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
I realize the above two posts are quite snarky, and so I want to clarify that the intent is not to be a jerk. Rather, I am hoping to make it more clear how you are actually coming across to others. While I realize that you keep insisting that you don’t mean to be arrogant, you have admitted that you simply won’t consider others’ point of view. You have stated you would attempt to raise the level of argumentation, yet you do less argumentation and more insisting. And while you offer bad arguments, contradict yourself, and admit you could care less if you don’t make sense, or what others think, you declare that others who attempt to work these things out are the tools of the Devil. You don’t answer to me, of course, but I would re-assess your policy of not examining your own beliefs and perhaps consider more carefully what scripture has to say on judging.
@Greg
-“Then God doesn’t really want everybody saved does He?”-
This is more of a problem for Calvinism than it is for Arminianism or Molinism. God can desire for all to be saved, while still leaving the decision up to them. Just as their is a distinction for Calvinism on different kinds of God’s “will”, so there is for other ideologies.
But it is more problematic for Calvinism to hold that God wants everyone to be saved, yet God controls every aspect of existence, and somehow doesn’t end up with what He wants. Somehow, that doesn’t seem like “winning”.
-“I have said that the Roman Catholic Church and theistic evolutionists are the tools of Satan.”-
My apologies for misconstruing what you said. Sincerely. Nevertheless, my point remains. What reasons have you for declaring their are the tools of Satan? That they don’t agree with your doctrines? Or because of their fruits? I know plenty of people in both groups whose fruits are more admirable than many evangelicals. It is a rather broad brush you are painting with, friend.
@Greg
-“Would you prefer that I be dishonest with you?”-
Absolutely not. Feel free to tell me how you feel, but do not presume that your feelings amount to knowledge. As much as you feel that a loss of certainty is what has ruined the church, I feel just as strongly that if even half of the church acknowledged that feelings do not equate to knowledge, we would have a much more ecumenical, unified church that was a heckuva lot better testimony to the world than the fractured, contentious institution it is now.
-“I AM certain.”-
You’ve convinced yourself of this. And you’ve insulated yourself from criticism by not bothering re-evaluate anything. Call me crazy, but burying one’s head in the sand after one draws a conclusion does not seem to be the spirit of “Test everything.” Furthermore, we’ve already highlighted instances where your certainty could be put to the test, but you’ve begged off, trying to draw some kind of distinctions with “certainty”.
-“This was once known as conviction.”-
Conviction does not require certainty.
-“Assuming you end up in heaven? Who made the defining difference? You or God?”-
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt 😉 I guess this depends on what we consider the “defining difference”. But, given that neither Heaven nor I would exist without God, I’d have to say that God makes the defining difference.
@Greg
-“Are you certain that neither you nor heaven would exist without God?”-
Nope! Not knowing what Heaven is, exactly, it is really impossible to say how it can or cannot exist with any certainty. As for me, while I think it is extremely implausible, I can’t rule out the possibility that we are all formed in some other, non-designed way. And, of course, all this also depends on how we define “God”.
@Greg
-“How bout for now whether heaven is exactly. Are you certain of that?”-
I assume you mean whether Heaven exists or not? No, I am not certain that Heaven exists.
-“Are you sayin that the existence of heaven is implausible?”-
No, I was saying that I think non-design explanations for existence are implausible. In other words, I think that I am here, and the universe is here, because of God’s design.
-“So then you are allowing for the possibility that this whole God and Jesus, sin and redemption thing isn’t true?”-
I think it is a *possibility*, yes.
-“Are you then saying that you allow for a legitimate definition of God that precludes the necessary and therefore certain existence of heaven?”-
I don’t know of any definition of “God” that includes the existence of Heaven. But there are definitions of God that would preclude anything at all existing without Him (pantheism, for example).
-“And if you do then you have serious trouble my friend.”-
Oh, I don’t doubt (pun intended) that you think I’m in serious trouble… Although I’m not sure to what you were referring, when you said “if you do”.
@Greg: “I do believe you are very wrong though and are missing God’s best for your life.”
LOL. A bit of irony there. A Calvinist telling me that I am stopping God doing his “best” for me.
“I AM certain. You don’t like that. It appears arrogant and presumptuous. I understand. This was once known as conviction. Today it’s the unpardonable sin.”
You still haven’t told us exactly what you are certain about. From what you’ve told me, the only thing you are certain about is that there is a God who knows everything. Maybe I’m wrong.
In any case, if you really are certain, and not just taking certainty as your philosophical position, you are a rare breed. Such people do exist, but the other 99.9% of the population, christian or otherwise, look at them in wonder, sometimes admiring, sometimes as fools, but not relating much. Anyway, no matter how clever and compelling your philosophy of certainty is (and I’m not really convinced yet on a philosophical basis), you can’t really talk somebody into being certain. So I wonder how useful a construct it is anyway.
