These are remarks which some
evidently Arminian commenters left on the Mourdock thread over at Joe Carter
and Justin Taylor’s blogs. I’ve postponed direct comment on these remarks until
now.
andrewOctober 29, 2012 at 10:39 AMif you are a determinist (a la Piper who is part of TGC leadership) don't you have to say that God caused the rape. At least if he is to be logically consistent with his theology.Ps - i agree with the article, just confused that i found here at TGC.AJGOctober 26, 2012 at 3:18 pmHonest question. Why would a Calvinist find anything to disgree with in Mourdock’s statement? If God controls every particle of dust in the universe (as Piper has stated he believes), then why isn’t the rape of a woman what God intended to happen? It seems like a perfectly reasonable description of the Calvinist stance to me. It’s not just that God intended for good to come from an evil act, but that God ordainded that the evil act should take place. That’s what the media is reacting to. It seems that Calvinists are shying away or distancing themselves from the logical conclusions of their theology.AJGOctober 26, 2012 at 4:26 pmThat’s not really a good answer at all. So is Piper a “Hyper-Calvinist”? I would guess so because he believes in double predestination. If God controls all of our actions for His glory, then did He control the rapist for His glory too? Piper himself has said that it is perfectly good for God to kill women and children whenever He feels like it. He also stated that it’s good for God to order someone else to kill women and children. If that’s the case, then why isn’t it perfectly good for God to ordain a man to rape a woman or a father to rape his own daughter?AJGOctober 26, 2012 at 6:03 pmI’m asking those who adhere to the idea that God ordains and controls everything to state why they have a problem with Mourdock’s statement. Al Mohler seems to think he spoke unwisely which allowed the media to run with a caricature of God. Does God ordain rape or not? Does God control every particle in the universe or not? If yes, then what’s the problem with Mourdock’s statement?AJGOctober 26, 2012 at 6:20 pmBTW, I don’t feel the need to attack Calvinism. More learned men than me have done a far better job of dismantling it than I could ever hope to on this humble blog. Either you believe that God knows and ordains and controls all that is, was and ever will be or you do not. Al Mohler does so he should not express displeasure when someone like Mourdock speaks openly to the public about those beliefs. I’m all for speaking the truth about what you believe instead of controlling the flow of ideas in the public sphere.
Several issues:
i) AJG has things upside
down. For the most part, Mohler and the TGC bloggers were defending Mourdock. At
most, they were critical of his formulation. They offered constructive
feedback.
ii) There are two different
ways to defend someone’s statement: you could defend it on the speaker’s
grounds, or you could defend in on your own grounds.
For instance, one way to
defend Mourdock is to point out that he didn’t mean what his liberal critics
imputed to him. They twisted his words to suggest something he didn’t say or
intend to convey.
So that’s a question of what
Mourdock had in mind. You can defend his statement by correcting malicious
misinterpretations of his statement.
As far as I know, there’s no
evidence that Mourdock is a Calvinist. He seems to be a generic evangelical. As
such, it’s entirely possible that Mourdock would draw some distinctions a Calvinist would not.
However, even if (ex
hypothesi) Mourdock’s understanding of divine providence is inconsistent with
Calvinism, that doesn’t make it inconsistent for a Calvinist to defend
Mourdock’s statement. To begin with, a Calvinist could defend Mourdock’s
statement on Mourdock’s terms. What understanding lay behind his statement?
Correcting misrepresentations of Mourdock’s statement doesn’t require his
defender to agree with Mourdock’s overall theodicy.
To take a comparison–some
years ago it was revealed that Bill Bennett gambles. Liberal pundits
immediately accused Bennett of hypocrisy.
However, there’s no reason to
think he was guilty of hypocrisy. Bennett is a Roman Catholic. To my knowledge,
gambling is not inherently sinful in Catholic moral theology.
Therefore, you could
consistently defend Bennett against the charge of hypocrisy even if you
personally disapprove of his gambling habit.
iii) Conversely, a Calvinist
might defend Mourdock’s statement on Calvinist grounds. In that case, he might
agree with this gist of Mourdock’s statement, but for somewhat different
reasons.
For instance, both Mourdock
and his Reformed defenders are prolifers. That’s the point of common ground.
That’s the level at which they agree with him. They support his statement
because they are prolife and he is prolife. He was defending the unborn. By defending his statement,
they are defending the unborn. That’s perfectly consistent.
iv) These are elementary
distinctions. The fact that Arminian critics fail to draw these elementary
distinctions is a reflection of their knee-jerk hostility to Calvinism and
blind partisanship for Arminianism.
v) Which brings us to another
issue: where are the Arminians in this controversy? Why do we have Reformed
bloggers like Joe Carter, Albert Mohler, Justin Taylor who seize this
opportunity to defend the unborn, but Arminian bloggers like Ben Witherington
Scot McKnight, Roger Olson, and Brian Abasciano fall strangely silent?
Why do some Arminians always
have time to attack Calvinism, even when Calvinists are defending a worthy
cause (which has no direct bearing on Calvinism), but they don’t have time to
defend the worthy cause on their own? Why can’t Arminians declare a temporary
cease-fire in the perennial Arminian/Calvinist debates for just long enough to
defend the unborn?
Why haven’t the Arminians I
named treated the Mourdock controversy as an opportunity to defend the unborn?
Why do they abandon the field to Mohler and TGC contributors?
vi) Mohler carefully parsed
Mourdock’s statement, explaining what he agreed with and what he didn’t. The
Arminian commenter is deliberately misstating what Mohler actually said.
vii) Does God “cause” rape?
