Pages

Monday, April 15, 2013

Chess or Dominos?

According to a common Arminian analogy, God is like a Grand Master chess player while we are mere novices. We can make our moves, but God is going to win the game no matter what we choose to move.

There are two problems with this analogy. The first has been discussed here before, in that such an analogy simply is the definition of fatalism. Fatalism is when the end is assured no matter what choices are made by the actors involved. In Greek mythology, where this concept first emerged, this is seen in the fact that someone is told their future doom, and in seeking to avoid that future doom the actor brings about the very doom that he was seeking to avoid. To give an example, suppose someone is fated to die by drowning. To avoid this, he moves to the middle of the desert, makes sure that there are no bodies of water nearby—not even sinks or bathtubs. On the day he is fated to drown, he is thirsty and gets a cup of water. While drinking, he hiccups, inhales the water into his lungs, and drowns. Thus, his fate is confirmed despite how hard he tried to get around it.

This is precisely what the chess analogy does, however. No matter what moves the player opposite God makes, he is fated to lose the game. It is impossible for him to make a move that would checkmate God, in such an analogy.

It is important to make a distinction between this and the Calvinist view of determinism. Under Calvinism, were it not for the exact choices that we make, the end result would not attain. In other words, contra the Arminian position that no matter what choice we make God will win in the end, the Calvinist position is that God will win in the end precisely because he has ensured what choices we will make.

In this sense, Calvinism is more akin to someone who has set up an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine. Or for a simpler concept, think of a set of dominos. He pushes the first domino over, and the last domino is destined to fall because every single needed domino is in the exact position it needs to be in so that when it falls it will push over the next domino. If the domino were to be in a different position, the cascade would stop and the final domino would not fall.

With this in mind, we can now look at the second problem the chess analogy exposes in Arminianism. Under the chess analogy, none of our choices actually matter. Whether we move a pawn or a knight for our first move will not impact the fact that we are going to lose the game. As such, if the chess analogy is an accurate representation of Arminianism, then what it teaches us is that our free will is irrelevant to the end goal God has in mind. Our choices simply do not matter one bit. We can choose anything and it won’t affect the outcome.

In other words, the chess analogy offers us freedom in exchange for irrelevance. Just as it does not matter that the man fated to drown moved to the middle of the desert, so too it does not matter what we choose to do with our lives. The end is has been fated. This trivializes our choices and renders them nonsensical.

On the contrary, however, the Calvinist view demonstrates that our choices are meaningful and, indeed, necessary for the end God has in mind. Without our exact choices being exactly what they are, the end result would not attain at all. The end, therefore, is dependent upon what we choose. Our choices simply are the plan that God has put in place.

So what are we to make of these choices under Calvinism? They are, as the Westminster Confession calls it, the secondary causes by which God enacts His will. Our choices are what God uses to enact His will. He has created each and every one of us, knows us intimately and knows what influences must be in place in order for us to make the exact choice needed to render His will enacted. Unlike the chess master who must wait for us to act in order to know what to do next, God is an artist who has put the pieces of his carefully constructed scenario into place so that each bit will function precisely as intended along the entire path.

Thus, if you believe that the chess analogy is an accurate representation of Arminian theology, and you also believe that your choices are relevant and matter, then you cannot consistently hold to Arminian theology. But there is still plenty of room for you in the Calvinist camp.

18 comments:

  1. Thought I'd comment just because our evening service message was Luke 13:31-35 and I had a thought sorta similar to this post during the message. I thought... If I were a bad guy and I had all my evil, diabolical schemes for world domination (which I surely would be doing apart from Christ) constantly thwarted by the good guy who not only stopped my machinations, but made good come out of them, I wouldn't be surprised because that's the good guy trope. But if the good guy said, "Bad guy, my good guy plans are so operative, so well-functioning and appropriate and comprehensive, they only work if you plan and execute your evil plans... Because they aren't just reactions to your schemes or incorporate your schemes, they depend on your schemes" I would totally throw in the towel and be like, "that's messed up, I'm switching sides." It's enough incentive to quit being evil, concede the battle, and praise the good guy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter,

    I always appreciate your posts. Can I ask a question, though. You say:

    "He has created each and every one of us, knows us intimately and knows what influences must be in place in order for us to make the exact choice needed to render His will enacted."

    First, is this molinism?

    Second, given what you have said, are decisions themselves outside God's providence (as opposed to influences that give rise to those decisions)?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello AMC,
      You ask, "First, is this molinism?" And that's easy to answer: nope! :-) The way Molinists typically present their view is that God knows all possible universes that could come about given an agent's freedom, and then He picks which universe to instantiate from those possibilities. In my view, what occurs is that God wants a particular end and then creates the agent within the universe so that the agent will be exactly what that agent needs to be in order for that end to be realized.

