I'm posting a recent exchange at Kevin DeYoung's blog:
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Arminian
“…it is worth considering whether the character of God as entailed in Calvinism contributes to anger and harshness toward others among *some* Calvinists. Certainly there are many humble and loving Calvinists. But could it be that there is something in the Calvinist view of God that encourages harshness with the result that, while many Calvinists resist the temptation to be harsh because of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, many are led into harshness by the Calvinist view of God? Is it mere coincidence that one of Arminianism’s major criticisms of Calvinism is that it logically entails a harsh view of God, and that even Calvinist leaders have been noting a special problem with Calvinists being harsh? To put it simply, could there be a connection along these lines: harsh God –> harsh Calvinists?”
As long as “Arminian” is citing SEA articles, and drawing connections between belief and behavior, I wonder if he applies the same psychoanalysis to the case of Billy Birch:
Is it mere “coincidence” that Birch is a militant Arminian, or is there some connection between Arminian theology and his acting out? Something in the Arminian view of God that encourages his behavior?
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 1:11 pm
A. M. Mallett
“It strikes me as near-Gnostic at times and with that an air of arrogance and superiority that a lot of Christians find offensive. From my perspective, the ‘jerks’ are those who enjoy bringing such an offense or find no cause to question their own apologetic devices. We are all guilty of it at times but because Calvinism has determined itself to be viewed as the highest academic discipline within Christendom akin to ‘truth’, there should be no surprise at the reactions of those offended by what they see as arrogance and hubris.”
In contrast to humble Arminians like John Wesley, Randal Rauser, and Roger Olson, who think Calvinists unwittingly worship the devil.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Arminian
“…it is worth considering whether the character of God as entailed in Calvinism contributes to anger and harshness toward others among *some* Calvinists. Certainly there are many humble and loving Calvinists. But could it be that there is something in the Calvinist view of God that encourages harshness with the result that, while many Calvinists resist the temptation to be harsh because of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, many are led into harshness by the Calvinist view of God? Is it mere coincidence that one of Arminianism’s major criticisms of Calvinism is that it logically entails a harsh view of God, and that even Calvinist leaders have been noting a special problem with Calvinists being harsh? To put it simply, could there be a connection along these lines: harsh God –> harsh Calvinists?”
Reminds me of a parable I read somewhere. How did it go? Something like this:
And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Two men went to church to pray; the one a Calvinist, and the other an Arminian. The Arminian stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are–like those harsh, proud, jerky Calvinists. I am kind, loving, and humble. I give tithes of all that I possess to the Society of Evangelical Arminians.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
arminianperspectives
“Great point and such a tight parallel with what Arminian was saying, since everyone knows that homosexual sin is rampant among Arminians to the point where Arminian leaders are constantly writing articles about the problem and calling on Arminians in particular to change their ways, just like we see among Calvinist leaders with regards to smugness, pride, jerkiness, etc.”
i) DeYoung didn’t say that’s “rampant” among Calvinists.
ii) Moreover, it doesn’t occur to Josh/Ben that his suggestion that pride and smugness are rampant among Calvinists is, itself, a proud, smug statement–only in this case the expression of Arminian pride.
iii) Finally, the fact that Arminian leaders don’t write articles about the danger of spiritual pride among Arminians doesn’t mean that’s not a problem among Arminians. Indeed, that very omission is symptomatic of spiritual pride that blinds itself to its own pride. A lack of self-criticism among Arminian leaders.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm
A. M. Mallett
“On a more serious note, your post illustrates the ‘jerk Calvinist’ complex quite well.”
And that insult illustrates the “harsh Arminian” complex quite well.
“Birch has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and is merely your unfortunate attempt to smear a theological viewpoint through association.”
You mean…like “Arminian’s” smear campaign?
