Sunday, September 27, 2009

Placebos & cures

Reppert again:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/09/reply-to-anonymous-on-calvinism-and.html

Before I delve into the specifics, I’d like to cite two examples to illustrate an important distinction.

1.In one example, we have 50 terminal patients. Half of them are given a placebo. The other half are given a drug with a 100% cure rate.

(If we were discussing open theism, that would be analogous to a double-blind trial.)

2.In another example, we have 50 terminal patients. All of them are given a drug with a 50% cure rate.

In the single-blind trial (1), the test-subjects don’t know which patients receive the cure, and which patients receive the placebo. Everyone lacks subjective certitude.

However, it’s certain that the 25 who receive the curative medicine will experience complete recovery while it’s also certain that the 25 who receive the placebo will die.

Those who receive the curative medicine enjoy an objective benefit which is denied the other group.

So even if both groups are in the same boat with respect to what they know about the outcome, they are not in the same boat with respect to the actual outcome.

In the other trial (2), everyone assumes the same potential benefit or loss. Everyone lacks subjective certitude.

Likewise, even though everyone receives the same treatment, the same treatment does not confer the same benefit on every patient. The objective outcome is individually uncertain. It’s a coin toss.

Although in this comparison (1)-(2), the collective outcome is artificially equivalent, the internals are not interchangeable.

(2) is analogous to Arminianism (making allowance for the artificial percentages). I think (1) is only partially analogous to Calvinism, but I use it as a limiting-case to counter Reppert’s objection.

(I deny that true believers are in a situation analogous to a single-blind trial. However, I affirm the objective certainty of the saving grace for the elect.)

Moving along to Reppert:

“What I said was that no one could introspectively know who has real saving faith and who doesn’t, and that it follows from that that no one can be sure whether the promises of God apply to them or not. I also said that this may or may not be a problem for Calvinism, a statement you overlooked completely, so far as I can tell”.

This is a muddle-headed objection. If, on the one hand, Reppert is attacking Calvinism on its own grounds, then Calvinism would deny that the regenerate and the unregenerate have the same subjective experience. The regenerate experience saving grace while the unregenerate do not. Therefore, there’s no equivalency at the subjective level.

If, on the other hand, Reppert is operating from the premise that a born-again Christian can lose his salvation, then it’s true that on the basis of your subjective experience you can’t tell whether or not you will be saved–since apostates and persevering believers have the same subjective experience.

That, however, wouldn’t be a problem internal to Calvinism. Rather, that would be a problem for those theological traditions which maintain that a born-again Christian can lose his salvation.

“What the verse says is that ‘you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.’ But if Calvinism is true, no one can know whether they might not lose their faith and become a reprobate (reflecting, of course, God’s decision before the foundation of the world to withhold saving grace from them), and therefore nobody knows whether the testing of their faith will develop perseverance or not.”

i) Once again, if Reppert’s conclusion is predicated on the assumption that apostates have the same subjective experience as persevering Christians, then he’s deriving a conclusion from a premise which Calvinism rejects.

ii) In addition, Calvinism doesn’t take the position that a believer can become a reprobate. While a (nominal) believer can become an apostate, he cannot become a reprobate.

There is no possible transition from election to reprobation. You’re either one or the other.

“But not every believer successfully resists temptation.”

In context, 1 Cor 10:13 doesn’t refer to sin in general, but to forms of apostasy–such as idolatry.

And I can quote non-Calvinist commentators (e.g. Fitzmyer, Garland) who will substantiate that interpretation.

“To me, it sucks to go through life not being absolutely sure whether Jesus died for me or not.”

Unless you’re a universalist, then even if Christ died for you, that’s no guarantee that you won’t be damned.

“All I need is for some true believer to fall victim to a temptation, and we have our argument for libertarian free will.”

That’s not a logical inference. In Calvinism, if a true believer succumbs to temptation, then God decreed that eventuality.

“Do you really mean to deny that not every true believer resists temptation? That's not in the text, but it is taught in texts too numerous to mention.”

Which is equally consistent with compatibilism and incompatibilism alike.

“So you can't have an elect person fall into apostasy and come back from it?”

If Reppert is raising an objection to Calvinism, then Calvinism distinguishes between backsliders and apostates.

