In my first response to Roger Olson,1 I treated him as an Arminian. And that's because he calls himself an Arminian. However, he's also expressed his sympathies with open theism. But open theism is a throwback to Socinianism.
So I'll now assume, whether in fact or for the sake of argument, that Olson is an open theist, and evaluate his critique of the Reformed theodicy in light of that position. Let's begin with a few definitions.
I. The Theological Options
1. Calvinism
i) God foreknows and foreordains the future; indeed, that God foreknows the future because he foreordained the future.
ii) Calvinism affirms that God is immutable and infallible.
iii) Traditionally, Calvinism affirms that God is impassible. He isn't affected by external events, and he isn't subject to the same range of emotions that we are.2
iv) Traditionally, Calvinism recognizes that some Scriptural depictions of God are anthropomorphic. Indeed, Scripture itself draws this distinction (e.g. Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:19).
2. Arminianism
i) God foreknows the future, but he doesn't foreordain the future. It also affirms conditional election, contingent on foreseen faith.
In Arminianism, God cannot foreordain the future because his predestination would nullify libertarian freewill, and Arminian theology prioritizes libertarian freewill.
3. Socinianism
i) Socinianism or open theism denies that God even foreknows the future.
God knows all possible futures, but he doesn't know which future will eventuate. God must ask human beings what they're going to do or test them to find out what they will do. He is dependent on us for some of his information.
In open theism, God cannot foreknow the future because his prescience would nullify libertarian freedom, and open theism prioritizes libertarian freedom. Open theism takes the Arminian commitment to libertarian freewill to its logical extreme.
ii) Because open theism denies that God is omniscient (since he's ignorant of the future), God is fallible. Indeed, fallibility is the logical consequence of ignorance.3
God entertains false expectations about the future. God is genuinely surprised by the way some things turn out. God makes mistakes, which leads to divine regret for his shortsighted actions.
iii) Open theism denies that God is immutable. Rather, God often changes his mind in light of unforeseen circumstances.
iv) Open theism denies that God is impassible. God can be affected by external events. God not only knows what we feel, but he feels what we feel.
v) Open theism rejects the traditional, anthropomorphic interpretation of many passages in Scripture.
II. The Problem of Evil
Let's also define some components in the problem of evil.
A. There is a de jure aspect to the problem of evil:
1.According to the argument from evil, evil disproves the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God if there is gratuitous evil in the world—gratuitous because it serves no purpose which would justify its occurrence.
2.The problem of evil also distinguishes between moral evil and natural evil.
A natural evil is not inherently evil. It may be a natural good. But it can be an evil to the victim if you happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
3.A theodicy also has a twofold aspect:
i) To show that man is culpable for evil.
ii) To show that God is inculpable for evil.
B. There is a de facto aspect to the problem of evil.
Will good triumph over evil, or will evil triumph over good? Can God keep his promises?
III. The Consequentialist Argument
Let's also say something about the legitimacy and the limitations of a consequentialist argument. Olson is mounting a consequentialist argument against Calvinism. He's arguing that Calvinism is false because it leads to unacceptable consequences respecting our doctrine of God.
1.A consequentialist argument is a good argument if you deduce (by valid inference) an unacceptable conclusion given your opponent's operating premise. If he isn't prepared to carry his own position to its logical extreme, then you've proven your point.
2.A consequentialist argument is a good argument if the logical consequences of your opponent's position lead to global scepticism. In that event, his position is self-refuting.
3.A consequentialist argument is a good argument if you are answering your opponent on his own grounds. If he is mounting a consequentialist argument, then it's fair game to counter his argument with a consequentialist argument to the contrary.
4.Conversely, it is question-begging to merely rattle off some supposedly disagreeable consequences of your opponent's position and then exclaim that his position is wrong. To merely wag an accusatory finger at something you disapprove of is no way to disprove your opponent's position.
Now, let's evaluate his alternative theodicy under the assumption that Olson is an open theist. There is, of course, some overlap between Arminianism and Socinianism, but there are also some differences which impact their respective theodicean advantages or disadvantages.
What about God's character? Is God, then, the author of evil? Most Calvinists don't want to say it. But logic seems to demand it. If God plans something and renders it certain, how is he not culpable for it? Here is where things get murky.Keep in mind that I've already responded to some of these allegations in my previous reply. I'm not going to repeat myself.
Some Calvinists will say he's not guilty because he has a good intention for the event -- to bring good out of it, but the Bible expressly forbids doing evil for the sake of good.
Many conservative Christians wince at the idea that God is limited. But what if God limits himself so that much of what happens in the world is due to human finitude and fallenness? What if God is in charge but not in control? What if God wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?
That seems more like the God of the Bible than the all-determining deity of Calvinism.
In this world, because of our ignorance and sinfulness, really bad things sometimes happen and people do really evil and wicked things. Not because God secretly plans and prods them, but because God has said to fallen, sinful people, "OK, not my will then, but thine be done -- for now."
And God says, "Pray because sometimes I can intervene to stop innocent suffering when people pray; that's one of my self-limitations. I don't want to do it all myself; I want your involvement and partnership in making this a better world."
It's a different picture of God than most conservative Christians grew up with, but it's the only one (so far as I can tell) that relieves God of responsibility for sin and evil and disaster and calamity.
The God of Calvinism scares me; I'm not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you've come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself.4
1.How does open theism avoid saying that God is the "author of evil"? According to open theism, God permits things to happen without foreseeing the consequences. But isn't that, of itself, reckless and culpable? Isn't it blameworthy to put others at grave, unnecessary risk? To expose them to the possibility of gratuitous and irreparable harm?
Suppose I have a toddler. Suppose I don't close the bedroom windows before I go bed. It's hot, and I enjoy the cross draft. Suppose, when I wake up in the morning, the toddler is gone. He crawled out the window, wandered away during the night, and drowned in a nearby pond.
Will pleading ignorance of the outcome absolve me of blame? I didn't know that this would happen. Therefore, I'm innocent.
But isn't my ignorance culpable? Isn't that the very thing that implicates me in the death of my child? I should have anticipated that possibility, and taken precautions to childproof the house. Had I taken those elementary, preemptive actions, my child would still be alive.
According to Olson, bad things happen because we don't know any better. And a little child is a paradigm-case of someone who doesn't know any better. That's why little kids need adult supervision. And that's why it's the duty of grown-ups to look out for them. The kids have no sense of danger. And they have a limited ability to defend themselves or save themselves.
Isn't the God of open theism a very callous God? A God who shoves his children into the deep end of the pool and then stands by as they sink or swim.
A God who says to a suicidal teenager, I wish you wouldn't kill yourself. Really, I do. But it's your call. I'd never wrestle you to the ground and pry that gun from your fist, for that would violate the integrity of your unfettered freedom. Not my will, but thine be done. Bang!
Even if open theism doesn't make God the author of evil, it surely makes him the coauthor of evil.
2.Olson says it's wrong to do evil for the sake of good. Of course, that's a malicious caricature of Calvinism, but let's consider the alternative.
According to Olson, God allows evil for no good reason. How is that any improvement over the position he rejects? Assuming, for the same of argument, that it's wrong to co-opt evil as a means to a greater good, isn't it even worse to permit gratuitous evil—evil that serves no good purpose at all?
3.Open theism cannot ensure the triumph of good over evil, for open theism cannot ensure any specific outcome.
i) In open theism, God cannot keep his promises, because God can't make people do what he wants them to do. He can't guarantee that you won't commit apostasy after you get to heaven. After all, you retain your inalienable freedom, do you not?
The fact that, in this life, you decided to freely accept God's offer doesn't commit you to anything for all time. By definition, any decision you make in this life is bound to be pretty immature. Your personal experience is extremely limited. If God is free to change his mind, why shouldn't you be free to change your mind? If God in heaven can entertain regrets, why can't you entertain regrets even after you get to heaven? Including regrets about heaven itself? Eternity is a long time.
ii) And it's not simply that God can't keep his promises. You don't even know that those promises are his promises. In open theism, inspiration depends on the libertarian consent of the sacred author. So God can't guarantee that Matthew or Moses, Isaiah, John, Paul, or Luke (to name a few) were inspired.
4.Olson says he finds it hard to distinguish the God of Calvinism from the devil. Funny, since I'd say the same thing about the God of open theism.
i) According to open theism, God often doesn't know right from wrong. He doesn't know the right thing to do. That's why he regrets some of his decisions. A God who can't tell the difference between right and wrong bears a striking resemblance to the old serpent.
ii) According to open theism, God feels our pain. God changes. We change God. The world has an impact on God's character.
Now, if God can experience regret and disappointment, he can become bitter and cynical. Disappointment can have that effect on people. They become resentful and jaded. Easily or even clinically depressed. Suicidal and homicidal. The gunman who murders his wife and kids, or classmates, or coworkers before shooting himself in the head. The sniper who goes on a shooting spree, killing perfect strangers because he's mad at the world.
What assurance does open theism offer us that God won't get bored with human beings? Decide, on second thought, we're more trouble than we're worth? Decide it was a mistake to make us in the first place, and correct his mistake by wiping us out? Go on his own shooting rampage?
iii) Does God feel whatever we feel? If so, does God share the feelings of a child molester or psychotic killer?
Think of those fictional stories in which a homicide detective tries to get inside the mind of a serial killer in order to predict his next move and intercept him before he kills again. But as he identifies with the killer, in order to see the crime through his eyes, the detective is seduced by evil.
Or take the undercover cop who is corrupting by the lifestyle of the drug lords and Mafiosi he is trying to infiltrate. He started out as an idealistic young rookie, hoping to make the world a better place, but he's become disillusioned over the years. Lost his faith in humanity.
