Friday, August 21, 2009

Termites in the Birch tree

Billy Birch has attempted a response:

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/08/response-to-how-to-fell-birch-tree.html

“I am going to post a response to Steve Hays' (Triablogue) assessment of my post Perspectives on the Doctrine of God (Part Two of Two Parts), dated August 18, 2009. I delayed this response so that I could think long and hard as to whether I cared to engage with Hays' misrepresentations or misinterpretations of my words (yet again), to say nothing of his implausible use of logic and seemingly lack of knowledge of basic theological terms.”

The question at issue is not my alleged lack of knowledge, but the fact that if Birch is going to center his entire analysis on the use of a phrase in the Westminster Confession, then he needs to define the key terms.

“Hays is fond of discrediting me before I even earn a B. A. in Theology and English (double major) at The College at Southeastern (SEBTS).”

I haven’t questioned his credentials, or lack thereof. The point at issue is whether he has the temperament to be a church historian. To be a decent church historian, you must have a capacity to accurately represent positions you may disagree with. Thus far, Birch is far too hostile to Calvinism to accurately represent Reformed theology. At this point he lacks the requisite temperament. Perhaps he’ll outgrow it, but since he’s already 41 years of age, his formative years are well behind him.

“Yet Hays has had his own problems with scholarly documents in the past (see here, here, and here).”

Ironically, that illustrates my point. He tries to substantiate his allegation by referring the reader to a fellow Arminian epologist. All very in-house. Is that the sort of documentation he uses in his student papers? Notice, too, that he only cites Ben’s side of the debate.

“I was under the impression that any amateur scholar would understand the phrase ‘author of sin,’ historical or otherwise; but alas, I was wrong.”

i) Actually, I did a post on that subject several years ago, in which I review the French, Latin, and English cognate senses of the term:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/04/is-god-author-of-sin-1.html

It would behoove Billy not to underestimate his opponents. It positions himself for an embarrassing pratfall.

ii) In addition, there is more at issue than the definition of a word. There is also the connotation of a word. If I call someone a “Nazi,” we could simply define that term as “a member of the National Socialist party.”

But, of course, that misses the point. “Nazi” is a loaded word. A word with invidious connotations.

So there are actually several issues in play:

a) Does Calvinism make God the “author of sin”?

b) Is it unacceptable to make God the “author of sin”?

c) If so, does Armenians share the same odium?

“The word author denotes originality. Thus for someone accused of being the author of something, it connotes that he or she is the originator of that thing.”

Actually, I think the semantic range of the word is wider than that. But, for the sake of argument, let’s play along with that definition.

In Arminian theology, God is the Creator. He originated Adam, Eve, and Lucifer. He originated the environment they inhabit. And he originated procreation–which propagates sinners. So, on Billy’s definition, Arminian theology makes God the author of sin.

“It is interesting that Hays ‘offers no argument ~ Just raw assertion’ (using his own words concerning me). Hays is satisfied with quoting my words, presuming my erroneous judgment, and offering absolutely no counter-argument whatsoever.”

I don’t need to argue against an assertion. Since Billy didn’t argue for his interpretation, but simply asserted it, no counterargument is necessary.

“One would think that Hays did not read through the post competently, for clearly the Westminster Confession's own statement makes God the author of sin, since he freely and unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass by his own will and not by anything foreseen.”

Which is an example of what I mean. Billy quotes the Confession, posits his interpretation as if it were self-evident, then leaves it at that.

“I will make it even more plain. If one were to admit that God foresaw that I would write this post because he foreknew every detail about me, including every nanosecond of my life, and he then foreordained this writing, as opposed to distracting me and thus using that distraction so that I would not write this post, that would comprise a basic and simplified Arminian understanding of God's foreordination. God foresees the future because he is omniscient (all-knowing). He knows everything knowable about every living creature because he foreordained their existence. Had he not foreordained my existence then there would be nothing to know and hence nothing to foreordain. This is how Arminianism ‘exempts God from the accusation’ of being the author or originator of sin: sin was not foreordained merely by decree but by God's permittance of free will. But God, foreknowing the sin of his creatures, foreordained that it would be manifested (by the free will of the creature, not by mere decree). He also foreordained a plan to save his creatures from the results of that free choice to sin. Can God thwart sin? Yes, sin does not thwart God's plan. But this post is not dealing with the effects of sin and what God is or is not able to do concerning sinful acts. Categorically, we must adhere to the issue of what and why God has foreordained.”

Well, that’s pretty pathetic. Let’s make a few points:

i) In Arminianism, God foreknows the outcome.

ii) Even though God sees it coming, God still makes it happen. God instantiates the outcome by creating a world in which that outcome occurs. He actualizes that eventualtiy.

iii) By foreknowing the outcome, and by also instantiating the outcome, God renders the outcome absolutely certain. He creates a world in which that will happen. At that point it cannot be otherwise. The outcome is inevitable. And he made it inevitable by instantating that outcome.

iv) This despite the fact that it lay within his power to prevent the outcome.

v) Since God foresaw that outcome, but made the world anyway, inclusive of the foreseen outcome, then God must have intended that outcome.

vi) Therefore, according to Arminian theology, God both intended the sinful outcome, and rendered it certain to occur.

vii) Apropos (i)-(vi), if, for the sake of argument, Calvinism makes God the “author of sin,” then how does Arminianism avoid the same consequence?