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 3:57 pm
arminianperspectives March 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm
“Great point and such a tight parallel with what Arminian was saying, since everyone knows that homosexual sin is rampant among Arminians…”
As far as that goes, try Googling “lgbt” and “asbury seminary,” or “lgbt” and “Seattle Pacific University”:
On February 24, Dr. Les Steele, associate vice president for academic affairs, called a meeting between the Human Sexuality Advisory Group (HSAG) and Haven leadership. At the meeting, Dr. Steele presented Haven with an outline of how SPU would treat the group.
'Our goal is to respond to the need of our students to have 'safe space' for conversations regarding human sexuality, including sexual orientation,' Steele told Haven leaders. 'Haven has been one such space among others.'
In the outline, Dr. Steele announced, 'Haven becomes a formal group with full rights to reserve space and advertise on campus.'
According to Dr. Steele, Haven will now fall under the auspice of HSAG. 'While HSAG is responsible to advise on the totality of human sexuality programming, we ask them to focus on assisting Haven to become a safe space for the discussion of sexual orientation,' Steele wrote in an outline to Haven leaders and HSAG. 'We also ask HSAG to help us keep alive other safe spaces for all aspects of human sexuality.'
'We are now a formally recognized group and we have not only the right to reserve rooms, but advertising rights on campus, which has been a major battle for the last four years,' Richmond points out. 'This is definitely the result of the enormous outcry from the student body, the support from the faculty and staff, and constant alumni efforts for the last month, and the community disapproval of last month's decision.'
Owen
Nicholasville, KY
Being a gay student at Asbury Seminary (no, we are not the same as the college) I can attest to the fact that there are plenty of gay students on both campuses. The problem is that when you have to hide who you are it tends to want to come out now and then. So students repress it until they can't anymore, they hook up, and then they feel guilt ridden. If they will just be themselves then they can express their love for another guy when they want to and not when they have to, and that's a much happier existence.
hates asbury
Lexington, KY
you know there are alot of things asbury has to offer
13.stds
14.Lesbian Professors
15. gays - but i thought that was against the rules - lots of lesbians in the lower glide
Brian M Perry
Lexington, KY
I've had so much gay sex with Asburians and Seminary students.
Not to mention the connection between Asbury and the pink United Methodist Church.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm
arminianperspectives
“Great point and such a tight parallel with what Arminian was saying…”
Surely Josh/Ben isn’t chalking that up to “mere coincidence.” After all, “Arminian” discounts that explanation where Calvinists are concerned.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm
A. M. Mallett
“Birch has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand…”
It has everything to do with “Arminian’s” comment, which you haven’t disavowed.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Arminian March 28, 2012 at 4:15 pm
“arminianperspectives did not say he did.”
That’s what he insinuated. And his invidious contrast wouldn’t work otherwise.
“As I had said, ‘If we grant that there is a special problem among Calvinists in this area…”
Which I don’t grant. Likewise, DeYoung didn’t suggest that’s a “special problem” among Calvinists. As for Taylor’s post, you’re conveniently omitting the push-back from numerous commenters. So, no, that’s not a given.
“It’s easy to lash out with charging others with what you have been charged with…”
That’s your pejorative characterization.
“But this is a case in which Calvinist leaders themselves seem to have spotted a problem…”
You latch onto that as if that’s an objective fact rather than private opinion. Moreover, Arminian bigots like you defame Calvinists, then appeal to your own defamation as probative evidence. A vicious circle. Try to sully the reputation of a theological tradition, then act as if your defamation is self-validating.
“The Calvinist stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are–like those harsh, proud, jerky Arminians…”
A failed analogy. You’re the one, not me, who indulges in spiritual back-patting by constantly comparing kind, loving Arminians with mean, harsh Calvinists. Just go back and reread your opening gambit.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Arminian
“I strongly urge others to read my opening post. I did not compare kind loving Arminians with mean, harsh Calvinists.”
That’s exactly what “Arminian” did. Here’s the structure of his argument: Folks take after the character of God they worship. Because Arminians worship a kind and loving God, Arminians are more likely to be kind and loving. By contrast, because Calvinists worship a harsh, cruel God, Calvinists are more likely to be angry and harsh. There are exceptions on both sides, but that’s the logical link, and that’s why there’s a “special problem” among Calvinists.
