Allow me to rework the analogy a bit to make it more accurate so that we can see which conception is “more loving.”
Imagine a beach, with a lifeguard leader (Mr. G. Clark) with 10 lifeguards under his authority. These 10 other lifeguards do whatever the lead lifeguard tells them to do. A little ways off shore, a boat with a captain and 10 sightseeing visitors on board develops a problem and begins to sink. The captain radios for help and the lead lifeguard, Mr. Clark, finds out about the situation. He also finds out that all 10 people are paraplegics in wheelchairs unable to swim, completely unable to save themselves. Mr. Clark has the ability to save all 10 paraplegics, if he sends all 10 lifeguards to attempt the rescue. According to Calvinism he intentionally sends only two lifeguards to save only two persons and he intentionally allows the others to drown making no effort to save them whatsoever (though he is fully able to save all 10 of them). Mr. Clark had some sort of secret decision so that if this event would arise he would save only two and intentionally leave the rest to drown. How loving is Mr. Clark in this situation?
In the noncalvinist conception, the Lead lifeguard sends all 10 lifeguards who dive into the water and head for the drowning persons. Upon arriving at each person, each person is asked “do you want help or not?” So all have the possibility of being saved. And if they are saved it was not by their strength that they are saved but by the efforts of the lifeguards to save them. All have the opportunity to be saved. Those who reject the offer of the lifeguards drown by their own choice and have no one to blame but themselves. Those who accept the offer are saved by the efforts of the lifeguards alone and so have no reason to boast.
Now which is the **more loving** thing to do? To have the ability to save all ten, but to intentionally save only two and to intentionally let the others drown when you were perfectly capable of saving them all? Or to make life possible for all, with those rejecting the offer of life being solely responsible for their drowning?
Most people understand this difference between the two conceptions. And because they do so, they are repulsed by the Calvinist view, and they understand that Calvinism is the less loving conception. And not only is it less loving in this analogy.
We also know some things about the lifeguard who comes to save us. He did not just throw a life preserver at us and go off to lunch. He dove into a sinful world, a world in total rebellion against Him. And He gave up His life to save us. To mischaracterize his efforts as merely throwing out a life preserver and going out to lunch, mocks the gospel message and the true lifeguard the true good shepherd.
Henry
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6789188&postID=857118949998539729
Several issues:
1.I don’t begin with the axiomatic postulate that God must do the most loving thing, and then deduce my theology from that postulate. Rather, my theology is derived from what the real God really does.
2.A universalist would say that universalism is more loving that Arminianism. And this is not just a hypothetical position. There are writers like Adams, Talbott, and Boda who argue for their position in considerable detail.
3.Arminians like Henry try to snake a free ride by positioning themselves along the “loving” end of the theological spectrum. But Arminianism is a mediating position.
4.Henry’s problem is that he’s trying to strike an intellectual compromise between two competing Arminian imperatives: divine love and human freedom. These tug in opposing directions. In Arminian theology, God can only do for us what we will allow him to do for us.
So Arminianism represents a makeshift position. It limits the love of God. God can only be loving up to a certain point—the point at which it would make a difference. He can only be as loving as the sinner allows him to be.
In Arminian theology, the love of God is secondary, and the will of man is primary. When push comes to shove, freewill limits love, not vice versa.
So, in Arminian theology, the love of God stops short of doing the most loving thing, which is to save a sinner from his own worst self.
In Arminian theology, the love of God stops short of doing anything. It’s all about showing rather than doing. An empty gesture.
5.According to Arminian theology, the divine lifeguard intentionally allows the other swimmers to drown. For the first question that lifeguard must ask the drowning swimmer is if he wants to be saved. If he doesn’t want to be saved, then the lifeguard won’t save him against his will. Rather, the lifeguard will let him drown.
Is that the most loving thing a lifeguard can do? In Henry’s twisted definition of love, it’s less loving to actually save a few swimmers from drowning than to merely offer to save everyone, even if everyone refuses. In Henry’s twisted definition of love, it’s more loving to let every swimmer drown as long as you made the offer to rescue them. In Henry’s twisted definition of love, it’s more loving to let everyone drown than it is to save a few.
Yes, Henry’s lifeguard dives into the water. And once he’s in the water, he swims over to the capsized vessel, asks a passenger if he would like a helping hand, then swims away and watches him sink beneath the waves if he refuses aid.
6.Unlike Henry, I don’t pretend that God always does the most loving thing for everyone. And I really don’t care if God did the most loving thing for Attila the Hun or Josef Mengele. Sometimes God does what is just rather than what is loving. That’s fine with me.
7.Let’s apply Henry’s idea of love to a different situation. Suppose my best friend or kid brother is suicidal. Suppose I’m in a position to intervene. To prevent him from taking his own life.
I also don’t have to remind you that this is a real life situation. Cases like this regularly occur.
According to Henry’s idea of love, it would be unloving of me to violate his freedom by tackling him before he goes over the guardrail, or wrestling the gun from his hand.
According to Henry’s idea of love, it’s more loving if I offer to take him to a psychiatrist, but if he refuses, I stand back as he pulls the trigger or falls to his death. As I watch his brain matter splatter the pavement, I can tell myself that my best friend had only himself to blame.
Unfortunately for Henry, the analogy is off.
ReplyDeleteSinners are not drowning; they've drowned.
Sure, they go through the motions of flailing about in the water, but a zombie would do that too.
So, Henry's assuming that these men are able to say yes.
Take his question-begging assumptin away, his above story would be quite different.
So, re-do the story with the living dead flailing about in the ocean.
The main mistake these analogies always make is assuming that the "victims" in their story have a normal nature. Geisler did the same thing, with his "kids swimming in the lake" analogy. And, in fact, this error goes all the way back to Pelagius.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Romero presents: Beach of the Living Dead
ReplyDeleteAnd since both Calvinism and Arminianism start from the false premise of grace and salvation as relations of opposition, both end up with unloving Gods.
ReplyDeleteOrthodoxy is the better way. It is also what the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles.
It is also what the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles.
ReplyDeleteIf big "O" orthodoxy teaches what the apostles taught below, then I'm pretty sure that many Calvinists would have no problem coming on board:
Proverbs 16:4, "The Lord has made all things for his own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Romans 9:15-18 "For He says to Moses, 'I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.' 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.' 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
What does Lord Jesus have to do with any of this high-tech year 2070 mumbo jumbo?
ReplyDeleteI am blessed with an effortless faith, and don't need to worry about this science fiction bullcrap.
Apparently, Betty is also "blessed" with the ability to post the same comment on multiple posts.
ReplyDeleteDusman:
ReplyDeleteOf course Orthodoxy teaches the Proverbs and Romans passages you mention.
But Calvinism fails to properly exegete those passages because it starts from the false premise of the relation of oppositions when it comes to grace, salvation, and, relative to these verses, God's sovereignty.
For example, because Calvinism has this oppositional relational understanding of God's sovereignty it has no ability whatsoever to deal with freedom and grace, always subsuming freedom under nature and thus eliminating freedom altogether. In Calvinism, not even God is free, bound as he is by his nature in an either/or set of oppositions. And, in fact, Calvinism has no way to properly distinguish between the attributes of God, his justice and his mercy. That is why steve, in the post above, ultimately resorts to the non sequitur of universalism.
Orthodoxy avoids the Scylla of universalism AND the Charibdis of determinism.
"Of course Orthodoxy teaches the Proverbs and Romans passages you mention."
ReplyDelete=====
What exactly does it teach about those passage?
======
"But Calvinism fails to properly exegete those passages because it starts from the false premise of the relation of oppositions when it comes to grace, salvation, and, relative to these verses, God's sovereignty."
=======
Of course, *calvinism* doesn't exegete anything, people do. Good exegetes will let the text speak for itself, with an eye towards original intent and context. Do you have any exegetes in mind?
Also, where is your exegesis for this text, if calvinists mangle it so?
=======
"For example, because Calvinism has this oppositional relational understanding of God's sovereignty it has no ability whatsoever to deal with freedom and grace, always subsuming freedom under nature and thus eliminating freedom altogether."
=====
Perhaps calvinists do subsume freedom under nature. So? Can you show any relevant passages that demonstrate that this is not the case?
Can you quote any reformed confessions or theologians that indicate that we "eliminate freedom altogether"?
========
"In Calvinism, not even God is free, bound as he is by his nature in an either/or set of oppositions."
=======
Can you exegete any passages that demonstrate that this is not the case?
======
"And, in fact, Calvinism has no way to properly distinguish between the attributes of God, his justice and his mercy."
======
How so? Calvinism asserts that God shows mercy on the elect and judges the reprobate. Seems pretty staightforward to me.
