were true? If you’re making this a scientific thing, I want pass and failure conditions.
“Response: Not really, it amounts to him “Making known.” Not him knowing. He’s declaring it because he’s in control over it.”
It might be, but that goes beyond what the text says. The text speaks only of knowledge.
“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.”
(A) If he does, Eph 1:11 doesn’t say anything about it.
(B) Even if God does override free will sometimes, that doesn’t prove free will doesn’t exist. In fact, you’ve got to presuppose some kind of free will existing before God would be bothered overriding it. You and I might disagree on the nature of that will, but the fact it is overridden doesn’t tell us what it is.
JB Chappell, man has a will and if he dies not exercising it in God; he falls to Satanic manipulation of that will. He cannot be a spiritual force unto himself. If man exercises without God he is 1. depraved as a heathen, yet can reason goodness at least as carnal as possible, or in a way as only God can do, even though that individual may nor profess Christ. 2. He is dead spiritually…and on his way perhaps to a physical death that is a consequence of such self-destruction. As for mere Natural Law; man is alive and as autonomous as far as he knows in a matter of the flesh.
@Greg
– Hypothetical conversation –
Greg: “God said you need to be certain about everything.”
JB: “Did God really say that?”
Greg: “Yes, He commanded you in 2 Greggalonians. How dare you question God. You have now sinned.”
JB: Eh?
That was the conversation that played out in my head after your response. I’m assuming that’s not what you had in mind, so perhaps you could elaborate.
Pardon, i meant: ‘if he does not exercise it in God’… I am saying that such a thing is impossible. One way or the other; and that Pelagius, nor Arminius ever made the argument against God’s will.
@Greg OK. Thanks for the clarification. Here is how that conversation should have gone down.
God says (to JB): “Don’t eat from that tree. I get to make that decision and you don’t”
[…later on…]
Serpent says: Did God really say that?
JB Chappell says: Good question, best to be sure that others aren’t speaking for God. But, yes, I can attest to you that He did, He spoke directly to me.
Serpent says: But how can you be sure? Perhaps your brains are in a vat, and some psycho just wants you to think that.
JB: YOUR brain is in a vat.
Point is, if what you’re trying to point out is that if by asking “Did God really say that?” and you already know what the answer is (as the serpent ostensibly did), then OK, it’s sin because you’re attempting to deceive. If, on the other hand, you are asking because you honestly aren’t sure (because you weren’t privy to the conversation), then it’s a perfectly reasonable question. And, in fact, I’d say that one is obligated to ask it. Otherwise, this may happen:
Pelagius: You know, JB, God says you have the ability to be a good person.
JB: OK, sounds good!
Augustine: You fool!!!
@S. Wesley McGranor
Forgive me, but I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say.
-“man has a will and if he does not exercise it in God; he falls to Satanic manipulation of that will.”-
What do you mean by “exercise it in God”?
-“He cannot be a spiritual force unto himself.”-
Again, not sure what this means.
-“As for mere Natural Law; man is alive and as autonomous as far as he knows in a matter of the flesh.”-
Not sure what Natural Law has to do with anything…?
-“…and that Pelagius, nor Arminius ever made the argument against God’s will.”-
What do you mean by “never made the argument”? Do you mean that they never *successfully* made the argument, or that they never even tried?
@Greg
I’m saying what really matters is that Adam and Eve already knew the answer.
Well, I’d disagree about the “certain” part, but nevertheless I’d agree that they *knew* what God had told them, and that God had told it to them. And we agree that (I assume) that they had every reason to trust God, and no (good) reason to trust the serpent.
The point is that our first parents were lead directly into the jaws of death by refusing to stand on the certainty that God had already given them.
I think we’d agree that the solution to this problem is not to pretend we’re certain about what we think God tells us. (see: Harold Camping, Westboro Baptist, etc.).
Men will deny that certainty rather than bow to the all sovereign God whom that certainty reveals.
I think you put too much stock into certainty, especially given that you cannot demonstrate that it’s possible, much less that even you have it! Men (such as myself) do not deny certainty because they do not want to “bow”, they deny certainty because it seems like it doesn’t exist, that there isn’t anything we cannot doubt – EVEN IF that doubt is extremely remote. But I have emphasized repeatedly: that something CAN be doubted, does not mean that such a doubt is plausible. In other words, just because something is uncertain, does not make it unreasonable. Bowing before a sovereign God is perfectly reasonable.
