Wayne Grudem has argued in favor of Romney for president:
http://townhall.com/columnists/WayneGrudem/2007/10/18/why_evangelicals_should_support_mitt_romney?page=full&comments=true
I’ll briefly comment on his reasons. (I’ll excerpt his reasons rather than quote them in full. You can read the whole article if you like.)
“The best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record.”
I agree with Grudem that what someone did in the past (especially when he was in power) is the most reliable indicator of what he will do in future, if we return him to power. It’s far from infallible, but it’s the best available evidence that we’ve got to go by.
“He is incredibly intelligent.”
I agree with Grudem that Romney seems to be very smart. But that, of itself, can either be a plus or a minus. Bill Clinton was very smart. Napoleon was very smart. Robert Reich is very smart. Larry Tribe is very smart. Robert Rubin is very smart. Noam Chomsky is very smart.
I’d rather have a smart president promoting good policy initiatives rather than a dumb president promoting good policy initiatives, but, unfortunately, those are not the only alternatives.
If push came to shove, I’d rather have a dumb president promoting bad policy initiatives instead of a smart president promoting bad policy initiatives.
High I.Q. is morally neutral. Whether it’s a vice or a virtue all depends on what cargo it’s pulling.
“Governor of Massachusetts: He won the governor’s race as a Republican in Massachusetts and restored financial discipline to the state. He was a successful governor of a liberal state.”
This skates over the issue of how he won and how he governed. Yes, he may have restored financial discipline to the state, but from a Christian standpoint, is that our overriding priority?
Did he run as a social conservative? Did he govern as a social conservative? I notice that Grudem glosses over that question.
“He knows how to run businesses, and what makes them profitable. This indicates a deep and also practical understanding of what kind of policies will be helpful or harmful to an economy, and second, an outstanding management ability proven in both state government and in business, which is a good predictor of ability to be an excellent President.”
I agree with Grudem that a Romney administration would probably be much better for the economy than a Hillary administration. But is the economic bottom line the moral bottom line for Christians? Once again, I’m struck by Grudem’s priorities.
“Chairman of Olympic Games: He also rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. When he was brought in to run the Games he turned what was heading to a scandal-ridden financial and PR disaster into a widely-praised success. This involved massive skill in public relations, media management, diplomacy, morale building, and financial administration. This is Romney’s consistent track record: he solves large problems.”
Here my evaluation is the same as the I.Q. question. Whether a problem-solver is a virtue or a vice in the oval office all depends on what he thinks the problems are, and what he thinks the solutions are.
For example, pundits often complain about Congressional gridlock. But whether that’s good or bad turns who is in power. When the Democrats are in power, I much prefer Congressional gridlock to a well-oiled legislative process that spits out one dreadful law after another.
At present, the Congressional republicans don’t have the votes to pass good legislation, but they do have, at least some of the time, enough votes to block a certain amount of bad legislation, and for that I’m thankful.
Rudy is also a resume of impressive accomplishments. But the question is what would he accomplish?
“Romney’s positions on social, economic, and international issues are all soundly conservative.”
What’s striking about this claim is the way in which Grudem abandons his criterion. He initially told us that “the best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record.”
However, he falls notably silent when it comes to Romney’s track-record on social issues. It’s because I agree with Grudem’s criterion that I disagree with his conclusion, since he’s made no effort to apply his stated criterion to Romney’s campaign promises.
“On major issues such as…a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage.”
Although I don’t oppose such an amendment, I don’t think this is where we should put our time and effort. For one thing, it wouldn’t outlaw homosexual civil unions.
In addition, I think it’s one of those decoys which insincere politicians use to placate the religious right. Distract us and divert us with an empty, emblematic gesture.
“Some people object that Romney has ‘flip-flopped’ on some of these positions. I think that accusation is exaggerated.”
I don’t know Grudem’s source of information. Both Jason Engwer and I have cited sources which seem to document his opportunistic policy reversals.
“He hasn’t flip-flopped back and forth, he has simply become more consistently conservative.”
He’s become more rhetorically consistent—but why should we believe that this reflects a genuine change in outlook, and not a sheer political calculation? I find it ironic that a Reformed theologian forgets the doctrine of original sin when it comes to campaign promises.
“I think that’s a good thing in a political and media climate that is more and more liberal.”
It’s a good thing if it’s sincere. It’s not a good thing if the timing just happens to coincide with a bid for the GOP nomination.
“(In fact, Ronald Reagan also changed from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to being a consistently pro-life president.)”
Two problems with this comparison:
i) Reagan’s evolution from liberal to conservative wasn’t an overnight conversion experience.
ii) It’s also a question of the alternative. In the case of Reagan, it came down to a choice between Reagan and Carter, or Reagan and Mondale—in the general election.
But we’re talking about the primaries. This isn’t, as of yet, a choice between Romney and Hillary. Rather, it’s a choice between Romney and other contenders for the GOP nomination.
“Evangelicals have worked for decades to persuade people of the pro-life position, and Romney has been persuaded, and he is strongly on our side on this issue.”
Possibly, but why is Grudem so credulous?
“But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.”
True, and that’s because Mormonism is a Christian heresy. But Mormonism isn’t monolithic. It has its own version of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy, just as you find in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Mormons range along an ideological spectrum—from far left to far right. It seems to me that Grudem’s impression of Mormon family values has been formed by watching too many reruns of Donny & Marie.
I’d add that the traditional Mormon paradigm of family values is polygamy rather than monogamy.
“Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian?”
That’s a good question, but, in context, it’s also a question-begging question since it presumes that Romney is politically conservative.
“Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a ‘Christian nation’ and only want evangelical Christians in office.”
I myself am quite comfortable with that accusation.
“For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidate—someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible.”
Well, that’s an interesting comparison, but it also glosses over some important differences. For one thing, although the Jewish canon is incomplete, it’s an authentic divine revelation as far as it goes. That’s quite different from the Mormon apocrypha.
Conservative Judaism mainly goes astray because it’s deficient, and not because it’s positively false in the way that Mormonism is.
“Here in Arizona a few years ago I voted for Matt Salmon, a Mormon candidate for governor. He lost, but his policies would have been much more conservative than those of Janet Napolitano, who has now vetoed dozens of pro-life, pro-family bills.”
This assumes that Romney is a conservative Mormon. It also fails to distinguish between primaries and general elections.
“Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians?”
That oversimplifies the issue.
“I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes.”
Grudem proceeds to cherry-pick the best examples of pagan rulers. But what about Ahab, Jezebel, Athalia, Nero, Caligula, Diocletian, Antiochus Epiphanies, Julian the Apostate, and so on and so forth?
“Here in the United States, God used not only Founding Fathers who were strong Christians, but also Deists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to build the foundation of our nation. Jefferson even became our third President in 1801, a demonstration of the wisdom of Article 6 of the Constitution, which says, ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States’.”
So Grudem wouldn’t object to an Aztec or Satanist or Scientologist or Jihadist for president on religious grounds?
“The Bible tells us to pray not just for Christians who happen to have government offices, but ‘for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way’ (1 Timothy 2:2). It is not just Christians in government but all governing authorities who are ‘instituted by God’ (Romans 13:1) and whom Paul can call ‘God’s servant for your good’ (Romans 13:4).”
What does imperial Rome have to do with the democratic process of electing a head-of-state? I’m sure that if he were alive today, St. Paul would call upon us to pray for Pres. Romney (assuming he gets the top job), but I’m not at all sure that St. Paul would pen an op-ed calling upon Evangelicals to vote for a polytheist.
“When people get to know who Romney is, his Mormonism seems not to be a big deal in a political election. The hypothetical question, ‘Would you vote for a Mormon?’ is very different from, ‘Now that you have gotten to know who Mitt Romney is, would you vote for him?’ The more voters get to know him, the more his Mormonism doesn’t matter much.”
And one of the reasons for this is that so-called Evangelical leaders like Grudem are telling them that his Mormonism doesn’t matter very much. I don’t wish to be mean about this, but it reminds me of the Arian controversy, in which the hierarchy favored the Arian cause while the laity favored the Orthodox cause.
“In addition, I think Romney would not just tie but win in presidential debates against Hillary Clinton: he’s smarter, more articulate, and more experienced.”
Yes, I can easily imagine Romney trouncing Hillary in a debate. I can also imagine Rudy and Huckabee trouncing Hillary in a debate.
“In addition, nearly everyone who has known Romney finds him genuinely likable, which would work to his advantage over Hillary’s abrasive personality in the long months of a campaign.”
Well, I agree with the second half of this, but I also think that many people find Romney’s public persona more than a bit preppy, which you’d expect, given his patrician upbringing and education. It’s ordinarily the Democrats who run preppy candidates, and preppy candidates have a way of losing in the general election. Rudy, Huckabee, and McCain all have an earthy, authentic demeanor that connects with a wide swath of the electorate in a way that Romney does not.
“There are other Republican candidates with conservative positions, but they haven’t generated anywhere near as much support as Romney, probably because more and more voters are deciding that Romney is much better qualified (my point above), and that he is simply the best candidate: articulate, persuasive, intelligent, mature, strong, successful in several fields and a genuine leader.”
I think that oversimplifies the issues on both sides of the equation. On the one hand, Romney can afford to buy name recognition in a way that Huckabee, Hunter—or, if you prefer, Ron Paul—cannot.
On the other hand, name recognition cuts both ways. Rudy and McCain both enjoy instant name recognition, but with that comes a certain amount of baggage.
I’d add that, at a gut level, I find Rudy more impressive than Romney, although I’d never vote for Rudy.
“Therefore it seems to me that supporting Mitt Romney who has a very reasonable chance of winning makes more sense at this point than supporting someone who is not persuading many Republican voters.”
That may be, although it may also be a circular proposition. I won’t vote for so-and-so because he can’t win, and he can’t win because I’ve convinced enough other voters that he can’t win, in which case there’s no point voting for him…
“Or speculating about supporting a third-party candidate who can’t win.”
I agree with Grudem that the third-party candidacy is a blind alley.
“And who would effectively hand Hillary Clinton 2 to 4 Supreme Court appointments and thereby undo 25 years of pro-life work in trying to change the Supreme Court.”
Maybe. Remember, though, that Supreme Court candidates are nominated rather than appointed. They must still be confirmed by the senate. It’s not a forgone conclusion that the Democrats will hold the senate in 2008. The approval rating of Congress has gone from bad to worse under the Democrats.
“As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative.”
As I recall, Thompson’s voting record, which is his track record, is more conservative than Romney’s track record. McCain is a maverick: to the right of Romney on some issues, and to his left on others.
In addition, Grudem is oversimplifying the comparison. You can either compare than in terms of their current campaign rhetoric or their respective track-records.
“So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate.”
This is true, but it’s true because it’s circular. You could just as well say that if enough Evangelicals don’t throw their support behind Huckabee or Hunter or McCain or Ron Paul, that Rudy will win by default.
“So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife.”
I don’t disagree with this analysis. However, Rudy has also pledged to nominate conservative candidates to the Supreme Court. He’s also said he would support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if too many states go the way of Massachusetts.
Why is Grudem so trusting when Romney makes that campaign promise, but so distrustful when Rudy makes the same campaign promise? Either be consistently sceptical or consistently gullible.
“Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the ‘middle’.”
But this is transparently bogus. You don’t claim the moral high ground by plugging Romney as the most expedient choice. That doesn’t inspire the base.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
2007 Triad Apologetics Conference
If you will be in the Piedmont Triad area of North Carolina, you are more than welcome to join us for our first Triad Apologetics Conference. This conference will be FREE OF CHARGE and OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Our speakers this year will be J.P. Holding, Dr. R.K. MacGregor Wright and Rob Lundberg.
J.P. HOLDING
Mr. James Patrick Holding has earned a Masters' in Library Science from Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. He recently completed the Christian Apologetics Instructor Certification with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mr. Holding is the founder and director of Tekton Apologetics Ministries , an evangelical ministry committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. J. P. has been published in the Christian Research Journal as well as The Journal of Creation and has published two books, The Mormon Defenders and The Impossible Faith. J. P. has taught on apologetics, cults, and Biblical reliability issues for numerous church related events and is a member of First Baptist Church in Leesburg, Florida with his wife Susan.