=======
"That is why steve, in the post above, ultimately resorts to the non sequitur of universalism."
========
Universalism is perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand, since Steve is pointing out that it is the only logically consistant extreme for the Armenian to take.
=======
"Orthodoxy avoids the Scylla of universalism AND the Charibdis of determinism."
======
How so?
Incidentally, this is how a leading Arminian commentator defines proginosko:
ReplyDelete"OT references to God's knowing someone or his people, that is, to his inclination toward or love for them, sometimes refer to a concept of election (Amos 3:2; Deut 9:24; Exod 33:12,17; Gen 18:19; Deut 34:10), and such passaes lie in the background here [Rom 9:1-11:26]," B. Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans (Eerdmans 2004), 246-47.
So, by Henry's lights, Ben Witherington, although the leading Arminian exegete of his generation, and a full professor at the flagship of Arminian seminaries, must have a hidden Calvinistic agenda.
Paul Manata said...
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately for Henry, the analogy is off.
Sinners are not drowning; they've drowned.
Sure, they go through the motions of flailing about in the water, but a zombie would do that too."
I heard that blackbeards body swam around in the water for some time after he was beheaded.
Anyway, I agree with your post, Paul
So, Henry's assuming that these men are able to say yes.
Take his question-begging assumptin away, his above story would be quite different.
So, re-do the story with the living dead flailing about in the ocean.
Semper Reformanda said:
ReplyDelete"Of course Orthodoxy teaches the Proverbs and Romans passages you mention."
=====
What exactly does it teach about those passage?
Well, for one, it acknowledges that Romans 9 is a text about Israel
"But Calvinism fails to properly exegete those passages because it starts from the false premise of the relation of oppositions when it comes to grace, salvation, and, relative to these verses, God's sovereignty."
=======
Of course, *calvinism* doesn't exegete anything, people do. Good exegetes will let the text speak for itself, with an eye towards original intent and context. Do you have any exegetes in mind?
Do you deny that Calvinist exegetes do what I claim they are doing?
Also, where is your exegesis for this text, if calvinists mangle it so?
My exegesis is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please consult such worthies as St. John Chrysostom and St. John Damascene, et al.
"For example, because Calvinism has this oppositional relational understanding of God's sovereignty it has no ability whatsoever to deal with freedom and grace, always subsuming freedom under nature and thus eliminating freedom altogether."
=====
Perhaps calvinists do subsume freedom under nature. So? Can you show any relevant passages that demonstrate that this is not the case?
That freedom is not subsumed under nature?
Can you quote any reformed confessions or theologians that indicate that we "eliminate freedom altogether"?
Do you deny that freedom is eliminated when person is subsumed under nature?
"In Calvinism, not even God is free, bound as he is by his nature in an either/or set of oppositions."
=======
Can you exegete any passages that demonstrate that this is not the case?
That God's freedom is not subsumed under his nature?
"And, in fact, Calvinism has no way to properly distinguish between the attributes of God, his justice and his mercy."
======
How so? Calvinism asserts that God shows mercy on the elect and judges the reprobate. Seems pretty staightforward to me.
So, then, God is double-minded?
"That is why steve, in the post above, ultimately resorts to the non sequitur of universalism."
========
Universalism is perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand, since Steve is pointing out that it is the only logically consistant extreme for the Armenian to take.
Only if one begins from the faulty premises upon which Calvinism and its mirror-image of Arminianism are founded.
But both are irrational at base.
"Orthodoxy avoids the Scylla of universalism AND the Charibdis of determinism."
======
How so?
By preaching a God who is not bound up in an oppositional dialectic, but is always working an infinity of goods presenting infinite choice and freedom.
"So, by Henry's lights, Ben Witherington, although the leading Arminian exegete of his generation, and a full professor at the flagship of Arminian seminaries, must have a hidden Calvinistic agenda."
ReplyDeleteThis is almost the opposite of John Wesley's approach. I remember reading his commentary on Acts, and when he gets to 13:48, his comments essentially boil down to, "whatever it is, I swear it's not election!"
I'd just make one simple change to Henry's analogy. When God asks the paraplegics if they want to be saved, they have to indicate their assent by kicking their legs.
ReplyDeleteWell, I didn't see a substantive response from Benedict to Semper Reformanda's post (not that I expected to). But it doesn't really matter. I mean, who speaks for the EOC anyway?
ReplyDeleteI especially loved this one,
"My exegesis is irrelevant to the discussion at hand."
So, you proclaim the Calvinist's exegesis of the passages in question faulty, then respond that YOUR exegesis of the passage is irrelevant. Brilliant.
Then we have this spicey rejoinder:
"Please consult such worthies as St. John Chrysostom and St. John Damascene, et al."
Yeah, OK, we'll dig up those works and see if they buttress your position. I've got a few hours to kill.
Shall our response be:
"Benedict, your understanding of the text is all wrong. See Calvin, Bucer, Farel, et al. There, you have been heartily refuted"
EO layman, speaking for the One True Church. What's this world coming to?
Spongecake:
ReplyDeleteOf course my exegesis is irrelevant to the specific point I made which is that Calvinist exegesis of the aforementioned verses is false because it begins from false premises. Whether or not my exegesis is proper is irrelevant.
Surely a sweet, cream-filled concoction as yourself knows a bit of logic?
And of course your bifurcation of my lay status and speaking for Orthodoxy is yet another diversion--I've already demonstrated again and again that you Triablogue'ers overuse diversion, apparently can't keep focused on the matter at hand. If what I am saying is not what Orthodox teaches, then demonstrate it.
And of course, consulting Calvin, Bucer et al would be interesting but a waste of time. The issue isn't what Calvinists (including the proto-Calvinists) teach, but whether what they teach matches what the Apostles taught. And regarding the subject matter of this particular post, Calvinism is out of step with the Apostles.
"Yeah, OK, we'll dig up those works and see if they buttress your position. I've got a few hours to kill."
ReplyDeleteHere's John Chrysostom on Romans 9, if you're interested. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm
Benedict, why not do a point by point refutation?
ReplyDeleteRefutation of what? A critique of a metaphor?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, to refute it properly would take a demonstration of the falsity of the premises upon which it is based, and so far I don't have any of the Triablogue'ers actually committing themselves to the positions they know they must hold if they are the Calvinists they appear to be.
So, let them affirm the dialectic of opposition, the subsumption of person to nature, and the denial of libertarian freedom to God.
Benedict,
ReplyDeleteIf the issue is what the *apostles* taught, then I think some exegesis is in order, don't you?
Surely such a seraph as yourself should be able to offer the correct exegesis.
And how am I supposed to know *what* the Orthodox teach? I can't find their spokesman. And besides, from what I've heard I "just wouldn't understand anyway because I'm not EO".
Ree,
Thanks, but my point was that if you're going to cite someone as being in agreement with your theological assertions, you should provide the quotes and citations. Not simply make an assertion and say, "see Caryl on Job" for example. But thanks for the link. I'll give it a reading...
--Spongecake
this stuff goes WAY over my head.
ReplyDeleteWhew!
Glad I know I'm saved, so I don't have to get all worked up over this stuff.
Spooge-filled backed good:
ReplyDeleteYou misconstrue my point. My point is not that they have bad exegesis simpliciter, but that their bad exegesis is predicate upon and derives its badness from false premises.
Which premises I have explicated and given the Triablogue'ers a chance to affirm or deny.
Who says Orthodoxy needs a single spokesman? We don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
And, yes, it's true, Orthodoxy cannot be adequately understood from the intellect alone. Attempting to understanding Orthodoxy from text books is a severe distortion.
"Well, for one, it acknowledges that Romans 9 is a text about Israel"
ReplyDelete=======
1. Even if this were so, relocating the target audience does nothing to alleviate the fact that some (in this case, a nation) are saved and some are not - as well as the fact that this salvation is an act of God, and not of man. So you've only moved the problem to a different scale without answering it.
2. On what basis do you claim that Romans 9 is about Israel?
======
"My exegesis is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please consult such worthies as St. John Chrysostom and St. John Damascene, et al."
"Of course my exegesis is irrelevant to the specific point I made which is that Calvinist exegesis of the aforementioned verses is false because it begins from false premises. Whether or not my exegesis is proper is irrelevant."
=======
You're making a positive claim about Eastern Orthodoxy. You're claiming that the Eastern Orthodox denomination exegetes the relevant passages properly, while Calvinists do not. Very well, then - prove it. It's not enough to show that Calvinism is in a leaky boat, but that Orthodoxy is in a leak-proof boat.
=======
"Do you deny that freedom is eliminated when person is subsumed under nature?"
Actually, I'm trying to get you to provide proof for your assertions. An assertion is not an argument.