And, no, he didn’t get that self-flattering comparison from “Calvinist leaders.” That’s his own contribution.
“Various Calvinist leaders have pointed out that there seems to be a particular problem with pride among Calvinists.”
No, they haven’t said there’s “a particular problem with pride among Calvinists.”
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Arminian
“If so, at the very least he acknowledges that the perception is especially attached to Calvinists.”
That way some people perceive Jews to be Shylocks. “Arminian” is appealing to bigotry to justify bigotry.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Arminian
“Thankfully, my original comments are available to be read in this thread. All the more I urge people to read them in light of Steve’s false statements about them. They are not what he says they are. I did not mention Arminians being kind and loving etc. and did not draw such a comparison.”
Since “Arminian” is dissembling, let’s parse his original argument and consider the implicit comparison:
“Beside it being contrary to Scripture, the biggest concern Arminians have concerning Calvinism is its logical implications for the character of God, that it makes God a moral monster contrary to God’s character of love and justice revealed in the Bible (see e.g., this case made by John Wesley). Although it seems to be a question that Calvinist leaders do not want to consider, it is worth considering whether the character of God as entailed in Calvinism contributes to anger and harshness toward others among *some* Calvinists. Certainly there are many humble and loving Calvinists. But could it be that there is something in the Calvinist view of God that encourages harshness with the result that, while many Calvinists resist the temptation to be harsh because of the Holy Spirit and Scripture, many are led into harshness by the Calvinist view of God? Is it mere coincidence that one of Arminianism’s major criticisms of Calvinism is that it logically entails a harsh view of God, and that even Calvinist leaders have been noting a special problem with Calvinists being harsh? To put it simply, could there be a connection along these lines: harsh God –> harsh Calvinists?”
i) The Arminian God is “just” and “loving.”
ii) The Calvinist God is “harsh” and “monstrous.”
iii) Adherents tend to take after the character of the God they worship, viz.
harsh God>harsh Calvinists
angry God>angry Calvinists
A believer’s view of God “tempts,” “encourages,” “leads to,” or “contributes” to corresponding behavior on the part of the believer.
iv) That “connection” accounts for the “special problem” of “harsh, angry” Calvinists.
v) Clearly the parallel structure of “Arminian’s” argument carries the implication that Arminians tend to be morally and spiritually superior to Calvinists. Consistent Arminians are better than consistent Calvinists because they worship a better God. They take after the type of God they worship.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 6:52 pm
A. M. Mallett
“I have no intention of disavowing it.”
I didn’t expect you to. Your an Arminian loyalist.
“I agree with and it remains you brought William Birch into the discussion in an attempt to smear by association.”
“Arminian” posited a correlation between belief and behavior. Well, that cuts both ways. If that applies to Calvinists, that applies to Arminians.
steve hays March 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Arminian
“But then in response to the point that our comments are based on a phenomenon pointed out by Calvinist leaders themselves, Steve turns it around to say Arminians are just too prideful to write the same sort of articles about themselves, which not only accuses Arminians of pride, but implies Calvinists are humbler.”
That’s a tu quoque argument.
steve hays March 29, 2012 at 7:50 am
Arminian
“But a faulty one. If I mention that one of my kids seems to have a problem with anger, and another one of my kids offers a suggestion as to why that might be, that does not imply the latter thinks himself kind or gentle or superior (and that is much more so in the case here, which applies to a large amount of people and the acknowledgment of kind and gentle Calvinists as well as proud Arminians, talking more about a pull that Calvinist theology can have).”
You’re disregarding the parallel structure of your own argument, which I’ve delineated. But it’s fine with me if you feel the need to backpeddle from your original argument. It’s entirely understandable if you disown your argument.
“On the other hand, your comments did imply that Calvinists are humbler, since you specifically accused Arminians of pride and specifically compared them to Calvinists (or Calvinist leaders), whom you depicted as doing the humble thing.”
