First, my primary argument against Calvinism is semantic rather than moral. I think that there are biblical passages that say that God loves all persons, that God wants all persons to be saved, that God is grieved by sin, etc. etc., that Calvinists in the main don't simply use "reference class" arguments to criticize these positions, but rather accept them and reconcile them with Calvinism. Yes, God loves everyone, but no, that doesn't mean God is out to save everyone. An analysis of the ordinary usage of these terms (and if you accept a verbal special revelation you are bound by ordinary usage) suggests that to say this is to distort the use of those terms beyond all recognition. This argument, you will notice, requires no appeal to moral intuitions.
To defend this objection, I would have to answer the standard "two wills" argument that comes down from Dabney through Piper. But for various reasons, I don't think that argument washes.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/08/calvinism-love-and-biblical-jigsaw.html
Yes, of course, my moral intuitions tell me that a loving God would not choose a world containing reprobates over a universalist world, assuming there is no need for libertarian free will. That objection is, however, in principle defeatable, although, because of the considerations I presented in the paragraphs above, not in fact defeated.
The "divine noble lie" case I had in mind was the fact that, at least on some readings of Scripture, Christ places a short time limit on his return. He leads the church to believe, perhaps by saying so directly, that He will return within the generation. These sorts of considerations have led exapologist to abandon Christianity. Exapologist mentions one Christian biblical scholar (Allison) who takes this position and says "so what?" and I was trying to see if Allison's position could be defended.
The scenario I sketched was one in which God wants people to spread the gospel, giving them the belief in an immanent parousia is the way to do that, as a result the gospel is spread and salvation maximized, even though the claim of an immanent parousia is false.
The point is often raised in the pro-inerrancy literature (at least when I read a lot of it back when Pinnock was a traditional inerrantist), that God cannot lie. And I have been wondering what sense to make of that claim, given that most of us would agree that lying is sometimes morally justified for humans. Pointing out that there is a argument that could support the claim that God cannot lie is different from actually saying that God did. So don't overstate what I am claiming here.
9 comments:
Reppert: "An analysis of the ordinary usage of these terms (and if you accept a verbal special revelation you are bound by ordinary usage) suggests that to say this is to distort the use of those terms beyond all recognition."
Me: First of all, the New Testament writers sometimes use words as specialized terminology (e.g. Paul's use of 'sanctification'). Secondly, the New Testament should be read in its historical context, not through the lens of 21st century modern American English.
Reppert: "He leads the church to believe, perhaps by saying so directly, that He will return within the generation."
Me: The "Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven" should be interpreted as Christ's enthronement in Heaven (at the moment of His Ascension), not His Second Coming.
Reppert: "The point is often raised in the pro-inerrancy literature (at least when I read a lot of it back when Pinnock was a traditional inerrantist), that God cannot lie. And I have been wondering what sense to make of that claim, given that most of us would agree that lying is sometimes morally justified for humans."
Me: Have you tried consulting Scripture (i.e. Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18)?
Reppert: "To defend this objection, I would have to answer the standard "two wills" argument that comes down from Dabney through Piper. But for various reasons, I don't think that argument washes."
Me: Then how do you deal with texts like 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 1 Peter 2:8, Revelation 17:17, etc.?
What about Deut. 18:21-22?
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
I've mentioned the Hebrews and Titus passages already. I think Hebrews has a limited context to covenants, but Titus does not have those limits in range. Though there is a conflict between the KJV, which makes the modal claim that God cannot lie, and the NIV, which says that God does not lie.
Of course if the context of the discussion is a controversy surrounding inerrancy, then it is question-begging to assume inerrancy in order to prove inerrancy.
Here's the key to understanding Romans 9-11.
Psalm 19:1-4:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where there voice is not heard. Their line has done out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world"
Deuteronomy 30:11-19:
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say,
'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say,
'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
But the very word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess.
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life, that both you and your descendents may live"
St. Paul, in Romans 1 and 2, is restating these two truths to his audience.
Romans 1:20,21 is explaining how the idea that "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1) was sufficient grounds to hold men accountable to God. Romans 2:11-16 is explaining how the law, which is "very near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (Deut. 30:14), convicts or excuses the consciences of mankind.
And Paul's conclusion, in Romans 3:9-19, is that all have sinned and are inescapably guilty before God.
Upon this foundation, St. Paul is going to answer the questions "Why did Israel fall away" and "Why were the Gentiles included" in Romans 9-11.
The key to understanding God's "election", comes in chapter 10, verses 6-21. And just so there's no mistaking Paul, I included the Mosaic and Davidic references up above. Paul references Deut. 30 in Romans 10:6-10 and Psalm 19 in Romans 10:18.
St. Paul's point is this: Israel and the Gentiles were both given the truth. Israel chose to reject the knowledge they were given, while the Gentiles chose to listen to the knowledge they were given.