13 comments:

  1. "If Reppert is raising an objection to Calvinism, then Calvinism distinguishes between backsliders and apostates."

    (1) Reppert seems to always be raising objections to Calvinism. He can be thankful that you always seem to be addressing his objections to Calvinism.

    (2) Yes, Calvinism does distinguish between backsliders and apostates. Apostates were never genuine, regenerated Christians.

    Eg., John Loftus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, thanks for hunting down that link for me :-)

    Mr. Reppert,
    some of the promises in Scripture are for those who are not currently in Christ. They promise that if one genuinely believes in Christ, he will be saved. All a lost person would need to do is believe in the Gospel in order for him to have Biblical warrant to be assured of his salvation. There's the distinction between one's subjective psychological assurance and the objective ontological security of a believer. A false believer can have a false assurance, just as a true believer can have doubts (though still be secure).

    The question you'll no doubt (pun not intended) ask is, "How can one know for certain if one genuinely believes or not?" We Calvinists would say that it's not an essential part of justifying faith (nor is it required) to know with absolute philosophical certainty whether one genuinely believes or not. People are merely commanded to trust in God's promise and BELIEVE IT. Then believe THAT THEY believe it, and KEEP ON beliving (and by extention loving and obeying and all the fruits of the Spirit).

    From a professing believer's current psychological state, he can ask whether he believes or not. If he believes, then he can deduce that the promises for believers applies to him. Which in turn can result in greater confidence in his salvation, and so greater boldness for righteousness and against wickedness. If he (rightly or wrongly) concludes he doesn't believe (or didn't really), then all he would need to do is believe. It's all part of the boldness required to express appropriating faith. That is, in merely taking God at His word.

    To believe that as Holy as God is, He offers full salvation gratuitiously (freely) upon mere trust. To believe THAT takes audacious faith. A Greater faith to believe it than to believe that one genuinely believes. If one can believe the former, then (a fortiori) one can believe the latter. But for near universalists (some of whom I chat with on IRC), it can no big deal. "Since God owes it to us."

    If one really grasped the Gospel (which assumes it was preached correctly), there will be little doubt as to whether one genuinely believes or not. Truly, it's Amazing (read WOWing!!!) Grace!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve wrote, “…Calvinism would deny that the regenerate and the unregenerate have the same subjective experience.”

    Doesn’t the Calvinist teach, based on the parable of the soils (i.e., Mt 13:20-22), that the unregenerate and the regenerate can both, for a period of time, share the same subjective experience, i.e., they can both believe the same propositions, and they can both experience joy in believing those propositions (Mt. 13:20).

    Wouldn’t the difference be, from the Calvinist perspective, that the regenerate continues to believe those propositions until death or stops believing them only temporarily, while the unregenerate permanently stops believing them somewhere along the way (Mt. 13:21-22)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's more to saving faith than believing the same propositions. Regeneration effects a chance of heart and mind. The regenerate and unregenerate do not experience the same truth the same way.

    To take a paradigm-case, Satan is a very erudite theologian. He knows the truth of the gospel. But he hates it with every fiber of his being. What he lacks is not belief, but a proper attitude towards the truth. He sins in defiance of all he knows.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve wrote, “The regenerate and unregenerate do not experience the same truth the same way.”

    The passage (Mt. 13:20-21) says that the unregenerate, in this case, received the message with joy. How is receiving the message with joy a different subjective experience than that of the regenerate?

    ReplyDelete
  6. INTERESTED SPECTATOR SAID:

    "The passage (Mt. 13:20-21) says that the unregenerate, in this case, received the message with joy. How is receiving the message with joy a different subjective experience than that of the regenerate?"

    i) To begin with, a parable is...a parable. Not a psychological novel. Not a psychological profile.

    ii) You also confuse fleeting emotional states with the experience of saving grace, which is a wider and deeper thing entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve wrote, “i) To begin with, a parable is...a parable. Not a psychological novel. Not a psychological profile.”

    This is not the parable. This is Jesus’ explanation of the parable. He says they (apparently the unregenerate) received the message with joy.

    Steve wrote, “ii) You also confuse fleeting emotional states with the experience of saving grace, which is a wider and deeper thing entirely.”