“Lemme ask you and the Johns. Assuming you end up in heaven? Who made the defining difference? You or God?”
Ahh, a question that is endlessly fascinating to Calvinists. The trouble is, asking the wrong questions can lead you down the garden path to the wrong answers.
I would suggest that people end up exactly where they want to be. The other day I had a chat with the flatmate of a friend who goes to my church. He came to church once, and was now kinda making fun of me, saying how he really wanted to go to hell, and how much fun it would be in hell. One could think of it as an opt-out system. God gives men salvation, but some don’t want it. To which he says, take what you want then.
@Greg
-“Please understand that my incessant droning on about 2+2= 4 is just an example of mathematical certainty.”-
A certainty which, just like logic, is based on faith. You make it such a point of emphasis that men’s reason ultimatelt tautological. Why? Because, taken to the extreme, it becomes self-referential. One cannot demonstrate the validity of reason without, well, reasoning.
The same goes for arithmetic. Tell me, Greg: how is it that math escapes this circularity? Can you explain why 2+2=4, without using math? No, you cannot. But don’t take that as a personal failure; after all, neither can anyone else.
What this means is that ultimately math is tautological as well. And, as Greg insists, tautology is not “knowledge”. That’s right: 2+2=4 is not knowledge. If it is not knowledge, how can it be “certain”?
Greg would insist that the only “escape” here is faith. I’d agree that faith is necessary – otherwise uncertainty would paralyze us to inaction – but deny that faith provides any *valid* certainty. Faith simply bridges the gap between uncertainty and action. We may act as if things are certain, because they are so useful, but there is nothing that cannot be doubted. Including math.
That I never spend a minute seriously doubting that 2+2=4 is not evidence that it cannot be so, in the same way that it is not evidence for polytheism that so many aboriginals never doubt that their pantheon of spirit-gods exist. If (alleged!) certainty could be used as evidence for truth, there would be mutually exclusive claims considered “Truth”. For those not opposed to embracing “mystery”, I guess that’s not much of a problem. I mean, why care about such contradictions if God is “transrational”…?
@Greg: “It represent the whole logical world we all live in as if it were certain. It IS certain. I know it, you know it. You know you know it. I know why I know it and I know why you know it.”
Can you expand on this idea you have that we live in a “logical world”? By that, do you mean the whole modern scientific understanding there is, whereby everything around us conforms to rules? Science, all the way from gravity, e=mc^2, etc etc, the whole structure of the universe that makes it predictable, because we can figure out these rules, from 2+2 all the way to e=mc^2 and beyond to wherever it takes us? Is that what you mean by the logical world?
@Greg
-“JB Chappell is certain it is too, but refuses to admit it because not being a moron he sees that this certainty leads him into the arms of the all governing God.”-
Well, perhaps I am a moron, because I do not, in fact, see that. As I said before, I would acknowledge that any full-fledged certainty that can be had would seemingly have to come from God. I happily concede as much. That does not, however, mean that God must be “all-governing” in a Calvinistic way. It probably means that God must omniscient. But being omniscient does not entail any form of sovereignty. One can be an omniscient deity, but be of the Deistic variety.
-“He’s not havin that. Even though he is whether he likes it or not.”-
I would welcome the concept, were I convinced it was true. There is a lot to like about being certain of one’s beliefs, Greg, so it isn’t simply that I don’t like the idea, therefore I don’t believe it. Nevertheless, it does need to be pointed out that being certain, or at least inappropriately confident, of one’s ideas is also incredibly *dangerous*. Wouldn’t it be nice, if when the 9/11 bombers were told that they’d go to Heaven to meet 70-some-odd virgins that they had asked “Did God really say that?” Wouldn’t it have been nice, if when slave-owners in the South had been told the Bible teaches blacks were cursed that they had asked “Did God really say that?” Wouldn’t it have been nice, if when Galileo made his observations and religious leaders told him that scripture disagreed that they stopped to ask “Did God really say that?” Etc. Etc.
I am comforted that Greg has seemingly picked somewhat benign positions to be certain of (his own certainty, mostly), but nevertheless it is perhaps one of the most ill-fated phenomena in the world: to be “certain” of things.
@Greg: “In short John yes, but I need sleep and no the quantum sciences do not nullify this.”
🙂 How do you know the quantum sciences don’t?
I’m curious about a few things though. The ancient world didn’t really have such a strong notion that everything conforms to mathematical rules. Can you really insert a modern understanding into an ancient religion and ancient text… not just as a side show, but as your very foundational argument?
Anyway, if the notion that everything conforms to strict rules is the lynchpin for your views, what would be the failure scenario? I mean, since you’re overlaying science on this whole thing, we need a hypothesis and success and failure conditions. You see, it occurs to me that the Christian religion believes in miracles and answered prayers and a whole bunch of stuff that specifically defies these laws of science. So when the world conforms to strict math, its a sign of God. But when the world doesn’t conform, it’s also a sign of God. I think it may be that God is revealed in those things as you say, but its a lot subtler than just saying “2+2=4… see I win”. When God makes 2+2=5 it’s a stronger sign of God, than when it equals 4.