“However, if one were to admit that God could not simply foresee the future (which is a denial of the doctrine of omnipotence).”

That’s fallacious. The question is whether Arminian theology, with its philosophical commitment to libertarian freewill, denies a precondition of omniscience.

“Consequently, even sin could not come about unless God strictly, freely and unchangeably foreordained (decreed) it.”

And, from an Arminian standpoint, sin could not come about unless God made the world–a world in which he foresaw a sinful outcome.

“Roger Olson writes: Does God govern by meticulously determining the entire course of every life, including moral choices and actions? Or does God allow humans a realm of freedom of choice and then responds by drawing them into his perfect plan for history's consummation?”

If God foresees the outcome, and God creates a world which exemplifies that outcome, then, at that point, human beings are not at liberty to act contrary to the foreseen outcome which God instantiated. He foresaw a world in which Adam did X rather than Y. He created the world in which Adam did X rather than Y. Therefore, this is not a world in which Adam is still free to do Y rather than X.

This is the world where Adam did X. God created the particular world where he foresaw Adam do X. If God foresaw what Adam will do, then the outcome is already certain. Moreover, even if you deny that logical connection, once God creates the particular world were Adam does X, then his creative choice locks that particular outcome in place.

“If God's sovereignty were already completely exercised de facto, why would anyone need to pray for God's will to be done on earth? In that case, it would always already be done on earth. The distinction between God's sovereignty de facto and de jure is required by the Lord's Prayer. . . .”

Answered prayers are one way in which God exercises his sovereignty.

“But Arminians reject the narrow definition of sovereignty ~ absolute and meticulous control ~ because it cannot avoid making God the author of sin and evil, in which case, Arminians believe, God would be morally ambiguous.”

And for reasons I’ve given, if Calvinism makes God morally ambiguous, then the Arminian alternative suffers from the same moral ambiguities.

Thus far Olson. Reverting to Birch:

“The word responsible means ‘being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it’ (Oxford). The word culpable means ‘deserving blame’ (Oxford). How embarrassing for Hays in not adequately thinking this one through. What is ‘inherently odious’ about stating that God is responsible for whatever happens is because whatever happens materializes from God's decree.”

And in Arminianism, whatever happens materializes from God’s intention that it happen, and his making it happen by his creative fiat–in full knowledge of the outcome.

God intends it to happen because he could prevent it from happening by not creating a world in which it happens. By creating a world in which the event is foreseen, he must intend it to happen. And by creating such a world, he brings it to pass.

“It is ‘inherently odious’ to state that God strictly, freely and unchangeably decreed the rape of an eight year old Liberian girl in Arizona.”

i) But according to Arminian theology, God intended that to happen.

ii) Moreover, according to Arminian theology, that outcome was unalterable. If it’s foreseen, it’s unalterable. What is more, if God instantiates that outcome by creating the world in which it will occur, then it’s unalterable–on that additional ground. Unalterable on two grounds.

iii) But suppose, for the sake of argument, that in Arminian theology that outcome is not unchangeable. Very well then. If it’s changeable, then why didn’t God change it?

Why does Birch cite a case of heinous moral evil, fault Calvinism because it’s unchangeable (if Calvinism is true), then leave it at that?

What’s the problem with the case he cited? That the outcome is unchangeable? Presumably, an unchangeable outcome is only a problem if we need to change the outcome. If the outcome is intolerable. What’s the point of saying an outcome should be changeable unless the next step is taking to actually change the outcome?

Birch acts as if abstract mutability is a virtue in itself. But what’s the value of an abstractly mutable outcome unless the outcome is concretely altered?

Why would Birch bother to cite this event unless he thought it was a bad outcome? Indeed, morally unjustifiable at every respect? To say, according to Arminianism, that the outcome is hypothetically changeable while leaving the outcome in place is hardly adequate. A conceptual distinction which makes no practical difference.

iv) Suppose God merely “permits” evil. Either he has a morally sufficient or morally insufficient reason to permit evil.

But if he has a morally sufficient reason to permit evil, then he has a morally sufficient reason to decree evil. Any evil that God has good reason to permit, God has good reason to decree.

“(Wretched doctrine that it is, at least R. C. Sproul Jr. consistently admits that the logical conclusion that the Calvinist's determinism promotes is that God is the author of sin. Even though Hays opposes Sproul Jr.'s doctrine, and tries desperately to discredit him, using what is known as a genetic fallacy, the implications of his own theology inevitably proves Sproul right.)”

This is yet another example of Birch’s ineptitude.

i) Was I committing the generic fallacy? No. Just the opposite. People who cite R. C. Jr. just because of his last name are committing the generic fallacy. Appealing to R. C. Jr. because of who he is (in relation to a famous father) commits the genetic fallacy. My remarks were specifically countering that fallacy.

ii) Moreover, as I also said in that very post, my objection was by no means limited to that particular observation. I referred the reader to a post in which I critique the substantive claims–which Billy conveniently ignores.