    You seem to be suggesting that the difference between saving grace and non-saving grace is the difference between fleeting emotional states and non-fleeting emotional states. If so, how long must an emotional state be to be considered non-fleeting?

    ReplyDelete
  8. INTERESTED SPECTATOR SAID:

    "This is not the parable. This is Jesus’ explanation of the parable. He says they (apparently the unregenerate) received the message with joy. "

    An explanation of a fictitious story is not a psychological profile. If someone writes a commentary on Spiderman, that hardly makes it equipollent with the concrete details of a real world situation. The fictitious narrative is still the point of reference. What fictitious characters think, say, feel, and do.

    "You seem to be suggesting that the difference between saving grace and non-saving grace is the difference between fleeting emotional states and non-fleeting emotional states. If so, how long must an emotional state be to be considered non-fleeting?"

    I see that you seem to have difficulty distinguishing your position from mine. You were the one who framed the issue of conversion in purely emotional terms, not me. Remember? I'm responding to you on your own terms. Remember?

    ReplyDelete
  9. INTERESTED SPECTATOR,

    I don't think anyone doubts that a professing believer who isn't truly converted can experience joy from believing certain propositions (whether those of the true Gospel, or a false gospel). Experiencing emotions is a natural part of being human. But there is an inward work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification that goes beyond mere emotion (but not less than emotions) which lasts.

    This part of the reason why I reject Non-Lordship Salvation (popular among Dispensationalists who are mostly Arminian, though Ryrie and some others hold to at least T and U of "TULIP" and a watered down version of I and P), and Gordon Clark's views on faith (cf. his book "What Is Saving Faith?") both of which are variations on the Sandemanian heresy. Which states that saving faith is merely the understanding assent to the correct and true propositions of the Gospel. It rejects the traditional distinction among Reformed folk of notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

    Haykin says of Andrew Fuller's critique of Sandemanianism:
    "First, if faith does concern only the mind, then there would be no way to distinguish genuine Christianity from nominal Christianity. A nominal Christian mentally assents to the truths of Christianity, but those truths do not grip the heart and re-orient his or her affections. The so-called faith of a nominal Christian, Fuller points out, is really little different from that of the fallen angels, whom we are told in James 2:19 ‘believe’ in the existence of one God and ‘tremble’."

    Sandemanianism by by Michael Haykin
    http://www.the-highway.com/sandeman_Haykin.html

    Sandemanianism At The Westminster Conference http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?709

    Gordon Clark and Sandemanianism
    http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?719

    Strictures on Sandemanianism by Andrew Fuller
    http://books.google.com/books?id=n2QNAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22Strictures+on+Sandemanianism%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=dpihcxOnA8&sig=fPiSKEjJNtfcU4R_vHLKNH5xEVw&hl=en&ei=mpPASuifEZCn8AbTyPilAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    You are asserting that Calvinists deny that the regenerate and unregenerate have the same subjective experience.

    John Murray writes,

    “We must appreciate the lengths and heights to which a temporary faith may carry those who have it. This is brought to our attention to a certain extent in the parable of the sower. Those compared to seed sown on rocky soil received the word with joy and continued in this joyful experience for a season. In terms of the similitude there was the blade and sometimes there may be the ear. There is not only germination; there is also growth. The only defect is that there is never the full corn in the ear.” John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pp. 152-153.

    Doesn’t Murray’s understanding of germination and growth of the seed in the unregenerate suggest the same subjective experience for an indeterminate amount of time?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Annoyed Pinoy, Thank you for the reading recommendations.

    ReplyDelete
  12. INTERESTED SPECTATOR SAID:

    "Doesn’t Murray’s understanding of germination and growth of the seed in the unregenerate suggest the same subjective experience for an indeterminate amount of time?"

    You're mixing the literal and the figurative. People experience joy, plants do not. It's hard to work up a psychological profile of a plant.

    Within the parable, we have the notion of a germinating, budding seed.

    What that tells you about the psychology of the apostate is almost nil.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve wrote, “You're mixing the literal and the figurative. People experience joy, plants do not. It's hard to work up a psychological profile of a plant.”

    So how exactly does parable cash out in the literal world? Do some unregenerate receive the true gospel message with a sincere joy? Do some unregenerate have a zeal for sharing the true gospel message? If so, how does that subjective experience differ from the regenerate?

    ReplyDelete