DR. R. K. McGREGOR WRIGHT and JULIA CASTLE
Dr. Wright holds a B.D. from London University, a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Ph.D. from Denver University/Iliff School of Theology. With his wife, Julia Castle MA, and a qualified Mediator, he co-directs the Aquila and Priscilla Study Center, a Bible and Apologetics teaching ministry in East Tennessee. From 1977-85 they developed the International Student Ministry of a Baptist Church in Denver, with emphasis on witnessing to Muslim students, then founded the Aquila and Priscilla Study Center, concerned with developing Apologetics, Church History and Theology Seminars for Evangelical Churches. Bob is currently preparing books for publication, and is the author of No Place For Sovereignty (IVP, 1996) critiquing "Openness" theology of Dr. Clark Pinnock.
ROB LUNDBERG
Mr. Rob Lundberg has earned a B.A. in Pastoral Ministries from Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee OK, an M.Div. from Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He is currently working on the Christian Apologetics Instructor Certification with the North American Mission Board
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Saturday, November 10, 2007
1:00-1:40 pm Rob Lundberg - Responding to Cultural Relativism
1:45-2:25 pm Rob Lundberg - Responding to Religious Pluralism
2:30-3:10 pm Rob Lundberg - Understanding Worldviews
3:15-3:55 pm J. P. Holding – Trusting the New Testament 1
4:00-4:40 pm J. P. Holding – Trusting the New Testament 2
4:45-5:25 pm J. P. Holding – Trusting the New Testament 3
5:30-6:20 pm R. K. MacGregor Wright - What IS "Islam? Introductory Considerations
6:25-7:05 pm R. K. MacGregor Wright - What is "Jihad"? Political Correctness vs. The Documentation
Break for the evening
Sunday, November 11, 2007
10:15-11:05 am R.K. MacGregor Wright - Muhammed and His Qur'an
11:10-12:00 noon Julia Castle - Is The Muslim My Neighbor?
12:00-1:15 pm Agape Meal (Lord's Supper Meal and Fellowship)
1:20-2:10 pm R.K. MacGregor Wright - Reaching the Muslim Mind. Islamic Apologetics
Have a question or a comment about what you've read? Let us help.
Scientific Study Disproving Science
Although I have written about this before, today I read an article that claimed Parallel Universes Exist – Study. Here are some quick excerpts:
Hume’s inductive problem tells us that just because we have always seen the sun rise each morning does not guarantee that it will rise tomorrow morning. But those who address Hume can at least retreat to the probability argument: given the multitude of times the sun has risen and the fact that it has never not risen, there is no reason to doubt the sun will rise.
The multiverse theory, however, does not have the ability to fall back to probability, because the fact of the matter is that there are no odds left. The sun literally does not rise tomorrow in some universe (and this can be caused by any number of things: perhaps nuclear fission results in the sun exploding; or perhaps the heart of the sun quantum leaps to the Orion Nebula.
As a result of all this, perhaps a better headline for that article could have been: Science Doesn’t Exist – Study. Because you cannot have science when your framework is everything happens in SOME universe. There is no scientific reason, under this theory, why an action occurs in any specific universe (it’s random as to which universe it will act in and which it will not), and therefore science cannot explain anything that occurs. Not only are we left with no inductive reasoning, we are left without causation either. (Why is it that x follows y? Because this universe had that particular random split occur…)
Naturally, Quantum Mechanics is difficult to understand. But one thing we know is that you cannot “solve” the problems of Quantum Mechanics by undermining the foundations that brought forth Quantum Mechanics in the first place. That would simply be self-refuting, and that’s what we get with this study.
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".As I pointed out the last time I addressed this issue, the idea of a multiverse utterly destroys science. In fact, since the induction problem already occurs in a single universe, retreating to a multiverse will only compound the inductive problem. The multiverse, in other words, is even more damaging to science than Hume’s inductive problem.
The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.
In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
Hume’s inductive problem tells us that just because we have always seen the sun rise each morning does not guarantee that it will rise tomorrow morning. But those who address Hume can at least retreat to the probability argument: given the multitude of times the sun has risen and the fact that it has never not risen, there is no reason to doubt the sun will rise.
The multiverse theory, however, does not have the ability to fall back to probability, because the fact of the matter is that there are no odds left. The sun literally does not rise tomorrow in some universe (and this can be caused by any number of things: perhaps nuclear fission results in the sun exploding; or perhaps the heart of the sun quantum leaps to the Orion Nebula.
As a result of all this, perhaps a better headline for that article could have been: Science Doesn’t Exist – Study. Because you cannot have science when your framework is everything happens in SOME universe. There is no scientific reason, under this theory, why an action occurs in any specific universe (it’s random as to which universe it will act in and which it will not), and therefore science cannot explain anything that occurs. Not only are we left with no inductive reasoning, we are left without causation either. (Why is it that x follows y? Because this universe had that particular random split occur…)
Naturally, Quantum Mechanics is difficult to understand. But one thing we know is that you cannot “solve” the problems of Quantum Mechanics by undermining the foundations that brought forth Quantum Mechanics in the first place. That would simply be self-refuting, and that’s what we get with this study.
Monday, October 22, 2007
A Clarification
John Frame and Andrew Sandlin interact about Sandlin's post on the classical conception of God.
Rain, Rain, Come To Stay
Since I wrote and posted this on a Saturday, and we've been busy, I'll remind folks:
Pray for rain, please.
Raleigh, NC has 90 days left, as does Atlanta. Durham, NC has less than 70. The people are in terrible need in these places. Rain making systems are coming this way right now. Please pray the Lord over the weather that he will be merciful and give extended time to these systems where they are most needed. Thank Him for what He is now providing. Do not let us be ungrateful.
Pray for rain, please.
Raleigh, NC has 90 days left, as does Atlanta. Durham, NC has less than 70. The people are in terrible need in these places. Rain making systems are coming this way right now. Please pray the Lord over the weather that he will be merciful and give extended time to these systems where they are most needed. Thank Him for what He is now providing. Do not let us be ungrateful.
Arminian androids and other robots
They live among us, blending into the general population. They pass for living, breathing human beings. But, that, of course, is all part of the illusion.
The Arminian Series™ was originally designed by Dr. Ira Graves to perform basic household chores like cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door.
Dr. Graves was more interested in hardware than software. For that reason, the Arminian Series™ has a very lifelike appearance, enhanced by a loop processor that sends out false biofeedback signals.
However, there are certain telltale signs that you are dealing with a robot rather than a human being when a Calvinist encounters an Arminian Unit™.
One telltale sign is their robotic use of robotic metaphors. If Arminian Units™ really had libertarian freedom, (i.e. many yet-to-be-determined parameters, the optimal value of which is subsequently determined by the system itself), they would have the capacity to vary their figurative usage.
But what we quickly discover is that Arminian Units™ are hardwired to use robotic metaphors to caricature the doctrines of grace. Needless to say, only a robot robotically repeats the same metaphors.
Another telltale sign is their formulaic use of oft-refuted arguments. Even though compatibilist philosophers have constantly corrected their objections to determinism, Arminian Units™ continue to repeat the same formulaic objections.
Of course, Arminian Units™ have been programmed to deny that they are robots. That’s part of the act.
But if they really weren’t a mass-produced line of subdermal robots, they wouldn’t robotically reproduce the same robotic metaphors and hardwired arguments.
The reason for this cognitive deficit is due to the fact that the amount of energy allocated to the biofeedback processor severely limits the amount of energy left over for computational intelligence. There’s not enough residual energy to run a robust, adaptive program.
Instead, Arminian Units™ come factory equipped with a budget-basement set of heuristic algorithms for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door—with a finite repertoire of social greetings. And this is adequate for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door.
When, however, an Arminian Unit™ is taken out of its domestic routine, and must simulate an intelligent dialogue with a Calvinist, its neural network lacks the computational power to vary its preset usage or stereotypical argumentation.
However, we mustn’t be too hard on Arminian androids. After all, they don’t even know they're robots. They were programmed to think they’re real people.
That’s why they’re so fond of the word “real.” Following a Fourier equation, they were preprogrammed to randomly drop adjectives like “real” into their conversation. It lends an air of verisimilitude to their responses.
Strictly speaking, they can’t even think, but it would be tactless to tell them that since you would hurt their simulated feelings (i.e. emotion chip). So, whenever possible, we try to humor their illusory consciousness.
The Arminian Series™ was originally designed by Dr. Ira Graves to perform basic household chores like cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door.
Dr. Graves was more interested in hardware than software. For that reason, the Arminian Series™ has a very lifelike appearance, enhanced by a loop processor that sends out false biofeedback signals.
However, there are certain telltale signs that you are dealing with a robot rather than a human being when a Calvinist encounters an Arminian Unit™.
One telltale sign is their robotic use of robotic metaphors. If Arminian Units™ really had libertarian freedom, (i.e. many yet-to-be-determined parameters, the optimal value of which is subsequently determined by the system itself), they would have the capacity to vary their figurative usage.
But what we quickly discover is that Arminian Units™ are hardwired to use robotic metaphors to caricature the doctrines of grace. Needless to say, only a robot robotically repeats the same metaphors.
Another telltale sign is their formulaic use of oft-refuted arguments. Even though compatibilist philosophers have constantly corrected their objections to determinism, Arminian Units™ continue to repeat the same formulaic objections.
Of course, Arminian Units™ have been programmed to deny that they are robots. That’s part of the act.
But if they really weren’t a mass-produced line of subdermal robots, they wouldn’t robotically reproduce the same robotic metaphors and hardwired arguments.
The reason for this cognitive deficit is due to the fact that the amount of energy allocated to the biofeedback processor severely limits the amount of energy left over for computational intelligence. There’s not enough residual energy to run a robust, adaptive program.
Instead, Arminian Units™ come factory equipped with a budget-basement set of heuristic algorithms for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door—with a finite repertoire of social greetings. And this is adequate for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and answering the door.
When, however, an Arminian Unit™ is taken out of its domestic routine, and must simulate an intelligent dialogue with a Calvinist, its neural network lacks the computational power to vary its preset usage or stereotypical argumentation.
However, we mustn’t be too hard on Arminian androids. After all, they don’t even know they're robots. They were programmed to think they’re real people.
That’s why they’re so fond of the word “real.” Following a Fourier equation, they were preprogrammed to randomly drop adjectives like “real” into their conversation. It lends an air of verisimilitude to their responses.
Strictly speaking, they can’t even think, but it would be tactless to tell them that since you would hurt their simulated feelings (i.e. emotion chip). So, whenever possible, we try to humor their illusory consciousness.
Eternal Security Before The Reformation
Roman Catholics sometimes claim that Evangelical beliefs are both highly objectionable and unprecedented in church history prior to the Reformation. But what if it can be shown that those beliefs not only were held before the Reformation, but were even held by Roman Catholic Saints or other people who are well-regarded in Catholic circles?
The concept that a person is certain of going to Heaven if he becomes a Christian (often called "eternal security"), whether in a form that concept takes in Calvinism or in some other form, is frequently criticized by Roman Catholics. In an article at the Catholic Answers web site, we read:
Elsewhere, in another Catholic Answers article:
Notice the use of terms like "novelty", "all", "unanimous", and "dangerous heresy". We're being told that eternal security is a highly objectionable doctrine that nobody advocated prior to the Reformation.
A lot could be said about the false or misleading claims, as well as some significant information that's not mentioned, in these Catholic Answers articles. I want to focus on the issue of whether the concept of eternal security, whether defined in a Calvinistic manner or otherwise, was held by anybody prior to the Reformation.
The second article linked above goes on to cite alleged patristic support for the Roman Catholic position on eternal security. Some of the citations are problematic. For example, Hermas of Rome (note the significance of his location) is quoted. But he believed in the concept of limited forgiveness (The Shepherd, 1:2:2). You could lose your salvation without any possibility of regaining it. Roman bishops living shortly after the time of Hermas would oppose the concept, illustrating the diversity of views that could exist even in one city within a relatively short period of time. The patristic sources who deny eternal security in some way widely differ with each other in how they do it.
Patristic scholars often refer to the large variety of views that existed among the church fathers, including on issues related to justification. An individual father will sometimes seem to be inconsistent on an issue, whether knowingly or not, and some fathers acknowledge that they've changed their mind on an issue. The same can be said of Christians who lived in the later centuries prior to the Reformation. We shouldn't conclude that a source couldn't have ever advocated a position on an issue just because he sometimes contradicted that position. People are often inconsistent, and their beliefs develop over time.