“Again, however, we cannot allow Hays (or any Calvinist) to distract us from the main point of what God has foreordained and why by insisting that in the Arminian tradition God could have prevented the rape by divine intervention. That is not the point here, and it is nothing more than a smoke screen to disguise and conceal the fact that the Calvinist's view of God is that he foreordained the rape, not by foreknowledge of free will action but by decree!”

i) To begin with, I’ve discussed the theodicean implications of predestination on many occasions. So it’s not as if I’m deflecting attention away from a direct response to that issue.

ii) I understand why Birch wants to limit all discussion to the theodicean implications of Calvinism, while avoiding a discussion over the theodicean implications of Arminianism. He’s trying to attack our flank while protecting his own.

However, he doesn’t get to feign indignation over the theodicean implications of Calvinism (as he sees it) while exempting his own position from moral scrutiny. If Calvinism is fair game, then so is his alternative.

“The notion that God was ‘able, but unwilling, to prevent a world containing sinners’ betrays God's initial intention. Hays himself has ‘turned a blind eye’ to the fact that Adam and Eve exercised free will in the Garden ~ free will given by God himself ~ Adam and Eve were not robots (and notice that their exercise of free will did not detract from the glory of God).”

i) Which corroborates my point that, according to Arminianism, God was able, but unwilling, to prevent evil. The claim that Adam and Eve had libertarian freewill is irrelevant. Even if they had libertarian freewill, this doesn’t change the fact that God was able, but unwilling, to prevent them from sinning–and thereby introduce horrendous evil into the world.

ii) And notice what an utterly lame theodicy he’s offering. If God gave X libertarian freewill, then that’s supposedly a sufficient reason for God not to intervene thereafter.

Imagine if we applied Billy’s logic to a schoolyard sniper. Suppose I take my son along with me when I go hunting. I teach him how to use a rifle. Suppose my son goes postal one day and starts shooting his classmates.

Should the policemen say, “We can’t do anything to stop him. That would violate his freedom of choice. Sure, it’s tragic if he murders a dozen of his classmates, but, hey, that’s the price you pay for libertarian freewill. We mustn’t interfere!”

“But again, the subject at hand is what and why God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Hays wants to distract his readers with this red herring.”

Birch would like to make that the subject at hand so that he can duck the theodicean implications of his own position. Remember, though, that Birch presents Arminianism as an alternative to what is unacceptable in Calvinism. Therefore, the question of whether Arminianism is prey to comparable objections is hardly a red herring.

Birch wants to charge the Calvinist a toll while giving himself a free ride. While I understand his temptation, real life doesn’t work that way.

“It never ceases to amaze me the amount of philosophy it takes to buttress the system of Calvinism. For most Calvinists to suggest that Calvinism is merely a biblically exegetical system is to admit schizophrenia.”

I wasn’t using philosophy to buttress Calvinism. I was responding to Birch on his own terms.

35 comments:

  1. In Arminian theology, God is the Creator. He originated Adam, Eve, and Lucifer. He originated the environment they inhabit. And he originated procreation–which propagates sinners. So, on Billy’s definition, Arminian theology makes God the author of sin.

    Hays, your argumentation and misuse of logic is so ridiculous that I'm actually embarrassed for you.

    God "originated procreation - which propagates sinners" and therefore God is the author of sin? Are you even serious?

    God did originate procreation, but he did not originate sinners; Adam took care of that. And because Adam sinned, and sinned freely, not by necessity, his offspring would then be sinful. But that does not make God the author of sin, for God did not force or coerce Adam to sin.

    In spite of your flawed theology, I expected better from you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Hays, your argumentation and misuse of logic is so ridiculous that I'm actually embarrassed for you."

    Stop talking smack and actually deal with the argument.

    "God "originated procreation - which propagates sinners" and therefore God is the author of sin? Are you even serious?"

    Actually, the argument is quite sound.

    Did God know that if He let Satan into the Garden, then Satan would tempt Adam and Eve?

    Did God know that Adam and Eve would fall because of that temptation?

    Could He have stopped Satan from entering the Garden?

    If He knew the certain outcome of such a permission and gave it anyway, then God willed that the outcome (i.e. the Fall) come to pass.

    The only way around such logic is either to become an Open Theist or deny the omnipotence of God.

    Furthermore, how do you deal with such texts as Revelation 17:17.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Birch,

    How 'bout you try reading a post before venting your spleen?

    Not that I'm embarrassed for you. I'm perfectly content to let you be a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oops. That should be a question mark at the end of the last sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter,

    Read the post. Thanks for the suggestion.

    Saint and Sinner,

    And so, You're an Arminian, right? For what you have stated is that God did not strictly foreordain the Fall, but foreordained the circumstances, resulting from libertarian freedom of the creatures.

    Excellent. I couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Billy,

    Hey man:

    "Hays, your argumentation and misuse of logic is so ridiculous that I'm actually embarrassed for you".

    I, for one, would like this explicitly spelled out. Formalize Hays' statements and show how his statements imply other statements that would qualify as a "misuse" of logic. Or, please cite specific statements and show how they commit some informal fallacy.

    "But that does not make God the author of sin, for God did not force or coerce Adam to sin."

    So for God to "be the author" of something means that he "forced or coerced" that to happen. Let's put aside this caricature of compatibilism and cite one Roger Olson:

    “Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it” (Arminian Theology, 109).