@John
-“When God makes 2+2=5 it’s a stronger sign of God, than when it equals 4.”-
It’s a Christmas miracle! And, after all, if God is “transrational”, why can’t He also be “trans-math”…?
Greg, I know the ancients weren’t totally ignorant of science and things like that. However, there was FAR more care taken to, for example, appease the gods to get a good harvest, than to do science on this problem, compared to today. Surely you’d have to agree with that?
And the thing is, this is basically a Christian viewpoint. We pray, hoping God will answer our prayers for a good harvest. We don’t just assume that it will all be determined purely by the laws of physics.
I mean, the whole reason we believe in this Christian thing, is because of a guy who stepped out of a boat and didn’t sink, contrary to what we expect. The ancients were impressed by this, not really because they understood the physics of gravity, and what it would take to defy it. Rather because people are basically pattern recognising creatures. They notice that people sink in water. If someone doesn’t sink, then they are different to normal. Now days we could think about this miracle in more specific terms than that he did something unusual.
In Christianity, 1+1=5000 if you have 2 fishes and need to feed 5000. From that point of view, I think Christians pray daily that 2+2 will equal 5 or 5000. Not in the purely mathematical sense. But then again, the pure math sense is only interesting because of its correspondence to what we experience, and we don’t want to experience 2+2=4, and we believe if we pray hard we won’t.
If anything, I’m disappointed when 2+2=4 because God did not reveal himself in that case. The whole bible is a collection of stories about when the laws of science and math did NOT apply. That’s the only reason the book is interesting.
“EVERYTHING is a sign of God.”
Oh. Everything.
So, evidence for evolution is a sign of God. I see. The recent massacre is a sign of God.
I guess you can take whatever to be a sign of whatever, but it doesn’t mean it logically follows.
If a world that strictly obeys rules is a sign of God, why did we need miracles?
“God is SUPER logical.”
That may be, but scripture doesn’t say so. Or is this you philosophising “in independence from God’s word” and thinking for yourself? You should stop that, don’t-cha know?
@Greg
-“That’s why the only possibility of accounting for ANYTHING, including 2+2=4 is to access the source who does not suffer from this limitation.”
I assume by “accounting” you mean “making certain”? There are numerous other ways of “accounting” for why 2+2=4. Blind luck, metaphysical necessity, etc. But while these are possibilities, they are – of course – not certain.
-“JB will jump in here with “WE CAN’T DO THAT!!!”-
I will not say it is *impossible*, if that’s what you mean by “can’t”. Nor would I say it’s “not allowed”. There are no rules against it, as far as I know. What I would say, however, is that if one is going to try to convince others that one has/had direct access to God Himself, you better be able to come away with something a bit more than just a subjective experience that amounts to simply declaring “I’m certain now, shame on you for not being like me!” So far you haven’t provided anything.
@Greg
-“Poppycock I say. we DO DO THAT. Sinners by inescapable necessity of design and saints by being made new creatures in Christ.”-
So, if a saint still claims that they are uncertain, what is the problem? Did it not “take”? Are they still lost? Are they not “elect”?
In any case, you are just making assertions again. Not only is it clear that not everyone grounds their rational nature in God, it should also be clear that doing so gets us nowhere. I realize I’m not going to make any ground on the former point, because you are simply presuming what you are arguing for in the classic presuppositionalist mode of begging the question. However, perhaps I can point out how “grounding” or “accounting for” math or reason in God makes no sense.
First of all, what does that even mean? Do you check with God when adding 2+2 and make sure He gives you the green light when you answer 4? Hardly. No, rather it is simply a presumption that because God is the source of everything, then He is the source of math and reason. But that hardly accounts for how we know our reason and math aligns with His reason and math. How do we know they are the same? We don’t.
Rather than simply admit this, you want to claim, in a fantastically unscriptural way, that God has provided you with His own certainty. I can do nothing to sway you from your own personal experience. All I can say is that to claim that others lacking your own subjective experience is the reason for the “downfall of the church” is a remarkably self-important notion.
-“I contend, in agreement with Van Til, that the failure to recognize and embrace this been the downfall of the western church.”-
Oh, please. Everybody has been raving about the downfall of the church since day 1. The same issues that faced Paul, the church faces today. Except now, about 1/3 of the earth’s population would claim allegiance, or at least some type of identification, with Paul’s faith.
@Greg
You’ll have to be more specific, i.e. express the church’s “downfall” in a way other than “people disagree with me!” What, exactly, has this lack of certainty caused that certainty would fix? It certainly hasn’t caused signs and wonders to cease, because you claim certainty, yet still don’t claim to work miracles.