He started out with the best of intentions, but over time he becomes a dirty cop. Over time he mutates into the criminal element he used to police. He begins to perform hits for the Don. He will even murder a fellow policeman who threatens to expose him.
iv) When the Bible says that God is a jealous God, Calvinism construes this in anthropomorphic terms. But open theism eschews that approach.
So what would it mean to say that God is literally jealous? As we all know, jealousy can lurch from love to hate and murderous rage.
If we take the hermeneutical approach of open theism seriously, then God is very unpredictable. He's someone you would like to avoid at all cost—if only you could. Keep at a safe distance—the farther, the better. If you catch him in a bad mood, he'll dismember you like a troubled boy who vivisects the cat next door.
v) According to open theism, if you lack libertarian freedom, then you're no better than a robot? So, is God a libertarian agent? If not, does that make him a robot?
Assuming that God is a libertarian agent, wouldn't that have to include the power of contrary choice—the freedom to choose between good and evil?
The more I think about the God of open theism, the more the image of Damien forms in my mind. You remember Damien, don't you? You know—from The Omen?5
Damien is the Antichrist. The junior Antichrist.
Yet he starts out life as a fairly normal boy except for one thing—he's virtually omnipotent. He doesn't know at first who or what he is. He doesn't know, at first, what he's capable of doing. But when you magnify the mercurial and spiteful and vengeful moods of a child by virtual omnipotence, the path to self-discovery quickly takes a matricidal, fratricidal, homicidal turn.
What assurance can open theism offer us that it's God isn't a grade-school version of Damien, who will grow up some day to be the Antichrist, without a God to keep him in check—because they are now one and the same?
1 http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/hands-off-theodicy.html
2 http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/Divine_Impassibility/94
3 Open theism play semantic games with "omniscience," but I've skipping over those sophistries for the moment.
4 http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46486
5 I'm referring to the classic version with Lee Remick and Gregory Peck.
The god of open theism is a pansy. Likewise, the god of Arminianism.
ReplyDeleteRegarding God's impassibility, I still remember talking to one man some years ago. I don't remember the context of the conversation, but he used the phrase "hurting God's feelings." I still remember thinking that I wanted to throw up, or laugh, or cry for such a low view of God.
However, even though we affirm God's impassibility as Calvinists, it is at the same time true that the Holy Spirit can be grieved. If that's all that the man I was talking to meant, then fine. But I'm not so sure that griving the Spirit of God is the same as "hurting God's feelings."
"v) According to open theism, if you lack libertarian freedom, then you're no better than a robot? So, is God a libertarian agent? If not, does that make him a robot?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that God is a libertarian agent, wouldn't that have to include the power of contrary choice—the freedom to choose between good and evil?"
Oh I like that argument...
Freedom equates to *ability* on the libertarian scheme, the ability to actuate the alternative possibilities.
I do not appreciate Steve Hays challenge of open theism here as it is full of caricatures and straw men. Having dealt with some real flesh and blood OT’s, I know their views are not being properly represented here. Hays and the other Calvinists here get quite upset when they believe Calvinism is not fairly and properly being represented, so why not do the same with open theists? The OT’s that I have dealt with hold to virtually all Christian beliefs except exhaustive foreknowledge. If you want to see what they look like in print, read Richard Swinburne’s books (e.g., Coherence of Theism).
ReplyDeleteSteve I also believe it is unfair to lump Olson in with the OT’s. Olson saying he has sympathies with OT’s does not mean he is OT. From reading Olson’s stuff it seems he is an Arminian. Steve if you want to really show the problems with OT, go after someone like Swinburne (who does not believe in exhaustive foreknowledge), not the caricatures and straw men you present here.
Speaking of caricatures and straw men, John Brisby wrote: “The god of open theism is a pansy. Likewise, the god of Arminianism.”
Brisby obviously believes that that his view of God, the calvinist view, is the correct one. But the God believed in by Arminians is no “pansy”. The God believed in by the Arminians is the God of the bible. He is the one who created everything out of nothing, who knows everything, is present everywhere, is all-powerful, did all of the miracles presented in scripture, and who will raise everyone from the dead for final judgment. Brisby may believe that God had predetermined everything and that “free will” does not exist. But the Arminians that I know, believe that it actually requires more power and intelligence to control and orchestrate events when “free will” exists than it does to control a completely preprogrammed world. Classic Arminians like Picarelli do not believe in a God that is a “pansy”. This is quite an uncharitable and false representation of Arminianism.
Again, I have seen the Calvinists here often getting upset when they believe that Calvinism is not being fairly or properly presented. It seems to me that it ought to go both ways: when dealing with a view present it fairly and accurately and don’t waste time creating and attacking straw men and other caricatures of other people’s positions. We have all probably been guilty of this, especially when discussing a view we really don’t agree with or like. But we should try our best to avoid this kind of thing. Instead of pretending that Olson is OT, challenge the real thing, go after someone like Swinburne.
Robert
robert said...
ReplyDelete“I do not appreciate Steve Hays challenge of open theism here as it is full of caricatures and straw men.”
I don’t live for Robert’s approval. Robert must be pretty egotistical to imagine he’s that important to me.
“Having dealt with some real flesh and blood OT’s, I know their views are not being properly represented here.”
Since, by definition, an open theist believes in open theism, he will naturally present his own position in the most favorable light possible—accentuating the positives (in his opinion), and downplaying the negatives. I simply turn it overe and shine a spotlight the ugly underbelly of open theism.
“Hays and the other Calvinists here get quite upset when they believe Calvinism is not fairly and properly being represented, so why not do the same with open theists?”
No, I don’t get upset. I merely correct them. It’s fine with me when opponents of Calvinism misrepresent Reformed theology. That leaves my own position untouched. Indeed, it’s a tacit admission on their part that they can’t lay a glove on Calvinism.
Robert is imputing emotional states to me that he’s in no position to verify. He’s projecting his own feelings onto others.
“The OT’s that I have dealt with hold to virtually all Christian beliefs except exhaustive foreknowledge.”
It only takes one cobra bite to kill a grown man.
“If you want to see what they look like in print, read Richard Swinburne’s books (e.g., Coherence of Theism).”
Been there, done that.
“Steve I also believe it is unfair to lump Olson in with the OT’s. Olson saying he has sympathies with OT’s does not mean he is OT. From reading Olson’s stuff it seems he is an Arminian.”
i) Notice how Robert spends a lot of time whining about how I supposedly misrepresent open theism when he then proceeds to misrepresent my post. Did I say Olson was an open theist? No.
Olson admitted that he is sympathetic to open theism. For the sake of completeness I said that I would critique his reply to Piper from both viewpoints. If he’s Arminian, then I’ve responded to him on Arminian grounds, and if he’s a Socinian, I’ve responded to him on Socinian grounds. So I’ve covered all possible bases.
I specifically said that I was offering this critique in case he was an open theist, not because he is, in fact, an open theist.
ii) Beyond that, it’s perfectly appropriate for me to judge his position by his theological sympathies. His theological sympathies say a lot about his theological priorities and predisposition. If push came to shove, it tells me which side he’d break with.
iii) In anything, it’s more useful to point out the deleterious implications of a position before the individual has committed himself to that position.
iv) The definition of “Arminian” is, itself, fluid. As I recall, open theism was launched by a book edited by Clark Pinnock and subtitled, A Case for Arminianism.
“Steve if you want to really show the problems with OT, go after someone like Swinburne (who does not believe in exhaustive foreknowledge), not the caricatures and straw men you present here.”
Swinburne doesn’t claim to be an Evangelical. He’s a one-time Anglican convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.
By contrast, Olson is a Baptist theologian teaching at a Baptist university in the SBC. The SBC is, at present, the most important evangelical denomination in America. So, in terms of potential influence, the public face of Southern Baptist theology is far more important than what Swinburne has to say. Swinburne is an academic apologist who writes for philosophy majors.
“This is quite an uncharitable and false representation of Arminianism.”
Well, Brisby can speak for himself, but he probably takes the position that pansy is as pansy does.
“Again, I have seen the Calvinists here often getting upset when they believe that Calvinism is not being fairly or properly presented. It seems to me that it ought to go both ways: when dealing with a view present it fairly and accurately and don’t waste time creating and attacking straw men and other caricatures of other people’s positions.”
You keep repeating allegations of misrepresentation without bothering to back up your claims.
“Instead of pretending that Olson is OT, challenge the real thing, go after someone like Swinburne.”
Which, if you bother to read the actual and careful wording of my post, I didn’t do. You disregard my stated caveats, then attack an unqualified caricature of what I actually said. You’re just as two-faced as Henry.
Here’s a novel idea for you, Robert. Why don’t you put your own high-sounding principles into practice before you mouth off the next time.
What I’m obviously doing is to take open theism to its logical extreme. I don’t expect open theists to do that since it would make their case look bad. Heresy is often an incremental process. Baby steps to catch the faithful off-guard. Their strategy is clearly successful with the likes of you.
Robert said:
ReplyDelete"The OT’s that I have dealt with hold to virtually all Christian beliefs except exhaustive foreknowledge."
This is misleading. Men who reject divine foreknowledge tend to reject other articles of the faith as well. They may affirm annihilationism and/or postmortem evangelism while they deny penal substitution.
ReplyDelete“The OT’s that I have dealt with hold to virtually all Christian beliefs except exhaustive foreknowledge.”
Robert keeps talking about OT's he has dealt with and Calvinists that he knows. What we deal with on this blog are the arguments of OT's and others who write as they present them, so these are not convertible principles.