=======
"That God's freedom is not subsumed under his nature?"
========
Correct.
=======
"So, then, God is double-minded?"
=======
God would be double-minded if He said one thing and did another, or kept changing His mind. Since neither applies to Calvinism, then, no, God is not double-minded.
======
Only if one begins from the faulty premises upon which Calvinism and its mirror-image of Arminianism are founded.
But both are irrational at base.
======
Then perhaps you should explain how the will is defined in Orthodoxy, in contrast to God's sovereignty. Is the will free? Is it not? Does God's will take precedence over the will of man?
=====
"By preaching a God who is not bound up in an oppositional dialectic, but is always working an infinity of goods presenting infinite choice and freedom."
======
Where in Scripture does it say that?
ht,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I knew what you meant, but I just thought you might be interested in reading it, anyway. As I'm sure you know, though, there won't be any point in interacting with Chrysostom's exegesis to make your point to the EO because to them, by definition, Protestant exegesis can't be right if it conflicts with the early Eastern fathers.
"Who says Orthodoxy needs a single spokesman? We don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic ecclesiology."
ReplyDeleteWell, since the EOC is the One True Church that is unified under apostolic teaching (this is the claim, isn't it?), there ought to be a single statement providing the EOC position on such and such an issue, right? So, let me correct my previous comments,
"And how am I supposed to know *what* the Orthodox teach? I can't find their one unified confessional statement explaining what they believe."
I guess that would *distort* things anyway, cuz writing it on paper assumes a non-EO could use his brain to understand it.
I think it would be a better argument to simply say, "Look, you're outside of the EOC. Why should I discuss theology with you?" And then have fellowship with your fellow EO, don't you think? I mean, it seems kind of odd to run out onto the battlefield when ultimately your shield is subjectivity...
--cream-filled snack cake
A. Of course, for Benedict Seraphim to actually do exegesis, this would be nothing more than individual speculation, given his rule of faith. So much for an exegetical foundation for anything he says.
ReplyDeleteB. Does Calvinism view grace and salvation in opposition? If that's true for Calvinism it is equally true of Orthodoxy, or does Orthodoxy teach universalism?
In Calvinism grace is given to all who will be saved, so there is no "opposition" at all. The opposition is in relation to grace and reprobation. B.Seraphim is rather inept.
C. Speaking of Romans 9, that's a rather broad chapter. Which part of Romans 9? Calvinists do not deny that Romans 9 is about Israel, but neither do we teach it is soley about corporate election.
D. If God is not bound by his nature, then God has libertarian freedom. God must be able to do evil in order for His will to be truly free. That, Seraphim, is heresy.
E. Where can libertarianism be exegeted from Scripture?
F. . If what I am saying is not what Orthodox teaches, then demonstrate it.
We've already demonstrated that you disagree with Orthodox and MG. MG has also stated publicly he disapproves of your approach. So, on this blog, we have conflicting opinions from the Orthodox regarding what Orthodoxy teaches and which one of you properly speaks for them and represents them. Further, you've not actually documented what Orthodoxy teaches in this thread. You've merely made claims. So, we need not demonstrate that you are not fairly representing Orthodoxy, when you have not shown us what official Orthodox teaching is in the matter, and, while we're on the subject, what is the hard and fast set of rules by which you can determine what is part of Holy Tradition and what is not in Orthodoxy? It isn't as if there aren't those in Orthodoxy who have not taught Calvinistic doctrine before.
G. Orthodoxy avoids the Scylla of universalism AND the Charibdis of determinism.
a. Really? Was the day of Christ's birth not set by God? What Judas not predestined to betray Christ?
b. Notice how Seraphim merely begs the question that determinism is "charibis," but what of his indeterminism? Why does one person believe and not another? His libertarianism is surd.
c. And libertarianism isn't an exegetical doctrine. Seraphim is trying, like so many in Orthodoxy, to move the conversation away from exegesis to philosophy. What a consummate rationalist he is.
H. And how is Orthodoxy "more lovign." Orthodoxy has been de facto a state church for centuries. Has God decided to leave the West out of his reach. The gospel according to our ecclesiolatrous friend is "Join the Orthodox Church," but if there is no Orthodox church is extra ecclesium nulla sanctus true? Why does Scripture not direct us to join the Orthodox church, and where does Scripture show that the Orthodox church is the church the Apostle's founded?
I. The ultimate argument that Seraphim has thus far given is his blind ecclesiological fideism. We can't understand Orthodoxy unless we are Orthodox. But that undermines everything he says about Orthodoxy. If he tells us to ask the Orthodox, we show him what we find, and he then contradicts it. So, we're constantly told conflicting things about Orthodoxy. Apparently the great mystery of salvation is which church is the true church...
Gene,
ReplyDeleteWhat did you mean when you said that the EOC is not, in fact, "more lovign"? What is that, French or something? Please use words that us regular folks can understand. Thanks, brother...
SEMPER REFORMANDA SAID:
ReplyDelete1. Even if this were so, relocating the target audience does nothing to alleviate the fact that some (in this case, a nation) are saved and some are not - as well as the fact that this salvation is an act of God, and not of man. So you've only moved the problem to a different scale without answering it.
Can you demonstrate that it is not of man?
Oh, and by the way, this answer confirms my assertion that you Calvinists view salvation in terms of dialectical oppositions (of God, not of God, of man, not of man)
2. On what basis do you claim that Romans 9 is about Israel?
Um, that would be on the basis of Romans 9.
You're making a positive claim about Eastern Orthodoxy. You're claiming that the Eastern Orthodox denomination exegetes the relevant passages properly, while Calvinists do not. Very well, then - prove it. It's not enough to show that Calvinism is in a leaky boat, but that Orthodoxy is in a leak-proof boat.
Nice try. We can move on to Orthodoxy after you Calvinists justify yourselves (pun intended there) on the exegesis you are asserting as founding your soteriological claims.
"Do you deny that freedom is eliminated when person is subsumed under nature?"
Actually, I'm trying to get you to provide proof for your assertions. An assertion is not an argument.
Well and good, but I also have to take measure of my audience so as to know what precisely needs established and what can be commonly stipulated.
So, again: Do you deny that freedom is eliminated when person is subsumed under nature?
"That God's freedom is not subsumed under his nature?"
========
Correct.
Sure. Matthew 26.39, 42, 44. The person, Jesus, is God. Jesus is also man. Jesus’ human will willed to live, not die. Now either this willing was a sin, or it was not. If it was a sin, Jesus is not God, of course. If it was not a sin, then the person, Jesus, was faced with two good (not sinful) choices: to live or to die at Calvary. Jesus chose to die, of course. So the question is: what happened to his human will to live? How was the dichotomy resolved in the choice of the person, Jesus? If Jesus was not free to choose to live, then his human will opposed his divine will, which would destroy the unity of his person. If Jesus’ divine will simply overpowered or subsumed his human will, then we have the heresy of monothelitism. If, however, the two objects willed by his human will (to live) and his divine will (to die) were both true goods, then it was not his nature (either his human nature or his divine nature) that determined his choice, but his person. Thus his person resolved the dilemma, not his nature. Therefore Jesus’ person is not subsumed under his nature. And if Jesus is divine, then neither is the Father’s person subsumed under his nature, nor the Holy Spirit’s.
QED.
God would be double-minded if He said one thing and did another, or kept changing His mind. Since neither applies to Calvinism, then, no, God is not double-minded.
If God wills all men to be saved, then if he also wills some men to be damned, he’s double-minded. Calvinism loses.
Then perhaps you should explain how the will is defined in Orthodoxy, in contrast to God's sovereignty. Is the will free? Is it not? Does God's will take precedence over the will of man?
There is no “contrast” if by “contrast” you mean opposition. Orthodoxy asserts the libertarian freedom of will/choice (depending upon how one defines will), that it is as persons, not as natures through which we actualize our willing in choice and deed. God, in fact, also chooses and acts as Person (or Tri-person), not as nature. Natures are, they do not act. Persons act.
The difference between human and divine actualization of the will in free choice is that God’s Person is always already fixed in virtue (or holiness, or wisdom, or what have you), and therefore God always already knows the true good(s) among all the goods from which he may choose, and, in fact, being divine and infinite, always already knows all the infinity of true goods which he always works as the real, indivisible manifestation of his essence or nature. Human willing and choice, however, does not always already know the true goods from among the possible choices available, and, in fact, often mistakes apparent goods for true goods. All human willing, as an energetic realization of human nature, always tends toward the good, but, not being fixed in virtue, and therefore not possessed of sufficient wisdom, often does choose an apparent good, and thus misses the mark (sins) by choosing that which is not God’s true goods, the works he always already works from infinity to infinity.