It seems to me that either you are making a largely self-defeating argument here, or you are claiming that the population of “saints” is much smaller than even the most fundies of fundamentalists would accept. If saints receive God’s certainty when regenerated, why so many who don’t know that?
What’s more likely, that so many are wrong about being uncertain, or that a few are deceived about their certainty? Call me crazy, but the track record of those who claim certainty about things doesn’t seem so good.
The other option, of course, is that they really aren’t saved. I am curious if you take that road.
Greg, in your response to John’s claim that ancient people were uncertain you state:
-“Read Aristotle’s metaphysics for a mind bending object lesson in why this is simply not true.”-
Aristotle was noted for being far more cautious and qualifying his claims than Plato was. Plato would be the go-to guy for claiming certainty. In any case, Aristotelian logic is what much of classical theism (Christianity and Islam) is based on, and you were claiming how they were misguided. So, you’ve defeated your own argument here.
-“The Hebrew scriptures are one long statement of divine certainty starting from the first verse.”-
This is ridiculous. That things are written without qualification does not render them statements of certainty. It is simply a matter of convention. The fact that there are two creation stories should be Clue #1 for why the author(s) may not have been entirely certain about what they were writing. The reason you see “divine certainty” in the text is because you assume it is there in the first place.
-“Don’t confuse the children of Israel’s unbelief in making a golden calf with their utter certainty in their knowledge of metallurgy that allowed them to do it.”-
Right. Because you were there, observing the craftsmen? How do you know they weren’t a bit uncertain in their craft? You have taken begging the question to new heights. How you do not see that you simply are assuming the very thing you need to prove is beyond me. When someone else does it, it’s tautological and not “knowledge”. When you do it, totally OK.
In another response to John, you said:
-“Super meaning on a divinely exalted level utterly unattainable and not even directly accessible to us.“
But isn’t it your claim that God is imparting his certainty to us (most of us just don’t know it)? Or is “certainty” not part of the “SUPER”? In any case, it should be obvious that God can be omniscient, but not SUPER logical, if by that you mean He can violate the rules of logic.
@Greg
-“EVERYTHING is a sign of God.”-
Have you heard the expression that an explanation that explains everything, explains nothing?
@Greg
Well, you certainly seem to be impressed by other quotes. If you disagree with the axiom, I would be curious why. The point is that if there literally nothing that can falsify a concept, then that concept probably isn’t defined too well.
Keep in mind, I’m not denying that God is the ultimate source of everything. But that doesn’t mean that literally anything can be used as evidence for His existence.
@John:
John: And in Calvinism, God already ordained men’s choices, so why the need to have a second punt at influencing the outcome?
Response: because as men make those choices, God either restrains their choices in order for the desired outcome or he allows their choices for the desired outcome.
John” The rules of good exegesis, namely interpreting like the original readers, would seem to be on our side.
Response: Do you really think the original audience reading this
Proverbs 21:1
The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
Would walk away with the idea that man has libertarian free will?
John: 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.
Response: LOL, no where near Calvinism. God can’t create something evil, evil is not something to be created. God never overrides for less damage, he restrains because of his mercy, it’s when he doesn’t restrain, that’s his wrath.
John: 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.
Response: because in this scenario, the humans (not robots) aren’t intending on doing God’s desire. So they are not programmed like robots, they are trying to do the opposite of God’s will and God uses their intentions to bring about his will.
@Kelton: “Response: Do you really think the original audience reading this
Proverbs 21:1
The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
Would walk away with the idea that man has libertarian free will?”
If I had to look at this verse and opt for Calvinism or Arminianism, I’d choose Arminianism. The “king” in this verse doesn’t seem to be exercising Calvinist style free will. i.e. choosing to do what gives him the most utility according to his innate nature. Rather, God is overriding his will in this case. And as I said, the fact that God needs to override free wills to get what he wants occasionally, rather than just let men do what their will tells them to do by nature, as nature and environment are ordained from the foundation of the world, it looks more Arminian to me. That God needs to override free will occasionally seems to speak to the reality of free will when God is not overriding it.
“Response: LOL, no where near Calvinism. God can’t create something evil, evil is not something to be created.”
Well, God created this universe, and it is in large part evil. So, I think we’re back again with the word games where God is the author of sin, except that… he isn’t. For reasons unexplained.
“God never overrides for less damage, he restrains because of his mercy, it’s when he doesn’t restrain”
He restrains evil that he himself ordained. That’s real nice of him.
“Response: because in this scenario, the humans (not robots) aren’t intending on doing God’s desire. So they are not programmed like robots, they are trying to do the opposite of God’s will and God uses their intentions to bring about his will.”