That depends on how you define causation. For instance, the decree is just a
plan. By itself, a plan doesn’t cause anything. It must be put into effect.
viii) However, what do we
mean by saying something caused something else? Here’s how one philosopher put
it:
“We think of a cause as something that makes a difference, and the difference it makes must be a difference from what would have happened without it. Had it been absent, its effects — some of them, at least, and usually all — would have been absent as well.”
On that definition, if God
allows rape, God causes rape–for allowing it to happen makes a difference. You
wouldn’t have the same outcome, absent divine allowance. That’s the
differential factor.
On that definition, the God
of Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, or open theism “causes” rape.
ix) The term “intention” is
ambiguous. In ordinary usage, there’s an obvious sense in which God intends
whatever he plans.
What’s more, if God knows
what will happen down the line should he do something, then there’s a sense in
which God intended the chain-reaction. It doesn’t a divine accident. It wasn’t
an unforeseen contingency. Rather, it was a calculated result.
And that’s unavoidable on
Arminian assumptions (i.e. belief in God’s simple foreknowledge and/or middle
knowledge, coupled with God’s creative fiat).
x) On the other hand,
“intention” is sometimes used in a more specialized sense. According to the
double-effect principle, an agent doesn’t directly intend the unfortunate
side-effect of his action. That’s a (conditionally) necessary, but incidental
or secondary consequence of his principle aim.
Put another way, God doesn’t
intend evil for evil’s sake. Rather, he intends evil to facilitate a higher
good.
xi) “Piper himself has said
that it is perfectly good for God to kill women and children whenever He feels
like it. He also stated that it’s good for God to order someone else to kill
women and children.”
a) The commenter doesn’t give
us a verbatim quote where Piper says that. I suspect Piper’s actual position is
more qualified.
b) But it’s revealing that an
Arminian commenter would attack Piper for saying “it’s good for God to order
someone else to kill women and children.” After all, that’s exactly what we
find in Scripture.
Increasingly, Arminians are
indistinguishable from atheists. Raising the very same objections. That’s how
open enemies of the faith like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens attack
Christianity.
xii) As a Calvinist, I don’t
distance myself or shy away from the logical conclusions of my theology.
Indeed, I just confronted the objections head on.
However, there are times when
you ought to express your support rather than voice your disagreement. If a
Christian is doing the right thing, you shouldn’t use that as a pretext to tear
him down so that you can ride your hobbyhorse.
And even if you’re somewhat
critical, that can be constructive criticism, where you commend his efforts and
suggest ways in which he can improve on his efforts.
For instance, I have serious
disagreements with William Lane Craig, but when he gives a good answer to a
question, I’m happy to plug his answer. I don’t use that as an excuse to cut
him down.
When Justin Taylor, Joe
Carter, or Albert Mohler are defending the unborn, it’s inappropriate for
Arminians to dilute the effect of what they are doing by diverting this into
yet another interminable debate over Calvinism.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, thanks. I’d like to comment on a few points but first I’d like to say something. I want to apologize for speaking poorly of you in public. On one hand I disagree with things you say because I always felt as if you were just being rude. I was public about that rather than just telling you myself. But over the last year I’ve been following and realize you’ve got a lot of good things to say even if we disagree. What I’ve learned is that I’ve been one of those emotionally charged people who’s had difficulty separating the argument from the emotion. So I’m sorry for that. I realize, just as you present here, often no matter our position we tend to throw the baby out with the bath water and attack our own allies because of some other disagreement – I myself have been guilty of that.
---On that definition, if God allows rape, God causes rape–for allowing it to happen makes a difference. You wouldn’t have the same outcome, absent divine allowance. That’s the differential factor.
On that definition, the God of Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, or open theism “causes” rape. ---
I agree with you. It seems to me that Arminians try to get God off the hook by saying God allows it to happen (for some greater reason – usually love and relationship). It seems Arminians should say, God loves you only as much as to preserve your freedom but not as to save you from eternal hell fire or even from a finite act of rape or worse, your child from being abducted. But then what would it mean for an Arminian to say “God loves you” and how is that to provide some real comfort if he’s restricted his sovereignty from helping you with what matters most?
---However, there are times when you ought to express your support rather than voice your disagreement. If a Christian is doing the right thing, you shouldn’t use that as a pretext to tear him down so that you can ride your hobbyhorse. ---
Agreed and bravo. Too many times because we’re so emotional, we tend to disagree with proposition we ourselves agree with. This not only makes discussions a waste of time but it irritates us as well. If we’re to really seek the truth we must recognize both the good and the bad. And when we recognize the good we should say so rather than just villianize our opponents on everything.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that Mourdock's comments that "God intends the rape" becomes the battle cry of abortionists, sure we should deal with it.
God be with you,
Dan
And when will that be?
Deletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/richard-mourdock-abortion_n_2007482.html
DeleteGod be with you,
Dan
How is your link relevant to the question of when (if at all) prominent Arminian bloggers will comment on the Mourdock kerfuffle? Keep in mind, too, that a belated reply to a topical issue is less helpful than addressing the issue when it's still in the news.
DeleteFair point. I strongly disagree with Olson's and BWIII's commments on abortion. I was mainly commenting on why I think it's OK for Arminians to address the Calvinist sounding aspects of Mourdock's comment.
DeleteGod be with you,
Dan