Swinburne, as Steve Hays pointed out, is Eastern Orthodox. Does Robert believe EO's gospel saves? If not, then Swinburne has more problems than a mere denal of exhaustive foreknowedge. Does Robert believe in post-mortem evangelism? If not, then Pinnock has more problems than a mere denial of exhaustive foreknowledge.
OT is derivative of - no is a major tenet of- Socinianism. What does Robert think of Socinianism?
And notice that while excoriating Calvinism, Robert is utterly oblivious to the crossroads through which heresy like this more often than not lies - Arminianism. That happened in Geneva under Viret; Arminians of old quickly aligned themselves with Socianians; they denied the innate idea of God in man; they denied the Trinity was a fundamental doctrine; they nearly destroyed the General Baptists. Where Arminianism's rationalism takes root - for that is exactly what Arminianism is, rationalism in constructing a theology around the fundamentum of (libertarian) freedom - liberalism has often followed. Reformed denominations went to seed not because they held onto their Calvinism and the underwriting principles, but because they departed from them.
What Robert needs to do, in addition to putting his principles into practice, is actually engage Calvinism exegetically. So far, all he's ever issued are ethical or philosophical complaints. Does Robert have any exegetical objections? If so, then let's examine them.
There is also a schizophrenic quality to Robert’s complaint. On the one hand, he takes umbrage because I associate Olson with open theism. But that reaction would only make sense if he thinks that open theism is disreputable. On the other hand, he defends open theism as orthodox in all but one respect. If so, why does he get bent out of shape when I associate Olson with open theism (especially considering the way I qualified my comparison)?
ReplyDeleteThere’s no logic to Robert’s little tirade. It’s just a knee-jerk reaction to all things Reformed.
Notice that Robert does not name these straw men.
ReplyDeleteSo, let's put this to the test, shall we?
Does OT affirm God knows all possible futures but not which one he will eventuate?
Does OT affirm God is dependent on us for some information?
Does OT affirm libertarian freedom?
Does OT carry Arminianism's commitment to libertarianism to its logical extreme?
Does OT assert God is fallible?
Does OT affirm God is "surprised?"
Does OT deny the immutability of God?
Does OT deny the impassibility of God?
Does OT affirm God changes His mind in light of unforeseen circumstances or contingencies?
The assertion that even if OT does not make God the author of evil but surely the co-author is simply a corollary to the Calvinist response to the Arminians who object that Calvinism makes God the author of evil - whatever that may mean when Arminians say it. If God willingly permits the possibility of evil, then the Arminian has only moved the question back one step, for this is still, according to the Arminian, the only universe that God has chosen to instantiate.
Can OT assure a specific outcome? No, for that would not be a libertarian argument.
The assertion that in OT, inspiration depends on the libertarian consent of the author is on the mark.
Does Robert affirm inerrancy? I believe he does. So, how, in Robert's view, can he deny "irresistible grace" on the grounds that it would do something like make men robots (a standard libertarian objection) while on the other affirming inerrancy. Surely, if irresistible grace makes men robots, inspiration of an inerrant autograph does as well, for these two doctrines turn on the same principles. It is manifestly inconsistent to accept the one and deny the other.
Also, Robert has been asked repeatedly, in relation to Reformed soteriology why one man believes and not another, given Robert's apparent commitment to libertarian freedom. Within those constraints, can he tell us? Can he show us where libertarian freedom can be exegeted from the Scriptures?
Steve Hays responded to my suggestion to avoid the caricatures and attack the stronger version of OT (people like Swinburne) with quite an emotional and hostile post.
ReplyDelete”I don’t live for Robert’s approval. Robert must be pretty egotistical to imagine he’s that important to me.”
I don’t believe that I am important to you, that is neither here nor there. I do speak the truth however when I say that you ought to avoid caricatures and straw men. I also speak the truth when I say that the bible tells us to interact in certain ways with believers and unbelievers. Ways you seem quite content to ignore.
”Since, by definition, an open theist believes in open theism, he will naturally present his own position in the most favorable light possible—accentuating the positives (in his opinion), and downplaying the negatives. I simply turn it overe and shine a spotlight the ugly underbelly of open theism.”
Right and that “underbelly” better be the right lizard.
I had said:
“Hays and the other Calvinists here get quite upset when they believe Calvinism is not fairly and properly being represented, so why not do the same with open theists?”
Hays responded:
”No, I don’t get upset. I merely correct them. It’s fine with me when opponents of Calvinism misrepresent Reformed theology. That leaves my own position untouched. Indeed, it’s a tacit admission on their part that they can’t lay a glove on Calvinism.”
Actually you do get very upset, it shows in your continual put downs and insults of people you disagree with. There have been many examples. Your words give you away, the venom and insult in them is unmistakable and clear. And I have some experience in dealing with angry and upset folks and your actions are no different than theirs.
”i) Notice how Robert spends a lot of time whining about how I supposedly misrepresent open theism when he then proceeds to misrepresent my post. Did I say Olson was an open theist? No.”
But you said let’s pretend that he is. That is a caricature and is false. And it can easily be shown from your post that you misrepresent OT.
”I specifically said that I was offering this critique in case he was an open theist, not because he is, in fact, an open theist.”
“In case”? So maybe people should respond to you as if you are a “hyper-Calvinist” just in case?
”iii) In anything, it’s more useful to point out the deleterious implications of a position before the individual has committed himself to that position.”
So now you are protecting or saving Olson from becoming an OT?
”Swinburne doesn’t claim to be an Evangelical. He’s a one-time Anglican convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.”
You are missing my point. Rather than pretending that Olson is OT, wouldn’t it be more useful to deal with someone who is sharp and philosophically sophisticated who holds to OT? Which is what Swinburne presents. Should I pretend some non-Calvinist (who is sympathetic to calvinism) is a Calvinist and attack his views or should I challenge someone like Helm if I want to really challenge the Calvinist position?
”Well, Brisby can speak for himself, but he probably takes the position that pansy is as pansy does.”
So you think the Arminian view of God is a pansy too?
”You keep repeating allegations of misrepresentation without bothering to back up your claims.”
Do you really want me to show from your post how you misrepresented and caricatured the OT view?
”Which, if you bother to read the actual and careful wording of my post, I didn’t do. You disregard my stated caveats, then attack an unqualified caricature of what I actually said. You’re just as two-faced as Henry.”
That last line here, is this a personal attack? Are you going to insult me like you did him?
”Here’s a novel idea for you, Robert. Why don’t you put your own high-sounding principles into practice before you mouth off the next time.”
High sounding principles? Is it a useful principle to engage the stronger versions of a position rather than pretend that someone holds a position and then attack them? You can continue to engage in caricatures and straw men and your cronies may love it, but what do you really accomplish with it?
”What I’m obviously doing is to take open theism to its logical extreme. I don’t expect open theists to do that since it would make their case look bad. Heresy is often an incremental process. Baby steps to catch the faithful off-guard. Their strategy is clearly successful with the likes of you.”
The last couple of lines, yet more personal attack and a false accusation. I am quite aware of and familiar with Christian doctrine. I have not been caught off guard by OT or any other false doctrine as you claim here. OT is false because the bible clearly reveals that God knows everything. But I can acknowledge that they are wrong about this, without engaging in the caricatures and straw men that you do, in order to make things easier.
Robert
Hays says:
ReplyDelete“This is misleading. Men who reject divine foreknowledge tend to reject other articles of the faith as well. They may affirm annihilationism and/or postmortem evangelism while they deny penal substitution.”
It is true that some who reject one biblical doctrine will be prone to also reject others as well. But the OT’s that I have personally dealt with held to the deity of Christ, the trinity, the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, salvation by faith alone, heaven and hell as traditionally understood, reject postmortem evangelism, reject annihilationism, etc. etc.
In a word, they seem to hold all orthodox beliefs except for when it comes to divine foreknowledge of all future events (this they deny). If you want to imagine the folks that I have dealt with, think of a perfectly orthodox person absent the belief in divine foreknowledge of future events.
Robert
And it can easily be shown from your post that you misrepresent OT.
ReplyDeleteIf it's so easy, why have you yet to substantiate this claim, Robert?
Rather than pretending that Olson is OT, wouldn’t it be more useful to deal with someone who is sharp and philosophically sophisticated who holds to OT? Which is what Swinburne presents. Should I pretend some non-Calvinist (who is sympathetic to calvinism) is a Calvinist and attack his views or should I challenge someone like Helm if I want to really challenge the Calvinist position?
Apparently, you still don't get it, Robert. Olson has represented himself as sympathetic to OT, so addressing him on those ground is not inadmissible.
Steve also plainly stated that Olson represents himself as an Arminian but has professed sympathies with OT, not that Olson is OT.
“In case”? So maybe people should respond to you as if you are a “hyper-Calvinist” just in case?
Actually, you have done so in the past by trying to repeatedly assert that Steve and the rest of us have asserted that all Arminians are going to hell.
In Steve Hays mind (and probably the other Triablogers as well) if you don’t teach Calvinism then you must be a false teacher.
Hays does understand the logic of his accusation against Henry:
P-1 = All false teachers are going to hell,
P-2 = Henry is a false teacher,
-----------------------------------
Therefore, Henry is going to hell
In doing that, Robert, you represented Steve, and presumably the rest of us, as being hyper-Calvinists since that is what the "Neo-Gnostic" hyperCalvinists state quite publicly.
Not only did you repeatedly misrepresent the historical record, you continued to do so unrepentantly. Forgive us for thinking your emotive rhetoric fails to hit the mark.
Your comparison is also a failure since Steve has not expressed sympathies with hyper-Calvinism, and has, in fact, stated his opposition to it. Olson, by way of contrast has stated his sympathies otherwise.