As Robert Eno noted:
"Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-253) is not an easy author to interpret....The theological issues discussed depend very much on the words in front of him at any given moment. Bringing out one theological point here, he may stress another, even a seemingly contradictory point a few verses later." (in H. George Anderson, et al., edd., Justification By Faith [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985], p. 112)
In the same book, we read of "a bewildering variety" of views related to justification that existed in the late medieval period (p. 21). William Rusch refers to how "a variety of images and strands of thought on salvation existed side by side [in the church fathers] in ways that at least at first reading seem not to be compatible" (p. 134). D.H. Williams refers to "the developing views of soteriology in early Christianity" (Evangelicals And Tradition [Grand Rapids. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 141), and he discusses a variety of beliefs, sometimes inconsistent, that existed among the fathers (pp. 127-140).
Augustine wrote about the large variety of views of salvation that existed in his day, including some that involved some form of eternal security:
"I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors...There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them?...So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, 'This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.' Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life. There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, 'We, being many, are one bread, one body;' so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe....I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with alms-deeds shall be punished in everlasting fire...But, say they [others], the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned." (The City Of God, 21:17-20, 21:22, 21:26)
Some other examples:
"Saint Jerome, though an enemy of Origen, was, when it came to salvation, more of an Origenist than Ambrose. He believed that all sinners, all mortal beings, with the exception of Satan, atheists, and the ungodly, would be saved: 'Just as we believe that the torments of the Devil, of all the deniers of God, of the ungodly who have said in their hearts, 'there is no God,' will be eternal, so too do we believe that the judgment of Christian sinners, whose works will be tried and purged in fire will be moderate and mixed with clemency.' Furthermore, 'He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.'" (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth Of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 61)
"Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved. Much the same teaching appears in Ambrose, developed in greater detail." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)
"Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith. Commenting on Paul, Ambrosiaster writes: 'He [Paul] said: 'yet so as by fire,' because this salvation exists not without pain; for he did not say, 'he shall be saved by fire,' but when he says, 'yet so as by fire,' he wants to show that this salvation is to come, but that he must suffer the pains of fire; so that, purged by fire, he may be saved and not, like the infidels [perfidi], tormented forever by eternal fire; if for a portion of his works he has some value, it is because he believed in Christ.'" (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth Of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 61)
"we find Ambrosiaster teaching that, while the really wicked, 'will be tormented with everlasting punishment', the chastisement of Christian sinners will be of a temporary duration." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)
In closing, I want to address some potential objections:
- It might be argued that sources like the ones I've cited aren't denying that salvation can be lost, but rather are denying that the loss is permanent. But I see no reason to conclude that all of these sources thought that even a temporary loss of salvation was in view. And even if they did have a temporary loss of salvation in mind, the fact would remain that they believed that one's becoming a Christian made it certain that he would eventually go to Heaven. If the alleged loss of salvation that could occur between becoming a Christian and reaching Heaven was sure to be only temporary, then how is such a scenario significantly distinguishable from a scenario involving God's discipline of His children rather than a loss of salvation? In other words, what a Calvinist or some other proponent of eternal security would classify as discipline is being classified, instead, as a temporary loss of salvation accompanied by a certainty of future restoration. But what significance is there in that distinction?
- Some people might object that somebody like Jerome allows for negative consequences to a believer's sin in the next life, not just this life. Thus, since he allows for something along the lines of Purgatory, his view, although wrong, is significantly less objectionable. But, in the context of disputes over eternal security, how significant is it to place some of the negative consequences of sin in the afterlife rather than this life? Critics of eternal security often claim that the certainty of going to Heaven is what's most objectionable, even if the proponent of eternal security allows for negative consequences to sin in this life. If acknowledging such negative consequences in this life doesn't remove the most objectionable element of eternal security, then why would acknowledging negative consequences in the afterlife do so? And what about the negative consequences that Evangelicals often include in the afterlife? For example, Erwin Lutzer, in his book Your Eternal Reward (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1998), argues for tears at the judgment seat of Christ and loss of rewards as a result of sin. In order to maintain an objection to a view like Lutzer's that wouldn't apply to a view like Jerome's as well, the critic of eternal security would have to develop a more nuanced objection than what we commonly hear.
It should also be noted that the Bible and the earliest church fathers often define the afterlife in a way that doesn't allow for anything comparable to Purgatory. Evangelicals have good reason for disagreeing with any Purgatory-like elements in the views expressed by men like Ambrosiaster and Jerome. Evangelical proponents of eternal security are correct in agreeing with such men about the certainty of a Christian's future in Heaven while disagreeing with them about the means by which God disciplines His children.
Whatever problems there are with some forms of eternal security (a diminished view of the connection between justification and sanctification, for example), the concept that anybody who becomes a Christian is certain of going to Heaven predates the Reformation. As with other doctrines, different people believe in eternal security for different reasons. But much of the same Biblical evidence and reasoning that leads modern Evangelicals to a belief in eternal security led other people to the same conclusions long before the Reformation.
Update On 5/2/24: Here's a series I wrote in 2024 that discusses this subject further.
The concept that a person is certain of going to Heaven if he becomes a Christian (often called "eternal security"), whether in a form that concept takes in Calvinism or in some other form, is frequently criticized by Roman Catholics. In an article at the Catholic Answers web site, we read:
All they [people who believe in eternal security] have to do is "accept Christ as their personal Savior," and it’s done. They might well live exemplary lives thereafter, but living well is not crucial and definitely does not affect their salvation....
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.
Elsewhere, in another Catholic Answers article:
It was not until the time of John Calvin that anyone would claim that it was impossible for a true Christian to lose his salvation. That teaching, which was not even shared by Martin Luther and his followers, was a theological novelty of the mid-sixteenth century, a teaching which would have been condemned as a dangerous heresy by all previous generations of Christians....
In time the "once saved, always saved" teaching even degenerated in many Evangelical circles to the point that some would claim that a Christian could commit grave sins and still remain saved: sin did not injure his relationship with God at all....
The early Church Fathers, of course, were unanimous in teaching the reality of mortal sin....
The idea that one could never lose salvation would have been unimaginable to them [the church fathers], since it was evident from the Bible that baptism saves, that the baptized can deny Christ, and that those who deny Christ will not be saved unless they repent, as did Peter.
It was equally unthinkable to predestinarian thinkers, such as Augustine, who, just two years before he died, taught in his book The Gift of Perseverance that not all who were predestined to come to God’s grace were predestined to remain with him until glory. This was, in fact, the teaching of all the high predestinarians (Augustine, Fulgentius, Aquinas, Luther)—until the time of Calvin.
Notice the use of terms like "novelty", "all", "unanimous", and "dangerous heresy". We're being told that eternal security is a highly objectionable doctrine that nobody advocated prior to the Reformation.
A lot could be said about the false or misleading claims, as well as some significant information that's not mentioned, in these Catholic Answers articles. I want to focus on the issue of whether the concept of eternal security, whether defined in a Calvinistic manner or otherwise, was held by anybody prior to the Reformation.
The second article linked above goes on to cite alleged patristic support for the Roman Catholic position on eternal security. Some of the citations are problematic. For example, Hermas of Rome (note the significance of his location) is quoted. But he believed in the concept of limited forgiveness (The Shepherd, 1:2:2). You could lose your salvation without any possibility of regaining it. Roman bishops living shortly after the time of Hermas would oppose the concept, illustrating the diversity of views that could exist even in one city within a relatively short period of time. The patristic sources who deny eternal security in some way widely differ with each other in how they do it.
Patristic scholars often refer to the large variety of views that existed among the church fathers, including on issues related to justification. An individual father will sometimes seem to be inconsistent on an issue, whether knowingly or not, and some fathers acknowledge that they've changed their mind on an issue. The same can be said of Christians who lived in the later centuries prior to the Reformation. We shouldn't conclude that a source couldn't have ever advocated a position on an issue just because he sometimes contradicted that position. People are often inconsistent, and their beliefs develop over time.
As Robert Eno noted:
"Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-253) is not an easy author to interpret....The theological issues discussed depend very much on the words in front of him at any given moment. Bringing out one theological point here, he may stress another, even a seemingly contradictory point a few verses later." (in H. George Anderson, et al., edd., Justification By Faith [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985], p. 112)
In the same book, we read of "a bewildering variety" of views related to justification that existed in the late medieval period (p. 21). William Rusch refers to how "a variety of images and strands of thought on salvation existed side by side [in the church fathers] in ways that at least at first reading seem not to be compatible" (p. 134). D.H. Williams refers to "the developing views of soteriology in early Christianity" (Evangelicals And Tradition [Grand Rapids. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005], p. 141), and he discusses a variety of beliefs, sometimes inconsistent, that existed among the fathers (pp. 127-140).
Augustine wrote about the large variety of views of salvation that existed in his day, including some that involved some form of eternal security:
"I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors...There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them?...So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, 'This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.' Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life. There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, 'We, being many, are one bread, one body;' so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe....I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with alms-deeds shall be punished in everlasting fire...But, say they [others], the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned." (The City Of God, 21:17-20, 21:22, 21:26)
Some other examples:
"Saint Jerome, though an enemy of Origen, was, when it came to salvation, more of an Origenist than Ambrose. He believed that all sinners, all mortal beings, with the exception of Satan, atheists, and the ungodly, would be saved: 'Just as we believe that the torments of the Devil, of all the deniers of God, of the ungodly who have said in their hearts, 'there is no God,' will be eternal, so too do we believe that the judgment of Christian sinners, whose works will be tried and purged in fire will be moderate and mixed with clemency.' Furthermore, 'He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.'" (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth Of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 61)
"Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved. Much the same teaching appears in Ambrose, developed in greater detail." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)
"Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith. Commenting on Paul, Ambrosiaster writes: 'He [Paul] said: 'yet so as by fire,' because this salvation exists not without pain; for he did not say, 'he shall be saved by fire,' but when he says, 'yet so as by fire,' he wants to show that this salvation is to come, but that he must suffer the pains of fire; so that, purged by fire, he may be saved and not, like the infidels [perfidi], tormented forever by eternal fire; if for a portion of his works he has some value, it is because he believed in Christ.'" (Jacques Le Goff, The Birth Of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 61)
"we find Ambrosiaster teaching that, while the really wicked, 'will be tormented with everlasting punishment', the chastisement of Christian sinners will be of a temporary duration." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 484)
In closing, I want to address some potential objections:
- It might be argued that sources like the ones I've cited aren't denying that salvation can be lost, but rather are denying that the loss is permanent. But I see no reason to conclude that all of these sources thought that even a temporary loss of salvation was in view. And even if they did have a temporary loss of salvation in mind, the fact would remain that they believed that one's becoming a Christian made it certain that he would eventually go to Heaven. If the alleged loss of salvation that could occur between becoming a Christian and reaching Heaven was sure to be only temporary, then how is such a scenario significantly distinguishable from a scenario involving God's discipline of His children rather than a loss of salvation? In other words, what a Calvinist or some other proponent of eternal security would classify as discipline is being classified, instead, as a temporary loss of salvation accompanied by a certainty of future restoration. But what significance is there in that distinction?
- Some people might object that somebody like Jerome allows for negative consequences to a believer's sin in the next life, not just this life. Thus, since he allows for something along the lines of Purgatory, his view, although wrong, is significantly less objectionable. But, in the context of disputes over eternal security, how significant is it to place some of the negative consequences of sin in the afterlife rather than this life? Critics of eternal security often claim that the certainty of going to Heaven is what's most objectionable, even if the proponent of eternal security allows for negative consequences to sin in this life. If acknowledging such negative consequences in this life doesn't remove the most objectionable element of eternal security, then why would acknowledging negative consequences in the afterlife do so? And what about the negative consequences that Evangelicals often include in the afterlife? For example, Erwin Lutzer, in his book Your Eternal Reward (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1998), argues for tears at the judgment seat of Christ and loss of rewards as a result of sin. In order to maintain an objection to a view like Lutzer's that wouldn't apply to a view like Jerome's as well, the critic of eternal security would have to develop a more nuanced objection than what we commonly hear.