      In other words, Molinism is sort of a view of God making do with the pieces He has available, whereas my view is that God is the one creating the pieces in the first place.

      This may shed some light on your second question too, but to answer it fully would depend a bit on what you mean by the characterization of "outside God's providence." If you don't mind clarifying that a little, I would be more than happy to answer.

      Delete
  3. I just can't swallow that He set up the dominoes knowing that countless millions would be tortured for an eternity in Hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your response here highlights a misunderstanding of God's omniscience. Even under Arminianism, you have God "knowing that countless millions would be tortured for an eternity in Hell."

      Delete
    2. Hello Peter. I am a former Fundamentalist Evangelical Calvinist. I am now what you may call agnostic. I am not at all arguing for Arminianism and against Calvinism. I am arguing against Christianity and the Bible. Why did God create people that he knew he would be torturing for an eternity in Hell, and how is it that I misunderstand God's omniscience?

      Delete
    3. Hello Scott,
      My assumption that you were an Arminian-leaning individual was incorrect, then! However, you have provided no argument; you have merely told us what you cannot stomach and have asked a question. Those are not arguments.

      You asked "Why did God create people that he knew he would be torturing for an eternity in Hell?" First of all, I disagree with your assertion that God will torture anyone in Hell. "Torture" is a pejorative term. Justice is meted out in Hell, not torture. The only pain that is there is pain that is deserved. There is no unjust suffering in Hell.

      But why do you think you should have an answer to this question of why God does it? Supposing that there was no answer that you or I could comprehend, how would the lack of answer here be relevant to whether or not God does it? After all I could ask, "How does Windows handle keyboard input when I type out a comment on a blog?" But not knowing the answer to that question does not preclude me from typing, nor does it mean that there is no answer to the question, nor does it mean that blogs don't exist.

      I'm not trying to be flippant in my response to you. It's just that your question exposes an underlying presupposition that you seem to hold--a presupposition that renders any response I make irrelevant, since it's the presupposition that needs to be addressed rather than the specific question.

      That said, Romans 9 gives you the answer to your specific question:

      ---
      You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
      ---

      I doubt this will satisfy you, but as I stated above it's not the question you ask that is problematic, but rather your assumptions. What is morality without God? If God sets the rules, who are you to complain about them? Why should your dislike of them matter to whether or not they are enforced? Why should God consult with you before He does what He wants to do?

      Delete
    4. Hello Peter. I had a really good reply to this, and I thought I posted it yesterday, but now I don't see it. That's technology for ya. Anyway, I very much appreciate your response. You are correct in saying the passage from Romans is not satisfying, but you have provided me much insight into what I am actually taking issue with. I am sorry that I am not familiar with logical argumentation, I just want to know what the truth is.

      I guess the problem I have is that God in the Bible seems to be inconsistent. The Bible says that it is not his will that any should perish, and that he takes no pleasure in the death of anyone. If he takes no pleasure in it, why doesn't he stop it?

      From your answer in Romans, it seems like he does want it. He wants to make his wrath and power known.

      The underlying presupposition that I hold is about the definition of Good. The Bible says that God is good. But to me, it does not seem good for him to create us, knowing that we would only use our free will(If you believe in that) to reject him, and then only choose to save the elect, and send countless millions to Hell for eternity. And sure, you could say that their sins sent them to hell, but when God is all powerful, and all knowing, and he creates us, and this place, I would say he is responsible.

      The potter has the right to do with the clay whatever he chooses, but what he does with it reveals his character.

      Delete
    5. (part 1)
      Hello once more, Scott!

      I am heartened that you do want to know what the truth is. That's always a worthy goal. In fact, Christ said the truth will set you free (John 8:32). With that in mind, I would urge you to become more familiar with logical argumentation, because I believe it is one of the best tools to help understand what the truth is.

      I can understand why you think the Bible is inconsistent. The passages you referenced above are often interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with Calvinism by non-Calvinists; but Calvinists also have an interpretation of the passages.

      For instance, you reference 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." The key to understanding this passage is to understand what "any" and "all" are referring to. Both "any" and "all" are adjectives, which require nouns to be associated with them. In your interpretation of the verse, you have supplied the noun "people" (or synonyms like "man" or "person", etc.) so that you are reading the verse as: "not wishing that any person should perish, but that all people should reach repentance."

      However, the verse itself actually gives us the noun the adjectives are referring to: "The Lord...is patient toward you." It is this "you" that the adjectives refer to, and thus the passage should be read: "not wishing that any of you should perish, but that all of you should reach repentance." The "you" is previously defined by Peter in 2 Peter 3:1 "This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved." The beloved are further defined earlier in the letter: "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood" (2 Peter 1:1b-2).