All the while depending on it even for their denial. Even you. Yes you are. I’m not trying to make you angry…
I’m not mad, I’m… disappointed. I am less than underwhelmed at the quality of your argumentation thus far. That is not meant to be a slap in the face, as I will cut you some slack in that I realize you’ve been trying to respond to numerous people, along different lines. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that so far the only somewhat-developed argumentation you’ve provided for God providing us certainty *initially* was from Romans 1. The rest is assertions.
RE Greg @ #316 “Ya gotta think with me here bud.”
The discussion would be more pleasant without the condescension, and also without the faux low-brow familiarity. Since convergence in speech characteristics usually occurs when people engage in conversation, for reasons of social cohesion, the pointedly different style (low brow, chummy, overly familiar, condescending) indicates rudeness and a desire to hold oneself apart from, and above, the other conversation partners.
I’ve read Greg’s posts on pages 5 and 6 of this thread, and (to paraphrase Inigo Montoya) “I do not think the words mean what he thinks they mean.” Greg is stiff necked and rebellious himself in his belief that he does have absolute certainty and that he has so correctly understood God.
Greg gives far too much weight to the natural revelation entailed in mathematical formulae such as “2 + 2 = 4”, and too little to God’s own revelation.
Furthermore, his position (the significance of rationality and logic to the truth of Calvinism) is directly contrary to CMP’s, who avers that Calvinism is more true because it is more irrational. Greg’s obviously not too concerned about that, but we now have a thread in which two Calvinists take opposing positions: Calvinism is more true because it is more irrational, and Calvinism (at least of the Van Tillian presuppositional sort) is more true because it is more rational. Rather like matter and antimatter, though unfortunately without the same result.
So, CMP is wrong because he is to uncertain about the truth of the free will / sovereignty issue (though he prefers Calvinism because it is more irrational), and all Arminians (or at least Chappell) are also wrong because they make room for contingency (of the wrong sort) and uncertainty (which is always wrong).
I feel like I’m in a time warp and reliving the Van Till / Clark controversy. Interestingly, Herman Hoeksema wrote a
@Greg
Your argument/assertions, hinges around the fact that people LIVE like they are certain about things. You think that actions are betraying people’s words. First of all, this is so misleading, because so many people would, in fact, claim that we can know things for certain – even unbelievers. So, it is patently not the case that people cry “foul” over certainty because they don’t want to submit to God.
Regardless, the fact that people do so pragmatically hardly entails that this is so ontologically. People live like the sun will come up tomorrow. People live like bad things won’t happen to them. That they live as such does not entail a certain reality, does it?
To be honest, when I offered you the “nothing can be known for certain”, I thought for sure you’d come back with “that’s a self-defeating claim”. Because of course, it seems to be a claim to certainty. And, to qualify it with “but I don’t know that for certain”, means that there is still a possibility for certain-hood that seemed to be denied initially. In any case, I would have claimed that arguing for self-defeating assertions is using “human logic”, which you’ve already stated is tautologous and cannot be considered “knowledge”. So, by your standards anyway, it seems pointless to even argue.
The futility of reason is, I guess, why you turn to “faith”, but that isn’t helpful. Simply saying that *you* feel certain because you have faith does nothing to provide the rest of us with it. And we all claim to have faith as well, so why wouldn’t we have received this certainty as well…? Guess we’re not elect.
Even arguing from scripture is problematic because, quite obviously, it relies on our interpretation. Which is quite fallible (or do you disagree?). I think you are in a pickle, sir. Your entire argument rests on a subjective claim to certainty. That you have developed a whole philosophical system around your own subjective experience is probably why no one else seems to understand you.
@John I.
Calvinism is more true because it is more irrational, and Calvinism (at least of the Van Tillian presuppositional sort) is more true because it is more rational.
I don’t think this is a fair assessment of what CMP was saying. He was very clear that he did not think revelation leads to any *formal* irrationality (outright logical contradictions). He would insist, apparently, that any appearances to the contrary could be worked out. And, I think he is right, insofar as people then to start re-defining terms to mean something other than what they initially did.
So, I don’t think CMP would say that Calvinism is more correct because it is more irrational, I think he would say that it is more correct because it is better supported by scripture, and any tensions left over simply have to be embraced or appreciated as “mystery”.