It should also be noted that the Bible and the earliest church fathers often define the afterlife in a way that doesn't allow for anything comparable to Purgatory. Evangelicals have good reason for disagreeing with any Purgatory-like elements in the views expressed by men like Ambrosiaster and Jerome. Evangelical proponents of eternal security are correct in agreeing with such men about the certainty of a Christian's future in Heaven while disagreeing with them about the means by which God disciplines His children.
Whatever problems there are with some forms of eternal security (a diminished view of the connection between justification and sanctification, for example), the concept that anybody who becomes a Christian is certain of going to Heaven predates the Reformation. As with other doctrines, different people believe in eternal security for different reasons. But much of the same Biblical evidence and reasoning that leads modern Evangelicals to a belief in eternal security led other people to the same conclusions long before the Reformation.
Update On 5/2/24: Here's a series I wrote in 2024 that discusses this subject further.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Attack of the 50 Foot Straw Man!
Why do otherwise sharp-minded professionals become bush league hacks when they attack Calvinism? Big leaguers playing Wiffle Ball. Why do scholars who push and promote charitable readings of others, proper representation of the other side, avoiding of fallacies of relevance, etc., turn into Stalinist propagandists when broaching the subject of Calvinism? Many Christian philosophers will defend atheists against the arguments of Christian philosophers (e.g., Naturalism Defeated, ed. Beilby; Victor Reppert's arguments against Calvinistic interpretations of the natural knowledge of God shared by all men as found in Romans 1, etc.,), but when an attack on Calvinism is made, integrity is thrown to the wind and a kind of fallacy feeding frenzy ensues. Care for proper representation seems to be a will-o-the-wisps when it comes time for us (Calvinists) to get a fair hearing.
For an example of the above, let's look at an attempt to parody the Calvinist position by Thomas Talbott. I learned of this parody from Victor Reppert's blog, Dangerous Idea. (As an aside, I can't say enough about Reppert's work in the philosophy of mind (mainly his Argument from Reason). I would recommend his blog and book (C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea) to anyone.) The reason I looked at the link Reppert provided was because Dr. Reppert had said that Talbott's parody "should be challenging to Calvinists." Since I respect Dr. Reppert, I thought I'd take a look at what was so "challenging to Calvinists." It wasn't that it was written by Dr. Talbott that provoked me since Steve Hays already made mince meat out of his position:
Here
And Here
Nevertheless, I thought I would check out what Victor Reppert thought was so challenging. I found a make believe story which attempted to parody a conception of Calvinism that many non-Calvinists have. Since anti-Calvinists can't seem to win the exegetical war, I guess they've decided to make the same refuted points in the context of a make believe story. This way no one can challenge their exegesis. To see what I mean let's look at Talbott's refutation vis-à-vis his imaginative make believe story; his refutation of a theological position sans the exegesis required to do so. Refutation via bed time story.
**********
**********
So here's how the story is set up. Not much objectionable material here. The exception being the proposition that "not all the writing were easy to harmonize." This is vague. If it's meant to be a critique, it should be spelled out better. Surely problems with harmonization isn't necessarily a problem. All sorts of academic disciplines have problems harmonizing the various findings within their field, and when put into the bigger picture of all fields. Surely all one needs to do is read a book on, say, the philosophy of logic to appreciate that even logicians - guardians of that objective and truth preserving system - have a hard time "harmonizing" all of their findings. "This reverence for logic is deeply mistaken," says Stephen Read in Thinking About Logic, and Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic (p.2). Almost every philosophy of logic book pokes fun at the venerated and unquestioning dogmatism the student of formal logic comes to the study of the philosophy of logic with. Needless to say, the idolization of logic quickly fades away after a short time studying the problems logicians have encountered and the troubles they have harmonizing the data of their field. This is not to promote relativism, though. Indeed, if we do not do away with logic simply because there are problems harmonizing all our knowledge, we likewise to not, ipso facto, do away with other beliefs, systems, doctrine, because their are problems harmonizing the data. So, if Talbott's claim about harmonization is meant to be an attack against inerrancy, it is weak indeed. If it is not, then this opening paragraph is relatively unproblematic as it stands.
**********
**********
Now the problems start rolling in...
1) Notice the tension here with what he says in his first section I quoted. Above "Morg" (the Calvinist conception of God) is said to hate sin: "They spoke with great power and authority, preaching absolute obedience to Morg, whose holy and just character, they said, could not tolerate wicked disobedience." This was unproblematic. In fact, this is not a "challenge" to the Calvinist: "I hate all who work iniquity" (Ps. 5:5). But this unproblematic proposition has now changed into a straw man by Talbott's claim that God also hates people because of skin color - something hardly morally blameworthy: "...certain texts seemed to imply that white skin was an abomination in the sight of Morg." But of course the Calvinist believes no such thing! Talbott stages the debate as if the Calvinist's theology stated that God punishes people irrespective of any moral deficiency. Indeed, for amoral reasons.
2) Notice argument uses a made up book, with made up texts, as a base from which critiques are launched. Of course that there may be inconsistencies between texts in a made up religion doesn't mean that there are any inconsistencies in the text from which the Calvinist draws his conclusions. This story doesn't present a "challenge" for Calvinists, contra Reppert, it simply reloads anti-Calvinist blanks and fires them from the safety of a screen play, where it looks like real damage is inflicted that otherwise would be harmless in the real world. The blood Reppert sees is from squibs, and the "challenges" are fabricated on a blue screen. Talbott is offering Universal Studios argumentation. Wizard of Oz fabrications. If you are distracted by the fantasy, then you'll pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
3) Of course we don't know the non-elect are. Talbott implies that if one knew who the non-elect were, then they'd be excluded from the party. One the one hand this is true:
Matt. 25:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
But of course we are told that this attitude is improper for the citizen of the kingdom to have in the hear and now:
Matt 13: 24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
Notice again a distinction between people. Some are goats, some are sheep. Some are wheat, some are tares. Some were known, some were never known.
Not only is Talbott attacking straw men, his made up story disanalogous with the Bible. Calvinists hold to the Bible, not the teachings of a book that exists only in Talbott's mind. Concocted for the purpose of beating an imaginary opponent. Talbott has a wild imagination. Not only does his story not represent the Bible, his "Calvinists" don't represent Calvinists.
4) Not only that, but Talbott's argument isn't solely against Calvinists. It is the apostle Paul who says that believers are not to marry unbelievers:
2 Cor. 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."
Why did Reppert say that Talbott's facade was "challenging to Calvinists?" Are "Calvinists" the only ones who believe that the Bible is God's revelation to man? Do only Calvinists take serious the prescriptives of Paul? Furthermore, if one wants to deny the authority of the Bible, then one can't use it to argue for universalism, Arminianism, etc. Perhaps that's why Talbott had to use a make believe religious book?
Do Reppert and Talbott actually think it is even practically wise for a committed believer in Jesus Christ to marry a committed unbeliever? Perhaps they don't see the problems because of their humanistic and floofy view of "love." But that's not "love," it's "Wuv." God isn't smart enough to tell us how to live, we should go to John Lennon and Yoko Ono. In fact, I'd say that the one who understands the serious cost of discipleship, the preeminence of Christ over all areas of life, knows Talbott's claim is ridiculous. Sure, if Jesus is just an after thought, and interesting object of study, a source for bumper sticker doctrine, cute catch phrases, then who cares if you're married to someone who hates Jesus. After all, he's not a REAL person. He's not the KING. He makes no DEMANDS. He requires no serious commitment. He "wuvs" us. Believers and unbelievers can have a happy marriage. Why? BECAUSE JESUS DOESN'T MATTER.
5) Talbott has actually stolen his argument from Michael Jackson.
I Took My Baby
On A Saturday Bang
Boy Is That Girl With You
Yes We're One And The Same
Now I Believe In Miracles
And A Miracle
Has Happened Tonight
But, If
You're Thinkin'
About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White
They Print My Message
In The Saturday Sun
I Had To Tell Them
I Ain't Second To None
And I Told About Equality
An It's True
Either You're Wrong
Or You're Right
But, If
You're Thinkin'
About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White
I Am Tired Of This Devil
I Am Tired Of This Stuff
I Am Tired Of This Business
Sew When The
Going Gets Rough
I Ain't Scared Of
Your Brother
I Ain't Scared Of No Sheets
I Ain't Scare Of Nobody
Girl When The
Goin' Gets Mean
[L. T. B. Rap Performance]
Protection
For Gangs, Clubs
And Nations
Causing Grief In
Human Relations
It's A Turf War
On A Global Scale
I'd Rather Hear Both Sides
Of The Tale
See, It's Not About Races
Just Places
Faces
Where Your Blood
Comes From
Is Where Your Space Is
I've Seen The Bright
Get Duller
I'm Not Going To Spend
My Life Being A Color
[Michael]
Don't Tell Me You Agree With Me
When I Saw You Kicking Dirt In My Eye
But, If
You're Thinkin' About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White
I Said If
You're Thinkin' Of
Being My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White
I Said If
You're Thinkin' Of
Being My Brother
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White
Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now
Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now
It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo
It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo
6) Talbott's use of white vs. black skinned peoples serves to poison the well against the Calvinist. To stack the deck against them. Perhaps Reppert is right. It is "challenging" to have to deal with straw men and arguments that attempt to poison the well against you. Calvinists are like racists. Is this really the scholarly way to approach this subject?
**********
**********
1) Notice, again, the "book of Morg" is appealed to, rather than the Bible.
2) Notice the simplistic interaction with Calvinism. That you can find a text that says God loves all men does not imply that he loves them all in the same way. I can point to texts that say I should love my neighbor? Does this mean I love them like I love my wife? Is Talbott advancing a homosexual agenda? Does he wish his neighbor, Larry, would "love him" the same way that Talbott loves his wife?
3) There are no color distinctions, correct. For Talbott to properly advance this argument from analogy he must be saying that there are no moral distinctions. Is this what he wants to say? If not, then his case is all wet. Calvinists do not believe that God judges man for amoral considerations.
4) That a holy, just, and loving God could not hold people morally blameworthy for an amoral reason - such as skin color - does not logically imply that he could not do so for moral reasons. In fact, his character would seem to demand it. Is it "loving" to let the child molester go free? Is Talbott going to be demonstrating for the release of Christopher Paul Neil? No punishment for Neil. Wouldn't be the loving thing to do. Excuse me, the wuving thing to do. Does love and justice and holiness demand the punishment of crime (sin)? The restoration of good?
5) Talbott acts as if "love" is opposed to "hate." Romans 12:9 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." We are told to have a genuine love, and them immediately told to hate! Talbott is arguing for "wuv," not love. "Wuv" allows child molesters to get off Scott free. "Wuv" doesn't punish evil. But of course the Calvinist doesn't believe in "Wuv." He doesn't hold to "Morg's revelation." What, then, is "challenging" for the Calvinist here?
6) Where's the argument and exegesis refuting the texts Calvinists point to which demonstrate that all does not always mean all? Indeed, non-Christians philosophers grant this point, Talbott. Just because it uses a word that is universal, does not mean that is how it is being used in this passage. There is such a thing, which philosophers of language recognize, as restricted quantification. Philosopher of language William Lycan, speaking on restricted quantification, writes that, "What logicians call the domains over which quantifiers range need not be universal, but are often particular cases roughly presupposed in context" (Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, p.24). Above he appeals to the "liberal philosophers" but now he'll sweep that aside and play the part of the aww shucks Appalachian mountain fundy. "Guh-huh, iet sayes awl, so's iet must main awl."
7) If "human reason" is what Talbott wants, here's an argument for limited atonement: If Jesus died for you, then he is your high priest. If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you. Therefore if Jesus died for you, he makes intercession for you. Jesus does not intercede for all people. Therefore, Jesus did not die for all people. QED.
**********
**********
1) Here Talbott just misunderstands the order of the decrees.
2) It's not as if the subject of God's hate was a neutral agent. God's mercy does not depend upon what we do. He chose to have mercy on some people apart from any good they did. Indeed, Romans 9 is talking about election. God elects some sinners. So, both Jacob and Esau were guilty, but one was elected out of sin instead of the other, on no other basis than God's good pleasure. This does not imply that God hated neutral, or righteous agents apart from any moral considerations.
