Manata just cannot get it into his mind, it just seems impossible to him, that there is a great and meaningful difference between claiming that: (1) God allows or permits certain things to occur (the majority view among Christians concerning evil and suffering), versus (2)God actively predetermining and desiring for those things to occur (the view of necessatarians/calvinists). Since he intentionally will not make this distinction, or grant this distinction, he thinks we are in “the same boat.”
i) Of course I've debated this very distinction ad nauseum. Plenty of times with Reppert, most recently in my review of Olsen's book. Robert wouldn't look dishonest if he made sure to point out that I have seen this distinction and argued against its viability as somehow being a better position than the Calvinist's. If Robert was unaware of this, then I'll assume he'll take the necessary steps to correct his libel.
ii) Of course, (2) is much more robust than Robert lets on. Therefore his comments have the irony of being a case where a person blames others for his own failings. It is Robert who intentionally will not get his opponents right. The Calvinist position is that God willingly permits. The reason (2) is problematic coming from Robert is that he means (2) to be read as something like God pulling the strings of puppets.
iii) Why is a charitable reading of (2) problematic? Where is the argument? Here is one: "Well, if a human did that, then the human would be naughty." Likewise, though, if a human "merely allowed or permitted" 9/11 to happen, while he had the power to stop it, then that human would be naughty.
iv) In response to the rejoinder in(iii) the reply is, "Well, when God does so, his hands are clean. He has a good reason for allowing the evil he does." At this point the Arminian should see his problem. The Calvinist can say the same thing: When God willingly permits an evil, negatively governing it, even decreeing it, this is different than when a mere human does so. God's hands are clean. He has a good reason for what he does."
v) So, yes, there is a difference. Yet announcing it, however loud, does no earthly good because the purpose it is meant to accomplish, once analyzed, forces the Arminian to drop his PoE against God. But, when one runs out of arguments, all that is left are loud announcements.
Robert said...
ReplyDelete"Sad that you have to put out such a disclaimer because of concern of some hostile response if you even ask questions about calvinism. Those who defend calvinism on the internet, at least in your experience tend not to be very nice. :-)"
Just to set the record straight, Robert has taken the public position that the Reformed doctrine of God involves nothing short of a Satanic concept of God.
Hence, Robert has to view Calvinists as devil-worshipers or Satanists. Off-hand, I can't think of a less charitable thing to say about your theological opponents.
Once you call your opponent's devil-worshipers or Satantists, I think we can safely state that you thereby forfeit any claim to be the nice guy in this debate.
Robert is, of course, welcome to retract his characterization of Calvinism.
"Robert is, of course, welcome to retract his characterization of Calvinism."
ReplyDeleteSteve, then you leave him with nothing else to say. Now we're right back at the beginning: You're mean and nasty.
Calvinism has intractable difficulties; much, of which, is in print elsewhere. But I would like to offer a Christological objection to Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteChrist, being both God and man, has a Divine and human nature joined to His Person. The Divine nature does not transmute the human nature into the Divine; nor does the human nature diminish the reality of the Divine nature.
Having said that, since Christ has those qualities that constitute the essential attributes of each nature, human and divine, then it is true that Christ has a human will and a Divine will.
How could Christ be said to be "human", and to represent and redeem humanity, if He lacked a "human" will?
What else would these scriptures mean:
"For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying:
'I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to you'.
And again:
'I will put my trust in Him.'
And again:
'Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.'
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."----Hebrews 2:11-15
So Hebrews is very clear about the fact that Christ has a human will.
But this passage, from Hebrews, provides a substantive ground for rejecting Calvinism. Here's my argument:
If human beings are wholly determined by the Sovereign will of God, such that they lack an "autonomous" will, then even Christ Himself lacks a libertarian will. Or to put it another way, if Christ possessed a libertarian freedom of will, and human beings do not, how can it be claimed that Christ was "like" us (Philippians 2:7)? And how, then, could He "represent" and "redeem" us if His will is "free", while ours are not?
Finally, to those persons who do not believe that humans make significant choices concerning "salvation", consider these words of Moses to "sinful" men:
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it. See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess...[therefore]...I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."
And it is precisely for this reason that St. Paul explains why Israel was "rejected" and the Gentiles were "grafted" into the Olive tree. (Romans 9-11; see especially Romans 10:5-18).
Israel, for a time, had chosen "death", while the Gentiles had chosen "life".
And, if you do not clearly understand Moses, then you will never correctly understand St. Paul, who accounted Moses as his "tutor" (Galatians 3:24).