It is not clear to me that, since he thinks that revelation trumps reason, if scripture DID lead to a formal logical contradiction (which I would contend creation ex nihilo is), whether or not he still would insist that we should follow scripture, or if he would use that contradiction to say “well, we got something wrong, apparently”.
That God can be “trans-rational” is, I think, beyond dispute. It’s a possibility. But it’s clear to me that this aspect of God is only used as a last-ditch excuse to hold to orthodoxy. And it is also clear to me that this could then be used to excuse all manner of other things. For instance, what kind of evil can be excused when we say “God is trans-good.” If, on the other hand, rationality is part of God’s nature, there actually is an obligation to take reason as far it can take us.
Why that obligation would exist if God is “trans-rational” is unclear to me.
@Greg
-“Despite the fact all this effort has gone into these posts seemingly for naught, I’m not sorry I came here and participated.”-
For what’s worth, neither am I. Like I said before, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. Your perspective is… unique. 😉
@Greg
-“I’ll start with pragmatic certainty. That is, the objectively inescapable experience of 2+2 equaling 4 along with all of the sprawling vaaast applications of it on every level of our lives.”-
If by “pragmatic certainty” you mean “is taken for granted in practice”, then I am completely willing to grant that there is pragmatic certainty about a great many things. This practice does not necessarily conform to reality (ontological status), however. If that’s not what you mean, then I do not know what you mean.
-“If whatever it is about the universe that makes 2+2=4 were to cease right now I wouldn’t be able to finish this sentence.”-
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that there’s no way to demonstrate this.
-“There could also be no gravity holding me to this seat…”-
Gravity cannot exist if 2+2=5? Gravity is a force. It’s strength can be measure in numbers, but why believe that if numbers or relationships between numbers changed, that the actual strength of the force would change?
-“That’s not even mentioning the biochemistry that my physical being operates under.”-
You are a contingent being. You could exist otherwise. How do you know you couldn’t exist under a different set of rules? Or no rules?
-“All of this lives or dies together with 2+2=4.”-
Greg, this has been the crux of your argument, and so far it is a monumental failure. The fact that “math works” is a wonderful testament to the *comprehensibility* of our universe, perhaps even the hallmark of design. But what we have to ask ourselves is this arithmetic a description and reflection of our reality, or it is a necessary condition of it? You are *assuming* it is the latter, without giving evidence that you’ve considered the former.
@Greg
-”The denial of what I just said borders on insanity and not one person who has or ever will live can fire so much as one synapse in intelligibility if it weren’t true.”-
Well, my daughters were pretty young, and they didn’t understand that 2+2=4. In fact, even when they were taught it, they weren’t certain of it. Yet, the universe continued to exist. What should be obvious from this that there is a difference between how things are, and how we understand them. It may be as you say: perhaps the world would unravel if 2+2=5. That doesn’t mean I’m certain that 2+2=4. How do I know the world really hasn’t unravelled?
-”Why are we enslaved to this pragmatic certainty?”-
Things are NOT enslaved to pragmatic certainty. One can live your life in relative uncertainty, yet adhere to inductively-perceived patterns. I cannot live my life as if it will end today. I simply cannot. At some point, I will probably betray that idea and do something as if it had some effect on tomorrow. That does not mean that tomorrow is guaranteed to come.
-”Seeing that we ARE contingent beings and that contingency is by definition uncertain….”-
Contingency is not “by definition” uncertain. Let’s not confuse common parlance with philosophical terms. There are philosophers who would argue contingent facts can be known with certainty. Contingency, however, is the state of depending on something else.
-”… then we CANNOT ourselves be the source of this pragmatic certainty.”-
Wrong. We can be the source of pragmatic certainty, just as I can be the source of many other forms of pragmatism. A contingent being, however, is NOT going to be the ultimate source of anything.