God’s sovereignty, then, is not some thing that determines his person, but is, rather, one of the infinity of ineffably distinct, and yet ineffably united, goods that are the outworkings of his essence. God’s sovereignty is not identical to his mercy, his justice not identical to his love, and yet all are goods wholly united with one another in and as God’s essence.
Thus, God’s willing of libertarian free will/choice for humans is a good just as his sovereignty is a good, and both are distinct and distinguishable energetic outworkings of his essence, and so are wholly united with one another. Thus God wills at the same time both goods, and thus both goods are utterly real.
So, even fallen human nature accomplishes God’s design: to teleologically will God as its ultimate good, but, being fallen, that nature is not fixed in virtue and thus often mistaken in its apprehension of the true reality of the “goods” presented to it.
"By preaching a God who is not bound up in an oppositional dialectic, but is always working an infinity of goods presenting infinite choice and freedom."
======
Where in Scripture does it say that?
Start with Ephesians 1:15ff.
HOSTUS TWINKIUS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Who says Orthodoxy needs a single spokesman? We don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic ecclesiology."
Well, since the EOC is the One True Church that is unified under apostolic teaching (this is the claim, isn't it?), there ought to be a single statement providing the EOC position on such and such an issue, right?
That does not follow either logically or necessarily, no.
So, let me correct my previous comments,
"And how am I supposed to know *what* the Orthodox teach? I can't find their one unified confessional statement explaining what they believe."
Please demonstrate the being privy to knowing the content of a group’s beliefs necessitates a confessional document?
Since you all apparently are shy of attending an Orthodox liturgy, and you all’re so into book larnin’, then here’s two beginning steps you need to do to get a grasp of what Orthodox believe:
**Read the Vespers, Orthros/Matins, Compline and Divine Liturgy services (both those of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great); including the Canon of preparation for Holy Communion
**Read the conciliar statements of the seven Ecumenical councils, particular the dogmatic “definitions,” as well as the eighth Council and the fourteenth century Constantinopolitan councils.
You should add the Lenten Triodion, the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, and the Akathist to the Theotokos, to round things out.
Then you can begin to tackle some of the Fathers.
I guess that would *distort* things anyway, cuz writing it on paper assumes a non-EO could use his brain to understand it.
Straw man, meet diversion.
I think it would be a better argument to simply say, "Look, you're outside of the EOC. Why should I discuss theology with you?" And then have fellowship with your fellow EO, don't you think? I mean, it seems kind of odd to run out onto the battlefield when ultimately your shield is subjectivity...
Straw man Jr, meet diversion junior.
GENEMBRIDGES SAID:
ReplyDeleteA. Of course, for Benedict Seraphim to actually do exegesis, this would be nothing more than individual speculation, given his rule of faith. So much for an exegetical foundation for anything he says.
Straw man, Gene. Thanks for playing.
B. Does Calvinism view grace and salvation in opposition? If that's true for Calvinism it is equally true of Orthodoxy, or does Orthodoxy teach universalism?
Orthodoxy doesn’t begin with the opposition that Calvinism does, and thus avoids universalism altogether. Some will be saved. Some will be damned. God loves them all.
In Calvinism grace is given to all who will be saved, so there is no "opposition" at all. The opposition is in relation to grace and reprobation. B.Seraphim is rather inept.
Gene apparently doesn’t know that God wills for all men to be saved, not all who will be saved. Pretty inept if you ask me.
C. Speaking of Romans 9, that's a rather broad chapter. Which part of Romans 9? Calvinists do not deny that Romans 9 is about Israel, but neither do we teach it is soley about corporate election.
Do tell?
D. If God is not bound by his nature, then God has libertarian freedom. God must be able to do evil in order for His will to be truly free. That, Seraphim, is heresy.
Sure, if you’re a Calvinist who cannot conceive of God except in absolutist relations of opposition.
But for Orthodox, God truly has infinite libertarian freedom of will/choice, and never is there the necessity that God’s freedom is predicated on a choice of dialectical opposition. There is an infinite real diversity of goods that God always works, and those goods are both ineffably distinguishable from and ineffably one with his essence/nature.
So, no heresy. There heresy is subsuming God’s person under his nature. Sabellianist modes of unitarianism come to mind.
E. Where can libertarianism be exegeted from Scripture?
Wow. Where can it not?
But, I tell you what, start with the Garden of Eden and demonstrate that Adam and Eve’s natures determined them to sin. Or go to the other Garden, Gethsemane, and try to explicate Jesus’ human will as unsubsumed under his divine will AND avoid the heresy of monothelitism.
F. . If what I am saying is not what Orthodox teaches, then demonstrate it.
We've already demonstrated that you disagree with Orthodox and MG. MG has also stated publicly he disapproves of your approach. So, on this blog, we have conflicting opinions from the Orthodox regarding what Orthodoxy teaches and which one of you properly speaks for them and represents them.
I wasn’t aware that there’s any disagreement. But perhaps you can clarify what constitutes substantive disagreement. O, MG, and I might disagree as to whether shellfish is an appropriate fast food, but that’s hardly substantive.
Further, you've not actually documented what Orthodoxy teaches in this thread. You've merely made claims. So, we need not demonstrate that you are not fairly representing Orthodoxy, when you have not shown us what official Orthodox teaching is in the matter, . . .
Careful, your rationalist positivism is showing. (How embarrasing!)
Everything I have claimed is Orthodox teaching, which you can substantiate by reading the liturgies, the canons, the dogmatic definitions and the Fathers.
If something is merely my opinion, I label it so.
Now, if you’d be so good as to demonstrate where there is substantive disagreement between O, MG and myself.
. . . and, while we're on the subject, what is the hard and fast set of rules by which you can determine what is part of Holy Tradition and what is not in Orthodoxy? It isn't as if there aren't those in Orthodoxy who have not taught Calvinistic doctrine before.
There’s that positivism again! (Don’t they have a cream for that irritating thing?)
I gave a list of readings in another response above. Start there. Then get back to me.
G. Orthodoxy avoids the Scylla of universalism AND the Charibdis of determinism.
a. Really? Was the day of Christ's birth not set by God? What Judas not predestined to betray Christ?
Yes, but that does not eliminate the free will of the Son or of Our Lady.
No, not in a deterministic sense.
Since Orthodox do not subscribe to absolute/definitional divine simplicity as Calvinists do, we have no problem ascribing foreknowledge to God and free will to humans.
b. Notice how Seraphim merely begs the question that determinism is "charibis," but what of his indeterminism? Why does one person believe and not another? His libertarianism is surd.
Ad ignorantiam, eh. Nice try. Still a fallacy.
c. And libertarianism isn't an exegetical doctrine. Seraphim is trying, like so many in Orthodoxy, to move the conversation away from exegesis to philosophy. What a consummate rationalist he is.
Category mistake, Gene. Rationalism is not the same as philosophy. Further, try to do exegesis without any philosophy.
As they say in some parts of the world, you Triablogue’ers are all hat.
H. And how is Orthodoxy "more lovign." Orthodoxy has been de facto a state church for centuries.
Wow. Are you ignorant. But sorry, the charges of Erastianism won’t fly. History shows otherwise.
Has God decided to leave the West out of his reach. The gospel according to our ecclesiolatrous friend is "Join the Orthodox Church," but if there is no Orthodox church is extra ecclesium nulla sanctus true? Why does Scripture not direct us to join the Orthodox church, and where does Scripture show that the Orthodox church is the church the Apostle's founded?
Straw man. Diversion. Category error.
I. The ultimate argument that Seraphim has thus far given is his blind ecclesiological fideism. We can't understand Orthodoxy unless we are Orthodox. But that undermines everything he says about Orthodoxy. If he tells us to ask the Orthodox, we show him what we find, and he then contradicts it. So, we're constantly told conflicting things about Orthodoxy. Apparently the great mystery of salvation is which church is the true church...
Straw man. I never claimed you can’t understand Orthodoxy without being Orthodox (though admittedly there is a sense in which that is true). Rather, what I have said is that you can’t understand Orthodoxy from books.
And I stand by that.
"Can you demonstrate that it is not of man?"
ReplyDelete====
"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call" (Romans 9:11)
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." (Romans 9:16)
Also, you have made no attempt to address the fact that making Romans 9 about Israel does nothing to address the issue of who God calls.
====
"Oh, and by the way, this answer confirms my assertion that you Calvinists view salvation in terms of dialectical oppositions (of God, not of God, of man, not of man)
===
If what you mean is that Calvinists believe that salvation is of God and not of man, then yes, that is correct. Unfortunately, it took some three posts to wrangle a clear meaning out of you.
====
Um, that would be on the basis of Romans 9.