The Mosaic reference is Deuteronomy 30:11-20.
ReplyDeleteDarin,
ReplyDeleteThis is a parody, right? I assume you're a Calvinist spoofing Arminianism, right?
I appreciate your deft sense of humor. I especially like the way you, tongue-in-cheek, confuse the faculty of the will with the use of a helping verb to express the future tense when translating Greek into English. That's a stroke of comedic genius. Best thing I've seen since Groucho Marx in Duck Soup.
Darin,
ReplyDeleteWow.
Let me reverse it:
It says Christ had a will and had control over his will.
Libertarianism does not provide for the control needed for freedom (a freedom worth having).
Thus Jesus didn't have libertarian free will.
Your pointing out that Jesus had a will is proof against indeterminism.
Steve must be right, you're too good to be true, hence this must be a joke.
Steve and Paul:
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Is God libertarian free?
Answer: Yes, God is free, in the libertarian sense.
Question: Is Jesus free?
Your answer: No
Therefore, your concept of "Jesus" is Arian, because you claim that He is not free; as though Jesus lacked a Divine nature.
Jesus Christ cannot be God if He is not in possession of genuine, autonomous freedom.
So, your view of Jesus Christ would make him "totally free" and "totally determined". You have a heretical, schizo Christology and, still, don't have the spiritual sense to perceive it yet.
Calvinists are merrily floating down the river Styx toward the Lake of Fire, mocking all the way "ho ho ho"....thinking that their "thinking" is going to mean something to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they've denied.
It's amazing how you two deftly resort to modern "analytic" philosophy as "judge" over things pertaining to God; and then pass over St. Paul's rebuke in Colossians 2:8, as if scripture wasn't the "final court of appeal".
What kind of "sola scriptura" men are you?
And your mockery and ad hominems haven't answered anything. Perhaps you two need to spend some more time meditating closely on Psalm 1, rather than on Harry Frankfurt and Jonathan Edwards.
Perhaps you two need to spend some time freely reading Augustine's "On Free Choice of the Will", rather than his "Enchoridion".
Perhaps you two need to think about retracting your boasts regarding your implied expertise in Biblical, ancient and modern languages, along with your rhetorical "blinding with science" stratagems. None but the foolish would think that you two can read, write and speak Latin, Greek and Hebrew fluently.
In fact, I'm not too convinced that you two know English all that well.
Perhaps you need to read Deuteronomy 30:11-20 for the first time, while remembering that these promises are for all, forever (Matthew 5:17-20).
And, what makes you two so confident that Matthew 7:21-23 isn't a prophesy concerning yourselves...and that you two won't be cut off, in the end? Why should I not believe that you two are modern Judas', of which the Divine will has elected to destruction (Romans 11:21,22)??
I am using your own presuppositions here.
As to your so-called "learning", haven't you learned this:
"And though I have the gift of prophesy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Cor. 13:2)
But, perhaps I am "poor" and "wanting" in knowledge; especially in the presence of such learned men. For I have lived on pitied morsels, rather than the bountiful feasts of knowledge, reserved for wealthy judges and exalted kings. And so, I lay in the intellectual ghetto, fitted with tattered rags and begging for the true meaning of this:
Proverbs 14:31; 17:5; 19:17
and finally
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Ah, Lord, I thank thee that thou hast saved me, a man who hath but a High School diploma and 2.3 cumulative GPA. A man who hath dropped out of community college and hath barely flourished below the economic poverty level. By thy mercy I have endured and laid hold of that which thou hast given me, and in return, I freely give that which is not mine own.
To Thee, O All Holy Trinity, belong glory and honor, forever and ever. Amen.
Darin,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Question: Is God libertarian free?
Answer: Yes, God is free, in the libertarian sense.
Let's stop right there.
Answer: No.
Moving on:
Question: Is Jesus Free?
Our answer: Yes.
You write:
Therefore, your concept of "Jesus" is Arian, because you claim that He is not free; as though Jesus lacked a Divine nature.
No, we claim he is free. Furhter, note that I said libertarianism doesn't afford the control needed to be free. Therefore, your concept of Jesus is Arian. Kind of a "I'm rubber you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you," kind of a thing.
Moving on:
[Snip your rant]
I don't need to comment on the rest of your stuff, and we both know that.
“God is free, in the libertarian sense.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s an assertion, not an argument. Where’s the argument?
If you think God is a libertarian agent, does this mean that God has the power of contrary choice? Can God commit evil?
If you deny that God is free to commit evil, then in what respect is God free in the libertarian sense?
