Steve Hays has responded to me on Triablogue, with his usual tone and his usual tendency to read into the text all sorts of things I didn't say. I won't comment on his tone, except to say that no matter how strong his case is, he certainly makes Calvinism unattractive by the way he argues. But I am far more concerned with his eisegesis of my arguments than with whatever names he might call me.
In the debate on Calvinism, I would have to admit that the Calvinists have more debating endurance that I have, so I may not end up tracking down and responding to all the responses on the Reformed side, which will no doubt result in a claim of victory for their side. I will admit, further, that I have learned a great deal about how Calvinist think, and how they set up and understand the issue. As you know, my background is in philosophy; I have studied biblical scholarship some, and theology some as well, but that is not my area of specialization by any means. I hope I have managed to advance some considerations on the basis of my specializations that have been helpful to critics of Calvinism. However, there are some aspects of the critique of Calvinism that are better left in the hands of other than in mine.
I hold that since I find Calvinism to be morally repugnant, you need an overwhelming biblical argument to persuade me of it. That means, when it comes to the Calvinist proof texts, there has to be no logical way for the passage to be understood as teaching anything but Calvinism, and the anti-Calvinist texts have to provide no evidence whatsoever against Calvinism. I know you think this shows a lack of respect for biblical authority, but to me it's just good Bayesian epistemology.
I don't think you have to be a biblical positivist in order to accept biblical authority, or even to accept inerrancy. It's just a fact that no one comes to the Bible as a tabula rasa to be written upon by Scripture, however much they might pretend otherwise. We just have to agree to disagree on this one.
We also have to consider the possibility that a full case for or against Calvinism is not given by Scripture.
Steve says: In order to make an exegetical case for Calvinism, two and only two conditions must be met.
a) Calvinists must furnish prooftexts which, on the best interpretation, positively teach Calvinism.
b) Calvinists must show that other passages are neutral on Calvinism.
Now exactly what we mean by the "best" interpretation is going to be open to debate. Does it mean that P (the biblical passage) entails Calvinism? Or that P is more probable given Calvinism than given non-Calvinism? And what does it take to show that passages are neutral on Calvinism? Does it mean that they just have to be logically compatible with Calvinism? Or the truth of the statement is a likely given Calvinism as given non-Calvinism?
But now let's get down to what I really want to talk about.
Before you start name-calling, you might want to be a little more careful in "exegeting" what your opponent has said. What I was defending was the doctrine of divine compassion for all persons, including those alienated from God. Let's call it DUC, for Doctrine of Universal Compassion. Now the doctrine of universal compassion is held by some Calvinists, apparently including some as high up the Calvinist food chain as Carson and Piper. Bnonn seems to buy it also. I was also very explicit in saying that, up to this point, I am not claiming a proof that Calvinism is false. Now I did read your reply to Walls and Dongell and it looks as if you don't hold the doctrine of universal compassion. But some Calvinists do, and in order to provide an complete argument against Calvinism, these people have to be answered. In short I am doing the same thing that you are here, I am showing what would ordinarily be thought of as "Arminian" interpretations of these texts are in fact held by Calvinists. So let's get the issue right. The issue is the doctrine of universal compassion, not Calvinism itself. Are we clear on this?
Further, did I ever deny the doctrine of divine judgment? No.
Yes, there's going to be an argument that looks like this.
1) The doctrine of universal compassion is clearly taught by Scripture, and is therefore true.
2) If the doctrine of universal compassion is true, then Calvinism is false.
3) Therefore, Calvinism is false.
But since I'm an inductivist, you probably need a "probably" or two in there. But so far all I have defended is 1. You can be a Calvinist and accept 1. That's going to involve you in some inconsistencies, on my view, but it harmonizes better with Scripture than its denial.
But can we please correctly identify the topic under discussion?
18 comments:
You think most Calvinists would reject premise 2?
"2) If the doctrine of universal compassion is true, then Calvinism is false."
You weasel, only weasels use numbered arguments. :)
I have no idea how it breaks down demographically.
" What I was defending was the doctrine of divine compassion for all persons, including those alienated from God. Let's call it DUC, for Doctrine of Universal Compassion "
What is God's compassion?
Consider ordinary everyday suffering. God lets life on Earth suffer, obviously. So I think "compassion" here must mean "would predestine everybody for Heaven if he could" ?
All I am requiring here is that God have a sincere desire for the salvation of all. Since there are Calvinists who hold this doctrine, it would be question-begging to define compassion as the disposition to save everyone if possible. Calvinists say it is possible to save everyone, but that God has an overarching reason for reprobating some.