3) Talbott shifts the straw man. He tries to cover the fact that he had been arguing from a straw man - God's decision to punish people for an amoral reason, skin color - with another straw man. God still has no moral basis by which he determines who will receive His wrath on Talbott's cover-story. Talbott still has God hating morally neutral agents. So, this is no different than his skin color straw man.
**********
**********
1) How is this a challenge to Calvinists? This isn't a "challenge" but a restatement of the proposition: "I don't like Calvinism."
2) Many Arminians believe the above, albeit in a weaker sense.
3) God doesn't have "his own" justice as if there was a "real" justice that was not God's own. He is the paradigm of justice. This is a bunch of question begging assertions. Did Reppert even read this piece? If so, why think that the re-statement of anti-Calvinist rhetoric was "challenging?"
4) What is "a human conception of justice?" Would that be Hitler's or Talbott's? What argument does he have for his conception as a normative, non-arbitrary standard by which he can judge God's actions?
5) Why is God "liable to render an account?" Where is the supporting argument? Is it that, say, a human judge should render an account for his actions, therefore God must? Is God "another one of us?" Talbott leaves Michael Jackson theology, and now promulgates Joan Osborn theology:
If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to his face
If you were faced with him in all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question
And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets
And yeah yeah god is great yeah yeah god is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
He's trying to make his way home
Back up to heaven all alone
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome
And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
What if god was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
Just trying to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to heaven all alone
Just trying to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome
Excuse me for not feeling "challenged" by pop music theology.
6) There have been thousands of pages written arguing for God's justice. Talbott doesn't interact, he simply levels assertions. Hardly "challenging" for the Calvinist.
7) Can I challenge "our understanding?" Why is "our understanding" afforded a free pass when God's isn't? God can be challenged, man cannot. All Talbott has done is to trade anthropocentrism for theocentrism.
**********
**********
1) First, let's note the fallacious nature of his comment. I'm now forced to stick up for the Morgist. Why think a "horrendous doctrine" implies the falsity of a position? Bertrand Russell argued for what could be considered a horrendous doctirne in A Free man's Worship. Does Talbott think this ipso facto implies the falsity of atheism? Bad consequences do not necessitate the negation of the position which led to those consequences.
2) We've already shown this is a straw man, and so this isn't something for the Calvinist to be "challenged" by.
**********
**********
1) The cash value, for the Arminian, if he's reading, is that you must deny the authority of Scripture to deny Calvinism.
2) Note that Talbott thinks he's right and we're wrong. His "reasoning" led him to the truth. To question it gets you mocked. Gets you called a Muslim extremist. Question Talbott, he'll make fun of your position by means of bad parody. How can a layman Calvinist stand up to this? Who wants to get made fun of? Who wants to be the butt of jokes? Best to stay silent, just like lord Talbott wants.
3) Notice the scholarly work of engaging in exegesis must be put aside. Talbott has lost that war. So, move the goal posts, and then declare no one can score.
**********
**********
1) But how can this woman say this to a Calvinist? Which Calvinist implies that God hates people for no reason? No morally sufficient reason, at least.
2) What is so awful about hating, with a perfect, non-sinful, holy hatred, those who are opposed to you. The worst of criminals?
3) This is simply the continuation of Talbott's straw man argument.
**********
***********
1) Steve offered a parody of this parody on Reppert's site:
"Look, Nivlac, I love Morg with all my heart, and I believe that the Book of Morg is indeed his holy Word. And I don't know what to say about your fancy arguments that seem to imply such awful things about Morg. But I do know this. No holy or just or loving Creator like Morg, no Creator of the kind that I worship, could possibly love and save the rapist and tormenter and killer of my little girl. Indeed, if he loves my little girl, as you say he does, then he cannot also love the rapist and tormenter and killer of my little girl. So if you are right about the meaning of these verses--mind you, I'm not saying you are right--but IF you are right, then these verses are just wrong; they are not a true revelation from Morg."
2) Look at Talbott's inference pattern: If He loves me, he must love my baby. That's a non-sequitur. God’s not like a dude dating a single mother. “Any man that loves me has got to love my baby.” Indeed, Jesus implied that one’s devotion toward God was to be so strong that it could be compared to hating your family members. Talbott’s theology leads people down a dangerous road. A road without a shepherd. Well, you have talbott to tell you what’s up. Sola Talbotta.
3) Notice the contradiction. The woman believes that the writings are Morg's word, but if they don't go the way she wants them to, so much for her belief that the writings are Morg's words. This is cheap discipleship. This is: "If I don't like X, X can't be true," type reasoning. Is the authority of Scripture denied, as well as good reasoning?
4) Talbott argues that one way to stop the Calvinist's arguments is to show your unwillingness to believe in the authority of Scripture. Good thing Jesus didn't do that, even when he didn't like the outcome he was facing. Good thing Abraham didn't do that. On Talbott's terms, you have to live contrary to the "people of faith" in Hebrews 11 in order to defeat the Calvinist. Far from representing a "challenge" to the Calvinist, Talbott's parody only strengthens our convictions!
5) How about this parody:
Some men tried to speak of moral absolutes - like thou shall not torture children for fun. They said that this was an obvious truth. It was known by intuition. How could those murderers have challenged these brilliant philosophers? Simple. They just denied those intuitions. Denied any authoritative moral laws. Doing this nullifies the philosophers arguments. "This went against sound reason," yelled the philosophers. "That's alright, we'll just deny the canons of reasoning," retorted the life-takers.
Stupid, huh?
6) Notice that Talbott’s argument requires one to “dump” much more than the so-called “hard passages.” God gave us a coherent package. Tinker with some of the parts, affect the rest of the engine.
7) Notice the ironic turn of events. Talbott praises "human understanding" and "human reason" as an authority which can judge what we read in the Bible. But in the dialogue between Nivlac and the Morgite, the Morgite comes face to face with superior reason. A better argument. Does Talbott say that the Morgite should follow the argument where ever it leads? No! Talbott says that emotion is ultimate. If a revelation from God contradicts your "feewings" about what "wuv" is, then deny the revelation. If reason and argumentation contradicts your "feewings" about what "wuv" is, then deny reason. Subjective feelings are the standard. For Talbott, one should never deny their gut. If something doesn't give you warm fuzzies, it's probably not true.
8) I'll close with another one of Steve's comments:
"Now normal men and women—unlike pedophiles, abortionists, and psychopaths—are naturally protective of young children. So this illustration plays upon the emotive connotations of a “little child” or “baby.”
But children ordinarily grow up to be adults. Suppose we compose a different parable.
Once upon a time there was a Jewish physician who had dreams. And, unlike most folks, his dreams came true.
One night he had a dream about a sick little German boy who visited his clinic. The little boy would grow up to commit genocide against the Jewish people.
The next day, a sick little boy by the name of Adolph Hitler was brought into the clinic to receive treatment for a life-threatening childhood illness. The doctor could cure him or he could let him die by administering a placebo. He knew that by healing this child, he would be condemning thousands of other innocent children to death—including his very own children.
Should he save this child, and thereby condemn thousands of other children to suffer an unjust and premature death, or should he let this child die, and thereby save the prospective victims? Who should he allow to live, and who should he allow to die?
I’ll let you decide how you wish to finish the story.
Point being: our moral intuitions are context-dependent. It all depends on the illustration. Change the illustration, and you may suddenly find yourself contradicting your previous intuition. You were very sure of yourself until
Tearjerkers cut both ways. For it’s easy to compose tearjerkers that illustrate opposing positions."
For an example of the above, let's look at an attempt to parody the Calvinist position by Thomas Talbott. I learned of this parody from Victor Reppert's blog, Dangerous Idea. (As an aside, I can't say enough about Reppert's work in the philosophy of mind (mainly his Argument from Reason). I would recommend his blog and book (C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea) to anyone.) The reason I looked at the link Reppert provided was because Dr. Reppert had said that Talbott's parody "should be challenging to Calvinists." Since I respect Dr. Reppert, I thought I'd take a look at what was so "challenging to Calvinists." It wasn't that it was written by Dr. Talbott that provoked me since Steve Hays already made mince meat out of his position:
Here
And Here
Nevertheless, I thought I would check out what Victor Reppert thought was so challenging. I found a make believe story which attempted to parody a conception of Calvinism that many non-Calvinists have. Since anti-Calvinists can't seem to win the exegetical war, I guess they've decided to make the same refuted points in the context of a make believe story. This way no one can challenge their exegesis. To see what I mean let's look at Talbott's refutation vis-à-vis his imaginative make believe story; his refutation of a theological position sans the exegesis required to do so. Refutation via bed time story.
**********
"Long ago in ancient Atlantis, a series of prophets appeared among the Atlantans and spoke in the name of Morg, whom they proclaimed as the one true God of the universe. In the name of Morg, these prophets performed many mighty deeds: They healed the sick, brought sight to the blind, and even raised a few men and women from the dead. They spoke with great power and authority, preaching absolute obedience to Morg, whose holy and just character, they said, could not tolerate wicked disobedience. They called for economic justice, for peaceful relationships between the states, for children to obey their parents and parents to love their children, and for the people to engage in certain prescribed forms of worship. They also produced many writings: letters, sermons, historical accounts, and the like; and in later centuries, these were collected into a set of sacred scriptures called, The Book of Morg. Though the scriptures included a rich variety of religious writings, not all of which were easy to harmonize, converts to Morgism nonetheless came to regard them all as the inerrant word of Morg."
**********
So here's how the story is set up. Not much objectionable material here. The exception being the proposition that "not all the writing were easy to harmonize." This is vague. If it's meant to be a critique, it should be spelled out better. Surely problems with harmonization isn't necessarily a problem. All sorts of academic disciplines have problems harmonizing the various findings within their field, and when put into the bigger picture of all fields. Surely all one needs to do is read a book on, say, the philosophy of logic to appreciate that even logicians - guardians of that objective and truth preserving system - have a hard time "harmonizing" all of their findings. "This reverence for logic is deeply mistaken," says Stephen Read in Thinking About Logic, and Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic (p.2). Almost every philosophy of logic book pokes fun at the venerated and unquestioning dogmatism the student of formal logic comes to the study of the philosophy of logic with. Needless to say, the idolization of logic quickly fades away after a short time studying the problems logicians have encountered and the troubles they have harmonizing the data of their field. This is not to promote relativism, though. Indeed, if we do not do away with logic simply because there are problems harmonizing all our knowledge, we likewise to not, ipso facto, do away with other beliefs, systems, doctrine, because their are problems harmonizing the data. So, if Talbott's claim about harmonization is meant to be an attack against inerrancy, it is weak indeed. If it is not, then this opening paragraph is relatively unproblematic as it stands.
**********
"Now the Atlantans were generally a dark-skinned people, but it so happened that about one in five was albino, totally devoid of any skin pigmentation. There was no discernible pattern to this phenomenon. An albino parent was no more likely than a dark-skinned parent to have an albino child; and though approximately 20% of the population was albino, no one could predict when an albino child would be born. But the Book of Morg had some important things to say about this phenomenon; certain texts seemed to imply that white skin was an abomination in the sight of Morg. To be sure, the interpretation of these texts, sometimes classified among the "hard sayings," was controversial, in part because they seemed incompatible with other texts. But Azeb 8:22 explicitly used the term "abomination," and many other texts seemed to imply that albinos would have no place in the Kingdom of Morg. According to Morgist fundamentalists, therefore, there was no salvation for albinos; and so the fundamentalists excluded albinos from the holy temples, and they supported laws against intermarriage between albinos and the dark-skinned majority."
**********
Now the problems start rolling in...
1) Notice the tension here with what he says in his first section I quoted. Above "Morg" (the Calvinist conception of God) is said to hate sin: "They spoke with great power and authority, preaching absolute obedience to Morg, whose holy and just character, they said, could not tolerate wicked disobedience." This was unproblematic. In fact, this is not a "challenge" to the Calvinist: "I hate all who work iniquity" (Ps. 5:5). But this unproblematic proposition has now changed into a straw man by Talbott's claim that God also hates people because of skin color - something hardly morally blameworthy: "...certain texts seemed to imply that white skin was an abomination in the sight of Morg." But of course the Calvinist believes no such thing! Talbott stages the debate as if the Calvinist's theology stated that God punishes people irrespective of any moral deficiency. Indeed, for amoral reasons.