But in Calvinism, God foreordained their will, and he foreordained their environment. So how is that different to a robot? It’s even more like a robot than a robot, because even a robot doesn’t always have its entire working environment foreordained for a predicted…
@Kelton
-“… God either restrains their choices in order for the desired outcome or he allows their choices for the desired outcome.”-
This makes no sense. The desired outcome *is never in doubt*. So God isn’t restraining choices, He is only eliminating options. If before me is Door 1, 2, 3 and I want to choose Door #2, God should *never* have to eliminate options 1 & 3 if He is sovereign in the Calvinist sense. Because then, it has always been predetermined that I would choose Door #2.
I don’t know why you think it is morally significant that God sometimes eliminates options that were never going to be chosen, and sometimes doesn’t. If you think there is ever the possibility that I would want to choose Door #2, but God wants me to choose Door #3, so He then eliminates Doors 1 & 2, then – again – I say to you that you are an Arminian. Because in that case God is overriding someone’s free will.
Re: Proverbs 21:1 … the point of that verse is that Kings have no free will? At most, that’s what one could take from that. In any case, I haven’t heard anyone dispute that there isn’t any scriptural basis for Calvinism at all. There is: that’s what makes the issue so contentious. But obviously non-Calvinists would hold that the preponderance of the evidence seems to be in favor of people make decisions that aren’t already predetermined.
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, *choose* you this day whom ye will serve… but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
That would seem a rather weird verse with a Calvinist twist:
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, don’t worry about it: it’s probably you’re not elect, and God already decided that you weren’t going to serve the Lord… but as for me and my house, it has been predestined for us to serve the Lord.”
No, it seems more clear that Joshua thinks that he not only has a choice, but that his (and others) options are truly open-ended – and so would the original…
@Kelton
-“God can’t create something evil, evil is not something to be created.”-
It’s this kind of obfuscating language that isn’t helpful. Even if we take a privation view of evil (which didn’t really exist until Augustine, and so is extremely doubtful that any original reader of scripture would have thought in these terms), it is clear that even if “evil cannot be created” per se, it’s quite obvious that it can be brought about in some way.
It’s not the light’s fault that darkness exists in its absence. But if that light also creates a structure causing a shadow to be cast, who is responsible for the shadow?
-“… in this scenario, the humans (not robots) aren’t intending on doing God’s desire. So they are not programmed like robots…”-
If humans aren’t intending to do something, it’s because a series of unfortunate events have inexorably led them there. And who is responsible for this series of unfortunate events, if God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense?
@Greg
“…due to this brokenness in sin, being so ABSOLUTELY wrong about how and why he’s right about it.”
Not sure what regurgitating this quote is supposed to do. There’s not even a name attached to it, so I don’t even know how much weight to give to it. 😉 In any case, it’s simply more assertions.
I think the excerpt above is misleading, however. I’m not sure people have been so wrong about why they’re right, as they simply don’t care why they’re right, because what they do *works*.
Regardless, claiming people are wrong about why they’re right is claiming some very special knowledge. It’s claiming that one knows why people are right. Ostensibly, this means whoever made this quote knows exactly why God’s math = our math and why God’s logic = our logic. That’s some heavy special revelation right there. Back in the day, they would have made sure someone had some accompanying signs and wonders before claiming they know what God knows.
Hmmm… I wonder if I could say that it is the “downfall of the church” that claiming special revelation without any justification isn’t frowned upon…?
@Greg – feel free to respond in the morning!
-‘Please tell me which statement you have ever made to me that is not an “assertion”.’
I think I probably ask more questions than you do. But fair enough, I do provide some assertions as well. However, I usually attempt to offer some sort of support behind my claims. There are several assertions in your quote, yet you provide no corroborating evidence or support. Of course, you may have done so elsewhere, I acknowledge as much. But, I would have been far more interested in that evidence than in the (unsupported) assertions.
At this point, it should be fairly clear what you need to provide support for:
– How it is that you “know” everyone who claims to be uncertain, really isn’t
– How presupposing Biblical God escapes the uncertainty of men’s attempts to gain knowledge
– Faith = certainty (You tried Hebrews 11, but if that’s all you have I think it’s inadequate)
– How faith in God = God giving people His own certainty (you tried Romans 1, but again, even if we grant Paul is saying people were *originally* certain – and I don’t – it does nothing to establish such certainty is possible to attain again)
– Why none of these things are in scripture, yet you claim them critical to the faith
These all seem like key cogs to your “argument(s)”, yet I can only remember substantive attempts on your part to support 3 of them. Otherwise, all you do is keep insisting they are true.
@Greg: I’m not thinking about whether you are talking down to me or not. So don’t worry about it.
Do the scriptures describe a “super-logical God”? The trouble is Greg, you’ve lectured us that the laws of logic were created by God. If that’s the case, then they don’t necessarily apply to God, seeing as he lives outside the created realm. If your thesis is right, then logic is not a sign of God. Logic would be at best a sign of not-God – i.e., the created order. Of course the created order is I think partly a sign of God, but I think it is partly not also. Because as has been pointed out, God is “hidden” in this creation, and also because the bible says that it is a fallen world, ruled by Satan. So when we see Satan at work, then its not really a sign of God. We are not always certain which things are caused by God and which by Satan. For all I know for sure, God created a universe where law does not apply, and men can move mountains into the sea when they want, by pure thought and faith. Then Satan came along and enforced some laws to keep men in bondage. Sounds far fetched probably, but I can’t think off hand of any scripture that enlightens us about such things.
