tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6667571267071771124..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is God the cause of evil?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28178574385260760722009-08-26T15:17:44.481-04:002009-08-26T15:17:44.481-04:00Could neal be another cleverly disguised T-blogger...<i>Could neal be another cleverly disguised T-blogger? A brand new account just to post on T-blog? hmmm...</i><br /><br />You could be right, because it's not as if anyone would actually BE a Calvinist besides T-bloggers...Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8095663281684577532009-08-26T03:42:13.762-04:002009-08-26T03:42:13.762-04:00Hey AP. I don't think the Calvinistic view com...Hey AP. I don't think the Calvinistic view commits one to occasionalism, though at first blush it may seem that way then explicated in the way I often explicate it when debating Arminians (my 3-point existential causation syllogism). <br /><br />In fact, the confessional Reformed view (1689 or Westminster) explicitly precludes occasionalism. Occasionalism, you'll recall, is defined by the view that God is the sole causal agent in the universe, and that natural events merely appear to cause other natural events, whereas in fact the causation is by God alone. Both confessions deny this, and affirm secondary or natural causation. This doesn't make them right, of course; it's just something to be aware of when discussing Calvinism, since those confessions are a large part of what Calvinism is.<br /><br />I'm not actually very familiar with the nuances of occasionalism, but it seems to me that <em>real</em> occasionalism carries a heavy burden of proof, as well as the spectre of absurdity. <em>Prima facie</em>, there are natural things which stand in causal relationships to other natural things. Thus, prima facie, if God is genuinely the sole causal actor, the occasionalist (if he is at least trying to be a Christian) is committing himself to some kind of pantheistic idealism or similar. Of course, pantheistic idealism is something Gordon Clark himself seems to have held, so I suppose that is consistent.<br /><br />For my own part, contra occasionalism, I would say that existential causation (ie, God's initial and continual causing of all creation; his instantiation of reality) doesn't seem to preclude, but rather <em>require</em>, natural causation. If God's existential causation is <em>actually causing things to exist in the way they appear</em>, then those things do indeed stand in causal relationships to each other. Those causal relationships are part what God is existentially causing.<br /><br />I think at least one reason some people (such as myself in the past) are inclined to accept occasionalism is because they think of time as quantized. That is, they imagine that the history of creation is broken into a certain number of discrete moments, which God then instantiates "one after the other", as it were, such that there is a sort of "break" between each moment. Rather like a film strip, in which a character may appear to perform a single movement, but when examined frame by frame is revealed to be frozen in a series of unrelated positions. I can't speak for you, but this is one of the reasons I had trouble understanding secondary causality myself; I saw time as this series of unrelated moments which are instantiated by God, and I couldn't see how causality could be preserved between them. It seemed like genuine causality would be "broken" each time a moment ended and a new one began. But of course, I had no particular reason to hold this view; it was just a product of my imagination—what seemed most intuitively natural to me.<br /><br />Other views of time may simply have God acting to bring about the universe (including all of time, and all its internal causal relations) <em>in toto</em> in one eternal act. There isn't any obvious reason that an eternal superposition of all actual states of the natural world would not entail genuine causation. In fact, on the contrary, it seems that such a superposition would by definition involve genuine internal causal relations in order to be complete.<br /><br />Hope this somewhat rambling, haphazard comment helps.<br /><br />Regards,<br />BnonnDominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7544446494321921122009-08-26T02:36:13.644-04:002009-08-26T02:36:13.644-04:00It seems to me that for many (not all) Arminians, ...It seems to me that for many (not all) Arminians, they reject Calvinism because to them it appears that Calvinism commits one to an occasionalistic-like view of providence whereby God metaphysically forces one to commit sin. Even though they might not be able to phrase it quite that way. So, in their thinking, it makes sense for them to say that Calvinism results in God being the "author of sin". So for example, Vincent Cheung (following in the steps of Gordon H. Clark) not only holds to occasionalism but has no problem affirming that God is the author of sin (hence the title of one of his books _The Author of Sin_ http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/authorsin.pdf). In fact, Cheung argues that the common