This comes by way of Dr. Tom Ascol who has said: Olsen and I had some time before and after the lecture to talk. He described himself as a "true Arminian" in distinction from the "Tom Oden kind." He also said that he was "open to open theism" at that time. From what he has written in The Lariat, it seems like his openness has morphed into embrace.
Gene Bridges asked some questions that can easily and quickly be answered.
ReplyDelete”Swinburne, as Steve Hays pointed out, is Eastern Orthodox. Does Robert believe EO's gospel saves? If not, then Swinburne has more problems than a mere denal of exhaustive foreknowedge. Does Robert believe in post-mortem evangelism?”
No, the only opportunity to be saved is in this life.
“If not, then Pinnock has more problems than a mere denial of exhaustive foreknowledge.”
Pinnock has lots and lots of problems and he is not the kind of OT that I have encountered.
”OT is derivative of - no is a major tenet of- Socinianism. What does Robert think of Socinianism?”
Socinianism is false and always has been and always will be.
”And notice that while excoriating Calvinism, Robert is utterly oblivious to the crossroads through which heresy like this more often than not lies - Arminianism.”
Gene are you claiming that Arminianism is heresy?
“ That happened in Geneva under Viret; Arminians of old quickly aligned themselves with Socianians; they denied the innate idea of God in man; they denied the Trinity was a fundamental doctrine; they nearly destroyed the General Baptists.”
No Arminian that I know aligns with Socianianism or denies the Trinity. Can you provide a modern example of an Arminian who does so?
“Where Arminianism's rationalism takes root - for that is exactly what Arminianism is, rationalism in constructing a theology around the fundamentum of (libertarian) freedom - liberalism has often followed.”
They do not make free will the centerpiece of their theology, this is a caricature which in fact Olson deals with in his recent book. As Olson points out, for the Arminian the love of God and God’s character is the central key for them, and their view of free will comes from what a loving God would do.
“Reformed denominations went to seed not because they held onto their Calvinism and the underwriting principles, but because they departed from them. “
Significant that all of the old reformed strongholds are no longer reformed. Even Southern Baptists were originally quite reformed, but they got away from it. And they won’t be going back, if the Calvinists push it, the denomination will split.
”What Robert needs to do, in addition to putting his principles into practice, is actually engage Calvinism exegetically.”
Exegetically? People have already attempted to do so, and that didn’t convince folks like yourself that calvinism is false. You just devised ways of answering the verses that are presented to you. Except for people like the so-called “4 point Calvinists” who simply could not evade the plain meanings of the texts on atonement. People like Bruce Ware, who while clearly Calvinist, nevertheless reject “L”.
“So far, all he's ever issued are ethical or philosophical complaints. Does Robert have any exegetical objections? If so, then let's examine them.”
I have definite exegetical problems with calvinism. I also know how you folks get around the verses that do not fit your calvinism. You folks will do whatever it takes to defend your calvinism, even if that means reinterpreting biblical texts and coming up with strained “interpretations”.
For example, when it comes to the atonement (“L”), there are clear verses that the provision of the atonement was for more than just the “elect”. And there are verses that the atonement is only applied to believers. But there are no verses that say that the death of Christ was intended only for believers. In order to make the exegetical case for “L” you would need to have verses that make the atonement exclusive for only one group of people or restricted to only one group of people, or excluding some group of people. But there are no such animals. “L” flows from the system of Calvinism (if he only wants to save the elect, then he would only die for the elect, and from logical arguments like those of Owen) but not from exegesis of the texts of scripture. Which again is why Calvinists like Ware reject it.
Robert
ROBERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve Hays responded to my suggestion to avoid the caricatures and attack the stronger version of OT (people like Swinburne) with quite an emotional and hostile post.”
Robert is like a little girl whose feelings are easily hurt by a blunt, man-to-man exchange of views. His own theology is so effeminate that he assumes that when men talk like men to other men, this must be “emotional.”
According to his airbrushed, Alan Alda, Ken & Barbie, dollhouse theology, Christian men should be “sensitive” males who never use frank, Biblical speech. To talk that way would be “emotional,” you know.
“I also speak the truth when I say that the bible tells us to interact in certain ways with believers and unbelievers.”
You’re very selective in what you choose to quote, and what you selective quote you quote out of context, as Gene and I have often pointed out. Then, to top it off, you don’t live up to your own quotes.
“Actually you do get very upset, it shows in your continual put downs and insults of people you disagree with. There have been many examples. Your words give you away, the venom and insult in them is unmistakable and clear. And I have some experience in dealing with angry and upset folks and your actions are no different than theirs.”
No, I just think you’re one of these girlish Christians with an emasculated theology.
“And it can easily be shown from your post that you misrepresent OT.”
Then show it.
“’In case’? So maybe people should respond to you as if you are a ‘hyper-Calvinist’ just in case?”
Lousy comparison. Olson has expressed his sympathies with open theism, whereas I never expressed any sympathy with Hyper-Calvinism. To the contrary, I’ve explicitly and publicly opposed it. So your analogy falls apart.
This is where you lack any capacity for self-criticism, Robert. You talk about honesty, but you resort to dishonesty at the drop of a hat.
“So now you are protecting or saving Olson from becoming an OT?”
My point stands as is.
“You are missing my point. Rather than pretending that Olson is OT, wouldn’t it be more useful to deal with someone who is sharp and philosophically sophisticated who holds to OT?”
So you’re defending Olson by admitting that Olson is dull-witted and philosophically naïve. That’s a rather harsh thing for you to say. Haven’t you read how the Bible instructs us to speak of fellow believers?
“Should I pretend some non-Calvinist (who is sympathetic to calvinism) is a Calvinist and attack his views.”
Another lousy comparison, since error and falsehood are disanalogous. If someone is sympathetic to a false position (e.g. open theism), you should attack his views—but if someone is sympathetic to a true position (e.g. Calvinism), you should encourage him to take the next step.
“So you think the Arminian view of God is a pansy too?”
I think the point Brisby was making is that Arminianism-cum-open theism works with a more stereotypically feminine model of God. You get the same thing in feminist theology.
By contrast, feminist theology would regard Calvinism as the paradigm-case of a patriarchal conception of God. The judgmental authority-figure. The use of violence, &c.
“That last line here, is this a personal attack? Are you going to insult me like you did him?”
Just a statement of fact. You don’t live up to your own rhetoric. Criticism is a two-way street, Robert. Time for you to grow up. If you want to make it personal, I’ll make it personal. If you want to talk substance, I'll talk substance.
“You can continue to engage in caricatures and straw men and your cronies may love it, but what do you really accomplish with it?”
“My cronies”? Do you think that’s a Biblical way to address a fellow Christian? When are you going to put your own code of conduct into practice? Or is that just for rhetorical effect?
Robert imposes his Miss Manners school of etiquette on his opponents while he himself dishes out invective when dealing with his opponents.
“The last couple of lines, yet more personal attack and a false accusation. I am quite aware of and familiar with Christian doctrine. I have not been caught off guard by OT or any other false doctrine as you claim here. OT is false because the bible clearly reveals that God knows everything. But I can acknowledge that they are wrong about this, without engaging in the caricatures and straw men that you do, in order to make things easier.”
No, you’re problem is that you’ve already lowered the theological bar so far down to the ground in order that your own truncated theology can slide over that you don’t have much of a problem with open theism.
BTW, notice another one of Robert’s double standards. On the one hand, my critique of Olson is a straw man because it doesn’t compare with “real flesh and blood OT’s” that Robert indicates he personally knows.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I should go after a “sharp and philosophically sophisticated” open theist like Swinburne rather than a clearly inferior opponent like Olson.
So who represents open theism? Is it the likes of Swinburne? Or is it Robert’s circle of friends? Friends and acquaintances that are not Oxford dons.
Notice he doesn’t say—much less demonstrate—that I misrepresented Pinnock or Sanders or Boyd or Reichenbach. Instead, he talks about some nameless acquaintances of his.
Pinnock has lots and lots of problems and he is not the kind of OT that I have encountered.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, we address the representatives of their positions as they write them. All you give us are vague references. You then tell us we should address the representatives, and when we do, you tell us "that's not representative of the OT I have encountered."
Think about that Robert.
Gene are you claiming that Arminianism is heresy?
A. What I stated is that Arminianism is the crossroads through which heresy, like a movement to liberalism or antitrintarianism more often than not, results. I then cited a number of historical examples. The pathway from Calvinism to liberalism - and even atheism - is well worn, and it usually passes through Arminianism.
By the way Olson, in the very book you cited, said, Olson contends that Miley "introduced a somewhat liberalizing tendency into Wesleyan Arminian theology." Correct?
And here's what Warfield said (Selected Works): The importance of Dr. Miley's attitude in this matter will not be properly estimated until we remind ourselves that he does not stand alone in it. Those who are familiar with recent Arminian theologizing will be aware that Dr. Miley in this is only a representative of a marked present-day drift in Arminian dogmatics. The nature of the impression which this drift will make upon us will doubtless depend, in part at least, upon whether our mind is upon the thinker or upon the thought. There is no one who will not feel regret to see one driven, by whatever stress of logic, from his hold upon fundamental Evangelical doctrine; it is better far to be inconsistently Evangelical than consistently Arminian. On the other hand, the line of thought by which Dr. Miley, for instance, clears away the Evangelical accretions from the Arminian core, commands our complete admiration. It is quiet logic, working its irresistible way to an irrefutable end. And as a matter of constructive reasoning it cannot be other than salutary. It is just as well that the world should come to know with the utmost clearness that these Evangelical doctrines are unconformable with Arminianism. It is just as well that the world should realize with increased clearness that Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism, and that every proof of Evangelicalism is a proof of Calvinism .(315)
B. Olson, in his article concedes the atheist argument for evil in such a way that the atheist would look at the Arminian and then say that his "answer" if true is the problem of evil itself. So, what Olson has done, quite by accident, is equate Arminianism and atheism by conceding the problem of evil. Is he an atheist? No, but the point here is that his argument is ill thought, not to mention utterly unScriptural. Speaking of which, where is your critique of Dr. Olson's article?