2) Notice argument uses a made up book, with made up texts, as a base from which critiques are launched. Of course that there may be inconsistencies between texts in a made up religion doesn't mean that there are any inconsistencies in the text from which the Calvinist draws his conclusions. This story doesn't present a "challenge" for Calvinists, contra Reppert, it simply reloads anti-Calvinist blanks and fires them from the safety of a screen play, where it looks like real damage is inflicted that otherwise would be harmless in the real world. The blood Reppert sees is from squibs, and the "challenges" are fabricated on a blue screen. Talbott is offering Universal Studios argumentation. Wizard of Oz fabrications. If you are distracted by the fantasy, then you'll pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
3) Of course we don't know the non-elect are. Talbott implies that if one knew who the non-elect were, then they'd be excluded from the party. One the one hand this is true:
Matt. 25:31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
But of course we are told that this attitude is improper for the citizen of the kingdom to have in the hear and now:
Matt 13: 24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
Notice again a distinction between people. Some are goats, some are sheep. Some are wheat, some are tares. Some were known, some were never known.
Not only is Talbott attacking straw men, his made up story disanalogous with the Bible. Calvinists hold to the Bible, not the teachings of a book that exists only in Talbott's mind. Concocted for the purpose of beating an imaginary opponent. Talbott has a wild imagination. Not only does his story not represent the Bible, his "Calvinists" don't represent Calvinists.
4) Not only that, but Talbott's argument isn't solely against Calvinists. It is the apostle Paul who says that believers are not to marry unbelievers:
2 Cor. 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."
Why did Reppert say that Talbott's facade was "challenging to Calvinists?" Are "Calvinists" the only ones who believe that the Bible is God's revelation to man? Do only Calvinists take serious the prescriptives of Paul? Furthermore, if one wants to deny the authority of the Bible, then one can't use it to argue for universalism, Arminianism, etc. Perhaps that's why Talbott had to use a make believe religious book?
Do Reppert and Talbott actually think it is even practically wise for a committed believer in Jesus Christ to marry a committed unbeliever? Perhaps they don't see the problems because of their humanistic and floofy view of "love." But that's not "love," it's "Wuv." God isn't smart enough to tell us how to live, we should go to John Lennon and Yoko Ono. In fact, I'd say that the one who understands the serious cost of discipleship, the preeminence of Christ over all areas of life, knows Talbott's claim is ridiculous. Sure, if Jesus is just an after thought, and interesting object of study, a source for bumper sticker doctrine, cute catch phrases, then who cares if you're married to someone who hates Jesus. After all, he's not a REAL person. He's not the KING. He makes no DEMANDS. He requires no serious commitment. He "wuvs" us. Believers and unbelievers can have a happy marriage. Why? BECAUSE JESUS DOESN'T MATTER.
5) Talbott has actually stolen his argument from Michael Jackson.
I Took My Baby
On A Saturday Bang
Boy Is That Girl With You
Yes We're One And The Same
Now I Believe In Miracles
And A Miracle
Has Happened Tonight
But, If
You're Thinkin'
About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White
They Print My Message
In The Saturday Sun
I Had To Tell Them
I Ain't Second To None
And I Told About Equality
An It's True
Either You're Wrong
Or You're Right
But, If
You're Thinkin'
About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White
I Am Tired Of This Devil
I Am Tired Of This Stuff
I Am Tired Of This Business
Sew When The
Going Gets Rough
I Ain't Scared Of
Your Brother
I Ain't Scared Of No Sheets
I Ain't Scare Of Nobody
Girl When The
Goin' Gets Mean
[L. T. B. Rap Performance]
Protection
For Gangs, Clubs
And Nations
Causing Grief In
Human Relations
It's A Turf War
On A Global Scale
I'd Rather Hear Both Sides
Of The Tale
See, It's Not About Races
Just Places
Faces
Where Your Blood
Comes From
Is Where Your Space Is
I've Seen The Bright
Get Duller
I'm Not Going To Spend
My Life Being A Color
[Michael]
Don't Tell Me You Agree With Me
When I Saw You Kicking Dirt In My Eye
But, If
You're Thinkin' About My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White
I Said If
You're Thinkin' Of
Being My Baby
It Don't Matter If You're Black Or White
I Said If
You're Thinkin' Of
Being My Brother
It Don't Matter If You're
Black Or White
Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now
Ooh, Ooh
Yea, Yea, Yea Now
It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo
It's Black, It's White
It's Tough For You
To Get By
It's Black , It's White, Whoo
6) Talbott's use of white vs. black skinned peoples serves to poison the well against the Calvinist. To stack the deck against them. Perhaps Reppert is right. It is "challenging" to have to deal with straw men and arguments that attempt to poison the well against you. Calvinists are like racists. Is this really the scholarly way to approach this subject?
**********
"As you might expect, however, these practices produced some great theological controversies. Those whom the fundamentalists castigated as liberals pointed to other texts in the book of Morg that seemed to declare Morg's love for all Atlantans; they even pointed out that, according to Epaga 13:5, there are no color distinctions at all in the Kingdom of Morg. And philosophers among the more liberal party supplemented these exegetical considerations with the following philosophical argument: If Morg is truly holy and just, they contended--and if his very essence is perfect love--then he could not possibly hate the albinos and exclude them from his Kingdom simply on account of their white skin. But the fundamentalists had a whole arsenal of arguments against such considerations as these. They found some fifty texts in the Book of Morg in which the word "all" did not literally mean all, and they therefore argued that the more universalistic-sounding texts imply only that Morg loves all Atlantans of color. After all, one must harmonize one text with another. If there are no color distinctions in the Kingdom of Morg, for example, that is only because the albinos have already been excluded. The fundamentalists also responded with great anger towards the more philosophical arguments: The liberals, they claimed, had elevated human reason above the Book of Morg, which should be the ultimate standard of truth. But the liberals had no right to judge Morg; it was Morg who would eventually judge them."
**********
1) Notice, again, the "book of Morg" is appealed to, rather than the Bible.
2) Notice the simplistic interaction with Calvinism. That you can find a text that says God loves all men does not imply that he loves them all in the same way. I can point to texts that say I should love my neighbor? Does this mean I love them like I love my wife? Is Talbott advancing a homosexual agenda? Does he wish his neighbor, Larry, would "love him" the same way that Talbott loves his wife?
3) There are no color distinctions, correct. For Talbott to properly advance this argument from analogy he must be saying that there are no moral distinctions. Is this what he wants to say? If not, then his case is all wet. Calvinists do not believe that God judges man for amoral considerations.
4) That a holy, just, and loving God could not hold people morally blameworthy for an amoral reason - such as skin color - does not logically imply that he could not do so for moral reasons. In fact, his character would seem to demand it. Is it "loving" to let the child molester go free? Is Talbott going to be demonstrating for the release of Christopher Paul Neil? No punishment for Neil. Wouldn't be the loving thing to do. Excuse me, the wuving thing to do. Does love and justice and holiness demand the punishment of crime (sin)? The restoration of good?
5) Talbott acts as if "love" is opposed to "hate." Romans 12:9 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." We are told to have a genuine love, and them immediately told to hate! Talbott is arguing for "wuv," not love. "Wuv" allows child molesters to get off Scott free. "Wuv" doesn't punish evil. But of course the Calvinist doesn't believe in "Wuv." He doesn't hold to "Morg's revelation." What, then, is "challenging" for the Calvinist here?
6) Where's the argument and exegesis refuting the texts Calvinists point to which demonstrate that all does not always mean all? Indeed, non-Christians philosophers grant this point, Talbott. Just because it uses a word that is universal, does not mean that is how it is being used in this passage. There is such a thing, which philosophers of language recognize, as restricted quantification. Philosopher of language William Lycan, speaking on restricted quantification, writes that, "What logicians call the domains over which quantifiers range need not be universal, but are often particular cases roughly presupposed in context" (Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, p.24). Above he appeals to the "liberal philosophers" but now he'll sweep that aside and play the part of the aww shucks Appalachian mountain fundy. "Guh-huh, iet sayes awl, so's iet must main awl."
7) If "human reason" is what Talbott wants, here's an argument for limited atonement: If Jesus died for you, then he is your high priest. If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you. Therefore if Jesus died for you, he makes intercession for you. Jesus does not intercede for all people. Therefore, Jesus did not die for all people. QED.
**********
"And so the controversies raged among the Morgists until Nivlac, the greatest exegete and theologian of Atlantis, put an end to all such controversies by the power of the sword--which, he claimed, Morg had placed in his hand. According to Nivlac, Morg did not hate the albinos on account of anything they had done, good or bad; he did not even hate them on account of their white skin. To the contrary, their white skin was but a visible sign that Morg had already hated them from the foundation of the world. Against the liberal party--"venomous dogs who spew out more than one kind of venom against Morg,"
**********
1) Here Talbott just misunderstands the order of the decrees.
2) It's not as if the subject of God's hate was a neutral agent. God's mercy does not depend upon what we do. He chose to have mercy on some people apart from any good they did. Indeed, Romans 9 is talking about election. God elects some sinners. So, both Jacob and Esau were guilty, but one was elected out of sin instead of the other, on no other basis than God's good pleasure. This does not imply that God hated neutral, or righteous agents apart from any moral considerations.
3) Talbott shifts the straw man. He tries to cover the fact that he had been arguing from a straw man - God's decision to punish people for an amoral reason, skin color - with another straw man. God still has no moral basis by which he determines who will receive His wrath on Talbott's cover-story. Talbott still has God hating morally neutral agents. So, this is no different than his skin color straw man.
**********
"Nivlac went on to make two additional points: first, that Morg's will is the highest rule of righteousness, and second, that nothing in Morg's nature prevents him from hating the albinos. Accordingly, Morg's hatred "has its own justice--unknown, indeed to us but very sure." Nivlac thus concluded that any argument from a human conception of justice is fundamentally misconceived: "We deny that Morg is liable to render an account; we also deny that we are competent judges to pronounce judgment in this cause according to our own understanding."
**********
1) How is this a challenge to Calvinists? This isn't a "challenge" but a restatement of the proposition: "I don't like Calvinism."
2) Many Arminians believe the above, albeit in a weaker sense.
3) God doesn't have "his own" justice as if there was a "real" justice that was not God's own. He is the paradigm of justice. This is a bunch of question begging assertions. Did Reppert even read this piece? If so, why think that the re-statement of anti-Calvinist rhetoric was "challenging?"
4) What is "a human conception of justice?" Would that be Hitler's or Talbott's? What argument does he have for his conception as a normative, non-arbitrary standard by which he can judge God's actions?
5) Why is God "liable to render an account?" Where is the supporting argument? Is it that, say, a human judge should render an account for his actions, therefore God must? Is God "another one of us?" Talbott leaves Michael Jackson theology, and now promulgates Joan Osborn theology:
If God had a name, what would it be
And would you call it to his face
If you were faced with him in all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question
And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets
And yeah yeah god is great yeah yeah god is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
What if God was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
He's trying to make his way home
Back up to heaven all alone
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome
And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
What if god was one of us
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
Just trying to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to heaven all alone
Just trying to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
Except for the pope maybe in rome
Excuse me for not feeling "challenged" by pop music theology.
6) There have been thousands of pages written arguing for God's justice. Talbott doesn't interact, he simply levels assertions. Hardly "challenging" for the Calvinist.
7) Can I challenge "our understanding?" Why is "our understanding" afforded a free pass when God's isn't? God can be challenged, man cannot. All Talbott has done is to trade anthropocentrism for theocentrism.
**********
"And so ends our parable. A question many might have about it is this: If certain texts in the Book of Morg really did contain such a horrendous doctrine about the albinos, why did so many Morgists regard the book as an infallible revelation nonetheless?"
**********
1) First, let's note the fallacious nature of his comment. I'm now forced to stick up for the Morgist. Why think a "horrendous doctrine" implies the falsity of a position? Bertrand Russell argued for what could be considered a horrendous doctirne in A Free man's Worship. Does Talbott think this ipso facto implies the falsity of atheism? Bad consequences do not necessitate the negation of the position which led to those consequences.
2) We've already shown this is a straw man, and so this isn't something for the Calvinist to be "challenged" by.