      So he is speaking specifically to the elect exiles, which can be generalized to the elect as a whole, but which would cause contradictions (as you noticed) if it were generalized to every single person on Earth. Thus, the Bible does not teach that God wills that non should perish, but rather that He wills than non of His elect should perish. Whether you accept this theology or not, I trust you can see that it is consistent.

      Now regarding you second referenced passage, that is found in Ezekiel 18:32, "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live." Here, the "anyone" is, in context, applied to the entire nation of Israel and, as such, does not make the distinction between the elect and non-elect. Does that make it a contradiction then? I still argue that it does not, for in this case it depends on what is meant by "take pleasure." God takes pleasure in His plan being fulfilled, but that doesn't mean He takes pleasure in each part of it equally--or even at all.

      Consider an analogy. Suppose that you want to have strong muscles, so you go to the gym and work out. Now you can say, "I take no pleasure in aching muscles and sore joints" while you still take pleasure in the fact that you are more in shape, can run further, and are better looking, etc. Thus, it is both true that you take no pleasure in the pain of working out, and yet you go through that because it is necessary for you to reach your end goal.

      With God, He takes no pleasure in the deaths of even the wicked. He is merciful and offers them the ability to be saved, should they be willing. He then ensures and guarantees that a specific set of people are willing (the elect). If the non-elect decided to follow Him, He would not force them to be sinners--He would accept them fully. But He knows that none shall turn to Him of their own accord.

      Delete
    6. (part 2)

      Next, you said “And sure, you could say that their sins sent them to hell, but when God is all powerful, and all knowing, and he creates us, and this place, I would say he is responsible.” I agree that He is responsible too, but responsibility has various meanings. I think what you are saying is that God is not merely responsible but also culpable (that is, the morality of what happens hinges on God).

      Consider this distinction. If you have a child, you are responsible for the fact that the child exists. After all, had you not had relations then the child would never have come into the world. Yet you are not culpable when your grown child commits a crime, even though you are responsible for that child’s existence in the first place. Similarly, God can be responsible for the existence of all the sinners without actualizing the sin itself in such a way that He is responsible for everything that happens, but the agents are culpable for what they have done.

      You can see an example of this in Scripture in the book of Isaiah. “Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few (Isaiah 10:5-7)”. Consequently, God says: “Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it, or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood! Therefore the Lord GOD of hosts will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors, and under his glory a burning will be kindled, like the burning of fire” (verses 15-16).

      In other words, God used Assyria to punish Israel, but Assyria did not attack Israel because Assyria wanted to obey God. Instead, Assyria’s motives were to tear down and destroy all the surrounding nations. As a result, after God uses Assyria to destroy Israel, He brings down punishment on Assyria too. Assyria did what God wanted, since God had decided to punish Israel; yet Assyria was culpable because Assyria had evil motives for doing so, while God’s motives were righteous. Thus, God was responsible for Israel’s destruction under Assyria, yet Assyria was culpable for the evil that Assyria did.

      Now, I understand again that this might not be something that you agree with. But I still trust that you see that the Reformed view is consistent here. In other words, if you dislike it, it cannot be because there’s a contradiction within the theology.

      Delete
    7. (part 3)
      Finally, you ended: “The potter has the right to do with the clay whatever he chooses, but what he does with it reveals his character.” Again, I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that I don’t think you’re looking at this from the correct perspective. God does not have to save anyone, yet He has chosen to do so. We are owed nothing but justice, and God has decided to give justice to some and mercy to others. The fact that God has decided to use any of these pots to make something beautiful in the first place is astonishing, and it reveals His character that He would do so.

      Perhaps you would say that God would better reveals His character by saving everyone—but if so, then He would not be able to reveal the character of His justice and His wrath against sin. So part of Him would be hidden and unknowable. If God wants to show us both mercy and justice, then some pots will have to receive mercy and some justice. There is no other way for Him to show us experientially that He is a God of both justice and mercy than if there is both justice and mercy in effect.

      So I agree that what God does shows His character. The difference is, I believe that it shows His character is a good character, whereas you seem to think that what He does shows God has poor character. The onus is on you at this point to show how God would be showing poor character in that regard. And the onus is also on you to demonstrate how you came to your understanding of morality and why it should trump God’s morality.

      Delete
    8. Thank you Peter, for your exhaustive and informative response. I am glad that you are fully convinced. This seems to be a solid argument to the consistency of your theology, and you correctly lay the onus on me in both of those cases. But, let me tell you, I do not believe that God exists, and for to prove that God exists, and that the God you worship is the one that exists, I would say the onus is on you. I am sure I have made a bucketfull of logical fallacies, and I appreciate you meeting me where I am, and having a meaningful discussion with me.

      I will be taking a break from internet interactions for a time, so this will be my last comment. I appreciate very much your help.

      PS. If I die first, I will let you know if there is an afterlife. Will you do the same for me?