C. And should you try to draw the conclusion that I believe Arminianism and atheism are interchangeable, or that Arminianism is "heresy," I'll remind you that I wrote a 75 page booklet for the SBC session in 2006 in which I defended 5 Point Arminianism and the validity of General/Free Will Baptist baptisms. But if you want to distort the historical record again, be my guest.
No Arminian that I know aligns with Socianianism or denies the Trinity. Can you provide a modern example of an Arminian who does so?
Notice how Robert evades what I stated.
For starters, OT is a tenet of Socinianism, so the Arminian that accepts OT is aligning himself with Socinianism.
And I specifically stated that it was the Arminians of the past that aligned themselves with Socinianism. Is Robert ignorant of historical theology? Turretin noted that the Arminians specifically argued that no one ought to be compelled to prove their orthodoxy (regarding the Trinity) by subscription to words invented by human beings (Institutes, III.xxiii.16). In fact, Turretin noted this about them a number of times. Perhaps he should pick up a copy of Volume 4 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics or take a tour of Turretin's Institutes.
Since I did not lay a claim about the present in this regard, it is not my burden of proof to discharge.
I, however, would add that by placing election and regeneration outside a chain of sufficient grace, Arminianism is implicitly Unitarian, since only the cross, and thus the Son, is in view - and the atonement is ineffectual at that. The Father and Spirit are made to depend on man.
They do not make free will the centerpiece of their theology, this is a caricature which in fact Olson deals with in his recent book.
As Olson points out, for the Arminian the love of God and God’s character is the central key for them, and their view of free will comes from what a loving God would do.
A. Uh-huh, and when he was criticized on this very point by Riddlebarger, whom Olson took to task, and denied that libertarianism is a fundamentum Riddlebarger quoted Miley - whom Olson asserted Riddlebarger had not read.
John Miley, said that human freedom is an Arminian fundamentum and went on to defend libertarian freedom. I believe you will find that in Volume 2 of his Systematic Theology around page 275, and it precisely this fundamentum that leads him to state that, therefore, the Arminian system holds the universality of the atonement and provisory nature of the atonement, and the conditionality of salvation.
“Theology gives importance to the question of freedom. Our position on so cardinal a question must influence our interpretation of the Scriptures as the source of theology, and chiefly determine the cast of our doctrinal system.[…] freedom is fundamental in Arminianism.” Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 275.
Is Miley not representative of Arminianism?
B. Notice that Olson is leveling an ethical, not an exegetical argument.
C. But, let's take "the love of God" as the central key for them. That is still rationalism, for in rationalism, Robert, one takes a fundamental tenet and then constructs a theology around it. Broadly defined, it indicates "the exclusive or at least predominant use of reason, which is to say, of rational speculation and criticism...in the study of religious, moral, or metaphysics." In theology, it involves constructing a theological system around a central dogma. So, if Olson is right, Arminianism is rationalistic.
If this wasn't enough Olson's argument only pushes this back a step, for, if what Olson says is true, then libertarian free will is thereby made into a fundamental article for them, indeed the fundamentum of their soteriology. Apparently neither you nor Olson can recognize the regressive fallacy.
D. Further, it isn't as if the Reformed are the ones saying this from their own perspective. Arminians have admitted to this quite freely. Miley is one example, Walls and Dongell are another, for they say libertarianism is prized not because of "the love of God" but for it's intuitions in Why I am not a Calvinist:
(1) “The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.”
(2) “…It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.
(3) “Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.”
Walls and Dongell end their definition of libertarian freedom by asserting that to prove the validity of libertarian free will “…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.” By their own admission, then they RELY on philosophy, not Scripture as an ultimate basis for their conjecture.
Are Walls and Dongell not representative of Arminianism?
Significant that all of the old reformed strongholds are no longer reformed. Even Southern Baptists were originally quite reformed, but they got away from it. And they won’t be going back, if the Calvinists push it, the denomination will split.
Yes, and they left the underwriting principles of Reformed theology and did so - and look at the SBC today. It's not Calvinism that has led the SBC to claim 16.4 million members while less than half show up on Sunday. It's not Calvinism that led to the declension in the seminaries and churches that necessitated the Conservative Resurgence.
It's not Calvinists that have "pushed" anything at the denominational level. However, one need only attend a Bailey Smith revival to see what the non-Calvinists are pushing. One need only observe the actions in TX and FL recently to see who is "pushing" in the Convention. Are your condemnations of straw men equally true of the sermons of men like Jerry Vines and Johnny Hunt and others?
Exegetically? People have already attempted to do so, and that didn’t convince folks like yourself that calvinism is false.
So Robert has no exegetical arguments.
You just devised ways of answering the verses that are presented to you.
An assertion, minus an argument.
Except for people like the so-called “4 point Calvinists” who simply could not evade the plain meanings of the texts on atonement.
Question begging, for it assumes what the "plain meaning" is without argument.
And notice this concedes the arguments for the other 4 points.
People like Bruce Ware, who while clearly Calvinist, nevertheless reject “L”.
There is more than one version of limited atonement. Ware holds to a "multiple views" view that is compatible with the sufficient/efficient distinction within the "L". This is not Amyraldianism, nor is it General Atonement.
For example, when it comes to the atonement (“L”), there are clear verses that the provision of the atonement was for more than just the “elect”. And there are verses that the atonement is only applied to believers. But there are no verses that say that the death of Christ was intended only for believers. In order to make the exegetical case for “L” you would need to have verses that make the atonement exclusive for only one group of people or restricted to only one group of people, or excluding some group of people. But there are no such animals. “L” flows from the system of Calvinism (if he only wants to save the elect, then he would only die for the elect, and from logical arguments like those of Owen) but not from exegesis of the texts of scripture. Which again is why Calvinists like Ware reject it.
Notice the question-begging assertions riddling this post.
Is Robert opposed to logical argumentation in theology? Does he believe that it is perfectly okay for doctrines to not fit together in a logical fashion? Is God not the exemplar of perfect logic?
Oh, and Owen's arguments follow from his exegesis, not the other way around. If you feel different, then I look forward to your exegesis otherwise. For example, what exegetical principle says that there is there is presumption that "all" means "every?"
I'll be happy to entertain your exegetical arguments. As always, you're long on assertion, but short on argument.
Notice how Robert makes claims and then fails to substantiate them repeatedly. He did this with Steve above when he said that it was easy to show that Steve had erected a straw man version of OT. If that's true, then why hasn't Robert documented his claim?
And notice that I have no less than 3 times in posts on this board asked Robert a simple question: Why, given the constraints of libertarian freedom, does one man believe and not another. He has yet to answer this question. Could it be he has no answer?
I will give Robert credit for one thing. He's absolutly great at poisoning the well. Or, as he would say:
ReplyDeleteRobert tried to respond to the various posts from Steve and Gene, but could not refrain from gratuitously hostile and irrelevant comments when he pretended to give a summary of their positions which he had obviously not read beforehand. His meager efforts were quickly dispatched.
Paraphrase: “If you lack libertarian freedom, then are you no better than a robot? So, is God a libertarian agent? If not, does that make him a robot?
ReplyDeleteAssuming that God is a libertarian agent, wouldn't that have to include the power of contrary choice—the freedom to choose between good and evil?"
I want to further analyze the line of thinking in this ‘robot’ dilemma.
G=God
LA=Libertarian Agent
A=the Ability to commit an evil act (e.g. sin)
If G is a LA, then G has A.
But G does not have A.
Therefore, G is not a LA.
Of course the argument depends on a discussion of *ability*. Libertarianism presupposes the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to the PAP, an agent must have the ability to actuate alternative possibilities in order to make a free choice (or “be free”). So, back to the ‘robot’ dillema. Does God have the freedom (ability) to choose between good and evil? That means, is God choosing evil a “live option”, something that he could actuate?. According to the bible, No, for God cannot sin. The choice is there, but it is contrary to his perfectly good nature, so it is not a “live option”, and he does not have the ability in the libertarian sense to choose evil. Ergo God is not a libertarian agent.
Caleb I was thinking about your post as I was doing my 300 daily sit ups to start the day. I really did not feel like doing the 300 today, but I chose to do so anyway. I really believe I could have skipped it today, that was an option that was attractive, but I didn’t choose that option. Due to the nature of my job I need to stay in good shape. I may not feel like doing sparring later, but in order to keep black belt level skills operational I need to keep making that choice as well.
ReplyDeleteYou stated:
>”Paraphrase: “If you lack libertarian freedom, then are you no better than a robot? So, is God a libertarian agent? If not, does that make him a robot?
Assuming that God is a libertarian agent, wouldn't that have to include the power of contrary choice—the freedom to choose between good and evil?"
I want to further analyze the line of thinking in this ‘robot’ dilemma.”
I am not a philosopher and when I think of the choices that I had this morning to do the 300 or not do them, what I was facing is what I would call the reality of free will. If I have some options before me, and I can do any of them, then it seems to me that I have free will. I believe that God created the entire universe out of nothing, ex nihilo, but did he have to do so? I would answer No. He could have not created or He could create, he had a choice between options. If he had decided not to create that would not be evil, nor would deciding to create be evil. He had a choice between two options. Now Caleb what would you call that reality in which God could have done either one, depending upon what He wanted to do? I call it free will. But if you want to call it something else what would you call it?