In Romans 9:18, it says God "has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens"
In Romans 11:32, it says "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
God's "mercy" is in the giving of creation and conscience to all mankind, so that, as Paul says elsewhere:
"so they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:27)
The Gentiles groped after God, whereas Israel did not (2 Chronicles 36:15-23, Matt. 15:21-28; 23:37). That God has given the world a choice between "life and good" and "death and evil". His purpose in "election" is in His allowing men to either take hold of His mercy, given to all, or to reject it.
Reppert: "Of course if the context of the discussion is a controversy surrounding inerrancy, then it is question-begging to assume inerrancy in order to prove inerrancy."
Me: Then why trust anything Scripture says? Why believe that God loves the world?
Gregory: "Upon this foundation, St. Paul is going to answer the questions "Why did Israel fall away" and "Why were the Gentiles included" in Romans 9-11."
Me: No, the question that Paul seeks to answer is: why did the minority of individual Jews accept Christ while the majority did not?
Thus, Paul says:
"What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written
'God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.' (Romans 11:7-10)
Speaking as a former Evangelical Protestant who's now Orthodox, it seems to me that in this sort of argument it's impossible to separate inerrancy from sola scriptura/private judgment in this sense: if all you have as an authority is a self-attesting text, then, as Saint and Sinner implies, it better darn well be inerrant.
But as Victor states, it's pure question-begging to assume inerrancy in order to prove it, yet what is there apart from the text or "outside" it that can prove its inerrancy? The problem here thus transcends inerrancy and moves to interpretation: in other words, even if we assume an inerrant text, how then do we choose between varying interpretations of it?
My rejection of Calvinism thus rests not in the text of Scripture alone (although I'd agree with Victor that one can certainly make a fairly strong textual argument against it), but also in the fact that it seems impossible that the entire patristic exegetical tradition, both E and W, could be wrong on this issue. Really, did no one in the Church between St. Paul and Calvin get this right? One can say the same thing to the Calvinists that St. Athanasius said to the Arians: where are the fathers for your beliefs? Show me the pedigree.
**Exapologist mentions one Christian biblical scholar (Allison) who takes this position and says "so what?" and I was trying to see if Allison's position could be defended.**
I like Dr. Allison and have profited from his writings, but I think he's wrong here, in that this view of Christ seems to take a rather extreme kenotic view. Saint and Sinner's comment that Christ's prophecies have to do with the fall of Jerusalem and his Ascension are valid and have patristic warrant.
This subject is quite timely, BTW, as I attended a talk by Dr. Allison a couple weeks ago on what he sees as the modern hermeneutic error of ignoring pre-critical exegetes.
Saint and Sinner:
Your understanding of Romans 11:7-10 is completely out of sync with Paul's thought.
St. Paul has already explained why:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day"
His explanation of the meaning of the Isaiah quote was already given in Romans 1:24-28. But, to summarize his argument:
Because men would not listen to God or obey Him, therefore "God gave them up".In other words, He let them have it their own way (Psalm 37:4). God is light, truth and life (John 1:9). He cannot help but shine. But, as a consequence of turning away from God, a person has no recourse but to live in "darkness", "deafness", "blindness"...in other words, "death".
Therefore, St. Paul's quote from Isaiah is describing what a person experiences when they have already turned away from God. When a man chooses to abandon the light (John 1:9), then he has chosen to live in darkness (John 3:19-21; 1 John 2:8,9). Therefore, he cannot but be "blind", "deaf", etc.
God's mercy is, indeed, a two-edged sword. For those who repent, God's mercy is salvation. To those who do not repent, God's mercy is unto a just condemnation (like Pharaoh); because they could have turned back to God for salvation, but didn't. In fact, "true" repentance is the only thing that distinguished Judas from St. Peter, because their "sin" was the same. Actually, St. Peter's was worse since he betrayed Christ, not once, but thrice.
Exodus 4:8 is describing the mercy God would be showing the Egyptians, so that they might receive mercy by letting Israel go free from slavery. But Pharaoh, from the start, hardened his own heart against God (i.e. Exodus 5:2), and refused to repent. And the more God showed him mercy, the harder Pharaoh's heart got.
That is why the scripture also says "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt."
And it is precisely those "signs" and "wonders" (i.e. God's mercy to Egypt) which were the occasion for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.As an old saying goes:
"The same Sun that melts wax, also hardens mud"
All men have sinned and allowed themselves to be turned over into the darkness, and therefore have already reaped the consequences listed in Romans 1:28-32. As elsewhere, Paul says:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).
Even so, by God's unfathomable mercy (1 Timothy 2:1-4, 2 Peter 3:7-9), we can choose to be either wax or clay (Deut. 30:19; Acts 17:30; Rev. 18:4, Matt. 11:28-30).