“Jesus Christ cannot be God if He is not in possession of genuine, autonomous freedom.”
Do you think that Jesus is morally autonomous? Is Jesus free to torture babies and kittens?
“Calvinists are merrily floating down the river Styx.”
Isn’t that a mythological river? Sorry, but I don’t subscribe to your pagan mythology.
“It's amazing how you two deftly resort to modern ‘analytic’ philosophy as ‘judge’ over things pertaining to God; and then pass over St. Paul's rebuke in Colossians 2:8, as if scripture wasn't the ‘final court of appeal’.__What kind of ‘sola scriptura’ men are you?__And your mockery and ad hominems haven't answered anything. Perhaps you two need to spend some more time meditating closely on Psalm 1, rather than on Harry Frankfurt and Jonathan Edwards.”
If libertarians want to debate Scripture, we debate Scripture. If they want to debate philosophy, we debate philosophy. We debate them on their own terms–like Paul did on Mars Hill.
“Perhaps you two need to think about retracting your boasts regarding your implied expertise in Biblical, ancient and modern languages, along with your rhetorical ‘blinding with science’ stratagems. None but the foolish would think that you two can read, write and speak Latin, Greek and Hebrew fluently.__In fact, I'm not too convinced that you two know English all that well.”
Since you bring up Greek and English, let’s spend a little time on that subject. You raised a “Christological” objection to Calvinism. Your prooftexs for this objection were drawn from some verses in Heb 2:11-15, where you seized upon the use of the word “will” to prove that Christ has a will.
I guess we have to explain some elementary English grammar to you. In English, the word “will” has more than one meaning. It can denote a psychological faculty. That is how you are using the word. But it can also denote an auxiliary verb which is used in future tense constructions.
In the passages you quoted from the English Bible, the word “will” is being used, not to denote a psychological faculty, but as an auxiliary verb to express a future tense. You are confusing two fundamentally different senses of the English verb. As such, your prooftexing doesn’t even work in English.
And it gets worse. In the nature of the case, the Greek NT doesn’t use the word “will” in future tense constructions. That’s linguistic convention of English grammar. So your attempt to prooftext your “Christological” objection is illiterate from start to finish.
I already pointed that out in my initial response to you, but since you can see through your emotion long enough to get it, I’ve now spelled it out for you. It would behoove you to drop the patronizing tone when you commit such howlers.
As for Deut 30, that is stating different consequences for different hypothetical choices. And that is entirely consistent with Calvinism.
“And, what makes you two so confident that Matthew 7:21-23 isn't a prophesy concerning yourselves...and that you two won't be cut off, in the end? Why should I not believe that you two are modern Judas', of which the Divine will has elected to destruction (Romans 11:21,22)??”
You must be a Hindu. A modern Christ betrayed by a modern Judas? Sorry, but I don’t share your faith in reincarnation.
I am using your own presuppositions here.
However, those are excellent questions to ask yourself.
BTW, Jeremy Pierce did a recent post in which he also takes Christology as a starting-point, and uses that to argue for compatibilism:
ReplyDeletehttp://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2009/04/incarn-compat.html
And, unlike you, he presents a careful argument for his position.
Ah, now I see.
ReplyDeleteSo not even God can freely choose....He must be compelled by antecedent desires, motives and inclinations.
That's strange:
So even God, Himself, has no free choice in human election. So, now the Divine will in electing, and the human will in election, are both mandated by an antecedent "determining" causal history that compels, both Divine and human, wills to act the way they do.
I think Calvin would have burned you at the stake, along with Servetus, for positing this sort of non-sense.
Once again, the philosopher is judge and God is on the docket.
God does possess freewill. Not even St. Augustine denied that. Not even Calvin, himself, denied that.
And I have a paper that explains Divine freedom, contra the metaphysics of the philosophers. But I will leave that content for more humble and teachable spirits.
But now, I think I'm going to turn my 12,000 word thesis into a book, since I can't find any Calvinist who has adequately answered me yet. I do believe I'm onto something here.
Your "arguments" do not come from scripture or revelation or your tradition, but from your imaginations.
Actually, I'm neither rubber nor glue. But thanks for perfectly illustrating the condition known as "arrested development". But I'm sure you're going to put the onus of your behavior on the Being who "controls what-so-ever comes to pass"....as I'm sure that you will excuse my own behavior, for the same reason.
You both clearly believe in the "autonomy" of reason, since both of you are presupposing, and relying mostly upon, Aristotle and Plato as your "oracles" in interpreting the faith.