I don’t know how you can be certain that 2+2 always applies. Newtonian physics was once thought to be certain. Then we found it breaks down in extreme gravity and speed. Maybe 2+2=4 breaks down inside a black hole. If so, you would have no way of knowing.
@John & Greg
John wrote: “I don’t know how you can be certain that 2+2 always applies.”
http://bit.ly/RcjVJW
I think, therefore I am?
Because I can’t think of any contrary argument. Of course, you might suggest one, and turn my certainty to uncertainty.
@Greg: I have to come back to the question I asked you before: If per-se I was certain of that, how would I know? What is the test?
@JPChappell
JP:Because then, it has always been predetermined that I would choose Door #2.
Response: I think you misunderstood what I meant. I mean, that God restrains their actions. Man chooses to sin (like Abimelech) and God either allows him to do so or he stops him. But Abimelech only wants to sin.
JP: I say to you that you are an Arminian. Because in that case God is overriding someone’s free will.
Response: Read the above, remember man only chooses according to his strongest desire. God either stops him from sinning (Abimelech) or allows it for his own purpose (Joseph and his brothers.)
JP: But obviously non-Calvinists would hold that the preponderance of the evidence seems to be in favor of people make decisions that aren’t already predetermined.
Joshua 24:15
That would seem a rather weird verse with a Calvinist twist:
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, don’t worry about it: it’s probably you’re not elect, and God already decided that you weren’t going to serve the Lord… but as for me and my house, it has been predestined for us to serve the Lord.”
No, it seems more clear that Joshua thinks that he not only has a choice, but that his (and others) options are truly open-ended – and so would the original…
Response: LOL, no that’s not how we take that verse. Joshua doesn’t know who the elect are. He is, as we are commanded to preach the gospel to all and allow God to do the working on their hearts. Hey man, that was funny. Good one.
@JB Chappell:
JB: it’s quite obvious that it can be brought about in some way.
Response: Well sure, but I do think Augustine was dead on in his observations however. It may not have been defined that way prior to him, could be that it wasn’t really thought about as a important topic prior to him.
JB:It’s not the light’s fault that darkness exists in its absence. But if that light also creates a structure causing a shadow to be cast, who is responsible for the shadow?
Response: Well if I’m reading you correctly, that would be like saying, “well if God never created Satan and humans there would be no evil.” Well of course, but that’s the difference, unlike a structure we do have a will, it’s just bound.
JB:If humans aren’t intending to do something, it’s because a series of unfortunate events have inexorably led them there. And who is responsible for this series of unfortunate events, if God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense?
Response: Have to disagree, if humans really want something, they can want something independent of unfortunate events. Desires are not just reactions, they are what we really truly want.
@John:
John: That God needs to override free will occasionally seems to speak to the reality of free will when God is not overriding it.
Response: I think the idea there is like a farmer who puts irrigation ditches where he wants them where he wants the water to flow to do the most good. God guides the hearts of a king in the same manner. So while the king may want one thing, God channels his choices to do what he wants. Capatibilism
John: Well, God created this universe, and it is in large part evil. So, I think we’re back again with the word games where God is the author of sin, except that… he isn’t. For reasons unexplained.
Response: Depends on what you mean by author. If you mean God predestined sin (i.e. the fall) sure, if you mean that God causes man to sin, then no. But the thing is God uses evil for good.
John: He restrains evil that he himself ordained. That’s real nice of him.
Response: Absolutely, because if he didn’t we’d wipe ourselves out. Without evil, there are certain moral characteristics that we’d never know about that is critical for our development. Such as mercy, you and I would never know mercy without evil, but God uses this to shape up into being more Christ like.
John: But in Calvinism, God foreordained their will, and he foreordained their environment. So how is that different to a robot? It’s even more like a robot than a robot, because even a robot doesn’t always have its entire working environment foreordained for a predicted…
Response: because he doesn’t program them. In a program the robots don’t have intentions, it just does what it’s programmed to do. With us, we have intentions, and we’re not trying to do what God wants us to do, we want to do our own thing, just God uses our intentions to get what he wants.
@Greg: “How do you form so much as a single rational thought on the basis of what you have been telling me since we’ve met? How?”
Glad you’re counting the hours for my reply. 🙂
I don’t think the world works like that Greg. It’s only in the realm of religion that people seem to start thinking that they need a sophisticated epistemological basis before they can proceed in life. In all other areas, we proceed like a small child. We proceed through life based on experience and expectations. The small child has no certainty its mother will feed it, but it hopes for it, and with repetition expects it. But it has no reason for certainty. It proceeds the best way it can. We could call it the Empirical approach to living life.