No, I expressed that contrast in hypothetical terms, accepting the premise of Josh/Ben’s contention for the sake of argument.
All “Arminian” tries to do is to deflect objections. He’s impervious to correction from a Calvinist, because he’s an Arminian loyalist first, last, and always.
steve hays March 29, 2012 at 7:43 am
It’s ironic to see so many Arminians on this thread harshly accuse Calvinists of harshness. The Arminians are utterly tone-deaf to their own harshness.
This unmasks the fact many Arminians like people who are like them, but dislike people who are unlike them. They are only agreeable with those who agree with them. They harbor tremendous, pent-up antipathy towards Calvinists, and are spoiling for an opportunity to vent their resentment. When someone like DeYoung does this type of post, Arminians jump at the opportunity to use this as a pretext to express their seething animosity towards Calvinists. It doesn’t occur to them that they are revealing a lot about themselves in the process. What comes through isn’t the angry Calvinist, but the angry Arminian. Arminians who love their own kind, but can’t stand to be around Calvinists. Too many Arminians live in a hall of mirrors.
The article at this link says,
ReplyDeleteHowever, since falling into sin does not itself invalidate the truth or helpfulness of what Billy has written in the past, we are not deleting all of Billy’s work that has appeared on our site over the years. His posts from prior years will remain on the site. We want to send a strong message of disapproval for Billy’s sin, yet do not want to send the message that falling into sin invalidates all of one’s previous work.
To be consistent, this would apply to M. Sudduth's past Calvinistic works as well.
"Life follows doctrine."
ReplyDeleteThat was Dave Hunt's response to James White, in characterizing why John Calvin murdered Servetus (plus all of the others that rarely get mentioned).
If you view a person as someone that Jesus loves and died for, then you are apt to treat such a person with respect and dignity, and all of the care that God has for them.
Conversely, if you agree with Calvinist, Jay Adams, that you shouldn't go around telling people that Jesus loves them, because you may be lying to them if they are not one of the Calvinistic Upper-Caste, then you may be apt to treat people as unloved and worthless.
It's basic psychology. A tree is known by its fruit. If you have rotten Calvinists, it's because they have a rotten Calvinism. Basic deduction.
Richard,that's so insightful! I guess both Calvinism and Arminianism are pretty rotten -Billy Birch comes to mind - because both sides have some pretty rotten proponents. I suppose I should I give up my Calvinism and look into Thomism or something... But wait! Didn't that Thomist I read about in the paper the other day molest that little boy? Darn! Perhaps I should become an atheist! They've NEVER done anything wrong! Wait a second... Ad infinitum...
ReplyDeleteIf Arminians view Calvinists as devil-worshipers who serve a monstrous God, then they are apt to demonize and dehumanize Calvinists. It's basic psychology. Basic deduction.
ReplyDeleteIf you view another human being as a fellow sinner, and say to yourself, "there but for the sovereign grace of God go I," then you are apt to treat him with mercy and compassion.
ReplyDeleteIf you think there’s a good possibility that another human may be elect, then would you risk murdering one of God’s elect? When in doubt, play it safe.
ReplyDeleteWell, Richard, the Eastern Orthodox have a long history of executing heretics, yet the Eastern Orthodox subscribe to libertarian freewill and universal atonement–just like Arminians. Therefore, executing heretics must be the rotten fruit of rotten Arminian assumptions.
ReplyDeleteSame thing with Roman Catholicism, which has a long history of executing heretics. Yet the Roman Church subscribes to universal atonement. Likewise, Jesuits believe in libertarian freewill. The Roman Church also condemned the Jansenist counterpart to Calvinism. Therefore, executing heretics must be the rotten fruit of rotten Arminian assumptions.