@Greg
-”Don’t you see that the source of this pragmatic certainty IS our God who alone is uncontingent and independent?”-
No, i don’t. As I said before, the concepts are unrelated. God can be independent and completely uncertain. It depends on His properties. God could be necessary and completely ignorant. It is only when we add the property of “omniscience” to God that suddenly He is certain about everything. But are we certain that He is omniscient, and (perhaps more important) what that actually means? I’m “sure” you are Greg, but that’s about it… 😉
-”The serpent lured him into autonomous independence by using the very uncertainty that you are here trying to convince me is the best we can hope for.”-
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you are ignoring that the serpent was RIGHT. That the serpent had bad intentions is, of course, bad for Adam & Eve and the rest of us. One can use the truth to accomplish certain ends. In any case, the Bible says nothing about Adam and Eve being uncertain or not. You are reading into the text.
-”If God makes so much as one decision ultimately dependent upon what He observes external to His own will then He is contingent too and we have no grounds for believing ANYTHING to certain.”-
That doesn’t follow. The nature of a thing doesn’t seem to change in such a way. You can’t go from “impossible not to exist” to “depending on something else to exist”. This is a logical contradiction. If a being does not have a will, then anything it does is out of the necessity of its nature, and so anything else that follows also necessarily occurs. A being can be necessary and, if it has a (free) will, make contingent decisions. But this contingency requires *other* things, which requires God to create. What these decisions are based on afterwards simply doesn’t matter, it doesn’t magically change the essence of God. It just makes the Calvinist uncomfortable.
@Greg
-”By “certainty” I do not mean being fully persuaded that this or that particular historical event can be brought to pass in response to my believing prayer.”-
So… are you UNCERTAIN that what you pray for will happen…? Because, according to you, that will unravel all of existence….
-”That sort of certainty cannot be subsumed under either pragmatic or objective certainty as I have thus far explained.”-
Sorry, but this is awfully convenient. So many different kinds of certainty, so little time…
@Greg: are the basic laws of logic and things like 2+2=4 so basic and profound that even God is bound by them? Could it be that in heaven 2 angels come through the left door and 2 through the right door, resulting in 5 angels?
I honestly don’t know the answer. But if you say God is so bound, then you can’t really say that 2+2=4 by God’s command, which I think is your point. It is 4 because it cant be other, On the other hand if God is not so bound, then you can’t be sure if there are times and places in this universe where God has made 2+2=5. Either way I think your thesis fails.
Greg, in one of your comments I think you mistook John’s comment for mine (John I.). Just an FYI to you and other readers that “John” and “John I.” are not the same person.
“Just an FYI to you and other readers that “John” and “John I.” are not the same person.”
That assumes that for sure 1+1=2, and we haven’t quite established that yet! 🙂
John: “That assumes that for sure 1+1=2, and we haven’t quite established that yet!”
I always assumed 1 + 1 = 10. (binary)
@Kelton
MikeB:
#1 God causes (determines/ordains) all that comes to pass
This is saying more than God allows/permits…
Kelton: I think whatever he allows, is apart of what he ordains.
How can something be apart from what is ordained if everything is ordained? Or did you mean “a part of” (as in inclusive)?
Also are you purposely avoiding the word “cause”? Do you equate ordain with cause? If not can you define ordain from a deterministic view point for me?
MikeB: 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.
Kelton: Correct, I just think God uses evil and sin for a greater good.
Kelton: For a greater good. God uses the sins of men to bring about a greater good. i.e. Joseph and his brothers. They intended evil, but God predestined to use their evil intent to bring about a good.
Whether God uses evil and sin for good is not in debate. Whether God causes it is.
Do you equate predestine with cause? If not can you define predestine from a deterministic view point for me?
Kelton: Maybe, I’m not seeing it. The idea is that God predestines all events. Man intends one thing to happen which is not God’s will. Yet God intends on another thing to happen and uses man’s sin to bring about what he wants to happen for a greater good.
The fact that God’s intent/purpose and man’s intent/purpose for evil and sin are not the same is not in debate. Whether God causes it is.
I think the problem is we keep using words like ordain and predestine without defining them within a deterministic context.
@Kelton
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.
Kelton: Sure but if God interferes with man’s free will then man doesn’t have free will.
Depends on what you mean by interfere.
In the cases we have examined I don’t see God interfering with man’s LFW. I see God affecting the outcomes and consequences of the choices that man made through LFW. Big Difference.
Abimelech chose to take Sarah into his harem as a LFW choice.
God visited him in a dream and gave him a choice. No change was made to his will.
Abimelech just had another LFW choice to make.