Should religion be different? Well, of all the religions, Christianity I think is one of experience. It was not born out of clever reasoning, but out of an experience of God. We believe in it, not because of how clever one can reason about its truth, but because we belong to a people who experienced it. It’s just as foundational to our life, as being fed is to the small child, but we proceed because of experience and empiricism, not because of mathematical proof.
The small child proceeds on the hope and assumption that its mother will feed it, because it must be so. Not because it has epistemological certainty.
@kelton: “because he doesn’t program them. In a program the robots don’t have intentions, it just does what it’s programmed to do. With us, we have intentions, and we’re not trying to do what God wants us to do, we want to do our own thing, just God uses our intentions to get what he wants.”
You’re going to have to prove these assertions. Define what an “intention” is. Show that a robot can’t have one. In what way does a robot want to do what its creator wants? It doesn’t. It does what its program says, regardless of what its creator wanted. I don’t see the difference between a program and an intention.
Btw, Descartes famious (‘Cogito ergo sum’ / I think, therefore I am), and from here some call him the Father of modern philosophy. And we should note too, that he was educated in a Jesuit College. He was a French mathematician. He starts with a Cartesian dualism, separation of mind and matter, it was here that Descartes rigorously saw that it takes divine despensation to define the two. And btw, this is physics for Descartes, and his epistemology. Just a bit of history!
And in some manner, actually somewhat presuppositional on the doctrine of God!
@ John
John: You’re going to have to prove these assertions. Define what an “intention” is. Show that a robot can’t have one. In what way does a robot want to do what its creator wants? It doesn’t. It does what its program says, regardless of what its creator wanted. I don’t see the difference between a program and an intention.
Response: Intention would mean to determine to act in a certain way mentally. If something is programmed, then it can’t determine to act a certain way, it just does what it is programmed to do. Which is what it’s programmer wants it to do.
@Greg. If you feel certain, more power to you and more blessings to you. That kind of certainty is either supernatural or foolishness depending on your view. Don’t get me wrong, I think certainty is wonderful, but you can’t argue your way or reason your way there. You are certain by faith, not by way of perfect reasoning. As I was saying, what we know is empiracle, not by proof. Nothing wrong with empiracle, it’s how we humans normally work. But it’s not the same kind of knowledge as mathematical proof.
@kelton “Intention would mean to determine to act in a certain way mentally. If something is programmed, then it can’t determine to act a certain way, it just does what it is programmed to do. Which is what it’s programmer wants it to do.”
That might apply to very basic programming, but more sophisticated programming can choose means to achieve a particular outcome. Not just do x y z without prior evaluating outcome.
@Greg
I mean that a worm works on the basis of what works. A worm does what a worm does because it works for the worm. It’s not much different in human affairs. If we just look at even what happened between Jesus and the local populace, people followed Jesus because it worked for them. They needed healing or hope or salvation or whatever. It wasn’t based on sophisticated logic or epistemology.
@Greg
“… where in the scripture [is] it taught that this doubt in God’s word that you are here espousing is pleasing to Him?
I don’t think anyone claims that doubting God’s Word is pleasing to Him, when in fact one *knows* that it is God’s Word. But that is the whole question – how does one come to this knowledge? Does God give you that certainty before the “faith” that gives you God’s own certainty? I sone supposed to infer it, based on evidence? Or if someone simply comes along and says “this is God’s Word”, are you supposed to believe them. Call me crazy, but I do not believe gullibility to be a virtue (Matthew 10:16).
-“Please show me in scripture where I should follow you in this doubt and I will.”-
1 Thessalonians 5: “20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.”
No need to test anything if we are certain prophecies are God’s Word, right?
Or how about Gideon asking for signs to assure himself of God’s will? Or how about Jesus working miracles to establish His authority? How about Jesus letting Thomas feel His wounds? Or how about the apostles and Paul doing the same? All of this is consistent with an expectation and tacit approval of healthy skepticism.
-“A wonderful Christmas to everybody btw.”-
Same to you, and yours!
-“The day when many Christians rejoice in the uncertain hope…”-
“Hope” wouldn’t be hope, if it were certain, now would it? It would be knowledge, and knowledge is not a virtue.
@Greg
-“Worms are not created in the image of God…”-
Technically, this is an argument from silence. Men are created in the image of God, this much is taught in scripture. It isn’t taught that worms were not. Nevertheless, I’d agree that the implications is the people are special, and worms are not 😉
-“… and are not moral agents…”-
How do we know this?
-“… and are therefore by definition incapable of epistemology by design.”-
I assume you draw this conclusion based on your idea of “the image of God”. But it should be noted that this concept is hardly elaborated on in scripture. Nothing about what scripture says regarding “the image of God” can be taken to mean that animals would be incapable of epistemology or moral agency.