      Thanks so much,

      Scott

      Delete
  4. I am guessing that you do not realize that the Chess Master Analogy is not an Arminian argument but that of several Open Theists including Boyd, Geach, Sanders, and several others. So I suppose if you replaced "Arminian" with "Open Theist", your argument might make more sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ---
      Let's suppose that I am playing chess against the world's greatest (I only know the rules of chess - I do not play the game at all). I am free to make any legal move I wish - my opponent, expert though he is, does not control my moves. Each time it is my turn, I
      have a large number of legal moves that I can make. And since I am a bad player, my opponent will probably have very little idea what move I will make - the worse that
      I am, the less predictable will be my moves.

      Even though my opponent (the expert) does not control my moves, he is still almost certainly guaranteed to win. Why? Because his skill and knowledge so greatly exceeds mine that any move I make will not thwart his ultimate purpose - to place me in checkmate.
      With God, the situation is even more extreme. He can give up control of a number of variables and still accomplish his goals - unless, of course, one maintains that God has a plan the prescribes every event in the universe, down to when some proton in intergalactic space is going to decay.

      Arminian Drew (http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/false_ch/PREDESTINATION%20DEBATE%20WITH%20AN%20ARMINIAN.pdf)
      ---

      ---
      Consider the example of a chess master who can (by whatever means) perfectly anticipate an opponent’s move. He sets up a gambit knowing the counter-move his opponent will make as a result. Did the chess master ‘author’ his opponent’s move by virtue of knowing it and setting a condition by which it would occur? Hardly. The opponent’s own move is still his own move; neither the chess master’s knowledge nor his own moves are relevant to who actually authored his opponent’s moves. To declare that God in framing the world (analogous to His ‘initial move’ with respect to us) somehow makes Him the author of what He knew would be our resulting free choices would be falls into this same trap of illogicality and equivocation.

      J.C. Thibodaux (http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/) reprinted by SEA here: http://evangelicalarminians.org/more-on-the-authorship-of-sin/
      ---

      Delete
    2. Fair enough. You found two examples of an Arminian using the open theist argument. I suppose that means it is a common Arminian argument.

      Delete
    3. Arminians like Roger Olson and Brian Abasciano (president of SEA) regard open theism as one of the varieties of Arminianism.

      Delete
  5. Peter,

    I'll *try* to be more specific. You say: "He has created each and every one of us, knows us intimately and knows what influences must be in place in order for us to make the exact choice needed to render His will enacted." I guess I am asking what *guarantees* (causes) the choice. Is it the case that what you refer to as influences are, together with the nature of the agent, jointly sufficient to necessitate the ordained outcome?

    You say: " In my view, what occurs is that God wants a particular end and then creates the agent within the universe so that the agent will be exactly what that agent needs to be in order for that end to be realized."

    What do you mean by "creates the agent"? Is this a front-loaded thing or an on-going thing?

    When it comes to the hardening of pharaoh's heart, is the hardening an 'influence input' or a change to pharaoh's nature (a bringing about what pharaoh needs to be in order for a particular end to be realised)?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here I take my cue from Psalm 139. It begins: "O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether" (verses 1-4). This details God's intimate knowledge of us. Now does David say God gets His knowledge of us by the fact that He knows the future? No, instead:

      "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (verses 13-16).

      In other words, God knows us intimately because He designed us intimately. And during the process of our creation, He formed the days for us as well. In other words, His act of knitting us together wasn't just to create us as individuals. Instead, days were also formed for us too.

      In short, God doesn't just create you and me, He forms our days too.

      Now you ask if this is a front-loaded thing or an on-going thing. There are aspects to both. Obviously, God has a plan in place before He creates us, but that plan also involves Him acting. Since none of us are saved without the regeneration of His Spirit, to the very least He must act within time to grant us spiritual life in addition to the physical life which He grants at conception. So it's not just a deistic distancing where God sets up everything in advance and then lets the universe run like clockwork. No, He is an intimate and immediate God, and He enjoys His creation.

      In Pharaoh's case specifically, I actually think it's the opposite of how you characterize it above though. You ask if it's a hardening influence, or if God changes Pharaoh's nature. Rather than those options, I see it that God removes His common grace from Pharaoh, and the result is that Pharaoh is as evil as Pharaoh wants to be. In other words, it's not an influence--it's the lack of influence. Before that point, God has kept Pharaoh in check with His common grace, but now He removes that influence which has actively made Pharaoh better than Pharaoh would have been.

      It's like Jonathan Edwards' illustration in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. God doesn't dangle people over the pit, as people so often characterize Edwards' sermon. Instead, He holds sinners to keep them from falling in the pit of their own weight. Yet sinners still rebel against God. They do not realize that God could, at any moment, remove His hand and let them fall, or that they are only not destroyed because of His mercy and grace. This is how God acted with Pharaoh. He removed His grace and Pharaoh fell into the pit.

      Delete