====
Yes, but do you have the exegesis to back that up? Why should I believe that Romans 9 is what you say it is - although, as mentioned before, you haven't exactly explained how making Romans 9 simply about Israel clears anything up.
====
Nice try. We can move on to Orthodoxy after you Calvinists justify yourselves (pun intended there) on the exegesis you are asserting as founding your soteriological claims.
====
Let's take a look at Benedict's original claim, shall we? Benedict originall claimed that "Calvinism fails to properly exegete those passages because it starts from the false premise of the relation of oppositions when it comes to grace, salvation, and, relative to these verses, God's sovereignty."
If this is true, then prove it. Show me which exegetes you're referring to, and how they begin with erroneous presuppositions that creep into their exegesis. This is YOUR claim, stop trying to weasel out of your burden of proof. Otherwise, you give me no reason at all to believe your assertion.
Also, stating that Calvinists begin with the wrong premises, you would need to demonstrate that YOU know the correct premises and how one is to determine what they are.
"Do you deny that freedom is eliminated when person is subsumed under nature?"
====
I do, because compatibilism dictates that freedom is not entirely subsumed under nature, but only partially subsumed. An individual has limited freedom, not libertarian freedom.
So, again, as I asked before, can you quote any reformed confessions or theologians that indicate that we "eliminate freedom altogether"?
====
Sure. Matthew 26.39, 42, 44. The person, Jesus, is God. Jesus is also man. Jesus’ human will willed to live, not die. Now either this willing was a sin, or it was not. If it was a sin, Jesus is not God, of course. If it was not a sin, then the person, Jesus, was faced with two good (not sinful) choices: to live or to die at Calvary. Jesus chose to die, of course. So the question is: what happened to his human will to live? How was the dichotomy resolved in the choice of the person, Jesus? If Jesus was not free to choose to live, then his human will opposed his divine will, which would destroy the unity of his person. If Jesus’ divine will simply overpowered or subsumed his human will, then we have the heresy of monothelitism. If, however, the two objects willed by his human will (to live) and his divine will (to die) were both true goods, then it was not his nature (either his human nature or his divine nature) that determined his choice, but his person. Thus his person resolved the dilemma, not his nature. Therefore Jesus’ person is not subsumed under his nature. And if Jesus is divine, then neither is the Father’s person subsumed under his nature, nor the Holy Spirit’s.
QED.
====
This confuses the Calvinist position on choice. You yourself make the correct disctinction that both of Jesus' choices were not sinful - which is perfectly in accordance with both His divine and human nature. However, Jesus could not make a sinful choice and thus, His nature is limited. If the choice instead were between doing the will of the Father and rejecting the Father, this would be libertarian will. Jesus was not, however, free to choose evil.
====
If God wills all men to be saved, then if he also wills some men to be damned, he’s double-minded. Calvinism loses.
====
I take it by "all men" you mean "every single individual on the planet". However, I deny that God wills all men to be saved in such a sense. I believe that where Scripture speaks of "the world" or "all men", a proper look at the context will reveal that these terms do not mean "every person on the planet".
====
There is no “contrast” if by “contrast” you mean opposition. Orthodoxy asserts the libertarian freedom of will/choice (depending upon how one defines will), that it is as persons, not as natures through which we actualize our willing in choice and deed. God, in fact, also chooses and acts as Person (or Tri-person), not as nature. Natures are, they do not act. Persons act.
The difference between human and divine actualization of the will in free choice is that God’s Person is always already fixed in virtue (or holiness, or wisdom, or what have you), and therefore God always already knows the true good(s) among all the goods from which he may choose, and, in fact, being divine and infinite, always already knows all the infinity of true goods which he always works as the real, indivisible manifestation of his essence or nature. Human willing and choice, however, does not always already know the true goods from among the possible choices available, and, in fact, often mistakes apparent goods for true goods. All human willing, as an energetic realization of human nature, always tends toward the good, but, not being fixed in virtue, and therefore not possessed of sufficient wisdom, often does choose an apparent good, and thus misses the mark (sins) by choosing that which is not God’s true goods, the works he always already works from infinity to infinity.
God’s sovereignty, then, is not some thing that determines his person, but is, rather, one of the infinity of ineffably distinct, and yet ineffably united, goods that are the outworkings of his essence. God’s sovereignty is not identical to his mercy, his justice not identical to his love, and yet all are goods wholly united with one another in and as God’s essence.
Thus, God’s willing of libertarian free will/choice for humans is a good just as his sovereignty is a good, and both are distinct and distinguishable energetic outworkings of his essence, and so are wholly united with one another. Thus God wills at the same time both goods, and thus both goods are utterly real.
So, even fallen human nature accomplishes God’s design: to teleologically will God as its ultimate good, but, being fallen, that nature is not fixed in virtue and thus often mistaken in its apprehension of the true reality of the “goods” presented to it.
====
Thank you for clarifying. When you say that human nature tends toward good, are you speaking of the saved or unsaved (or both)? How, in your opinion, does this mesh with passages such as Titus 1:15-16 or Romans 8:7-8, which would seem to indicate that one's nature not only dictates one's will, but is also inherently depraved until saving grace.
====
"Start with Ephesians 1:15ff."
====
"For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints"
Unfortunately, I fail to grasp how this verse demonstrates God "working an infinity of goods presenting infinite choice and freedom". The rest of the passage fares little better, unless you'd care to be more specific.
Benedict,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Orthodoxy is the better way. It is also what the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles."
Why isn't there agreement among the Orthodox about "what the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles"?
You said:
"yes, it's true, Orthodoxy cannot be adequately understood from the intellect alone. Attempting to understanding Orthodoxy from text books is a severe distortion."
To which I said:
"I guess that [having a uniform confession of faith] would *distort* things anyway, cuz writing it on paper assumes a non-EO could use his brain to understand it."
Where's the straw man? Where's the diversion? I've just re-stated your position in an illustrative way.
And if you really can't understand EO objectively, from clear doctrinal statements, and you can always fall back on "well, you're not EO so you don't understand", why bother with theological debate with non-EO? I mean, it'd be great if I had such a parachute for when I get stumped in a theological debate, but alas, it is not available to me. I may have to actually admit I was wrong about something and reconsider my position. You should try it sometime...
--Spongecake Squarepants
Steve--
ReplyDeleteYou say:
"Incidentally, this is how a leading Arminian commentator defines proginosko:
"OT references to God's knowing someone or his people, that is, to his inclination toward or love for them, sometimes refer to a concept of election (Amos 3:2; Deut 9:24; Exod 33:12,17; Gen 18:19; Deut 34:10), and such passaes lie in the background here [Rom 9:1-11:26]," B. Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans (Eerdmans 2004), 246-47."
A quick comment: of course Witherington also would deny that these passages support an exclusively Calvinist understanding of foreknowledge, much less define proginosko. As we can see from his discussions of Romans 8:28-9 and 11:2, he doesn't view foreknowledge that way. He also hints at this immediately after the quote you gave of him when he talks about the fact that word studies aren't decisive and we need to keep in mind texts about the rebellion of Israel. Im sure you already realize that and I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting Witherington; this was mainly to clarify to the readers of the blog.
Gene--
You said:
"C. Speaking of Romans 9, that's a rather broad chapter. Which part of Romans 9? Calvinists do not deny that Romans 9 is about Israel, but neither do we teach it is soley about corporate election."
I think Seraphim might have been getting at the idea that romans 9 can also be interpreted as primarily discussiong the election of Israel to covenant and the impications this has for the present state of Jews and their salvation, without teaching solely or specifically about the election of Christians. I think what he's wondering (and what I am also wondering) is where we see a concept of unconditional individual election to eternal salvation operative in Romans 9.
"D. If God is not bound by his nature, then God has libertarian freedom. God must be able to do evil in order for His will to be truly free. That, Seraphim, is heresy."
Libertarian freedom can be defined as follows:
For some agent A in situation S,
1. the agent is the source of his/her own intentional action
2. the agent has the ability to choose between multiple alternative possibilities without being causally determined to choose one of them
If God's nature were such that his person were not able to choose what is evil, He could still have libertarian freedom to choose between equally good possible options. This wouldn't be the same kind of libertarian freedom that humans have (what Swinburen calls "very serious libertarian freedom") but it would be libertarian nonetheless. Personally I wouldn't use the terminology of "constrain" because what may be a power for one being might be a liability for another. It may be the case that God and creatures are disanalogous in this, and the libertarian freedom proper to God cannot choose evil whereas the freedom proper to man can.
"E. Where can libertarianism be exegeted from Scripture?"