Greg, has it not occurred to you that the reason there are no “Amen’s” following your refrain is that nothing you have said is supported by logic, evidence, or scripture?
Just for the record: On behalf of Pelagius who is not here to represent himself, and knowing that the Church existed 400 years before Augustine; Pelagius never denied original sin. He complexly and yet evidently stated that man is not entirely–or is to one degree or another–depraved. As a consequence of the fall. He never –and no ‘Free-Willer’ ever– considered salvation without Christ; as if man can save himself.
@S. Wesley McGranor
-“… Pelagius never denied original sin. He complexly and yet evidently stated that man is not entirely–or is to one degree or another–depraved.”-
Based on what little I’ve read, I think it depends what we mean by “original sin” when we say that Pelagius didn’t deny it. I think it is definitely the case that he would have denied Total Depravity.
-“As a consequence of the fall. He never –and no ‘Free-Willer’ ever– considered salvation without Christ; as if man can save himself.”-
I’d agree. Even if someone was perfect, that gains them nothing if God doesn’t choose to accept that person. He isn’t obligated to do so.
@Greg
Re: 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, you asked:
-“Tell me how you do this if you would please.”-
Consider Harold Camping or the Mayan doomsday prophecies. Some (admittedly a precious minority), apparently, would have considered these “Word(s) of God”. So, if someone were to come to me and say “God says that the end is nigh!”, just like they have been for the last 2000 years (if not longer), I would want to know “Did God really say that?”.
So one question is whether there is any (good) evidence to support the claim. In both these cases, there was at least some evidence. In the case of the Mayan prophecies, I think it is clear that there was never any good evidence to support the claim. Of course, that doesn’t make them wrong… just no compelling reason to grant my trust.
In the case of Harold Camping, the evidence offered was a very strained, highly literalistic reading of scripture. The exegesis was extremely flawed so EVEN IF we had reason to trust that the scriptures he used were “God’s Word”, there was no good reason to accept his particular interpretation as inspired.
Of course, that simply deals with evidence. One can simply “test” by simply waiting to see if prophecy (if it’s prophetic in nature) comes to pass accurately. If not we also have reason not to trust these sources in the future.
Which raises another question, which is whether or not the prophecy is from God. This is related to the above question, but asks for specific reasons to think that the source might be reliably communicating something from God Himself. To me, this involves asking “if true, is this something only God could have known?”. So, for instance, if someone correctly “prophecies” that the sun will come up tomorrow, I may have had reason to trust that what they were saying is true, but no good reason to think it was from God.
@Greg, re: Pelagius you asked:
-“but do you understand at all the implications of what you just said. I’ll be gone for a while again.”-
I don’t know, because I don’t what you have in mind. I’d like to think that I do. The implications of what I said are as follows:
– That (if Pelagianism is true) it is possible for people to live morally perfect lives. Seems like there is OT support for such a notion.
– That living a morally perfect life does not “earn” God’s acceptance. I also think that there is scriptural warrant to the effect that God’s favor is granted. Now, He can, of course, say that if one does X, Y, and/or Z that it will result in His favor being granted. This can provide the illusion that His favor has been earned. But, such a notion would entail, that God was somehow obligated to spell out such prerequisites.
– God has no such obligations. This is a pretty standard theistic claim. So, with this, God was never obligated to spell out doing X, Y, or Z will result in His favor, nor is He even obligated to grant favor to begin with. As such, even meeting X, Y, and/or Z is not “earning” salvation, as it is only by God’s grace that He grants favor, that we exist, that we know about X, Y, Z, and etc etc etc
Greg, i will defend Pelagius with the sword of Christ. He was undermined; because he undermined the wishful thinking and ideals of those that fancied otherwise.
No mere heretic; and no mere misunderstanding. He never even took witchcraft into account. Know look at the West and their dismantled, dilapidated condition and say:
Hurray for Pelagius vindicated of heaven! For in the negative all of Protestantism hails him.
Nay lo Calvinist, man is no force unto himself as Satan takes the will of man–unto his embrace!
Lord Christ, take my will, not to abandonment; but to you–and with you Lord Jesus.
@Greg
-“I’m asking whether you’re saying that God would damn a sinless man.”-
I do not speak on behalf of God; so I do not, and cannot, say what He would or would not do. I can tell you what I think a “Good” God would do, but that would just be my opinion. I can tell you what I think the Bible says, but that would be my interpretation.
In any case, if God did torture morally blameless people for eternity, who would you be to question God (Romans 9), right?
Indeed the biblical doctrine of God demands both God’s Transcendence and Immanence! And both the terms “transcendent” and “immanent” are relative to the created word, God is transcendent “to it” and immanent “in it”. But indeed GOD is always, as Barth, following of course Calvin, pressed God the “Totally Other”! Transcendent foremost! This was Paul’s Doctrine of God… always the Immutability of God! (1 Tim. 1:17)
*created world