    Therefore, according to Birch, this Arminian, in the process of getting rid of myths about Arminianism, says that God is "the author and doer of good in man," which must mean, according to Birch, that the Arminian God coerced and forced man to be good.

    Don't shoot the messanger.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Billy:

    “The word author denotes originality. Thus for someone accused of being the author of something, it connotes that he or she is the originator of that thing.”

    And,

    "God did originate procreation, but he did not originate sinners; Adam took care of that. And because Adam sinned, and sinned freely, not by necessity, his offspring would then be sinful."

    What is your theory of how the soul is originated? If all men are sinful, and they have sinful souls, then it seems like your position is committed to either physicalism or the idea that sperm and egg somehow produce souls. Are you saying that Arminianism is committed to traducianism or pysicalism? (I guess a third option is that God creates souls but none are sinful, which would seem to contradict both Romans 5 and your previous statement). Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Billy:

    "“However, if one were to admit that God could not simply foresee the future (which is a denial of the doctrine of omnipotence)".

    Not if future indeterminate actions are unknowable. God would still be omniscient. Same with God omnipotent even though there are things he cannot do.

    Plenty of Arminians tell us that this is the case, and their arguments certainly look sound given the nature of libertarian free will.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Billy,

    “But Arminians reject the narrow definition of sovereignty ~ absolute and meticulous control ~ because it cannot avoid making God the author of sin and evil, in which case, Arminians believe, God would be morally ambiguous.”


    “But [Open Theists] reject the narrow definition of [omniscience] ~ absolute and meticulous [foreknowledge] ~ because it cannot avoid making God [responsible for evil and contradicts the nature of libertarian freedom], in which case, [Open Theists] believe, God would be morally ambiguous.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Billy:

    "“It is ‘inherently odious’ to state that God strictly, freely and unchangeably decreed the rape of an eight year old Liberian girl in Arizona".

    Why? Is this more inherently odious than stating that God strictly, freely, and unchangeably decreed the murder of the Lord of Glory (Acts 2, 4, etc), who was more innocent and unworthy of murder than the eight year old Liberian girl?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Billy:

    "“Again, however, we cannot allow Hays (or any Calvinist) to distract us from the main point of what God has foreordained and why by insisting that in the Arminian tradition God could have prevented the rape by divine intervention. That is not the point here, and it is nothing more than a smoke screen to disguise and conceal the fact that the Calvinist's view of God is that he foreordained the rape, not by foreknowledge of free will action but by decree!"

    Why? If you knew the proposition that {my neighbor will murder and rape his wife unless I intervene}, and you did not intervene to stop it, would you not be morally responsible? Would a jury perhaps let you off the hook with the defense that you were respecting your neighbor's free will? You would be guilty and all humans would say so. Couple that with what Victor Reppert has taught us, i.e., "I cannot call what all men would call black when applied to men white when applied to God."

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Dude,

    I do not have the time to respond to each and every comment, but I'll choose the following:

    What you have stated about Open Theism and Classical Arminianism (noting those similarities) can work against you if we use Hyper-Calvinism and Classical Calvinism. Do you really want to go down that road?

    Hays' "misuse" of logic was pointed out in my post. I don't really have the time to repeat myself.

    So for God to "be the author" of something means that he "forced or coerced" that to happen.

    The subject we're addressing is God being the author of sin, so we need to stick with that subject and not wonder off into God's common grace and what he does with the category of "good."

    If God, not foreseeing evil, and upon that foreknowledge of future free will actions foreordaining them, but strictly decrees them, then God is the author of sin.

    How could it be otherwise, since nothing, and Calvinists emphasize NOTHING, can come about without God's ordination? If God could not foresee future free will actions but must have strictly, freely, and unchangeably decree them, in order for them to come about, as stated in my post, then God is the author of sin.

    Calvinists have two choices; 1) God foreordained what he foreknew would come about, given knowable infinite circumstances, or 2) he merely decreed whatsoever comes to pass, not by foreknowledge of anything, but merely by decree. The first one does not charge God as the author of sin. The second one does.

    ReplyDelete
  13. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    “But that does not make God the author of sin, for God did not force or coerce Adam to sin.”

    1.In your original post, this is how you defined “authorship”: “I was under the impression that any amateur scholar would understand the phrase ‘author of sin,’ historical or otherwise; but alas, I was wrong. The word author denotes originality. Thus for someone accused of being the author of something, it connotes that he or she is the originator of that thing.”

    Observe that you were very emphatic about this definition. It’s something that “any amateur scholar” would understand.

    I also notice that you used the Oxford English Dictionary to define “responsibility” and “culpability.”

    So how does the OED define “originate”? My copy gives these definitions:

    Trans. To give origin to, give rise to, cause to arise or begin, initiate, bring into existence.

    Intr. To take its origin or rise; to arise, come into existence, having its beginning, commence; to spring, be derive.

    To “force” or “coerce” is not a proper definition of “originate.”

    Rather, that’s a made-up definition of your own coinage. Moreover, it’s a made-up definition which you interpolate after the fact in response to my post.

    So you are now backpedaling. What is more, you're also inventing tendentious definitions to salvage your original claim. That’s not a scholarly procedure–especially for someone with your academic ambitions.