metaphor that opponents of Calvinism use, that it makes human mere puppets, is actually not (!) strong enough. A generation earlier, Clark made similar arguments in his book _God and Evil: The Problem Solved_ (which is chapter 5 of his _Religion, Reason, and Revelation_). <br /><br />On numerous occasions (pun intended) I've said that my (limited) understanding of Calvinism seems to require that something like occasionalism to be true (assuming an A-theory of time, ala McTaggart). Even Dominic Bnonn Tennant who often posts comments here has made similar statements. But Steve and Paul (Manata), have repeatedly stated in the past that occasionalism is not the only possible view of providence. Especially since the B-theory of time (maybe even the C-theory?) might be true. Steve, I guess what I (and presumably others) would like to know is how many types of theories of divine causation can comport with the historic Calvinistic view (without committing to one particular view)? I'm especially interested because I'm more of a Van Tillian than a Clarkian/Cheungian in my theology, philosophy and apologetics.<br /><br />btw, I typed up this post *after* I read the recent blogs titled:<br />What is determinism? <br />Allowing evil <br />Divine permission <br />The Arminian nurseryANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82716665307166522802009-08-25T21:18:47.466-04:002009-08-25T21:18:47.466-04:00Better to talk about the fact that you haven't...Better to talk about the fact that you haven't seen a commenter before (I, on the other hand, have) than talk about the deficiencies in one's position!Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48301061899801181972009-08-25T18:05:29.731-04:002009-08-25T18:05:29.731-04:00Bossmanham said:
Could neal be another cleverly d...Bossmanham said:<br /><br /><b>Could neal be another cleverly disguised T-blogger? A brand new account just to post on T-blog? hmmm...</b><br /><br />I have no idea who Neal is. But so what if he is another Tblogger?<br /><br />1. In light of the fact that, at least as far as I'm aware, he hasn't violated any sort of protocol or whatever, shouldn't we give Neal the benefit of the doubt that he is who he says he is, i.e. Neal?<br /><br />2. Also, all things being equal, isn't the more important issue what we think of his argument than what we think of his identity?<br /><br />3. Moreover, not that I grant your contention (again I simply don't know), but even if I did, it's not as if using pseudonyms is inherently wrong.<br /><br />4. And it's not as if Arminians (among others) don't use pseudonyms.<br /><br />In fact, isn't Bossmanham a pseudonym for your real name, Brennon Hartshorn?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42733708486311912272009-08-25T14:59:55.713-04:002009-08-25T14:59:55.713-04:00Could neal be another cleverly disguised T-blogger...Could neal be another cleverly disguised T-blogger? A brand new account just to post on T-blog? hmmm...bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23507495710710624782009-08-25T12:43:28.803-04:002009-08-25T12:43:28.803-04:00AH doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of his ow...AH doesn't seem to have a firm grasp of his own position let alone the Calvinist position.<br /><br />AH, stop with the "easysolutionist" epithet. It's lame and contributes nothing to the debate. It's a term that is vague at best and meaningless at worst. But then I guess the demand for precise definitions is too "easysolutionist" for you...Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55575997308461450372009-08-25T11:10:54.753-04:002009-08-25T11:10:54.753-04:00Are you playing dumb, or are you really that dense...Are you playing dumb, or are you really that dense? I'm responding to Arminians on there own terms. When they attack Calvinism, they use causal categories. So they need to define their terms and distinguish their position from the opposing position.<br /><br />Moreover, it's not as if I don't give exegetical arguments in support of Calvinism, or exegetical arguments in opposition to Arminianism.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47815358817976781012009-08-25T11:07:58.300-04:002009-08-25T11:07:58.300-04:00"Is God the cause of evil?"
Lots of lot..."Is God the cause of evil?"<br /><br />Lots of lots of philosophy but who cares what the holy bible says, right? <br /><br />Some application of Sola Scriptura would be helpful too, for this principle radically rules out any philosphy of God being the cause of sin! <br /><br />But why bother what the bible teaches and implies, if you have your own man-made easysolutionistic little world made up once upon a time where everything must fit in now, just for the sake of saving this world--whatever the cost.<br /><br />It is really getting embarrassing how much sophistic efforts are spent and how long you waffle around the holy scriptures with philosophical gymnastics just in order to save Calvinism, come what may.<br /><br />Honestly, Calvinism's efforts to arrive at God as the cause of evil are not to be taken seriously for sincere bible believing christians.<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.com