However, even if by “interfere” you mean override the will/desire that a person has replacing it with a new will/desire, that does not mean that if God were to do this in isolated cases that LFW does not exist at all. It might means it did not exist in that scenario/circumstance. Why would the suspension of LFW in an isolated case prove the non-existance of LFW?
I always assumed 1 + 1 = 10. (binary)
LOL. Proving in the end that definitions really do matter.
I am always quite amazed when the subject of Calvin and “Calvinism” come up, just how ignorant people are about both! Not to mention just the stupid statements people make, especially towards John Calvin! Would that people would simply read the latest and better bio’s on Calvin, like Bruce Gordon’s “impressive” book & bio: ‘Calvin’, (Yale University Press, 2009…398 pages).
And yes, I have it, and have read it!…Grand Book!
Get to it Jon Visser!
Btw, 2 and 2 is 4. We call it Math! 😉
@Greg: First, my father RIP, was a scientist and physicist (moderate Irish Roman Catholic and WW II Vet. RAF fighter-pilot..spitfire), so he had a good and certain effect on me. But, I also had a greatgram, who was a born-again Christian (PB or Plymouth Brethren), and she no doubt had a greater effect on my interior life and faith! Yes between the two, I had an intellectual bent. But thank God He pressed that to HIS place of the gift of faith in a Sovereign God In Christ!
As to Creation, I am NOT a “theist evolutionist”! But tend to the Old Earth Creation, but I am somewhat open to the Young Earth, for we just don’t know, fully? The Bible does not give the age of the earth! Note, we must always respect biblical “genre”!
Btw, I love Van Til, and his student John Frame! And I am an Anglican Reformed, and would be closer to a neo-Calvinism, which is where I would see a John Calvin! 🙂
And note too btw, I am an “eclectic” and even somewhat an eccentric Irishman, and something Anglo-Irish (my education theological). 😉
Note too, I am I think, a young 63! 😉 Still have me hair, about 155lbs at 5’11, and always a bootneck (RMC, Royal Marine!) Aye, pride was part of my father’s gift and person, so I was taught to push it… on just about every level! I am my Father’s Son! 😉
@Greg: Note too, I am not really a card-carrying Reformed in every context, as I am most certainly an Historic Pre-Mill, Post-trib, and one that sees much of the PD (Progressive Dispensationalism). And I am even something of a “Biblical” Zionist.
http://blog.onbeing.org/post/250746172/calvin-and-hobbes-math-is-a-religion
@Greg: Nobody can hurt my feelings, and thank God being a pastor-teacher is not about that anyway. 😉 Yes, I can understand your feelings or position about evolution, I too hold to a historical Adam & Eve! However, I can see a “theological framework” in Genesis chapters 1-3. But certainly Creation itself must be a reality, even if we cannot understand all of the mystery, (Heb. 11:3).
John Frame was of course one of Van Til’s students, so Frame certainly knows Van Til. But he does take Van Til to places of his own. Not a big problem for me, as no one theolog or teacher is infallible, not even Calvin, nor his teacher Augustine! I am not a fan of the in-house overt Reformed debates, I mean we must have debate, but it should always be as within the Reformed family, etc. For example, I like much of the Federal Vision, or FV, but I can still be critical. Heck I am an Anglican Reformed, we have a long history.. even there, as being somewhat in-flux. 😉 Btw, I also like Gordon Clark, who tends to be on the other end here. Again, there is no infallibility here, so we should respect the Reformed dialogue! Note, too, that Clark was Historic Pre-Mill.
And just more fuel for you, but sadly Alister McGrath is also neo-evolutionist. Of course he was an atheist before coming to Christ, and too he was/is a scientist himself.
We are Arminians cannot undermine God; nor is it our way. However, the Calvinist undermines himself and God, by theorizing his faith to forsaking who he is as a man, and who God is as creator. We have it correct–in the extreme.
Lutherans like to take a middle way officially; but against the reality of man; that still supports even full-throttle Pelagianism.
For all the Augustinian glory is not worth wasting the four hundred years before him.
I was right on about you, just ad-hoc and even ad hom! Take it down the road! No dialogue in you, not to mention any proper historical theology! Good Lord deliver us.. from “your way”!
Greg: “I’m workin on a couple things for these guys and an eventual answer for Bob on Romans 9. I have like ten other things going on so it may take a little time.”