    2.Notice that in the definition of “originate” supplied by the OED, there’s a distinction between the initial conditions and subsequent developments. To “originate” involves mediate rather than immediate causation. The agent creates the initial conditions. To be the “author” of the outcome, the agent doesn’t have to directly cause the outcome. It’s sufficient that he put the initial conditions in place.

    So if we define “authorship” in terms of “originator,” then creating Adam, Eve, and Lucifer, as well as the process of procreation, amounts to “authoring” the end-result.

    I’m answering you on your own terms. When I do, you response with bluster–like a cat trying to stare down a dog.

    3.In addition, there is nothing in predestination which “forces” or “coerces” the human agent. It’s quite maladroit of you to level that accusation. That’s not an honest attempt to accurately describe the Reformed position. The WCF goes out of its way to define freedom as the absence of coercion.

    You’re indulging in a hack caricature of Reformed theology.

    You never miss a chance to corroborate my charge that you lack the temperament to be a church historian. You’re just a partisan advocate sailing under the false colors of a church historian.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hays,

    I see, so because God is the author of Adam in Creation, he is also the author, originator, instigator of his sin? The issue of God being Adam's "author" is not being contested here. Has then been taxing for you to follow?

    The issue is whether or not God strictly foreordained sin by decree or by foreknowledge. What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Billy:

    "What you have stated about Open Theism and Classical Arminianism (noting those similarities) can work against you if we use Hyper-Calvinism and Classical Calvinism. Do you really want to go down that road."

    Is that a threat? Okay, yes, I do. In other words, I'm your Huckleberry.

    "Hays' "misuse" of logic was pointed out in my post. I don't really have the time to repeat myself".

    You said it here, in Hays' meta. I'm sorry, would you mind pointing it out since it wasn't clear to me? I read your comment here four times and I did not see where you showed via formal logic the implications. You simply asserted a misuse of logic and then asked a question, i.e., "Are you serious?" This was in your 8/21/2009 3:38 PM post.

    "The subject we're addressing is God being the author of sin, so we need to stick with that subject and not wonder off into God's common grace and what he does with the category of "good."

    Billy, this is a dodge. The subject I am addressing is what it means to say "author of". Given your definition of "author of" my argument seems to follow. Or, is it your claim that "author of" means something different if you merely switch from "author of" good to "author of" evil? But that seems arbitrary. How is it not?

    "If God, not foreseeing evil, and upon that foreknowledge of future free will actions foreordaining them, but strictly decrees them, then God is the author of sin"

    I'm not sure I even understand what this is supposed to mean. On your view I showed that from implications in your statements you must hold to either physicalism or traducianism; indeed, you must say that Arminianism is linked to them such that of the latter falls so does Arminianism. Do you really want to argue for such a strong claim or would you like a do over on your definition of "author of"?

    "How could it be otherwise, since nothing, and Calvinists emphasize NOTHING, can come about without God's ordination?"

    What can come about apart from God's creating the world and upholding it, right down the the rapist needs to rape a woman? What can come about apart from God's desire to let it happen and not stop it, like a molestation of a little girl?

    "If God could not foresee future free will actions but must have strictly, freely, and unchangeably decree them, in order for them to come about, as stated in my post, then God is the author of sin".

    But I showed that given your definitions God was "the author of" sin.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Billy,

    Your response to Steve seems to say, "Nevermind the details God just is the author of sin and this is bad even though I can't define what it means to be the "author of" or show what is supposed to be "bad" about it and how Calvinism implies that which is bad about it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Dude,

    I simply do not have the time. If I ever free up some more time, perhaps we can pick this back up. I simply do not know how some people have so much time on their hands. (Jealous)

    And concerning my rebuttal of Hays' misuse of logic, I was referring to my blogpost, not to the comment thread.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Billy,

    "I simply do not have the time. If I ever free up some more time, perhaps we can pick this back up. I simply do not know how some people have so much time on their hands. (Jealous)"

    I see.

    "And concerning my rebuttal of Hays' misuse of logic, I was referring to my blogpost, not to the comment thread."

    But I wasn't. I quoted your comment in this comments section and asked for you to lay out the implications, via rules of entailment, from Steve's statements to other statements, showing the "misuse of logic" in this most recent post, the one you claimed "misuse[d] logic." It seems to me that you frequently use over the top rhetoric and then are forced to scale back your claims to more manageable ones. This makes for a frustrating dialog, as I'm sure you'd be bound to agree.

    ReplyDelete
  19. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    “I see, so because God is the author of Adam in Creation, he is also the author, originator, instigator of his sin?”

    I’m not stating my own position. To me, framing the issue in terms of a extrabiblical metaphor (“author of sin”) is not a serious way to analyze the issue in the first place. I’m just answering you on your own terms.

    “The issue of God being Adam's ‘author’ is not being contested here. Has then been taxing for you to follow?”

    You’re the one who refuses to follow your own argument.

    i) You defined “authorship” in terms of “origination.”

    ii) You said that Calvinism, makes God the author of sin while Arminianism avoids that consequence.

    iii) I, based on standard usage (from the OED), showed that Arminianism makes God the author (i.e. originator) of sin.

    iv) You responded with a made-up definition of “origination.”

    v) If you use “to originate” as a synonym for “to author,” and if “to originate” is defined by standard usage, then it follows that by originating Adam, God is the originator of Adam’s sin.

    vi) Finally, my argument was never limited to the meaning of words. I can beat you on those grounds. Indeed, I’ve done so.