Here is one argument for you, out of many possible ones that could be used:
1 corinthians 10:18 implies that God provides all the conditions necessary for the correct operation of the human will in the instance of a Christian being tempted. If compatiblism is true then necessary conditions are also sufficient conditions. Therefore if compatiblism is true, then all Christians have the necessary and sufficient conditions present in them to not sin. But Christians do sin. Therefore compatiblism is false. Therefore Christians have libertarian freedom at least some of the time.
Seraphim--
That's a cool argument about Christ's person and the two natures. Im reading Maximux right now the second time around and I look forward to seeing such discussions in him. I'm not sure the argument works *perfectly* but its intriguing and I will think about it.
And (to let you and everyone else who may or may not be interested know) I wasn't disapproving of everything every other EO person said in my post. I just am not sure I agree with the attitudes revealed in some of the more scathing comments some (not all) Orthodox people have made, or all of the arguments that certain individuals have used.
MG said:
ReplyDelete"A quick comment: of course Witherington also would deny that these passages support an exclusively Calvinist understanding of foreknowledge, much less define proginosko."
Irrelevant. Remember that I was responding to Henry's claim that the Greek word only means "know" or "foreknow," never "choice" or prior choice; that only a Calvinist would appeal to OT usage, and only a Calvinist would render the word as "choosing beforehand."
It's precisely because Witherington is an Arminian whose overall interpretation of the passage is Arminian rather than Reformed that his admission on this particular, semantic point, is directly germane to refuting Henry's charge.
Moreover, he does say that these OT passages define proginosko. What he denies is that the meaning of proginosko, of itself, determines the interpretation of Rom 9-11.
SEMPER REFORMANDA SAID:
ReplyDelete"Can you demonstrate that it is not of man?"
====
"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call" (Romans 9:11)
"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." (Romans 9:16)
I’m sorry, but perhaps you haven’t figured in to your Romans 9 exegesis, the following verses from Romans (emphasis added):
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse of even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16 ESV)
So, if men are unable to do anything related to their salvation, how is it that by nature they do the works of the law?
Also, perhaps you have forgotten James rather clear pronouncment on whether we can do anything related to salvation (emphases added):
Was not Abraham justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was comopleted by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.” You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24 ESV)
And then there’s the classic Orthodox doctrine of synergy straight from St. Paul’s pen:
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)
Clearly, then, humans can something(s) that is(are) efficacious in some way toward furthering their salvation (he says in as understated a way as he can).
Also, you have made no attempt to address the fact that making Romans 9 about Israel does nothing to address the issue of who God calls.
Does it? Or does it only apply to Israel, old and new?
If what you mean is that Calvinists believe that salvation is of God and not of man, then yes, that is correct.
At last, a clear statement of affirmed belief.
Yes, but do you have the exegesis to back that up? Why should I believe that Romans 9 is what you say it is - although, as mentioned before, you haven't exactly explained how making Romans 9 simply about Israel clears anything up.
Why should you believe what you say about Romans 9? On what basis do you demonstrate the sort of authority by which you could trust your own exegesis?
Let's take a look at Benedict's original claim, shall we? Benedict originall claimed that "Calvinism fails to properly exegete those passages because it starts from the false premise of the relation of oppositions when it comes to grace, salvation, and, relative to these verses, God's sovereignty."
If this is true, then prove it. Show me which exegetes you're referring to, and how they begin with erroneous presuppositions that creep into their exegesis. This is YOUR claim, stop trying to weasel out of your burden of proof. Otherwise, you give me no reason at all to believe your assertion.
Here’s a much simpler approach: simply deny that Calvinism teaches what I have affirmed. As you well know, a single counter-example, especially one well-founded, defeats a general assertion. If my general assertion is false, it ought be quite simple to demonstrate the falsity by counter-example. Since you don’t apparently deny it, then perhaps we can simply stipulate it as true and continue on in the argument. If we have to demonstrate every single agreed upon point, no conversation would go forward. So, do you agree with or deny the truth of my assertion?
Also, stating that Calvinists begin with the wrong premises, you would need to demonstrate that YOU know the correct premises and how one is to determine what they are.
Oh, I know what the correct premises are, because the Calvinist premises lead, logically, to Sabellianist unitarianism and/or Christological monotheletism.
Since I know, logically, where they must arrive—unless the holders of the premises are simply inconsistent—I know those premises are false.
"Do you deny that freedom is eliminated when person is subsumed under nature?"
====
I do, because compatibilism dictates that freedom is not entirely subsumed under nature, but only partially subsumed. An individual has limited freedom, not libertarian freedom.
Ah, now you’re being inconsistent, or equivocating on freedom. So, let’s plow a little closer to the corn, shall we?
Does nature determine human choice such that no human can choose that which his nature does not dictate? Or, to say it another way, must every human so choose such that he can only choose along the path of his strongest desire?
If so, then how is it possible that Adam and Eve sinned?
So, again, as I asked before, can you quote any reformed confessions or theologians that indicate that we "eliminate freedom altogether"?
I’m content to simply work off your own responses, assuming you think that you represent a generally held view of Calvinism/Reformed theology. If you don’t perhaps I can turn my attention to one of the other Triablogue’ers.
This confuses the Calvinist position on choice. You yourself make the correct disctinction that both of Jesus' choices were not sinful - which is perfectly in accordance with both His divine and human nature. However, Jesus could not make a sinful choice and thus, His nature is limited. If the choice instead were between doing the will of the Father and rejecting the Father, this would be libertarian will. Jesus was not, however, free to choose evil.
So, you do wholly subsume Jesus’ person to his nature. Thanks for the clarification.
Now, to which nature is Jesus’ person wholly subsumed? His human nature or his divine?
Also, you didn’t really address the question. If neither of Jesus’ choices were sinful, then how is it that the human will, willing in opposition to the divine will, was not subsumed under the divine will (as per monothelitism)?
I take it by "all men" you mean "every single individual on the planet". However, I deny that God wills all men to be saved in such a sense. I believe that where Scripture speaks of "the world" or "all men", a proper look at the context will reveal that these terms do not mean "every person on the planet".
Please demonstrate this with a few examples. Thanks. (And if I may, why not start with the one to which allusion has already been made: 1 Timothy 2:4
Thank you for clarifying. When you say that human nature tends toward good, are you speaking of the saved or unsaved (or both)? How, in your opinion, does this mesh with passages such as Titus 1:15-16 or Romans 8:7-8, which would seem to indicate that one's nature not only dictates one's will, but is also inherently depraved until saving grace.
See Romans 2:14-16 cited above.
"Start with Ephesians 1:15ff."
====
"For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints"
Unfortunately, I fail to grasp how this verse demonstrates God "working an infinity of goods presenting infinite choice and freedom". The rest of the passage fares little better, unless you'd care to be more specific.
Perhaps you are aware that the “ff” following the number 15 means, “look at verses 15 and following.” I took that conventional abbreviation as fairly obviously. Sorry if it wasn’t. So, in that regard: Look more closely at vv. 18 and 23
HOSTUS STRAWMANUS SAID:
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't there agreement among the Orthodox about "what the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles"?
There is, on matters of dogma. There are lesser matters, adiaphora, about which there is wide and legitimate variation.
"yes, it's true, Orthodoxy cannot be adequately understood from the intellect alone. Attempting to understanding Orthodoxy from text books is a severe distortion."
To which I said:
"I guess that [having a uniform confession of faith] would *distort* things anyway, cuz writing it on paper assumes a non-EO could use his brain to understand it."
Where's the straw man? Where's the diversion? I've just re-stated your position in an illustrative way.
No, you did not re-state my position. You distorted it. Had you paid more careful attention to what I’ve written, just in this post’s response-thread, you would see that I never claimed putting the Orthodox faith to paper distorted it. In fact, I quite explicitly urged you and the rest of the readers to read the liturgies, dogmatic formulae and so forth.
So, there is the straw man, spooge-filled-goodness.
And if you really can't understand EO objectively, from clear doctrinal statements, and you can always fall back on "well, you're not EO so you don't understand", why bother with theological debate with non-EO? I mean, it'd be great if I had such a parachute for when I get stumped in a theological debate, but alas, it is not available to me. I may have to actually admit I was wrong about something and reconsider my position. You should try it sometime...
Again, a straw man. I never claimed Orthodoxy cannot be understood objectively. I just denied that it could be fully understood from books.
MG SAID:
ReplyDeleteSeraphim--
That's a cool argument about Christ's person and the two natures. Im reading Maximux right now the second time around and I look forward to seeing such discussions in him. I'm not sure the argument works *perfectly* but its intriguing and I will think about it.
I’m not sure there is any argument anywhere that works perfectly. But the argument does do two things: it denies the premises of the dialectic of opposition AND it gives a cogent, coherent alternative which does not have the same fatal weakness of dialectical opposition.