Looking forward to it. There is no short discussion on that, but you must frame your analysis with respect to Paul’s conclusions, particularly in Romans 11.
btw – This forum is not a sufficient place for an analysis of Romans 9. You might want to consider email or another site.
@Fr. Robert
I did not mean to refer to St. Augustine’s (or even Pelagius’) theology as “overly simplistic”, only my summaries! But thank you for the reference.
@Mike B
MikeB: How can something be apart from what is ordained if everything is ordained? Or did you mean “a part of” (as in inclusive)?
Response: Because I think a lot of what he does is restrain evil and when he doesn’t restrain it he is allowing it to happen but when he wants and to what degree he wants.
Mike B:Also are you purposely avoiding the word “cause”? Do you equate ordain with cause? If not can you define ordain from a deterministic view point for me?
Response: I don’t think I am. Just not the first word I would use in describing how God operates I guess.
Mike B:Whether God uses evil and sin for good is not in debate. Whether God causes it is.
Do you equate predestine with cause? If not can you define predestine from a deterministic view point for me?
Response: Predestination is simply God’s plan for humans beings and whatever comes to pass in time and space, decreed by him in eternity. So sometimes he restrains evil sometimes he allows it, sometimes he hardens peoples hearts sometimes he softens it.
MikeB: The fact that God’s intent/purpose and man’s intent/purpose for evil and sin are not the same is not in debate. Whether God causes it is.
I think the problem is we keep using words like ordain and predestine without defining them within a deterministic context.
Response: Well, no God doesn’t cause people to sin. But rather he uses their sin to bring about a greater good.
@Mike B
Mike B: Depends on what you mean by interfere.
In the cases we have examined I don’t see God interfering with man’s LFW. I see God affecting the outcomes and consequences of the choices that man made through LFW. Big Difference.
Response: Mike, God says he stopped him from sinning. Interfere means stopped. Wouldn’t allow it. He couldn’t if he wanted too.
Mike B: Abimelech chose to take Sarah into his harem as a LFW choice.
God visited him in a dream and gave him a choice. No change was made to his will.
Response: Mike, where does it say God gave him a choice? It says, “behold you are a dead man because you’ve taken a married woman.” That’s a threat. God kept him from sinning against him, Abimelech couldn’t have done otherwise.
Mike B: Abimelech just had another LFW choice to make.
However, even if by “interfere” you mean override the will/desire that a person has replacing it with a new will/desire, that does not mean that if God were to do this in isolated cases that LFW does not exist at all. It might means it did not exist in that scenario/circumstance. Why would the suspension of LFW in an isolated case prove the non-existance of LFW?
Response: Because in LFW, God is suppose to be sitting back and just watching because he loves us so much he doesn’t want to interfere with man’s choices. And of course this isn’t just an isolated incidence.
Proverbs 21:1
The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
As a matter of fact, what most people don’t realize is that when you pray that God changes someone’s heart (i.e. make them a believer) You’re praying that God interferes with their so called Free will.
Greg: “It is the pinnacle of arrogance to demand that the things of God fit between my ears before they can be true.”
Then how do you know that what you are saying is true?
The only place where I see this discussion being of practical interest is in relation to evangelism. What difference does holding to an Arminian, Calvinist, or Lutheran understanding of this issue make in how one approaches obeying Christ’s command to “Preach the Gospel to all the creation” and His statement that “you will be My witnesses…to the end of the earth”? Does it make any difference whatsoever, or does each system bring with it differing levels of accountability for preaching the Gospel?
I know that my opening sentence will bring some push-back, but I say it because, beyond the subjective comfort that any of these systems brings to your living this life, I cannot see where the level of God’s involvement in our decision-making process is as critical as it is in what appears to be the most significant decision one will make in life. Whether one believes in “decision evangelism” or not, we all agree that no one joins a church by osmosis, everyone who is in any church that any of us belongs to, came to be there because someone invited them to “come.”
Of these three systems, which tends to lend itself to more aggressive outreach, and which to more passive outreach?
Reverend, you self-defeated institution cannot stand.
In reality true Evangelicalism is not a church per se, but a movement! But surely historic Evangelicalism is classically Reformational! And thus here is too the Reformed Theology, along with of course Lutheranism, is again historical. We can see this with both Reformed and Lutheran Creeds. The church of the Reformers and the Reformation is always “historical”, theological and confessional! Btw, did the Formula of Concord change Luther’s doctrine of Predestination? Now that’s a debate!