    But, additionally, I also showed that if God creates a world with a foreseen consequence (a la Arminianism), then Adam (Lucifer, Hitler, &c.) cannot do otherwise in that world. The outcome is inevitable as a result of divine foreknowledge as well as divine creation. And it’s an outcome which God intended.

    All this follows from Arminian assumptions. You need to explain how, given that set of facts, you can still inculpate the God of Reformed theism while you exculpate the God of Arminian theism.

    “The issue is whether or not God strictly foreordained sin by decree or by foreknowledge. What say you?”

    You yourself did not restrict yourself to that issue alone. Rather, you’re trying to argue that Reformed theism is morally repugnant.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hays,

    And still you avoid answering my question outright.

    I'll ask it again, for this is the sole issue here - this is how the whole discussion was born: Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree?

    Or do you fear that by admitting that it was by God's mere decree (and thus not by foreknowledge), you are forced to agree with Sproul Jr. and recant your short post on his view?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The Dude,"

    Hays responded: In Arminian theology, God is the Creator. He originated Adam, Eve, and Lucifer. He originated the environment they inhabit. And he originated procreation–which propagates sinners. So, on Billy’s definition, Arminian theology makes God the author of sin.

    Once again (I'll start at the beginning): to say that God is the "author" of Adam, Eve, and Lucifer is not to suggest that God caused either of them to sin. For God to be the "author" of sin is to suggest that God caused them to sin (as in, he originated sin, instigated them to sin, initiated them toward sin). To equate God as "author" of Adam et al. as Creator with God as "author" of their sin is a fallacy.

    For one to admit that because God created human beings (even foreknowing that they would sin) makes him the "author" of sin is just stupid.

    Using Hays' OED definition (i.e. "To give origin to, give rise to, cause to arise or begin, initiate, bring into existence"), to suggest that God is the "author" of sin is to say that God "gave origin to" sin, "gave rise to" or "began" sin, "initiated" sin, "brought [sin] into existence" etc. Is that what you're suggesting? Did God bring sin into existence? This is what I'm asking when I ask, Is God the author of sin?

    The reason why Calvinism must admit that God is the author of sin (hence, brought it about) is because of his foreordination of sin, not by foreknowledge, but by mere decree.

    That is what all of this is about. So, answer the same question that I posed to Hays: Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Billy,

    Why did you address a post to me and use it to critique Hays? And why the unloving turn towards the uncivil, claiming things people say are "just plain stupid"? Why the demand that I answer your questions when you don't answer mine and claim that you don't "have the time"? Perhaps you are overly worked up over this? Maybe you should come back when you're less emotional?

    To answer your question: God willingly permitted the fall (as our Confession of Faith says, 6.1).

    Now: What is it to be the "author of" something? If being the "author of" evil is evil, why is it? Why does Reformed theology make God the "author of" evil if it is evil to be the "author of" evil? If you can, please make the last answer as a formally valid argument.

    ReplyDelete
  23. BTW, God decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Birch - Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree?

    Vytautas - One cannot foreordain an event by means of foreknowledge. I can know ahead of time that tommorow will be Saturday, but I did not ordain it. If God mearly chooses what is going to heppen, then it is not much of a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  25. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    “Once again (I'll start at the beginning): to say that God is the ‘author’ of Adam, Eve, and Lucifer is not to suggest that God caused either of them to sin. For God to be the ‘author’ of sin is to suggest that God caused them to sin.”

    Which is not what “originate” means. To “cause” is not synonymous with “to cause to arise” or “initiate.” To merely “cause” something could either denote mediate or immediate causation, but to “cause to arise” or “initiate” is a case of mediate causation.

    On that definition, if you use “to originate” as a synonym for “to author,” then God is the author of sin by causing sin to arise or initiating the conditions which inevitably yield that sinful result.

    “To equate God as ‘author’ of Adam et al. as Creator with God as ‘author’ of their sin is a fallacy.”

    If that’s a fallacy, then it’s a fallacy on your grounds, not ours. Feel free to withdraw your fallacious allegation against Calvinism at any time.

    “Using Hays' OED definition…Is that what you're suggesting? Did God bring sin into existence? This is what I'm asking when I ask, Is God the author of sin?”

    I used the OED definition because you defined authorship in terms of origination, so I turned to a standard definition of origination.

    Paul and I aren’t suggesting anything with respect to Calvinism. We’re simply responding to you within your chosen framework.

    As far as I’m concerned, casting the issue in terms of “authorship” is not a smart way to frame the issue. You’re getting carried away with an extrabiblical metaphor. That’s up to you. But I don’t have to share your fixation with an extrabiblical metaphor. Debating an extrabiblical metaphor is not one of my priorities. That’s of no exegetical or philosophical relevance to the issue at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Vytautas,"

    One cannot foreordain an event by means of foreknowledge.

    Perhaps you cannot, but how do you know that God cannot?

    I can know ahead of time that tommorow will be Saturday, but I did not ordain it.

    Nor can you ordain it, for you, my friend, are not God.

    If God mearly chooses what is going to heppen, then it is not much of a choice.