In that regard it is a far superior comprehension (keeping in mind the rightful place of apophasis) of the divine person of Jesus (and by extension the other divine Persons).
But you are right in one sense, it is not a quick leap from Jesus’ Person to the Persons of the Trinity. I have made some rather broad strokes here, but none, I do not believe, that would prove fatal to the argument at large.
And (to let you and everyone else who may or may not be interested know) I wasn't disapproving of everything every other EO person said in my post. I just am not sure I agree with the attitudes revealed in some of the more scathing comments some (not all) Orthodox people have made, or all of the arguments that certain individuals have used.
While I regrettably too often resort to sarcasm in my online dialogues, you’re right, MG, we Orthodox could refrain from tossing back the polemics and simply carry straight on through the dialogue.
Of course, we might also do better discerning the audience and simply refusing to cast pearls before swine. (No consciously intended reference to the present online company, of course.)
"Snake a free ride." I've got to remember to use that one sometime.
ReplyDeleteJim
Benedict,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"I quite explicitly urged you and the rest of the readers to read the liturgies, dogmatic formulae and so forth."
But who will infallibly interpret them for me?
You said:
"I never claimed Orthodoxy cannot be understood objectively. I just denied that it could be fully understood from books"
So, what would supplement the books so that we can understand it? A power point presentation? Or must we attend an EOC for, say, 30 straight Sundays?
You said:
"spooge-filled-goodness."
What exactly is "spooge"? That's not what it says on the nutrition guide on my label. Thanks
Steve Hays talks about the lifeguard analogy some more, He comments in seven sections:
ReplyDelete”1.I don’t begin with the axiomatic postulate that God must do the most loving thing, and then deduce my theology from that postulate. Rather, my theology is derived from what the real God really does.”
I do not begin with the AXIOMATIC POSTULATE that Hays **ascribes to me** either. I have never stated or suggested that God must do the most loving thing.
Hays’ calvinistic theology is not derived from what the real God really does because the real God told us about His love for the WORLD and He keeps acting out this real love for a real WORLD that includes more than just those who eventually respond with faith. Instead of the real God who has universal purposes when it comes to redemption, Calvinists intentionally limit the love and mercy of God to the “elect.” Hence a good term for them would be GRACE RESTRICTORS.
”2.A universalist would say that universalism is more loving that Arminianism. And this is not just a hypothetical position. There are writers like Adams, Talbott, and Boda who argue for their position in considerable detail.”
Again, the issue is not what is the most loving thing to do. Bringing in the universalists is a red herring.
”3.Arminians like Henry try to snake a free ride by positioning themselves along the “loving” end of the theological spectrum. But Arminianism is a mediating position.”
Regarding the “loving end’ of the theological spectrum, I just parrot or repeat, what God himself says about His redemptive plans for the WORLD. I am not the one who inspired John 3:16-17 and the other passages that speak of God’s love for more persons than just those who end up believing.
”4.Henry’s problem is that he’s trying to strike an intellectual compromise between two competing Arminian imperatives: divine love and human freedom. These tug in opposing directions. In Arminian theology, God can only do for us what we will allow him to do for us.
So Arminianism represents a makeshift position. It limits the love of God. God can only be loving up to a certain point—the point at which it would make a difference. He can only be as loving as the sinner allows him to be.
In Arminian theology, the love of God is secondary, and the will of man is primary. When push comes to shove, freewill limits love, not vice versa.
So, in Arminian theology, the love of God stops short of doing the most loving thing, which is to save a sinner from his own worst self.
In Arminian theology, the love of God stops short of doing anything. It’s all about showing rather than doing. An empty gesture.”
============================================
Divine love and human freedom are not contradictory. The divine love reflects who God is in Himself (as He himself says GOD IS LOVE). Human freedom reflects the divine design plan in creating Human persons. God’s actions in creating never contradict His own character and purposes.
So if God creates us with the ability to make choices and have free will, how does that contradict His loving nature?
The noncalvinist position does not limit the love of God, it is calvinism that intentionally and wrongfully limits God’s love and mercy to only the elect. They are the **grace restrictors** not the noncalvinists.
And this claim that He can only be as loving as the sinner allows him to be is straight out false. How do finite limited creatures limit the attributes of the God of the Bible?
And this claim that:
“In Arminian theology, the love of God stops short of doing anything. It’s all about showing rather than doing. An empty gesture.”
This is one of the most outrageous misrepresentations of noncalvinism that I have ever seen. God sending His own Son to die for the sins of the world and the Spirit leading the world to Christ by convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment IS STOPPING SHORT OF DOING ****ANYTHING***?
Jesus’ death on the cross for the world was an act of love that was merely SHOWING RATHER THAN DOING. ***AN EMPTY GESTURE***?
”5.According to Arminian theology, the divine lifeguard intentionally allows the other swimmers to drown. For the first question that lifeguard must ask the drowning swimmer is if he wants to be saved. If he doesn’t want to be saved, then the lifeguard won’t save him against his will. Rather, the lifeguard will let him drown.
Is that the most loving thing a lifeguard can do? In Henry’s twisted definition of love, it’s less loving to actually save a few swimmers from drowning than to merely offer to save everyone, even if everyone refuses. In Henry’s twisted definition of love, it’s more loving to let every swimmer drown as long as you made the offer to rescue them. In Henry’s twisted definition of love, it’s more loving to let everyone drown than it is to save a few.
Yes, Henry’s lifeguard dives into the water. And once he’s in the water, he swims over to the capsized vessel, asks a passenger if he would like a helping hand, then swims away and watches him sink beneath the waves if he refuses aid.”
============================================
If you wanted to press the analogy further. Sinners are sometimes given opportunity after opportunity to be saved and if they are nonbelievers they keep saying No repeatedly and sometimes become more hardened towards the Lord. So this would be more like the lifeguard asking if they want help over and over and finally the person drowning (which spiritually speaking would be when they die and then face judgment and end up in Hell).
Regarding coercing people into salvation (Hays advocates that God coerces us to be saved as He thinks that is **more loving**)salvation is a relationship and the Lord has designed things so that those who desire to have a personal relationship of love and trust with Him can do so, if they choose to do so. If you choose not to have this relationship with the Lord you will not. As God set it up this way, if Hays has problems with it, his problems are with God’s design plan.
Regarding my twisted definition of love, I have not offered any definition of love here nor is that the issue here.
Regarding the demonstration of God’s love. God Himself has said that He loves the world enough to give His own Son, Jesus, for that world. The issue here has been which conception, noncalvinism or calvinism, is more loving. I gave an analogy to correct Hays misrepresentations of the noncalvinist view.
Hays now has to misrepresent the noncalvinist view again. He speaks of the lifeguard swimming to the drowning person, asking them **once** if they want to be saved, and then leaving them to drown. This does not accurately reflect the noncalvinist view at all.
Many of us in our own experience of coming to the Lord can recall the Lord reaching out to us multiple ways and multiple times before we became believers. We believe that often God gives the same person multiple opportunities to hear the gospel and respond and that same person sometimes keeps saying No to till they die. I know people who completely understand the gospel message and know Christian beliefs having been around believers for many years and yet they continue in their obstinate unbelief. God is not like Hays claims, in saying it once and then leaving people to die (He is the opposite, He sends prophets and then His own Son and then the Holy Spirit and then apostles and then other Christians . . .).
”6.Unlike Henry, I don’t pretend that God always does the most loving thing for everyone. And I really don’t care if God did the most loving thing for Attila the Hun or Josef Mengele. Sometimes God does what is just rather than what is loving. That’s fine with me.”
Hays repeats it yet again. I have not said that God does the most loving thing for everyone always. That may be the claim of some, but I do not make that claim (actually I am not even sure what that would be in many cases; and I am not God so I don’t have to worry about determining what is best).
Hays also says that sometimes God does what is just rather than what is loving. We are discussing the issue of salvation where God is not acting on justice rather than love, but is acting in love. The bible is quite clear when speaking of salvation it uses multiple categories including love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness, rather than us only getting what we deserve/justice/Hell. Salvation is **not** a case in which God did what was just rather than what was loving (if He did we’d all be in Hell). And the lifeguard analogy is dealing with salvation so Hays’comment does not apply at all.
”7. Let’s apply Henry’s idea of love to a different situation. Suppose my best friend or kid brother is suicidal. Suppose I’m in a position to intervene. To prevent him from taking his own life.
I also don’t have to remind you that this is a real life situation. Cases like this regularly occur.
According to Henry’s idea of love, it would be unloving of me to violate his freedom by tackling him before he goes over the guardrail, or wrestling the gun from his hand.