Well, I suppose this is probably already known, but philosopher Thomas Talbott breaks down the issue into 3 premises, of which only 2 can be accepted.
(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile
all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.
http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/PICTURES.pdf
The argument you are proposing seems pretty close to what Talbott sees, only that you take eternal hell as a given.
Now, if Talbott's premise 1 is true, and hell exists, then traditional Calvinism must be false. I don't see any inconsistencies in the position that "God (if existent) seeks to save all" can be known from basic moral intuitions and scripture and that this is better supported than the position "God accomplishes all He seeks to".
Now, I agree with the criticism made of Arminianism with this statement: "i) If God foreknows who will accept the offer and who will reject the offer, is the offer made in good faith to those whose rejection is logically certain?" and that a response seems necessary, unless one is a universalist or an open theist.
The second criticism, however, seems less problematic, as God can promise to save people quite easily if He chooses when the endtimes are, as then if any given person has a non-zero chance of choosing God, then as time increases, salvation becomes more probable until it basically must occur.
Generally speaking though, I think you can basically make your case relatively well.
Also, if you haven't seen this argument by Thomas Talbott about "God is love" from scripture, it could be of interest as it is anti-Calvinist and pro-God is love.
http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/LOVE.pdf
Tom is a good friend of mine, and his work is familiar to me. I'm not dismissive of universalism.
Steve says: In order to make an exegetical case for Calvinism, two and only two conditions must be met.
a) Calvinists must furnish prooftexts which, on the best interpretation, positively teach Calvinism.
b) Calvinists must show that other passages are neutral on Calvinism.
Any approach to Scripture that involves furnishing prooftexts to justify a specific doctrinal system must be used with caution. This is a deductive methodology--we have already established our conclusions and will cherry-pick supportive verses accordingly. Instead, we should adopt an inductive methodology--determining what the text says, what it means, and how it applies to us today. In other words, we need to let the Bible speak for itself--both in individual passages and (especially) as a whole--and then follow it wherever it leads.
Now exactly what we mean by the "best" interpretation is going to be open to debate.
The best interpretation is the one that most faithfully captures the author's intended meaning. If this calls into question a cherished doctrinal position, so much the worse for that position. If it conflicts with our philosophical presuppositions, so much the worse for those presuppositions. Biblical interpretation is certainly influenced by our doctrines and presuppositions, but it must ultimately govern over them if we take seriously the notion that it is the Word of God.
Hello Victor, [part 1]
You wrote:
“All I am requiring here is that God have a sincere desire for the salvation of all.”
This is explicitly stated in the bible, which is why most Christians (whether they be Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Independents)have always affirmed that God’s plan of salvation involves desiring the salvation of all (explicitly stated in the bible) and providing an atonement for all (explicitly stated in the bible). If we went strictly by the bible alone, the case would be closed on this. Unfortunately, the necessatarians have developed a system of theology, Calvinism, which then forces them to both deny that God desires the salvation of all (contradicting clear bible verses) and to deny that God provided Christ for the world (again contradicting clear bible verses/ because of their system they have to redefine “world” or argue that “all” in these passages does not mean “all” you know the drill).
“Since there are Calvinists who hold this doctrine,”
What doctrine? That God sincerely desires the salvation of all and gives all a legitimate opportunity to be saved? Calvinists do not believe that. In fact they developed their “two wills of God” doctrine to defend their system and get around that (i.e. God expresses desires in the bible, such as the desire for all to be saved, the desire that people keep his commandments, that is the “revealed will”; but the sovereign will of God, the secret will of God, the will which actually determines what will in fact occur as the actual history of this world, involves choosing some for salvation and others for reprobation).
Some professing calvinists call themselves “four pointers” because they want to claim that God does desire the salvation of all and does provide Christ as an atonement for all. But their view is **internally inconsistent** as they hold to unconditional election just like the “five pointer”. If you hold to unconditional election (i.e. that God preselects who will be saved and who will be damned before they are born and ensures these outcomes) then according to the sovereign or secret will, in fact God does not desire the salvation of all (that is just His “revealed will” not the sovereign will which actually dictates what will come to pass).
By the way, people like D. A. Carson and John Piper hold to the two wills of God doctrine and unconditional election. This forces Carson to make unbiblical distinctions between different loves of God (with the salvific love, the love that actually desires the salvation of an individual to be **restricted** solely to the preselected elect/unconditional election). For Carson God loves the world in one sense, but in the really important sense of loving an individual and wanting to save that person and saving that person out of love, THAT only involves the preselected elect. So Carson’s efforts are really just another tactic to defend the system and justify unconditional election. A lot of calvinists love Carson’s approach, [pun intended] but it flounders on what the biblical texts properly interpreted actually present (which is again that God desires the salvation of all, loves all and wants all to be saved, out of love for all provides an atonement for all, things explicitly stated and yet rejected by the calvinist system)
Robert
Hello Victor [part 2]
“Calvinists say it is possible to save everyone, but that God has an overarching reason for reprobating some.”