@Kelton
Mike B:Also are you purposely avoiding the word “cause”? Do you equate ordain with cause? If not can you define ordain from a deterministic view point for me?
Response: I don’t think I am. Just not the first word I would use in describing how God operates I guess.
Response: Predestination is simply God’s plan for humans beings and whatever comes to pass in time and space, decreed by him in eternity. So sometimes he restrains evil sometimes he allows it, sometimes he hardens peoples hearts sometimes he softens it.
Determinism is a view of the world that is based on “cause” and the idea that all that happens could not happen any other way.
A theistic determinist (aka Calvinist) starts with God as the prime mover who both established a plan/decree of what must come to pass and then is the first cause for all that comes to pass. You seem to want to distance yourself from this view in your responses.
If it was not for the determinism, there would be no need for the tension described in the OP. The problem is that the logical conclusion is that if determinism is true and God is the prime mover of determinism (sovereign) then how could He not be the cause of sin.
Response: Well, no God doesn’t cause people to sin. But rather he uses their sin to bring about a greater good.
That is an excellent description of Arminianism and LFW.
MikeB
@Kelton
Response: Mike, God says he stopped him from sinning. Interfere means stopped. Wouldn’t allow it. He couldn’t if he wanted too.
There may be times where God does do this, however the text does not require your interpretation where the method by which God stopped Abimilech from sinning was by changing his will or desire. The threat/warning gave new information to the king and required him to make another choice. The text allows for an interpretation where Abimilech could have chosen to keep Sarah in his harem. The result would have been something like a fatal heart attack on the way to the bed chamber.
Response: Because in LFW, God is suppose to be sitting back and just watching because he loves us so much he doesn’t want to interfere with man’s choices. And of course this isn’t just an isolated incidence.
Actually, if you really wanted to look at the world that way it could better describe the Calvinist view. God established a plan before the foundation of the world and all that must come to pass. He started off the causal chain reaction than “sat back and watched” it unfold.
In the Arminian view, God interacts with man as he makes LFW choices. Sometimes He allows them to reap what they sow other times He intervenes. Sometimes He restrains evil sometimes He allows it, sometimes He hardens hearts sometimes He softens them.
Kelton: As a matter of fact, what most people don’t realize is that when you pray that God changes someone’s heart (i.e. make them a believer) You’re praying that God interferes with their so called Free will.
That is why I try to pray that God would send His Spirit to illuminate their understanding of spiritual things and convict them of sin (theirs), righteousness (something they don’t have but need), and the coming judgment (John 16) so that they will respond to His offer of salvation by faith.
MikeB
Mike B:
Mike B:A theistic determinist (aka Calvinist) starts with God as the prime mover who both established a plan/decree of what must come to pass and then is the first cause for all that comes to pass. You seem to want to distance yourself from this view in your responses.
Response: No I agree with that. I thought you were asking me if I thought God caused sin in the sense that God is actually causing individuals to sin. that is why I went on to explain about God restraining man’s evil.
MikeB:If it was not for the determinism, there would be no need for the tension described in the OP. The problem is that the logical conclusion is that if determinism is true and God is the prime mover of determinism (sovereign) then how could He not be the cause of sin.
Response: I think he predestined the fall, sure.
Mike B:That is an excellent description of Arminianism and LFW.
Response: no, because I think God also restrains man’s evil and often interferes with their so called free will.
MikeB
@Wesley: AS my post about Evangelicalism, here the Reformational and Reformed churches stand! I am an Evangelical Anglican priest/presbyter, and semi-retired. But if one reads the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, as the Anglican Irish Articles 1615, one can see that historic and classic Anglicanism is with the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and the Book of Common Prayer, as the legacy and history of the Elizabethan Settlement.
Yes, sadly today modernism, postmodernism and just apostasy are what we see, epecially in the CoE, as the American ECUSA, etc. But, GOD does have some faithful Anglican Christians, thanks be to God!
Btw, and just what is your “ecclesiastical” history? as YOU re-approach mine!
@Kelton
Kelton: Well, no God doesn’t cause people to sin. But rather he uses their sin to bring about a greater good.
Mike B:That is an excellent description of Arminianism and LFW.