Now must a person be able to choose to evil in order to have free will? I would say No. God had the choice to create or not create and neither option was evil. Not being able to do certain things does not mean that a person does not have free will. I cannot fly unaided nor can I run as fast as a cheetah. Neither of those options are available to me. Does that mean that I do not have free will? No, as long as I have at least two options to choose from in any given situation. If I do not have at least two options then I really do not have a choice I really do not have free will in that situation. If determinism were true, and all of my actions were determined (or predetermined) then I would not have free will.
”G=God
LA=Libertarian Agent
A=the Ability to commit an evil act (e.g. sin)
If G is a LA, then G has A.
But G does not have A.
Therefore, G is not a LA.”
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that having libertarian free will means that you can choose to do both evil and good. God cannot do evil, so God does not have libertarian free will. But I do not accept the assumption that one must be able to do evil in order to have libertarian free will. What suffices is if I have two options that I can choose to do. Say both of the options that I choose to do are good, neither option is evil, does that mean that I have no choice, no free will? Only if you define free will as being able to do anything including evil. God cannot do some things, does that mean He has no choices or does not have free will? I would say No. I believe in Heaven believers will have multiple options none of which will involve sin or evil. If we have these multiple options (as God did when creating the world) what would you call that? I say call it “free will” but I really don’t care what you call it as long as it includes the ability to choose from multiple options.
”Of course the argument depends on a discussion of *ability*. Libertarianism presupposes the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to the PAP, an agent must have the ability to actuate alternative possibilities in order to make a free choice (or “be free”).”
And using this language, if my alternative possibilities involve two or more good options and no evil options, do I have free will? Must the alternative possibilities available to me include evil for me to have a choice, to have free will?
“So, back to the ‘robot’ dillema. Does God have the freedom (ability) to choose between good and evil?”
This is a set up question. God does not have the ability to do evil or choose evil, but He may still have free will.
“That means, is God choosing evil a “live option”, something that he could actuate?. According to the bible, No, for God cannot sin.”
Right God cannot do evil or tempt people to do evil, at least that is what the Bible says.
“The choice is there, but it is contrary to his perfectly good nature, so it is not a “live option”, and he does not have the ability in the libertarian sense to choose evil.”
Actually the choice to do evil is not there for God. If the choice “were there” then He would be able to choose that option, but He cannot choose evil. But does He have other options? If He does then I would say He has free will. If you are going to define free will in the libertarian sense as the ability to choose both good
or evil, then you have unfairly stacked the deck against free will. But if free will means only the ability to choose between different options then one need not have the ability to do evil for free will to be present.
“Ergo God is not a libertarian agent.”
Caleb hopefully you see that this conclusion only follows if free will is defined as the ability to do both good and evil.
Regarding the robot idea. Some will use that as an argument against determinism believing that if our every action were determined then we would be robots without free will. Actually that is a valid point, if every event has been predetermined, then while I may believe that I have multiple options to choose from (i.e., I have free will)in reality I can only do what was predetermined for me to do. If I had more time I would love to discuss this further, but gotta go, I have an option called work that beckons for me to choose to do it! :-)
Robert
robert said...
ReplyDelete“Caleb I was thinking about your post as I was doing my 300 daily sit ups to start the day. I really did not feel like doing the 300 today, but I chose to do so anyway. I really believe I could have skipped it today, that was an option that was attractive, but I didn’t choose that option. Due to the nature of my job I need to stay in good shape. I may not feel like doing sparring later, but in order to keep black belt level skills operational I need to keep making that choice as well…I am not a philosopher and when I think of the choices that I had this morning to do the 300 or not do them, what I was facing is what I would call the reality of free will.”
Does Robert really think that no one who denies libertarian freedom has ever addressed that sort of objection before? He’s clearly done no reading in the literature of soft determinism or hard determinism.
“But if free will means only the ability to choose between different options then one need not have the ability to do evil for free will to be present.”
In that event, freewill doesn’t mean the freedom to either believe in Christ or disbelieve in Christ. Believing in Christ is good, while disbelieving in Christ is evil. That would be a paradigm-case of the power of contrary choice.
If Robert affirms that a human agent can be genuinely free even if he lacks the liberty to either believe in Christ or disbelieve in Christ, then what becomes of his Arminian theology?
“I believe in Heaven believers will have multiple options none of which will involve sin or evil.”
And why does Robert believe this? Does it flow from his commitment to libertarian freedom? Obviously not.
Rather, he believes, for reasons independent of his commitment to libertarian freedom, that once you get to heaven you can no longer sin. He then imposes ad hoc restrictions on his definition of freewill to accommodate his other belief.
Steve Hays said:
ReplyDelete“Does Robert really think that no one who denies libertarian freedom has ever addressed that sort of objection before? He’s clearly done no reading in the literature of soft determinism or hard determinism.”
In answer to the question: I do not claim to be original I am sure that this objection has been addressed before. Probably even been addressed by some theologian or philosopher at some time.
I have read a little bit of philosophy; again I am no professional philosopher (or professional student). I also have had discussions via email with people like Kevin Timpe, John Martin Fischer (who has an excellent new book out by the way: FOUR VIEWS ON FREE WILL), Alvin Plantinga, etc. etc. Does that count for something? :-)
”In that event, freewill doesn’t mean the freedom to either believe in Christ or disbelieve in Christ. Believing in Christ is good, while disbelieving in Christ is evil. That would be a paradigm-case of the power of contrary choice.”
I have no problem with that. Believing in Christ trusting in Him alone for salvation gets you saved. And that is a really good thing! Rejecting Him trusting in anything or anyone else for salvation gets you damned. And that is a really bad thing! I guess that is good and evil. Especially if God wants you to be saved and you keep rejecting him,that is bad for you and God considers it to be evil. And if you see the gospel as a command, then to disobey it, is most certainly evil, correct?
”If Robert affirms that a human agent can be genuinely free even if he lacks the liberty to either believe in Christ or disbelieve in Christ, then what becomes of his Arminian theology?”
What Arminian theology, who said I was Arminian? I believe that the bible teaches that you cannot lose your salvation. Can I still be an Arminian then? Or am I something like a 4-point Calvinist but in this case a something-point Arminian? I also believe that prior to being saved we are slaves of sin as per Romans 6. And we can only be set free from this form of slavery by God Himself. We have to throw ourselves on the mercy of the court and understand that things are out of our hands we have to beg the judge (God) to save us and set us free from slavery to sin and death. So I guess I must not believe in “free will” either! :-)
I said:
I believe in Heaven believers will have multiple options none of which will involve sin or evil.
”And why does Robert believe this? Does it flow from his commitment to libertarian freedom? Obviously not.”
I believe that there will be no sin in heaven because the bible teaches that sin and evil and the results of sin belong to this present evil age. But there is an age to come in which all evil will be eliminated, goats and devils sent to Hell and sheep eternally with Christ. And Revelation says a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness reigns. And no more tears or death. So it seems to me that the bible makes the case that we will experience an eternal state in which there is no sin. Now as to how a sin free experience will be possible I have only guesses. But I do infer from what the bible says that there will be no more sin.
And I am looking forward to that!
”Rather, he believes, for reasons independent of his commitment to libertarian freedom, that once you get to heaven you can no longer sin. He then imposes ad hoc restrictions on his definition of freewill to accommodate his other belief.”
I believe for biblical reasons that there will be no sin in Heaven. Yes I guess that is “independent of his commitment to libertarian freedom”.
Regarding “ad hoc restrictions on his definition of freewill” I define free will by what I observe in myself and others (people facing choices, making decisions between options, regretting decisions made, etc. etc.) as well as observing biblical passages in which people had choices between options (e.g.. Adam and Eve had the option of obeying God or disobeying God with respect to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).
I am also constantly urging inmates to make wise or better choices and dealing with bad choices and actions. I seem to be surrounded by instances of free will as defined as choosing between options. These choices are either illusory or real. And even choosing to see these options as illusory or real is itself a choice that one makes or does not make. Free will seems to me to be inescapable. I see it everywhere and experience it all the time. And like I remind the inmates frequently, there are always choices, some are better than others.
Robert
PS- and Steve (and anyone else) if you can focus solely on the issues rather than engaging in personal attacks and put downs I will enjoy discussing these things with you. But if you resort to insults and put downs I have no time for you or that.
What Arminian theology, who said I was Arminian? I believe that the bible teaches that you cannot lose your salvation. Can I still be an Arminian then? Or am I something like a 4-point Calvinist but in this case a something-point Arminian? I also believe that prior to being saved we are slaves of sin as per Romans 6. And we can only be set free from this form of slavery by God Himself. We have to throw ourselves on the mercy of the court and understand that things are out of our hands we have to beg the judge (God) to save us and set us free from slavery to sin and death. So I guess I must not believe in “free will” either! :-)
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that you must first throw yourself on the court to be set free of the bondage of sin - on the will - then you do not really believe that only God can set you free, since you affirm you are free - even while in bondage - to do this. Why does one man "throw himself on the mercy of the court" while another does not, given the same condtions? That is the issue at hand here.
It would help if you would articulate, in brief, your soteriology.
For example, do you affirm that men can do no spiritual good accompanying their own salvation, that is do you affirm or deny what is otherwise known as "the bondage of the will? " Earlier, you appeared to deny this.
Do you affirm "unconditional election?"
Do you affirm effacious grace?
We know you reject "limited atonement." You accept the security of the believer, but it isn't clear if you affirm the perseverance of the saints - they intersect but are not related.
It appears you deny that regeneration precedes faith. That can only be done from the platform of libertarian - aka contracausal - freedom.
So, I'll ask you again, why does one man believe and not another? You have yet to answer this, and it has been put to you about four times now.