**********
"Why did they not just throw out the objectionable parts? One answer might be that most of them had learned about Morg in the first place by reading the Book of Morg, and they did not feel it right simply to pick and choose what they would, and would not, believe. They regarded the entire book as the holy Word of Morg, and they denied themselves any authority to stand in judgment upon the veracity of this text or that. As we hinted when telling the story, alternative interpretations of the crucial texts were indeed possible. But what could a simple peasant, who knew little of the book's historical background and nothing of the languages in which it was originally written, have to say on that score? How could a simple peasant controvert the opinion of so great a scholar as Nivlac on the meaning of a specific text? So long as the less learned considered it impious to question the authority of scripture, therefore, Nivlac could employ his greater learning as a club to beat them into submission. His superior knowledge of history and the languages of scripture and his more sophisticated exegetical arguments made him, for all practical purposes, the final arbiter of all truth--not just the truth in the area of his own specialty, but of all truth."
**********
1) The cash value, for the Arminian, if he's reading, is that you must deny the authority of Scripture to deny Calvinism.
2) Note that Talbott thinks he's right and we're wrong. His "reasoning" led him to the truth. To question it gets you mocked. Gets you called a Muslim extremist. Question Talbott, he'll make fun of your position by means of bad parody. How can a layman Calvinist stand up to this? Who wants to get made fun of? Who wants to be the butt of jokes? Best to stay silent, just like lord Talbott wants.
3) Notice the scholarly work of engaging in exegesis must be put aside. Talbott has lost that war. So, move the goal posts, and then declare no one can score.
**********
"There is, of course, a way in which even a simple peasant could have undermined all of Nivlac's pretensions. Suppose that a peasant woman should have approached him and have said something like this: "Look, Nivlac, I love Morg with all my heart, and I believe that the Book of Morg is indeed his holy Word. And I don't know what to say about your fancy arguments that seem to imply such awful things about Morg."
**********
1) But how can this woman say this to a Calvinist? Which Calvinist implies that God hates people for no reason? No morally sufficient reason, at least.
2) What is so awful about hating, with a perfect, non-sinful, holy hatred, those who are opposed to you. The worst of criminals?
3) This is simply the continuation of Talbott's straw man argument.
**********
"But I do know this. No holy or just or loving Creator like Morg, no Creator of the kind that I worship, could possibly hate this little albino child of mine that I love so much. Indeed, if he loves me, as you say he does, then he must also love my baby. So if you are right about the meaning of these verses--mind you, I'm not saying you are right--but IF you are right, then these verses are just wrong; they are not a true revelation from Morg." By her simple willingness to hold onto certain convictions even on the assumption that they contradict the Book of Morg, or contradict certain texts in the Book of Morg, such a peasant woman would have nullified every advantage that Nivlac's superior knowledge of history and language might otherwise have given him. All of his railing about wicked disobedience, about substituting her own human judgment for Morg's, about making accusations against Morg would then simply pass her by. For as even a simple peasant woman could see, there is no question here of making accusations against Morg. Her bone of contention, as we have imagined it, was with Nivlac, not with Morg."
***********
1) Steve offered a parody of this parody on Reppert's site:
"Look, Nivlac, I love Morg with all my heart, and I believe that the Book of Morg is indeed his holy Word. And I don't know what to say about your fancy arguments that seem to imply such awful things about Morg. But I do know this. No holy or just or loving Creator like Morg, no Creator of the kind that I worship, could possibly love and save the rapist and tormenter and killer of my little girl. Indeed, if he loves my little girl, as you say he does, then he cannot also love the rapist and tormenter and killer of my little girl. So if you are right about the meaning of these verses--mind you, I'm not saying you are right--but IF you are right, then these verses are just wrong; they are not a true revelation from Morg."
2) Look at Talbott's inference pattern: If He loves me, he must love my baby. That's a non-sequitur. God’s not like a dude dating a single mother. “Any man that loves me has got to love my baby.” Indeed, Jesus implied that one’s devotion toward God was to be so strong that it could be compared to hating your family members. Talbott’s theology leads people down a dangerous road. A road without a shepherd. Well, you have talbott to tell you what’s up. Sola Talbotta.
3) Notice the contradiction. The woman believes that the writings are Morg's word, but if they don't go the way she wants them to, so much for her belief that the writings are Morg's words. This is cheap discipleship. This is: "If I don't like X, X can't be true," type reasoning. Is the authority of Scripture denied, as well as good reasoning?
4) Talbott argues that one way to stop the Calvinist's arguments is to show your unwillingness to believe in the authority of Scripture. Good thing Jesus didn't do that, even when he didn't like the outcome he was facing. Good thing Abraham didn't do that. On Talbott's terms, you have to live contrary to the "people of faith" in Hebrews 11 in order to defeat the Calvinist. Far from representing a "challenge" to the Calvinist, Talbott's parody only strengthens our convictions!
5) How about this parody:
Some men tried to speak of moral absolutes - like thou shall not torture children for fun. They said that this was an obvious truth. It was known by intuition. How could those murderers have challenged these brilliant philosophers? Simple. They just denied those intuitions. Denied any authoritative moral laws. Doing this nullifies the philosophers arguments. "This went against sound reason," yelled the philosophers. "That's alright, we'll just deny the canons of reasoning," retorted the life-takers.
Stupid, huh?
6) Notice that Talbott’s argument requires one to “dump” much more than the so-called “hard passages.” God gave us a coherent package. Tinker with some of the parts, affect the rest of the engine.
7) Notice the ironic turn of events. Talbott praises "human understanding" and "human reason" as an authority which can judge what we read in the Bible. But in the dialogue between Nivlac and the Morgite, the Morgite comes face to face with superior reason. A better argument. Does Talbott say that the Morgite should follow the argument where ever it leads? No! Talbott says that emotion is ultimate. If a revelation from God contradicts your "feewings" about what "wuv" is, then deny the revelation. If reason and argumentation contradicts your "feewings" about what "wuv" is, then deny reason. Subjective feelings are the standard. For Talbott, one should never deny their gut. If something doesn't give you warm fuzzies, it's probably not true.
8) I'll close with another one of Steve's comments:
"Now normal men and women—unlike pedophiles, abortionists, and psychopaths—are naturally protective of young children. So this illustration plays upon the emotive connotations of a “little child” or “baby.”
But children ordinarily grow up to be adults. Suppose we compose a different parable.
Once upon a time there was a Jewish physician who had dreams. And, unlike most folks, his dreams came true.
One night he had a dream about a sick little German boy who visited his clinic. The little boy would grow up to commit genocide against the Jewish people.
The next day, a sick little boy by the name of Adolph Hitler was brought into the clinic to receive treatment for a life-threatening childhood illness. The doctor could cure him or he could let him die by administering a placebo. He knew that by healing this child, he would be condemning thousands of other innocent children to death—including his very own children.
Should he save this child, and thereby condemn thousands of other children to suffer an unjust and premature death, or should he let this child die, and thereby save the prospective victims? Who should he allow to live, and who should he allow to die?
I’ll let you decide how you wish to finish the story.
Point being: our moral intuitions are context-dependent. It all depends on the illustration. Change the illustration, and you may suddenly find yourself contradicting your previous intuition. You were very sure of yourself until
Tearjerkers cut both ways. For it’s easy to compose tearjerkers that illustrate opposing positions."
Infant Reprobation and the Independent Baptist
I see T.J. Pennock has decided to do a(nother) drive by shooting on Calvinism, this time attacking Calvin on infant reprobation.
For those who are unaware, Mr. Pennock is a self-professed anti-Calvinist. According to his blogger profile, his favorite literature includes, "
I also find it a bit humorous that he says in one of his articles that on the one hand Calvinists can't live in peace with others, but on the other hand, nearly his entire blog is a demonstration that he cannot live in peace with Calvinists. This sort of thing is the reason Strange Baptist Fire was created.
Before continuing a couple of observations.
1. Steve has written on this here.
2. I have built on that here.
3. Nathan White has written on it here.
4. Turretinfan has written on it here.
So, I'll refrain from addressing the details and leave it to readers to do their homework. No sense in reinventing the wheel.
5. I can't help but notice that Mr. Pennock, like so many of his kind, is long on attack and short on providing an exegetical foundation for his own point-of-view. In fact, this is just another ethical objection. A pastor friend of mine who once taught @ SWBTS told me a long time ago that the truth of the matter was that there are really no substantiative exegetical objects to the doctrines of grace. Rather, they are ethical.
So, without further adieu, Mr. Pennock writes:
This quote comes as part of a discussion rejecting those who attribute the reprobation of men merely to the prescience of their evil acts, but Calvin is very clear that men's sin and sinful nature arises not from God, but from man. That's his point - prescience is only a partial answer to this question.
Which gets us to an obvious flaw in your argument. Since, according to the view you hold, the faith of men upon which their election is conditioned is infallibly foreknown, and since this election is said to be "before the foundation of the world," how, pray tell, is your position stronger?
You're leveling, after all, an ethical objection to this concept, so, one would think that this would mean you believe that you hold a superior moral ground. How so? God is still creating men (and deciding to create them before they are ever created) knowing full well that they will never believe and that they will sin. Indeed, they will commit many heinous ones if allowed to come to full flower. They are certainly damned "from the womb" upon your own view, since God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, yet God creates them anyway, and they are infallibly known to be damned.
One thinks that you must believe that God is somehow not morally responsible for the reprobation of men according to your way of thinking regarding the basis of it. However, since your view entails libertarian freedom, and the standard definitions of libertarianism coming from your side of the aisle reduce to uncaused choices, you are in no position to know why one person sins and not another, much less exercises saving faith, and absent a motive, you are in no position to ascribe blame to their actions. So much for divine justice. By the way, you seem to be confounding the difference between reprobation and condemnation.
Or is your objection to the possibility that infants who die in infancy might be viewed as hellbound. Do you believe that men are born in a state of complete innocence? Do you deny the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity? If so, where are the supporting arguments for both? We should let the Bible determine what is a proper moral argument.
How is Calvin the spokesman for the whole Reformed tradition? According to Warfield there are @ least 4 views on this subject.
I would also add that according to Boettner:
I take it you disagree with Dr. Webb, whom Boettner quotes. I look forward to your detailed examination of Webb's work. At the very least, then, even if Webb was wrong about Calvin, then what does this show? It shows one of four views is held by Calvinists.
For those who are unaware, Mr. Pennock is a self-professed anti-Calvinist. According to his blogger profile, his favorite literature includes, "
I also find it a bit humorous that he says in one of his articles that on the one hand Calvinists can't live in peace with others, but on the other hand, nearly his entire blog is a demonstration that he cannot live in peace with Calvinists. This sort of thing is the reason Strange Baptist Fire was created.
Before continuing a couple of observations.
1. Steve has written on this here.
2. I have built on that here.
3. Nathan White has written on it here.
4. Turretinfan has written on it here.
So, I'll refrain from addressing the details and leave it to readers to do their homework. No sense in reinventing the wheel.
5. I can't help but notice that Mr. Pennock, like so many of his kind, is long on attack and short on providing an exegetical foundation for his own point-of-view. In fact, this is just another ethical objection. A pastor friend of mine who once taught @ SWBTS told me a long time ago that the truth of the matter was that there are really no substantiative exegetical objects to the doctrines of grace. Rather, they are ethical.
So, without further adieu, Mr. Pennock writes:
By way of reply:
Is this the nuttiness to which sovereign, secret, unconditional election leads, that is, infant damnation? "God so ordains by his council and his will that some among men should be born devoted to certain death from the womb, to glorify his name by their destruction" (Inst. lib. 3, 23, 6).
This quote comes as part of a discussion rejecting those who attribute the reprobation of men merely to the prescience of their evil acts, but Calvin is very clear that men's sin and sinful nature arises not from God, but from man. That's his point - prescience is only a partial answer to this question.
Which gets us to an obvious flaw in your argument. Since, according to the view you hold, the faith of men upon which their election is conditioned is infallibly foreknown, and since this election is said to be "before the foundation of the world," how, pray tell, is your position stronger?