Oh, how "adult" philosophy must be, to cause men and women to forsake their Father's home and live loosely with their inheritance. No wonder scripture calls them "adulterers".
Hear carefully and heed the words of the Lord:
"I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes."
--Matthew 11:25
and St. Paul:
"'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent'.
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."
---1 Corinthians 1:19-21
It's interesting that you both made assertions that went unproven. It's like linguistic alchemy; as if simple linguistic negation has elevated your own views to "maxim" status. And then you begin to believe your own press.
And the really interesting part in all this is that none of you praised or glorified God; let alone engaged with scripture.
I am willing to bet that the ratio of your actual Bible reading and meditation, compared to everything else you read, is 1:1000
So much for "sola scriptura", huh??
You guys have the generosity and spirit of Bill Maher, your father in the faith.
I want some answers. I posed problems. No one bothered looking at the scriptures I provided. Nobody bothered to closely read what I wrote. Nobody even gave me the benefit of being heard at all. Therefore, all of you have failed, miserably, in practicing 1 Peter 3:15.
I, for my part, at least gave answers. I, for my part, at least read your sophomoric posts.
You guys, for your part, just mocked and spat venom. I guess that's the best Calvinists can do. Surely, if you were elect, you would have had better responses than that.
You have provided the best evidence against your Calvinist "world-view", through your own words and example.
How is your prayer life? How often do you fast? How often do you deny yourselves, take up your crosses, and follow Christ? How often do you, in sincerity of heart, take time to thank God? How often do you attend church? Which of you is ready to lay down your own life for the Savior?
God doesn't care about what your "mind" has stored up in it, so long as your hearts are far from Him.
I am now becoming more convinced of the foolishness of the wolfish philosophers, who love to dress themselves up in sheep's clothing and grant themselves majestic seats in the temple; who stray at "logical" gnats, yet swallow heretical camels.
You can ignore what I've said here; but now you won't have an excuse on that dread day of judgment, when God will judge the world in righteousness.
You cannot say, anymore, that you were not given a Noah. You cannot say that God hasn't tried to show you mercy by correcting you with His lowly servant.
So now I leave you to follow after the desires of your own sinful hearts. I pray God continues to show mercy and that you turn from your ways.
Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages.
Amen.
DARIN SAID”
ReplyDelete“Ah, now I see.__So not even God can freely choose....He must be compelled by antecedent desires, motives and inclinations.”
We think that God is a wise and rational agent who has good reasons for what he does. You, by contrast, evidently think that God is an irrational agent whose choices are a matter of random chance. A toss of the coin.
I also notice that you ducked my question about whether God is free to commit evil.
“It's interesting that you both made assertions that went unproven. It's like linguistic alchemy; as if simple linguistic negation has elevated your own views to ‘maxim’ status. And then you begin to believe your own press.”
You offered a linguistic argument from the English Bible. I answered you on your own grounds. Since you’re still too beclouded by your spiritual pride to register the point, I’ll spell it out a little further.
English grammar uses auxiliary verbs to express tense. For example:
I *am* eating (present tense)
I *have* eaten (present perfect tense)
I *will* eat (future tense)
Here, the word “will” functions as a tense-marker. It has nothing to do with a psychological faculty.
So your linguistic argument is simply illiterate.
And I’ll reiterate my second point: the NT was written in Greek, not English. The Greek NT doesn’t use the English word “will.” And in the verses you cited, it doesn’t use Greek synonyms for the psychological faculty of the will.
You are abusing the Scriptures by coming to them with your preconceived agenda and then presuming to them things which they do not say.
“I want some answers. I posed problems. No one bothered looking at the scriptures I provided. Nobody bothered to closely read what I wrote. Nobody even gave me the benefit of being heard at all.”
That’s a bald-faced lie. I directly interacted with your linguistic argument from Scripture.
“How is your prayer life? How often do you fast? How often do you deny yourselves, take up your crosses, and follow Christ?”
Anyone can go through the motions, but be a whitewashed tomb on the inside. You yourself are puffed up with self-righteous, rhetoric, yet you lack the Christian virtue of honesty.
“God doesn't care about what your ‘mind’ has stored up in it…”
In your case the mental warehouse is pretty bare–except for your verbal bluff and bluster.
“You cannot say, anymore, that you were not given a Noah. You cannot say that God hasn't tried to show you mercy by correcting you with His lowly servant.”
It’s wonderful to see your Pharisaical hubris cloaked in layers of mock humility. But God sees the heart.