I define free will by what I observe in myself and others (people facing choices, making decisions between options, regretting decisions made, etc. etc.) as well as observing biblical passages in which people had choices between options (e.g.. Adam and Eve had the option of obeying God or disobeying God with respect to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).
"Choice" and "Free will" are not interchangeable concepts. Nobody denies "choice. Rather, the issue is what lies behind these choices. Are there antecedent causes? For example, libertarianism means freedom is indeterminate and choices are uncaused. If one does not have the ability to choose contracausally, then, in libertarianism, a choice is not "Real." So,when you say this:
Now must a person be able to choose to evil in order to have free will? I would say No. God had the choice to create or not create and neither option was evil. Not being able to do certain things does not mean that a person does not have free will. I cannot fly unaided nor can I run as fast as a cheetah. Neither of those options are available to me. Does that mean that I do not have free will? No, as long as I have at least two options to choose from in any given situation. If I do not have at least two options then I really do not have a choice I really do not have free will in that situation. If determinism were true, and all of my actions were determined (or predetermined) then I would not have free will.
You seem to have a problem.
A. If you accept libertarian freedom, then you must accept that agents must be able to do good and evil. That is definitional to the meaning of the term. Men have indeterminate freedom. Yet the statement above seems to reject it.
B. However, you deny determinism, ala foreordination of all things. That would then commit you to indeterminism. To say, (paraphrase) if all my actions are foreordained, then I do not have "free will," is to say, "If foreordination of all things is true, then my choices are not real." That is a standard libertarian objection.
I'd add that I think you might think of "determinism" as emanating from God alone -but that's not the end of the defintion. "Determinism" refers to agent causation that has an antecedent cause - both God AND man. That is, from man's side, his choices are "determined" by thoughts, reasons, desires, etc. Man does not, therefore, have contracausal freedom.
C. You can't run to Molinism, for Molinism accepts that this is the only universe God instantiated to exist, so all things are predetermined. Granted, they are determined by the grounding of middle knowledge in the agent and not in God's self-knowledge, but they are still predetermined. If you deny libertarianism, then you can't hold to Molinism, since Molinism defends indeterminate agent causation.
D. You reject Calvinism and Open Theism. So all that is left if Simple Foreknowledge, but if you truly reject libertarian action theory, then SF is not a valid choice for you either, since SF upholds libertarian action theory.
That is what Steve is trying to point out to you.
It is manifestly inconsistent to uphold contracausal freedom prior to a person exercising saving faith and then deny it afterwards. That is what makes your exegetical appeal "ad hoc."
Great stuff Gene! Thanks for the post, it's really helpful! (p.s. I'm not one of the rude anonymous guys-just someone who doesn't have a blog!)
ReplyDeleteFunny thing is that in the simplest understanding of man's will in Arminianism it cannot be free. In order to escape pelagianism natural man must have God's grace to believe which tells us that man's will is still not ultimately free.
ReplyDeleteMark
I am on vacation right now so I won't be on a computer much. I will reply whenever I have some free time.
ReplyDeleteGene keeps bringing up his attempted set up question:
ReplyDelete”So, I'll ask you again, why does one man believe and not another? You have yet to answer this, and it has been put to you about four times now.”
Since he brings it up repeatedly and since I see it as a set up question, a complex question fallacy that deserves to be exposed. I want to show the problems with this question.
I sometimes do a message called “what have you done for me lately?” As I know many inmates who place their confidence in the fact that they have had some religious experience in the past (including being baptized as babies into the Catholic church, being baptized as adults, walking an aisle at a revival meeting or camp meeting, having made a “decision” for Jesus at some point in the past but not living the life of the Christian; what I call “decisionism”) so they believe they must be saved now.
In the message I am zeroing in on the nature of salvation in contrast to things like “decisionism”. Salvation is an on-going personal relationship with God, it involves discipleship/following Jesus and being obedient to Him, it involves us having faith and God saving us, and as saved persons consistently living the Christian life and bearing fruit.
The assumption behind “decisionism” is that all it takes for salvation is one little itty bitty decision and you will be saved and secure for eternity (no matter how you live after you make this decision!). If you made **that** decision then supposedly you must be saved. If you made **that** decision then no matter how you live afterwards you will be saved. What “decisionism” basically leaves out is the whole Christian life between initial conversion and being glorified, namely sanctification, discipleship, living the Christian life, growing and maturing as a Christian, bearing fruit for Christ, being transformed by His Word, etc. etc. all these things that are part of the “salvation package” but they are left out.
Gene’s question reminds me of the question: have your stopped beating your wife? Sometimes people will ask questions that contain underlying concepts/assumptions/presuppositions that are false but if you answer their question as stated you are set up so that it then looks bad for you. Inmates actually can be quite adept at this. In the NT the Pharisees did this kind of thing with Jesus all the time. Gene’s question goes like this: “assume that two men hear the same gospel message (under the same conditions), and one makes the decision to believe and one does not make this decision. So then what makes one person to differ from the other?”
Seems pretty innocuous unless you realize the underlying assumptions involved. If you answer by citing some different reasons in the minds of the men for their decision/choice, then the come back goes something like this: well if the difference is what the one man did (he made the decision/choice to believe and so was saved) and what the other man did not do (he did not make the decision/choice to believe and was not saved), then ultimately (it is claimed), the one man saves himself by making his decision/choice to believe. So that would mean that we ultimately save ourselves by our one time decision!
What are the problems with this set up? First, there is the assumption that a man is ultimately saved by making a “decision” to trust in Jesus for salvation. Second, there is the assumption that if the man makes this decision then he is ultimately saving himself. Third, this decision that ultimately saves him is then considered a religious work by the Calvinist, something the man does, so salvation becomes salvation by works (rather than salvation being of the Lord).
Having seen this Calvinist set up before, I usually ignore the question. But this time I want to expose it for what it is, an attempted set up, a complex question fallacy,that involves false assumptions.
Gene also said:
“Why does one man "throw himself on the mercy of the court" while another does not, given the same condtions?”
What do you mean “given the same conditions”? The conditions are never exactly the same in regards to individual people’s conversion experiences. Some examples: The Ethiopian eunuch was led to the Lord using Isa. 53 (Acts 8), while Paul had a direct experience on the Damascus road (Acts 9), and the Samaritans believed in a woman’s testimony (John 4). If you asked the eunuch afterwards why did you believe: He would answer because I saw that Jesus is the suffering servant of Isa. 53 and He died for me . . . If you asked Paul afterwards the same question: He would answer because I had a direct revelation of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. If you asked the Samaritans why they believed they would answer: because of the woman’s testimony about Jesus. Three conversion situations with very different conditions and experiences related to each. If you asked different nonbelievers why they do not believe, you would probably receive different answers.
Gene do you believe every person experiences the same conditions and believes/disbelieves for the identical same reasons?
And do you believe that the mere decision to trust in Christ for salvation is what actually saves a person?
If you believe that our decision to trust in Christ is what ultimately saves us, how does this fit with the scriptural teaching that “Salvation is of the Lord”?
And if you don’t believe that we are ultimately saved by a one time decision, then why do you repeatedly bring up your question which presupposes decisionism?
We are not saved by making a one time decision; we are saved by a complex of events that make up salvation.
Your set up question presupposes that we are saved by a one time decision/choice that we make. If we make the decision/choice we are saved if not we are not saved. Which further assumes that if we do make the decision then it must have been we who ultimately saved ourselves. I reject these assumptions so I reject your question.
We are not saved by some decision we make but by the actions of God that make up salvation. Salvation includes multiple elements, elements that God alone does (hence salvation is of the Lord). I sometimes encounter folks who talk about their “decision” to become a “Christian” years ago but they are not currently living the Christian life now (again “what have you done for me lately”?). But they are convinced that they made that decision and so they must be saved. Even if you make the choice and decide to trust in Christ alone for salvation, that decision itself is not what saves you, it is what God does that saves you. That decision just places you at the mercy of the court, but the judge’s actions are what actually saves you.
Hidden within your question is the assumption that if any answer is given in which a human person made a decision to believe, then what is being claimed is that people ultimately save themselves, because it is something they did (their one time decision) that ultimately saved them. But this whole set up is misguided. We do not save ourselves because all of the saving events that make up salvation are things that God alone does. Yes we trust him for salvation; we trust that he will rescue us from the penalty of sin, from death, from eternal separation. But he does everything that counts for salvation.
Who justifies or declares the sinner righteous and acceptable to God? God does. Who forgives the sinner’s sins? God does. Who gives the Holy Spirit to new converts? God does. Who raises us from the dead or transforms our mortal bodies so they are suitable for eternity? God does. Who shows us our sinfulness and convicts us of our sin so that we seek deliverance through Christ? God does. Who shows that Jesus is the way of salvation and that we must put our trust in Him in order to be saved? God does. Who places us into the body of Christ when we believe? God does. Who makes scripture understandable so that we can understand it? God does. Who reveals the identity of Jesus to our hearts and minds? God does. Now if God alone is doing all of these things, then who really saves us?
We make decisions/choices from different options (what I call “free will”). But our free will is not what saves us. God alone does the actions that make up salvation. The assumption that a single one time decision/choice is what ultimately saves us, is a false notion. And it is this false notion that lies behind your question. The salvation process involves the decision or choice to trust in Christ for salvation, but it also involves much more. It involves actions that God alone does. And when God really saves someone then their transformed life and their actions will bear witness of this fact. And it will be much more than just a decision or experience that they may have had years ago.
Robert
Since he brings it up repeatedly and since I see it as a set up question, a complex question fallacy that deserves to be exposed. I want to show the problems with this question.