When asking whether a harsh C-God results in harsh C’s, you need to ask yourself whether role models matter, and if they make any difference? If not, then why do we complain when pro athletes act poorly? Man tends to try to emulate those whom they adore, revere and idolize. That doesn’t mean that they always will. Christians who live by a WWJD example and role model often fail to live up to it, but that doesn’t mean that role models have zero impact, and that opens up a very fair question about whether the C-God is a good or poor role model, and what resulting impact that it has upon its adherents. So first, consider what the C-God does, whom C’s adore, revere and emulate. The C-God “passes by” people. But He does more than that. He scripts all thoughts. The C-God thought up sin and called it good. The C-God dreamt up the idea of creating angels and then unilaterally giving them the thoughts which results in them becoming demons. The C-God creates people for Hell, whomever He could otherwise script to save, but instead scripts their thoughts for evil, and the C-God gets pleasure and glorification by them going to Hell, which is what He created them for. Now if you think that this will have ZERO impact upon the lives of those who emulate, adore and revere such a C-God, then I respectfully disagree. It’s going to have an impact, and it’s going to be a bad one. As examples, there are the imfamous Westboro Calvinists. There are the Anti-Missions Calvinists. There is Vincent Cheung who comments: “One who thinks that God’s glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.” (The Problem of Evil) Even some C's have suggested that we ought to think like a C but live like an A, and some A’s have commented that some C’s are evangelists *in spite of* Calvinism, rather than *because* of Calvinism. Consider an old Particular Baptist hymn: “We are the Lord’s elected few, Let all the rest be damned; There’s room enough in Hell for you, We won’t have heaven crammed!” To what degree of blame does the C-God warrant? What role did the C-God play as a role model for these? Were these simply being inconsistent with the C-God? You tell me. Is Steve Hays the natural product of emulating the C-God as his role model? You tell me.
ReplyDeleteLet's apply Richard's argument to the case at hand:
ReplyDeletei) God is a role-model
ii) God executed Herod Agrippa for blasphemy (Acts 12:21-23)
iii) Therefore, Calvin rightly emulated God by executing Servetus for blasphemy
The same God says that God alone is the judge of mankind, and that man, for his part, is to be at peace with all men. Play games if you want. Role models matter, and the C-God is a role model, if you worship and revere and adore such a Deity.
ReplyDeleteCharles Barkley said that pro athletes are "not role models." He said this to absolve himself of his moral failures, and lack of being a *good* role model. But most disagree with Barkley. Most argue that pro athletes ARE role models, whether for good or for bad, because people (especially kids) look up to them. So they are most definitely role models (whether for good or for bad), when people adore, revere and idolize them, and ultimately try to emulate their hero. So that opens up a can of worms regarding the C-God. Is the C-God a role model? Is the C-God harsh. Would those who adore, revere and idolize the C-God have a similar tendency to want to emulate such a harsh C-God? Perhaps this touches upon the most dangerous and yet subtle aspect of Calvinism. Maybe the purpose of Arminians is to help quarantine other unsuspecting Christians of the dangers of Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteRichard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"When asking whether a harsh C-God results in harsh C’s, you need to ask yourself whether role models matter, and if they make any difference? If not, then why do we complain when pro athletes act poorly?"
Pro athletes aren't my role models.
"Man tends to try to emulate those whom they adore, revere and idolize."
So Arminians like you adore, revere, and idolize pro athletes.
"That doesn’t mean that they always will. Christians who live by a WWJD example and role model often fail to live up to it, but that doesn’t mean that role models have zero impact, and that opens up a very fair question about whether the C-God is a good or poor role model, and what resulting impact that it has upon its adherents."
If WWJD is your code of conduct, how should Arminians go about emulating his example:
"When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thes 1:7b-8).
Seems like Calvin took your advice when he executed Servetus.
"So first, consider what the C-God does, whom C’s adore, revere and emulate. The C-God 'passes by' people."
Passes *sinners* by.
"The C-God thought up sin and called it good."
No, that's just your malicious caricature.
"The C-God creates people for Hell, whomever He could otherwise script to save..."