Response: no, because I think God also restrains man’s evil and often interferes with their so called free will
Me too (though have a different view of interfere). 😉
@kelton “Response: Because in LFW, God is suppose to be sitting back and just watching because he loves us so much he doesn’t want to interfere with man’s choices. And of course this isn’t just an isolated incidence.”
And in Calvinism, God already ordained men’s choices, so why the need to have a second punt at influencing the outcome?
As far as I see, men by default think they have free will. Things in scripture that seem to say God overrules that sometimes would not have been interpreted by their Jewish readers to say that God determines it all the time. The very fact that God seems to do something to stick his nose in sometimes, actually gives the opposite impression, namely that when is is not interfering our free will is effective. The rules of good exegesis, namely interpreting like the original readers, would seem to be on our side.
“Response: no, because I think God also restrains man’s evil and often interferes with their so called free will.”
But, in Calvinism, God constructs an evil Robot army, programs them with software whereby he knows exactly what they will do and when they will do it. Then he lets them loose and occasionally overrides one to lessen the damage. How is it different to say to the Robot army “go kill”, than to program the software of the robot army, predicting where and when they will go kill, them letting them go and say “do whatever you want, totally your choice”, knowing full well the choice is exactly determined my your software, and what will happen? It’s a real struggle to differentiate those scenarios, and any court would pass the same sentence on both methods.
@Greg, I could be wrong, but it sounds like you’re getting wore out, bro
-“God has rendered certain and unchangeable from the foundation of the world whatsoever comes to pass.”-
Unsupported assertion. And unscriptural.
-“That includes Adam’s sin and the Connecticut school shooting.”-
Then why believe God is good?
-“He has done this by divine mechanisms accessible and understandable only to himself while being neither the tempter to nor the author of sin.”-
Translation: “It’s magic. I realize none of this makes sense, but I will call you a postmodern liberal if you don’t believe it.”
-“I have no idea how that works and very honestly don’t care anymore.”-
Translation: “Trying to reconcile the irrationality of my beliefs makes my brain hurt, but I will still insist I’m right and everyone else is wrong.”
-“I have believed and been arguing this for so long it doesn’t even cause me tension at this point.”-
Translation: “I’ve made peace with any cognitive dissonance I may have had, because I’ve stopped thinking about how I might be wrong, and keep focusing on how I’m right!”
-“It just… is.”-
Tautology. Which, according to Greg, is not “knowledge”.
-“It is the pinnacle of arrogance to demand that the things of God fit between my ears before they can be true.”-
Indeed it is. Of course, that isn’t what people claim. What they claim is that we can’t *understand it to be true*, unless it makes sense. ANd if you cannot understand it to be true, it is difficult – if not impossible – to justify such a claim. But I don’t know anyone who would deny outright the possibility that God is “transrational”. But I don’t think many of those who would hold to such a claim appreciate the implications.
-“My God ALWAYS wins.”-
Controlling the outcome of a contest from the beginning isn’t “winning”.
-“If there were ever to be even one soul in hell whom He really wanted in heaven then his is the most abysmal loser of all time.”-
Depends on what the name of the game is, isn’t it? If the purpose of the game is to allow entry into Heaven for those who choose it, then how has God lost?
To Bob, you replied:
-“In short the answer is trust.”-
Trust? Trust isn’t something that is needed when one has certainty! If you trust, you are not certain. Which is it? Or do you also not care about contradicting yourself?
-“The written word of almighty God declares that men are accountable and that God has already predetermined their fate.”-
This “written word” says a lot of things, that are then interpreted to mean other things.
-“I simply trust that that’s true and leave His secret counsel to Him.”-
Translation: “I trust my interpretation is true, ignore any cognitive dissonance, insist on being right, and denounce any who disagree as the tool of Satan.”
-“I should have been struck dead and cast forthwith into the hottest part of the lake of fire for crimes I committed right in His face AFTER I knew better.”-
Why? God would have already brought events about that would have made what you did impossible to avoid. Any “choice” you made would have been the direct result of factors controlled by God, not you.
-“You won’t find me wagging my finger at Him demanding He explain Himself to me.”-
This is perhaps the most pernicious caricature occurring, and symptomatic of your arrogance (which I do believe is unintentional). No one here is demanding answers from God. People are *asking* for answers from YOU. It is truly enlightening that you would conflate the two.