ReplyDeleteIt is only a "complex question" fallacy in Robert's mind.
It's simply asking for a reason why one person believes and not another given the constraints of libertarian freedom.
Or, if Robert denies libertarian freedom, why one person believes and not another if effacious grace is not the reason.
Were they more spiritual, afraid, intelligent? What was the reason. It's really very simple.
If you asked different nonbelievers why they do not believe, you would probably receive different answers.
So, what is Robert's opinion. Here's Robert's conundrum. He rejects, apparently, regeneration preceding faith. It's unclear if he affirms or disaffirms contracausal freedom. From what he has indicated it appears that he must do so, since he denies that choices are real if they are predetermined.
This will commit him to libertarian action theory. But that means choices are, by definition, uncaused. This is, of course, irrational, since he admits that people believe and disbelieve for many reasons.
In agreeing that people do this for "different reasons," Robert thereby abandons libertarian freedom, since antecedent causes lying behind choices is not a libertarian argument.
So, Robert is in a pickle. He can't agree that the person believes because he is the object of effacious, regenerating grace. He can't appeal to "universal prevenient grace," because the person is still left to exercise saving faith from himself - and, yes, Robert is there is a reason that is not found in effacious grace, that is, by defintion, like it or not, the beginnning of autosoterism.
If you answer by citing some different reasons in the minds of the men for their decision/choice, then the come back goes something like this: well if the difference is what the one man did (he made the decision/choice to believe and so was saved) and what the other man did not do (he did not make the decision/choice to believe and was not saved), then ultimately (it is claimed), the one man saves himself by making his decision/choice to believe. So that would mean that we ultimately save ourselves by our one time decision!
Except, of course, this isn't my assumption at all. I'm just asking for Robert to answer the question, not avoid the question, which he has consistently done.
Who justifies or declares the sinner righteous and acceptable to God? God does. Who forgives the sinner’s sins? God does. Who gives the Holy Spirit to new converts? God does. Who raises us from the dead or transforms our mortal bodies so they are suitable for eternity? God does. Who shows us our sinfulness and convicts us of our sin so that we seek deliverance through Christ? God does. Who shows that Jesus is the way of salvation and that we must put our trust in Him in order to be saved? God does. Who places us into the body of Christ when we believe? God does. Who makes scripture understandable so that we can understand it? God does. Who reveals the identity of Jesus to our hearts and minds? God does. Now if God alone is doing all of these things, then who really saves us?
Of course, none of this is true if we do not exercise saving faith, so, if regeneration does not precede faith, Robert, why does one person exercise saving faith and not another? It's a simple question.
We make decisions/choices from different options (what I call “free will”).
Of course we don't make choices from "options" we make them for reasons. "Options" and "reasons" are not the same thing. If Agent A and Agent B are presented with Options 1 and 2, why does A chose 2 and B choose 1? This is the question Robert has, throughout his post, failed to answer and has in fact, avoided answering.
To say that the believe or do not believe because they have "free will" is utterly unresponsive. The issue is what lies behind the exercise of their "free will," however defined.
I think I see what Gene is trying to do. He is constructing a dilemma with only two possibilities. Either God saves us which he believes only Calvinism teaches, and he calls this “efficacious grace” causing salvation. Or we save ourselves, his word for it being “autosoterism”, which he believes every body who is not a Calvinist must believe. I believe that God alone saves us that we do not save ourselves, but for Gene this is an impossibility. You just cannot believe that God saves us, if you are not a Calvinist, according to Gene.
ReplyDelete“This will commit him to libertarian action theory. But that means choices are, by definition, uncaused. This is, of course, irrational, since he admits that people believe and disbelieve for many reasons.”
I do not know “libertarians” who believe that “choices are, by definition, uncaused.” Reid believed that choices were caused and he was “libertarian”. And today Searle believes that choices are caused but not necessitated and he is considered to be “libertarian” as well. Gene is right about one thing: I do believe that people believe and disbelieve for many reasons.
”In agreeing that people do this for "different reasons," Robert thereby abandons libertarian freedom, since antecedent causes lying behind choices is not a libertarian argument.”
Actually, Searle in his book Rationality in Action sees antecedent causes lying behind choices, but these antecedent causes do not necessitate specific actions. So you can be considered to be “libertarian” and believe that there are causes behind choices. What you do not believe is that these causes necessitate particular choices. As Searle puts it, the self causes its own actions. In philosophy they call it agent causation. I think people like Reid and Plantinga and Searle make a lot of sense on this: it does seem as if we (our selves) cause our own actions. And because we cause them we can be held responsible for them. I mean, they are, our actions, and not the actions of another person, right?
”So, Robert is in a pickle. He can't agree that the person believes because he is the object of effacious, regenerating grace. He can't appeal to "universal prevenient grace," because the person is still left to exercise saving faith from himself - and, yes, Robert is there is a reason that is not found in efficacious grace, that is, by definition, like it or not, the beginning of autosoterism.”
Here Gene clearly states his false dilemma: you either have to believe that a person believes because of “efficacious, regenerating grace” or you must believe that a person believes and saves himself (i.e., autosoterism is his term).
I take neither position, I believe that in order for someone to be able to have a faith response to the gospel message the Holy Spirit had to have been working in that person to enable them to make the choice to trust in Christ for salvation. I don’t care what you call it, some may call it prevenient grace, or whatever, I do believe that this work of the Spirit is absolutely necessary for someone to be in position to make a faith response. I also believe that a person can have been put in this place and still choose to reject Christ. God enables you to have faith, but you have to make the choice to trust. And when you are in that place you can also choose not to trust. As to why one chooses to trust and another rejects, different reasons may be present, there is no one single reason people believe or do not believe. Having said that, if someone chooses to trust in the Lord, their decision, their choice is not what ultimately saves them. God does the actions that constitute salvation. I made this point clearly, but it was ignored so I repeat my words again:
Who justifies or declares the sinner righteous and acceptable to God? God does. Who forgives the sinner’s sins? God does. Who gives the Holy Spirit to new converts? God does. Who raises us from the dead or transforms our mortal bodies so they are suitable for eternity? God does. Who shows us our sinfulness and convicts us of our sin so that we seek deliverance through Christ? God does. Who shows that Jesus is the way of salvation and that we must put our trust in Him in order to be saved? God does. Who places us into the body of Christ when we believe? God does. Who makes scripture understandable so that we can understand it? God does. Who reveals the identity of Jesus to our hearts and minds? God does. Now if God alone is doing all of these things, then who really saves us?
As clear as I can say it, I presented various actions that constitute salvation that only God can, and does do.
Gene responded with:
”Of course, none of this is true if we do not exercise saving faith”.
Now here is the problem, Gene seems to believe that saving faith causes all of these actions that God does. So absent the cause (saving faith) these actions by God in relation to an individual will not occur (it should be noted that if infants or the mentally incapable are to be saved, then the actions of God which constitute salvation will be done in connection with these people without them exercising saving faith).
Consider two propositions: (1) it is true of those who have saving faith, that the actions of God referred to here, will occur in connection with them; (2) these actions of God referred to here, are caused by the saving faith of a person. Gene apparently believes proposition (2) while I reject (2) and hold to (1). God does the actions referred to here in connection with those who are His people. His people are those who trust Him for salvation. But it is not the trust of His people that actually causes these actions by God.
I had saving faith at a certain point, and years later I will be raised by God from the dead (assuming He does not return before my death). My initial response of faith, is not the cause of my later physical resurrection from the dead. God will raise me by His power alone. My having a faith response is not the cause of my being justified. Though God does justify his people, who are those, who trust Him. So I can, and do believe, that God enables us to have a faith response to the gospel message, and yet this response is not what ultimately saves us.
The actions which constitute salvation are actions that God alone does, without any assistance by me or anyone else. Is this “autosoterism”? No, because I do not save myself, God alone does these actions that constitute salvation. Is this salvation by efficacious grace? No, because at the point where I chose to trust in the Lord I also could have chosen not to trust the Lord. And my decision to trust the Lord is not what saves me. If my decision “ultimately” saves me then we are into “decisionism” which I have clearly rejected. And hopefully everyone here rejects “decisionism” as well.
We make decisions/choices from different options (what I call “free will”).
”Of course we don't make choices from "options" we make them for reasons.”
Perhaps I have not been clear: when we make a choice (i.e., Exercise free will) we are choosing from alternatives (options). If I do not have at least two alternatives (options) to choose from, then I do not have a choice. When we speak of reasons we are talking about our reasons for choosing one alternative/option rather than another. So I agree with Gene that we make choices for reasons.
“"Options" and "reasons" are not the same thing. If Agent A and Agent B are presented with Options 1 and 2, why does A chose 2 and B choose 1?”
Options are synonymous with alternative courses of action. Reasons are the motivations for which we choose one option/alternative rather than another. Why does A choose 2 and B chooses 1? For different reasons. Why does one person believe and another reject, for different reasons. But in order to make an informed choice the Spirit had to have been working in the person showing him his sinfulness, showing that God has a plan or way of salvation, showing that a person must have their sins forgiven to have a relationship with God, showing that Jesus died on the cross for people’s sins, etc. etc. I call this enabling grace because it enables you to have a faith response to the gospel message. If you do not experience this enabling grace you cannot be saved. But if you do experience this enabling grace that does not mean that you necessarily will be saved because you can choose to reject the message too.
Robert
Where does repentance come in? is it before one is regenerate or after?
ReplyDeleteRobert,
Can i then have faith and not be saved? or is it the minute i have faith i get saved? What about if i have faith, but it is weak faith? Does it matter? If faith is not a work as we see it then it still leaves repentance. I still have to turn from my sin and believe. Am i not then doing something to get this saving grace?
thanks