    I did not say (nor does the Arminian position suggest) that God "chooses" what is "going to happen," but that he ordains what he freely foreknows creatures will do.

    "The Dude,"

    Why did you address a post to me and use it to critique Hays? And why the unloving turn towards the uncivil, claiming things people say are "just plain stupid"?

    I addressed the same exact question to both you and Hays because there is really only one issue we're dealing with, and that is whether or not is the "author" of sin. But due to a semantics war, we can't get anywhere. So, I put it as plainly as I knew how.

    Why the demand that I answer your questions when you don't answer mine and claim that you don't "have the time"?

    Uh, because I had to go. I had made plans with a friend. I'm back now.

    Perhaps you are overly worked up over this? Maybe you should come back when you're less emotional?

    No, I'm fine. Maybe I should have used the word absurd instead of stupid.

    You said that "God willingly permitted the fall (as our Confession of Faith says, 6.1)" and "God decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future."

    So, which is it? How did God "permit" the fall? Since God "decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future," then what are you saying? Did God strictly foreordain the fall? How? What do you mean by "permit"?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The Dude,"

    Now: What is it to be the "author of" something? If being the "author of" evil is evil, why is it? Why does Reformed theology make God the "author of" evil if it is evil to be the "author of" evil? If you can, please make the last answer as a formally valid argument.

    To say that God is the "author of evil" is to say that God proactively brought about evil. Since nothing is decreed by foreknowledge, then it must be brought about by some other means?

    If God brought about evil, then he is responsible for the evil that ensues and is also culpable (to blame). If God "permitted" evil to happen, not by bringing it about, but by allowing man to bring it about, then God is not the "author of evil."

    Am I now being any more clear than when I first began at 3:38 this afternoon?

    ReplyDelete
  28. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    "For one to admit that because God created human beings (even foreknowing that they would sin) makes him the "author" of sin is just stupid."

    Calling something "just stupid" is not a counterargument. If, according to Arminian theology, God instantiates a sinful outcome, then how does escape escape the charge of authoring sin?

    God foresaw that outcome, God brought that foreseen outcome to pass by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome, and God also intended that outcome (since he was free to prevent it). So how do you avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hays,

    God foresaw that outcome, God brought that foreseen outcome to pass by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome . . .

    God foresaw that outcome. So far, so good. God "brought that foreseen outcome to pass." Not good. That is not at all what Arminianism declares. The action belongs to man, not to God "bringing it to pass."

    . . .and God also intended that outcome . . .

    "Intended." Interseting choice of words. This doesn't allow for "permittance." Then, "whatosever comes to pass" does so by God's "intention." And yet Jesus taught us to pray for God's "will" to be done on earth "as it is in heaven." But I digress.

    . . . (since he was free to prevent it).

    By "allowing" or "permitting" a thing to come to pass does not mean it was his desire, something that he wanted to come to pass. Clearly, he doesn't desire for us to sin, and yet we do. Thus he "permits" us to freely sin.

    So how do you avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin?

    Because God does not proactively cause sin. He doesn't cause evil to come to pass "by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome," as you have sugggested.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Birch - Perhaps you cannot [foreordain an event by means of foreknowledge], but how do you know that God cannot?

    Vytautas - Because as Arminians say, knowing something does not cause it to happen.

    Birch - I did not say (nor does the Arminian position suggest) that God "chooses" what is "going to happen," but that he ordains what he freely foreknows creatures will do.

    Vytautas - But God's ordaination did not bring things about because the creatures with free will chose what will happen. God mearly has passive knowledge of what is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Vytautas,

    God is able to have "passive knowledge" of what is going to happen but must ordain what shall happen?

    Because, as Arminians say, knowing something does not cause it to happen.

    Who said "knowing something" causes it to happen? God foreknows every future choice because of his own omniscience - out of his own nature. To say that God cannot foreknow future free will choices is to agree with Open Theists.

    And, of course, to say that God cannot foreknow future free will choices without foreordaining those choices is to make God the "author of sin," which we have been discussing all day.

    And BTW, when I speak of free will with regard to choice, I am not speaking of the "free will" to choose to believe in Christ Jesus apart from the operative prevenient grace and work of the Spirit of God in the mind of the sinner.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What does it mean for God to foreordain an event without a decree by means of foreknowledge? Does God need to foreordain a free action, when that action is metaphysiscaly independent of God's ordination?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Billy,

    Billy - "So, which is it? How did God "permit" the fall? Since God "decrees nothing because he foresaw it as future," then what are you saying? Did God strictly foreordain the fall? How? What do you mean by "permit?"

    I don't know what you mean "which is it." You obviously see some sort of a problem that I don't see. Instead of explaining what the problem is you ask a series of questions. It's both, Billy. Decreeing or ordaining is not causing or bringing about, that's applied to governing. God governs negatively or positively. With respect to sin and evil he governs it negatively, by willingly permitting it.

    For God, G, to willingly permit an action, A, is for A to be the action of someone other than G; say, S. For G to foreknow the occurance of A and to have been able to prevent it, and for A to not be against the overall plan of G, inded, A may be an integral part of the plan. So Augustine:

    ‘In a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done if he did not permit it (and of course his permission is not unwilling but willing); nor would a Good being permit evil to be done only that in his omnipotence He can turn evil into good.’ - Augustine

    Billy - "To say that God is the "author of evil" is to say that God proactively brought about evil. Since nothing is decreed by foreknowledge, then it must be brought about by some other means?"