Here's a very interesting quote:
"I want to digress a moment to note here the fateful fact that Calvin, like other Reformers, casts his doctrine of our incapacity (i.e. for salvation) and God's remedy for it in the juridical-penal framework that he takes over from Augustine and later Anselm. There is one enigma which Christians (and perhaps realists of any persuasion) have to recognize, and that is the puzzle of evil; why, in spite of knowing that we are born for the highest, we sometimes not only inexplicably choose against it, but even feel that we cannot do otherwise. The symmetrical mystery (now for Christians alone) is that God can act to overcome this incapacity--the doctrine of grace.
Anselm expressed this double mystery in terms of crime and punishment. The incapacity is explained as our just desert for our original falling away (which founding act remains shrouded in mystery, of course). Being inveterate sinners, we now deserve damnation. Not only is our punishment now permissible, but some has to be exacted as reparation for our fault, according to the juridical logic of this conception. God is nevertheless merciful, wants to save some of us. But in order to do this he has to have the reparation paid by his son, and then count it as satisfaction for our sins, in an act of gratuitous mercy.
Needless to say, this wasn't the only way that the double mystery could be articulated. Eastern fathers, like Gregory of Nyssa, put things differently. But Augustine and Anselm shaped the theology of Latin Christendom in this regard, and the Reformation, far from correcting this imbalance, aggravated it. The sense that this language, above all others, has got a lock on the mysteries, is an invitation to drive its logic through to the most counter-intuitive, not to say horrifying conclusions, like the doctrine of the damnation of the majority of humans, or double predestination. The confidence--not to say arrogance--with which these conclusions were drawn anticipates and offers a model for the later humanist hostility to mystery.
I mention this here because the hegemony of this juridical-penal model plays an important role in the later rise of unbelief, both in repelling people from the faith, and in modifying it in the direction of Deism".taken from Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age", pg. 78,79 (2007 Harvard Belknap Press).
Now, if you compare this Taylor quote with Abraham Kuyper's "Lecture on Calvinism", particularly the lecture titled "Calvinism and Science"; along with the first chapter of Francois Wendel's "Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought", it's clear that "humanism", particularly Stoic metaphysics, shaped a good part of Calvin's thinking. But then couple that with Calvin's Legal studies and you can see where Calvin was headed. In fact, Wendel notes Calvin, and his contemporaries, eagerly embraced the Stoic philosophy and humanist movements of their day.
What is more striking is how Kuyper's "Lectures on Calvinism" helped lay the theoretic foundation for modern Christian Deism; a point of view that implicitly maintains that the way God speaks and acts is through the Bible and natural causation, alone. Hence the general contempt and skepticism towards "mysticism", and especially the idea of "developing a conversational relationship with God" (i.e. advocated, in their own ways, by the likes of C.S. Lewis, Dallas Willard, John Foster and J.P. Moreland); which are in opposition to books like Garry Friesen's "Decision Making the the Will of God".
Hence, Taylor's observation that Calvinism, among other things, has "reformed" Western Christendom into Deism. Yet too few thoughtful observers, especially Calvinists, realize that Reformed Christianity is actually Deism garbed in Christian clothing.
So they will say:
"If you want to hear God speaking to you, then read His Word. The age of miracles was given for the writing and testimony of the Bible, God's Word, but is now over...so don't expect to hear any voice from heaven or see anything like the miracles described in the New Testament."
So why were people so upset with Rudolph Bultmann's quip about technology having, presently, banished the superstitious mythology of miracles and the supernatural?
The real upshot is this: Calvinism is a return to Pharisaic legalism. Only this time, the idea of Divine privilege isn't centered around being "Jewish"; instead, Divine privilege is now believed to be centered on the "elect". Hence, the general dogmatic arrogance of many, though not all, of the proponents of Calvinism. I have known some very generous and gracious Calvinists...but they are, for the most part, in the minority.
But even more to the point is Calvinists incessant "legal" scrutinizing of the texts of scripture, as though they were legal documents. This gives them plenty of leverage, for instance, in casting dispersion on those they consider to be the "non-elect". But then very little care is given to any sort of critical self-examination. Why would they bother with that? After all, they are the predestined "elect", and cannot but "persevere" to the end.
Years ago, at a Biola lecture given by J.P. Moreland on his, then, recently published book "Body and Soul", I had been asked by my mentor to pose this question to him:
"How is the section of your book that advocates 'libertarian freedom' supposed to comport with the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty and unconditional election?"
Of course, he didn't know that the question was intended to draw out his take on the problems with Calvinism. What Moreland said, as best as I can remember, was this:
"There are some people...and I am not accusing you of anything...who have a sort of theological arrogance about them. And I'm not saying that you are this kind of person, but there are some people who think and act with a sort of triumphalism because they think they are one of God's 'elect'".
And he looked and sounded visibly upset by the question I raised, probably assuming that I was another Calvinist student from Talbot--among the many he runs into all the time, trying to heckle and hassle him on his "unscriptural" views.
Here's the thing. Both apostate Israel and Calvinists have this in common: both cannot possibly imagine being among those people to whom God says "I never knew you, depart from me" (Matthew 7:21-23).
Post a Comment