The consistent calvinist says that God saves whomever he desires to save (this is because whomever God selects for salvation will come to faith due to irresistible grace) according to the sovereign will. He could save all but chooses only to save some (the preselected elect, unconditional election again which explains why some individuals alone are given irresistible grace). The consistent calvinist believes that God works unilaterally (they call it monergism) in the salvation of individuals (this is true because in their system all suffer from total depravity which makes them incapable of faith unless regenerated first, and God only chooses to regenerate the preselected elect, and those who are chosen for salvation will necessarily come to salvation due to irresistible grace). Put another way, irresistible grace (which can easily save anyone to whom it is given) will save whomever it is given to, but God only gives it to, ONLY DESIRES TO GIVE IT TO, those whom he has unconditionally elected for salvation.
You need to keep in mind that Calvinism is like a circle that just keeps circling back on itself (all of the premises of the system are points on that circle and all mutually reinforce one another, so it is, in itself, very logically coherent; the problem is that these premises are explicitly and clearly contradicted by scripture properly interpreted).
Victor if you really want to flush the necessatarian out of the bushes into the open, just focus on their view of unconditional election. Anyone (whether “five pointer” or “four pointer”) who affirms **that** will have real problems affirming that God desires the salvation of all or that God provides Jesus as an atonement for all. The heart of the calvinist engine is unconditional election.
Robert
Aletheist makes a great point. It seems Biblical exegesis is a field particularly susceptible to confirmation bias.
[Response to Aletheist and BDK part 1]
Blue Devil Knight and Aletheist bring up good points that go together and bring up a significant point about calvinism.
BDK wrote:
“Aletheist makes a great point. It seems Biblical exegesis is a field particularly susceptible to confirmation bias.”
You are correct biblical interpretation **is** a field particularly susceptible to confirmation bias (note I modified it slightly because I view biblical exegesis as seeking to arrive at proper interpretation of the text; in contrast biblical eisegesis is the opposite approach, you eisegete when instead of drawing out the truth from the text you read into the text the truth you believe in or wish were there, i.e. “confirmation bias”).
The proper approach is to let the bible speak for itself, and this is what aletheist recommends:
“Instead, we should adopt an inductive methodology--determining what the text says, what it means, and how it applies to us today. In other words, we need to let the Bible speak for itself--both in individual passages and (especially) as a whole--and then follow it wherever it leads.”
It is like Flew is fond of saying: we need to go wherever the evidence leads us. Ideally this is the goal and desire of scientists, theologians, whoever is dealing with some data that is being explained and interpreted.
In contrast to this we have “confirmation bias” or as aletheist describes the wrong approach to interpreting biblical texts:
“Any approach to Scripture that involves furnishing prooftexts to justify a specific doctrinal system must be used with caution. This is a deductive methodology--we have already established our conclusions and will cherry-pick supportive verses accordingly.”
Cherry-picking verses is confirmation bias in action. My own way (influenced by a good friend) of making the distinction is to distinguish between (1) pursuit of truth (i.e. carefully examining the data and coming up with conclusions that correspond to reality whether you wish it to be so or not) and (2) pursuit of position (i.e. start with a preconceived notion that you want or wish to believe to be true, and then seeking evidence or seeking ways to prove your desired position).
When it comes to interpreting the bible, Aletheist stated the goal of pursing the truth very well when he wrote:
“The best interpretation is the one that most faithfully captures the author's intended meaning. If this calls into question a cherished doctrinal position, so much the worse for that position. If it conflicts with our philosophical presuppositions, so much the worse for those presuppositions.”
The truth then, the goal of proper interpretation of a biblical text is to discover “the author’s intended meaning”. A scientific friend of mine likes to say “truth is discovered not invented.” By this he means that if you are inventing something not there you are not seeking truth but are inventing what you would like to be the case. Conversely, truth is out there and can be discovered.