    Well, this is still unhelpful since I don't know what is meant by "proactively brought about evil." On some readings this could be read as God doing evil, but then Reformed Theology teaches or implies no such thing. Anyway, my definitions above suggest that God did not "proactively bring about evil." God willingly permitted evil. God did so with the aim to accomplishing a great end. Indeed, willingly permitting evil may have been a necessary condition to bringing about some greater and (without permitting it) unrealizable good, like the redemption of sinners. So, I deny this "proactive bringing about" business and actually find it contrary to what almost every Reformed theologian has taught (and let's remember you still need to come with with a rigorous and clear definition of what you mean by 'proactively bring about').

    Billy - "If God brought about evil, then he is responsible for the evil that ensues and is also culpable (to blame). If God "permitted" evil to happen, not by bringing it about, but by allowing man to bring it about, then God is not the "author of evil."

    But since this is so vague I could see "bring about" by "permitting." Apparently you think they are not the same. So you must mean something by "brought about" like "God did the evil act." But of course this is not the Reformed position and your insinuation simply begs the question against Reformed theology. Anyway, since my position is that God willingly permitted evil, as its part in the plan was required to bring about good unattainable without it, then on your definition Reformed theology does not make God the author of sin. Indeed, our Confessions, both the WCF and the LBC say that God permitted the fall. You can still be an Arminian, of course, but charity and scholarly integrity (to say nothing of Christian integrity) require that you post a public retraction of your slander of Reformed theology. Something tells me I should hold my breath. :-)

    Billy - "Am I now being any more clear than when I first began at 3:38 this afternoon?"

    You'll just have to trust me when I say that I wish I could say, "Yes", but I can't.

    ReplyDelete
  34. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    “So far, so good. God ‘brought that foreseen outcome to pass.’ Not good. That is not at all what Arminianism declares. The action belongs to man, not to God ‘bringing it to pass’."

    God brought it to pass by making a world in which it occurs. Even on Arminianism, man’s action depends on God’s prior action.’

    “"Intended." Interseting choice of words. This doesn't allow for ‘permittance.’ Then, ‘whatosever comes to pass’ does so by God's ‘intention.’ And yet Jesus taught us to pray for God's ‘will’ to be done on earth ‘as it is in heaven.’ But I digress…By ‘allowing’ or ‘permitting’ a thing to come to pass does not mean it was his desire, something that he wanted to come to pass. Clearly, he doesn't desire for us to sin, and yet we do. Thus he ‘permits’ us to freely sin.”

    i) You’re substituting “desire” for “intent.”

    ii) It’s not as if God merely allows evil to occur, as though evil would occur all by itself, absent divine participation–and it’s up to God whether or not to intervene.

    Rather, God knowingly created a world in which evil takes place. Since all that was preventable, God intended the outcome.

    Do you think God did not intend that outcome? It just happened all by itself apart from prior divine action and consent?

    “Because God does not proactively cause sin.”

    You act as if that’s morally significant. But if an agent sets into motion a chain of events which result in a foreseeable outcome, then he is responsible for the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  35. “He doesn't cause evil to come to pass "by setting into motion a chain-reaction which inevitably led to that outcome," as you have sugggested.”

    By creating Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and the process of procreation, God sets into motion a chain-reaction with an inevitable outcome resulting in evil.

    God knew the end-result, and he created the initial conditions which yield that outcome.

    And the outcome was inevitable on two grounds:

    i) Since the outcome was foreknown, the outcome was certain.

    ii) God also made the outcome inevitable by creating the world in which that foreseeable consequence occurs. In that world, no other outcome is possible. He created the world in which Lucifer falls. He created the world in which Adam falls. He created the world in which sinners beget sinners. By creating that world, it’s evitable that the all those events will transpire.

    The fact that you try to deny this doesn’t make your denial coherent. My description is logically entailed by Arminian assumptions.

    ”And still you avoid answering my question outright. I'll ask it again, for this is the sole issue here - this is how the whole discussion was born.”

    You are not entitled to unilaterally dictate the terms of the debate. I realize you’d like to rig the debate so that we only discuss the issues you think are damaging to Calvinism while avoiding all discussion of the issues which are damaging to Arminianism. That’s a backdoor admission that you can’t defend your own position. You can try to attack Calvinism, but your own position is indefensible.

    “Did God foreordain Adam's sin by means of his foreknowledge of Adam's free choice, or by a mere decree? ”

    i) Since “foreordination” is synonymous with the “decree,” your question is tautologous.

    ii) If libertarianism were true, then the outcome would be unknowable–since it could go either way. Therefore, your assumption is incoherent.

    “Or do you fear that by admitting that it was by God's mere decree (and thus not by foreknowledge), you are forced to agree with Sproul Jr. and recant your short post on his view?”

    i) To draw that conclusion, you need to present a set of specific counterarguments in response to my critique of R. C. Jr.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-god-source-of-sin.html

    ii) As a libertarian, you’re in no position to say I’d be “forced” to do anything. That would violate my freedom of choice.

    ReplyDelete