The A-God creates people for Hell, whom he could otherwise save. For if the libertarian principle of alternate possibilities is true, then every damned sinner has a saved counterpart in another possible world. So the A-God could save the same individual rather than damning him by instantiating his saved counterpart–who freely believes.
"and the C-God gets pleasure..."
That's anthropomorphic.
Cont. "and glorification by them going to Hell, which is what He created them for."
ReplyDeleteThat's simplistic. He didn't create them for the sake of damning them. Rather, he creates them to reveal his justice; he creates some of them to be parents of the saints, and so on.
"Now if you think that this will have ZERO impact upon the lives of those who emulate, adore and revere such a C-God, then I respectfully disagree. It’s going to have an impact, and it’s going to be a bad one."
And what example does the A-God set for Arminians? The A-God creates some people whom he saves, only to let them fall away–all the while knowing that apostates are worse off than if he never made them and saved them in the first place. How is that loving? Isn't he harming them by making them?
The A-God lets a mugger beat an old woman senseless to steal her purse. Leaves her bleeding in the alley.
So by that example, Arminians shouldn't jump in to stop a mugging, but allow the mugger to hospitalize the defenseless old woman.
"As examples, there are the imfamous Westboro Calvinists."
They're Hypercalvinists, not Calvinists.
"There are the Anti-Missions Calvinists."
"Hypercalvinists, not Calvinism.
"There is Vincent Cheung..."
I'm not a follower of Cheung. Try dealing with my position.
"Even some C's have suggested that we ought to think like a C but live like an A, and some A’s have commented that some C’s are evangelists *in spite of* Calvinism, rather than *because* of Calvinism."
An assertion in search of an argument.
Consider an old Particular Baptist hymn
Since I'm not a Particular Baptist, who cares?
"To what degree of blame does the C-God warrant?"
None.
"What role did the C-God play as a role model for these? Were these simply being inconsistent with the C-God? You tell me."
Yes, they're simply inconsistent. Thanks for asking.
"Is Steve Hays the natural product of emulating the C-God as his role model? You tell me."
Is Billy Birch the natural product of emulating the A-God as his role model? Basic deduction. The rotten fruit of rotten theology.
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"Play games if you want."
It's your game. I played the game by your own rules. So deal with my syllogism. If I beat you at your own game, where does that leave you?
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"Is the C-God a role model? Is the C-God harsh. Would those who adore, revere and idolize the C-God have a similar tendency to want to emulate such a harsh C-God? Perhaps this touches upon the most dangerous and yet subtle aspect of Calvinism. Maybe the purpose of Arminians is to help quarantine other unsuspecting Christians of the dangers of Calvinism."
Is Yahweh a role model? Is Yahweh harsh? Should we revere Yahweh?
Arminians like Randal Rauser and Roger Olson think Yahweh is harsh.
Perhaps this touches upon the most dangerous and yet subtle aspect of Yahwism. Maybe the purpose of Nazism is to help quarantine other unsuspecting believers from the dangers of OT theism.
I stopped reading here:
ReplyDelete"'Man tends to try to emulate those whom they adore, revere and idolize.'
So Arminians like you adore, revere, and idolize pro athletes."
This is the nonsense known as "Steve Hays." There is really no point in discussing anything with you. Play games like a child. Have a nice day.
Here's another variant of Richard's argument:
ReplyDeletei) God is a role model
ii) God employed capital punishment as a form of church discipline
iii) Therefore, Calvin was right to emulate God's example in church discipline
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"There is really no point in discussing anything with you. Play games like a child. Have a nice day."
Another Arminian sore loser.
I read this after I made my comment on the previous article. You beat me to the Luke 18 re-write.
ReplyDeleteI'm an Arminian-leaning Christian myself, and let me say that I find this whole line of commentary suggesting a causal relationship between the Calvinist conception of God and the harshness that some Calvinist bloggers have been addressing within their own community to be untenable and antagonistic.
ReplyDeleteNot only do I lament that this original comment was ever made, but I am equally saddenned that it was responded to in kind.