You're leveling, after all, an ethical objection to this concept, so, one would think that this would mean you believe that you hold a superior moral ground. How so? God is still creating men (and deciding to create them before they are ever created) knowing full well that they will never believe and that they will sin. Indeed, they will commit many heinous ones if allowed to come to full flower. They are certainly damned "from the womb" upon your own view, since God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, yet God creates them anyway, and they are infallibly known to be damned.
One thinks that you must believe that God is somehow not morally responsible for the reprobation of men according to your way of thinking regarding the basis of it. However, since your view entails libertarian freedom, and the standard definitions of libertarianism coming from your side of the aisle reduce to uncaused choices, you are in no position to know why one person sins and not another, much less exercises saving faith, and absent a motive, you are in no position to ascribe blame to their actions. So much for divine justice. By the way, you seem to be confounding the difference between reprobation and condemnation.
Or is your objection to the possibility that infants who die in infancy might be viewed as hellbound. Do you believe that men are born in a state of complete innocence? Do you deny the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity? If so, where are the supporting arguments for both? We should let the Bible determine what is a proper moral argument.
How is Calvin the spokesman for the whole Reformed tradition? According to Warfield there are @ least 4 views on this subject.
I would also add that according to Boettner:
It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings, however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants. He also taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this life reprobate. But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are lost as infants. He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on their supposed innocence and sinlessness. Calvin's views in this respect have been quite thoroughly investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and his findings are summarized in the following paragraph: "Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure' -- (that is his own word) -- 'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of
such must live to the age of moral accountability, and translate original sin into actual sin.''
In none of Calvin's writings does he say, either directly or by good and necessary inference, that any dying in infancy are lost. Most of the passages which are brought forth by opponents to prove this point are merely assertions of his well known doctrine of original sin, in which he taught the universal guilt and depravity of the entire race. Most of these are from highly controversial sections where he is discussing other doctrines and where he speaks unguardedly; but when taken in their context the meaning is not often in doubt. Calvin simply says of all infants what David specifically said of himself: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me," Ps. 51:5; or what Paul said, "In Adam all die," 1Cor. 15:22; or again. that all are "by nature, the children of wrath," Eph. 2:3. (Reformed Doctrine of Predestination Section 11. of chapter XI. (pages 143-148) Unconditional Election, and is subtitled, Infant Salvation).
I take it you disagree with Dr. Webb, whom Boettner quotes. I look forward to your detailed examination of Webb's work. At the very least, then, even if Webb was wrong about Calvin, then what does this show? It shows one of four views is held by Calvinists.
Let’s go back to the specter of babies burning in hell.
i) Of course, much of what makes this mental image repellent is just that—the colorful imagery. But let’s not mistake Dante for whatever hell is really like. What we’re literally talking about is the state of the soul—whether a younger or older soul, which--at the general resurrection--will be reunited with a body.Does anybody else recognize Mr. Pennock's overall argument? It bears a striking resemblance to atheism's argument against hell itself. In fact, a universalist can make the same claims about Mr. Pennock's construal of the argument as applied to anybody. If he wishes to argue from which is more loving, for example, then, by Mr. Pennock's own logic, the universalist is in a stronger position, and therefore is to be preferred. Isn't it rather odd that when the problem of evil comes up, far too many times we see non-Calvinists conceding it, and in fact, when issues like this come up, they take the side of the atheist?
ii) Is the age you die at the age you remain? If you die at 90, are you still 90 in heaven?
In heaven, wouldn’t you, in a sense, age up, age down, or both? You would age down in the sense that if you were past your prime when you died, you’d then revert to an optimal time of life—both mentally (in the intermediate state) and physically (in the final state). But you’d also continue to mature—in that same ageless and youthful state—to mature intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.
iii) The same with those who go to hell. Suppose that some of the great bloodletters of history like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Attila and Harry Blackmum and Genghis Khan had died in childhood, died before they murdered their millions. And suppose they went to hell.
Should we really visualize them as cute, curly-haired, cherubic babies in hell—50 years later, a 100 years later? Or should be visualize them as what they became, and worse—far worse. In fact, if you put anyone in hell, without the preservative of common grace, much less saving grace, they’ll all turn into a Hitler or Blackmun or Stalin—a super-duper Hitler or Blackmun or Stalin.
What you have here is a natural evolution of sin, from seed to full flower. It is not a little angel turning into devil, but a little devil turning into a bigger devil.
iv) And when we debate the merits of universal infant salvation, not only are we forming a mental image of babies in heaven or hell, but we’re tacitly projecting our mental image onto the mind of God, as if he is visualizing the very same spectacle.
But does God see a baby as a baby, as only a baby? According to Ps 139:16, God sees a baby as a storybook character in a novel that he himself has written. His entire life and afterlife is present to the mind of God—present because he penned every single page.
What is more—God has a number of unpublished manuscripts as well. Books that never went to press. Books he’s written with alternative endings (cf. 1 Sam 23:11-12; Mt 11:21-23).
The point is not that God chooses according to what’s in the book. The point, rather, is that what’s in the book is according to God’s choosing.
Moreover, when we see a baby or a little child, that is literally all we see. We don’t see the soul. But God sees the invisible soul. Not only does he see the future, but he sees an delitescent dimension of the present. Parts of his book are written in invisible ink—legible to his eyes alone.
Another shameless plug for Huckabee
Huckabee is doing well in straw polls, although it’s still an uphill climb for him. I don’t know why some conservatives don’t think Huckabee can beat Hillary. Hillary is a very vulnerable candidate. Baggage from the past. High negatives. A naturally strident and icy demeanor.
I’d add that the gender gap cuts both ways. She’s a living parody of the loud, pot-tossing wife in hair curlers who lords it over her hen-pecked husband. The Battleaxe-in-Chief.
Bill and Hillary deserve each other. We don’t.
Incidentally, she could learn a thing or two from Maggie Thatcher and Benazir Bhutto about how to wield power without losing the feminine touch.
She has to forfeit a high percentage of the electorate right of the top, since many have said that under no circumstances would they ever vote for her.
Hillary is not a people person. She doesn’t like people, and it shows. She uses people as a ladder to scramble to the top, then kick it aside. Power is her aphrodisiac.
By contrast, Huckabee is warm and witty. Unlike Bush, Huckabee is very articulate. Like Reagan, he puts a smile on conservatism. As a man of the working class, he connects with a lot of voters on the bread-and-butter issues.
As candidates go, I don’t think we could do much better, although we could do a whole lot worse.
I’d add that the gender gap cuts both ways. She’s a living parody of the loud, pot-tossing wife in hair curlers who lords it over her hen-pecked husband. The Battleaxe-in-Chief.
Bill and Hillary deserve each other. We don’t.
Incidentally, she could learn a thing or two from Maggie Thatcher and Benazir Bhutto about how to wield power without losing the feminine touch.
She has to forfeit a high percentage of the electorate right of the top, since many have said that under no circumstances would they ever vote for her.
Hillary is not a people person. She doesn’t like people, and it shows. She uses people as a ladder to scramble to the top, then kick it aside. Power is her aphrodisiac.
By contrast, Huckabee is warm and witty. Unlike Bush, Huckabee is very articulate. Like Reagan, he puts a smile on conservatism. As a man of the working class, he connects with a lot of voters on the bread-and-butter issues.
As candidates go, I don’t think we could do much better, although we could do a whole lot worse.
Christianity's Influence On Friendship
Last year, I wrote a post about the moral standards of the earliest Christians. Christianity's positive effect on society in contexts such as charity and infanticide is often noted, but a less discussed contribution is Christianity's influence on friendship.
In her book Christian Friendship In The Fourth Century (New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Carolinne White comments:
In her book Christian Friendship In The Fourth Century (New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Carolinne White comments:
As far as the early development of a positive Christian attitude to friendship goes, it has also been suggested that the best elements in Classical friendship were in fact transformed and absorbed into Christianity...
But it must not be forgotten that, if any positive evaluation of friendship was to develop within early Christian thought, it had to be firmly based on Scripture....
It is true that there are several places in the Gospels where Jesus appears to condemn friendship, as at Luke 14:12 and Matt. 5:46 where it seems that friendships based on mutual benefit and exclusiveness are rejected, for are not Christians to imitate their God who loves freely and without partiality? Jesus breaks through the exclusivity of family and friends, contradicting forcibly the ancient values.
Furthermore, Christian emphasis on the eschatological element in its theology and the belief that the end of the world was at hand deprived friendship of much of its importance by undermining the value accorded to the traditionally accepted benefits of this life and radically altering the perspective on life. And yet Jesus' disciples are referred to as friends as well as brothers, possibly indicating that they have a share in the eternal life brought by Christ, and Lazarus is said by Jesus to be 'our friend' for whom he shows his love by weeping at his death (John 11:35-6). And did not Jesus regard John as his favourite disciple whom he loved more than the others? In fact, the passage in which Jesus speaks of the disciples as his friends, in the fifteenth chapter of John, is crucial for our understanding of the love which is the essence of the life of God's people and which, it is clear, is as much a love between men as between man and God; that Jesus should here refer to his disciples as friends is significant. His words here could provide some model for a view of friendship which is created by Christ and which involves both love for our fellow men and an intimate relationship with Christ himself, a friendship in which the participants strive to attain that love with which Christ sacrificed his life for his friends....
Another important element in Christian love, which appeared in the writings of certain writers, was the eschatological perspective lacking in the Classical [pre-Christian Gentile] view. Not only is all love closely related to God, it is also related to the future fulfilment of God's kingdom where the love will be perfected and man will attain knowledge of God - this characteristic was to be of central importance in Augustine's development of a Christian ideal of friendship....
Thus the best in Classical friendship was transformed and found a secure purpose in Christianity, which offered many favourable conditions for the development of friendship. Not only could the Christians' common faith and devotion to God provide a similar basis for friendship as shared interests and a devotion to virtue or truth had done for the men of antiquity, but also, for example, the belief that all men are equal in the sight of God meant that Christian friends could feel free in some sense from the problems which were traditionally regarded as arising if the friends were unequal, socially or morally. The emphasis placed on unity in Christ among all Christians encouraged men to come together in a high degree of spiritual intimacy resembling, even surpassing, the intimacy held to be the prerogative of perfect friendships in antiquity. Furthermore, the fact that friendships were believed to spring from the love of Christ meant that they were, at least in theory, divinely endowed with a stability and permanence which would have made the pagans of antiquity envious....
The focus of the virtuous man [in the view of the Christian bishop Gregory Nazianzen] must be God: this is on the whole a view which is foreign to the Classical idea of the relation between virtue and friendship....
He [Ambrose of Milan] explains that grace can produce just as strong a force for love as nature and indeed we ought to love more strongly those who we believe will be with us forever than those who are with us only in this life. Natural sons fail to live up to their parents' expectations but spiritual sons are chosen with a view to loving; the former are loved out of necessity while the latter are loved as a result of an act of judgement which creates a far stronger bond....Here again we are reminded of the fundamental contrast between the pagan and Christian outlook, with the Christian emphasis on the future life and on grace opposed to the pagan attachment to natural, family ties....
[quoting Paulinus of Nola] "For the friendship not built on Christ is not founded on a rock. So from time to time it is troubled by a slight breeze and is loosened; it bears a short-lived bloom produced by some transient attraction but then it quickly withers away like grass and like the flower of the field quickly falls. But the Lord's love abides for ever. It binds us to each other both for life and death because the love of Christ is as strong as death."
Related to this belief is the startling idea that Christian friendships, in such circumstances, are perfect from the start and do not need time to mature and conversely, that those Christians who have devoted themselves to a life of imitation of Christ are close friends whether they have yet come into contact or not....
In adding a creative element to his view of friendship, Augustine makes it a more dynamic relationship than in the traditional picture. This element is of course paralleled by the creative force of God's love for man for we love him because he first loved us despite our sins. Although we may love someone because he is virtuous, as in the Ciceronian view of friendship, we may also love him in order that he might become just, i.e. in order that the love of God may be kindled in his heart and he may respond to our love with mutual feelings. In this way men may attain that love which is the true fulfilment of Christ's commandment whereby they love one another because they all belong to God, so that they may be brothers to His only Son, as Augustine writes in his commentary on the Gospel of John. 'They love one another with the same love with which He loved them when he intended to lead them to that final place where all their needs and desires would be satisfied and where God would be all in all.' (pp. 46, 48-49, 55-57, 73, 123, 153-154, 207-208)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)