Robert
[response to Aletheist and BDK part 2]
A good example of confirmation bias, pursuit of position, cherry picking texts, is to see how cults interpret the bible. They have preconceived notions (usually developed or invented by a leader or group) which they then seek to “prove” by appealing to bible verses that they “cherry pick”. Another name for this is “proof texting” where you start with the hypothesis or system or notion that you wish to be true, THEN you go to the bible looking for texts that may used to somehow support your position. Jehovah’s Witnesses learn their preconceived notions from the Watchtower organization. So whatever the Watchtower declares, that must be true, and that must be supported and proved by cherry picking from scripture. If you know their “theology” you know what bible verses they will appeal to, to make their points before they even say them. If you want to trip them up just get them to discuss bible verses they do not cherry pick from, bible verses they don’t how to convert to their a priori beliefs.
What is true of non-Christian cults regarding their interpretive methodology is also true of Calvinism. It is a system of beliefs invented by men (first coming into church history through Augustine after four centuries of no Calvinism, then later systematized by the reformers) and its adherents then go cherry picking for bible verses they want to believe support and prove what they wish to believe. It is pursuit of position not pursuit of truth and its adherents are heavily and repeatedly involved in confirmation bias. Now they don’t want others to believe that, and they of course must convince themselves that they are objectively and dispassionately presenting the facts. But just look at how they cherry pick from the bible. Look at how they eisegete/read in meanings into biblical texts that are not there. Just look at how they reinterpret and twist and mangle clear bible verses. The classic case is how John 3:16 and its intended meaning completely disappears when a calvinist gets through “interpreting” it.
So BDK you are correct there is a susceptibility to confirmation bias when it comes to interpreting bible texts. And if you want a clear example of confirmation bias at work, just look at calvinists defending and attempting to “prove” their invented system.
Robert
Thanks Robert very interesting stuff.
Hey BDK,[response to BDK part 1]
I got a chance to read the Wikipedia article which you referred to earlier. There are some quotes there that I believe are pertinent to this discussion. I will present them and briefly comment.
Francis Bacon wrote:
“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (...) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects[.]”
So Bacon says that some people once they adopt a position, will then look for anything that will support that position which has now become a preconceived notion, which has become their operating hypothesis. This despite “a great number and weight of instances to be found on the other side” In the case of Calvinism, if looked at through the lens of the entire history of the church (and even today), it is a very small minority within a vast majority including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, other Protestants and Independents who all reject Calvinism based on the clear and explicit teachings of the bible properly interpreted. Now it is true that the majority is not automatically right, and yet the numbers against Calvinism are staggering. And note what Bacon says is the reaction of the advocate of the false position against those who actually espouse the truth: “these it either neglects or despises.” He also mentions how they will come up with their own invented distinctions to get round and away from the truth. The bible says that Jesus died for all men (so the calvinist in order to avoid this truth invents the distinction between “all without distinction” and “all without exception” then argues these verses refer to “kinds of men”/”all without distinction”not to all people).
Robert
[response to BDK part2]
In 1897, Tolstoy wrote:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life.”
The bible presents such simple and obvious truths such as that Jesus was given for the world, that God desires the salvation of all. Children even sing a song about this: “Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so . . .” But as Tolstoy suggests, if the hard core calvinist admitted these things to be true, then they would have to “admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others”.
I know a situation where a professor who had been teaching for decades was asked by a student if he would be their thesis advisor on something the student had begun researching. Note the contrast, the professor who had “proudly taught to others” for decades versus the unknown student with a fledgling idea. The professor declined saying “no one will ever believe that”. The student ended up publishing multiple articles on that which are now in libraries around the world. Imagine if that professor would have to admit that what he had been teaching for decades was false?
A related Tolstoy quote is:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Again consider the interpretation of John 3:16. Children can understand it, it has been used on countless occasions in the context of evangelism. And yet the proper interpretation of this “the simplest thing” is rejected by calvinists. So no matter how intelligent they are (“the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already”) the calvinist because of his commitment to his system of theology, his false ideas will reject an idea that again the vast multitude of Christians of every age and level of intelligence have never had any problem understanding and believing.
Robert
Calvinists must furnish prooftexts which, on the best interpretation, positively teach Calvinism.
And this will be their hardest part.
Robert: those are good quotes.
It's hard to not interpret John 3:16 other than as saying, anyone can enter into God's kingdom if they only believe.
BDK wrote"
"Robert: those are good quotes."
Why are you surprised, didn't you provide the link to the article where those quotes appear? :-) I think they are great quotes and apply in a lot of areas, anywhere where a strong bias can lead to false conclusions.
"It's hard to not interpret John 3:16 other than as saying, anyone can enter into God's kingdom if they only believe."
Yes. And it is precisely because the bible contains some clear statements like this, that if true, make calvinism false, that the vast majority of Christians have always (and always will) reject calvinism.
Robert
Post a Comment