According to Henry’s idea of love, it’s more loving if I offer to take him to a psychiatrist, but if he refuses, I stand back as he pulls the trigger or falls to his death. As I watch his brain matter splatter the pavement, I can tell myself that my best friend had only himself to blame.”
===========================================
In Hays’ monergistic scheme since God alone acts freely, and human persons are depraved to the point that they cannot embrace Christ for salvation unless they are regenerated first, God can, does, and must UNILATERALLY intervene in order for someone to be saved. I say UNILATERALLY because Calvinists do not believe that human persons do anything in the salvation process. In such a scheme unless God intervenes UNILATERALLY, the human person cannot be saved and will die in their sins.
In the synergistic theology of noncalvinists since salvation is a relationship involving God and man, both persons contribute actions to the relationship so that one person alone acting UNILATERALLY does not make the relationship occur. In this theology, God does certain things (e.g. He makes the provision of atonement in the cross of Christ, the Spirit works on the person showing them their need for salvation, that Jesus is the way of salvation, illuminating scripture in their minds, etc. etc. etc.) but human persons must also do certain things (e.g. they must have a faith response in order to be saved, they must obey God’s commandments) for the salvation relationship to exist. If salvation is seen relationally and hence synergistically, a UNILATERAL intervention by God alone is not sufficient to bring the relationship into existence.
If Hays is going to attack the noncalvinist view he needs to attack it as it really is, not caricature it and then attack the caricature. Hays begins section 7 with “Let’s apply Henry’s idea of love to a different situation.” So Hays is claiming to be addressing or directing his comments to the noncalvinistic synergistic understanding of salvation (where salvation is not based upon a UNILATERAL intervention alone to bring the relationship into existence). If Hays were accurately representing the noncalvinist view then he would be speaking about salvation in terms of relationship and the different actions of the two parties involved in the relationship. In other words he would be speaking of some situation involving MUTUALITY between two persons.
In the “different situations” which Hays brings up, none of them involve mutuality; all of them involve situations where a UNILATERAL intervention saves a person from death. So Hays says he is taking my view to other situations but then slips in his view of salvation being a UNILATERAL intervention by one person (he is thus begging the question by injecting his own monergism and then claiming that he is representing synergism). Hays examples are all caricatures and have nothing to do with the noncalvinistic position (he is creating straw men). They are all irrelevant and misrepresent the noncalvinist view.
Consider the examples. One is of a person in the position to prevent a suicide by intervening UNILATERALLY by taking the gun out of someone’s hand to prevent the person from shooting himself. One is of a person heading towards a cliff so another person in the position to prevent from falling off the cliff to his death can intervene by tackling him. In each case, the intervener must act UNILATERALLY in order to prevent a death from occurring because **if left to themselves the persons will die.
It is interesting that besides committing the fallacy of creating a straw man with these analogies, Hays is also committing the fallacy of appeal to emotion (he constructs examples in which we are to get emotional about “Henry’s” position that since God allows people free will that God would just watch as a guilty bystander as a suicidal person or careless person dies right in front of them [“As I watch his brain splatter the pavement”). We should get emotional about people in the position to help who do not offer help when they CAN CHOOSE TO DO SO. We blame people when they are in these kinds of situations and MAKE THE WRONG CHOICE of not offering to help and prevent a person’s death.
In noncalvinist theology, it is not a matter of people only getting saved if God UNILATERALLY intervenes and “tackles” sinners for their own good in saving them. No, God does His part which is the most important part, the part that makes a relationship with Him possible, by sending Jesus to die on the cross and sending the Holy Spirit to reveal this to the world. In each of Hays analogies one option, the option which leads to preventing the death of the person involves direct UNILATERAL action by one person that is **sufficient** to save the other person. And this is all assuming a monergistic salvation. But if salvation involves both what God does AND what we do, because salvation is a relationship. Then actions by both sides must occur for salvation to occur. Put another way, for the noncalvinist while the cross of Christ is perfectly **sufficient** for all human persons to be saved. It will only be **applied** to those who have faith (in reference to those who hear the gospel; with those incapable of hearing and understanding the gospel God may have other ways of saving a person by applying the merits of the cross of Christ to that person). Because of the sufficiency of the cross of Christ for all sins and because it makes God both just and justifier, God is in the place where He can justify whomever He wants to justify. And he makes it clear that He justifies, He saves those who trust Him for salvation. So God did his part which is perfectly sufficient for salvation if it is accompanied by a response of faith. If Hays wants to properly represent noncalvinism then speak about a saving relationship which involves mutuality.
But that brings up another problem with these analogies. Besides all presupposing a situation in which one person UNILATERALLY intervenes which in and of itself would save the person (thus not presenting the noncalvinistic view in which salvation involves mutuality, relationship, more than just God UNILATERALLY INTERVENING) these situations all presuppose situations where the reality of choice is present. Where people are able to do either of two available alternatives (either intervene and save the person or not intervene and watch the person die when you **could have** intervened and saved them). But in a world that was completely exhaustively determined by God the reality of choice does not exist. In each and every situation we can only do the one action which God predetermined we would do in that particular situation.
So consider the situation of “my best friend or kid brother is suicidal. Suppose I’m in a position to intervene. To prevent him from taking his own life.” According to **these** words, Steve is **able to** intervene and prevent the suicide and the brain matter splatting on the pavement. On the other hand from the way Hays describes the situation he clearly believes that the person **also** had the ability to choose to refrain from intervening directly and offering to take him to a psychiatrist and if he refuses **continuing** to refrain from directly intervening and saving his life out of love. So as Hays presents his own analogy he has libertarian free will in his own analogy because he can either choose to intervene and save the best friends/brothers life, OR choose to refrain from intervening by offering to take him to a psychiatrist. Steve Hays the Calvinist in his own illustration/analogy speaks as if libertarian free will were real and true.
But let’s look at his analogy/illustration if his exhaustive determinism/calvinism were true. Steve is confronted by a situation where his best friend/brother is suicidal. Since God has predetermined every event, say that God had predetermined that the suicide occur. In that case, Steve could not and would not intervene. It would in fact be impossible for him to intervene and save their life. Now that would be true if all things were ordained as Hays believes. But that is not how Hays presents his illustration at all. In his illustration he is perfectly able to do either action (intervene and save a life or not intervene and the person die in front of him).
So Hays the Calvinist, is presupposing the libertarian view of free will in the analogies which HE CHOSE HIMSELF.
Calvinists cannot live out their theology in their practical living without the reality of choice and even in their illustrations they speak as if libertarian free will and the reality of choice both exist and are true. Since God created man with the capacity for choices and the ability to perform his own actions, that reality will not go away no matter how the Calvinists twist scripture and deny common sense and universal human experience.
Henry
Hays’ calvinistic theology is not derived from what the real God really does because the real God told us about His love for the WORLD and He keeps acting out this real love for a real WORLD that includes more than just those who eventually respond with faith. Instead of the real God who has universal purposes when it comes to redemption, Calvinists intentionally limit the love and mercy of God to the “elect.” Hence a good term for them would be GRACE RESTRICTORS.
ReplyDeleteFor Henry, God is unjust if He does not grace all mankind, but who has a just claim on the grace of God? For Henry, graciousness is equivalent to justice. That's a category error.
Further, Calvinism does not restrict all grace to the elect. Rather, there is such a thing as common grace.
And Henry has never provided an argument for universal convenient...oops prevenient grace.
Henry is also the epitome of the preacher who writes "Shout loud, weak point" in his notes, every time he screams WORLD from his keyboard.
Henry has quoted D.A. Carson in the past. Carson wrote a book called The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Has Henry read it?
Again, the issue is not what is the most loving thing to do. Bringing in the universalists is a red herring.
Henry can't keep up with his own argumentation. Steve brought this up because Henry specifically said that some people have problems with that (Steve's view). He even stated:
Allow me to rework the analogy a bit to make it more accurate so that we can see which conception is “more loving.”
So, Henry wasn't answered on his own terms.
I am not the one who inspired John 3:16-17 and the other passages that speak of God’s love for more persons than just those who end up believing.
Henry is the epitome of the preacher who writes the words "Whosoever will" in his notes and thinks that the word "world" and "whosoever" denote the same thing. But God loved the world and gave Christ so that all the ones believing might have eternal life. So, the text is restrictive with or without Henry's assertions about the word "world."
It would also help if Henry would familiarize himself with the opposing position. We deny God loves all men without exception the same way, not that He does not love them at all.
I'd also be interested to know what Henry does with passages like this: Psalm 5:5: 5The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.
So if God creates us with the ability to make choices and have free will, how does that contradict His loving nature?
That's not Steve's argument. Rather, Steve's argument is that for you, Henry, according to your own analogy, God Himself stops short of love at the most critical point, the salvation of the person. God does not save the person unless consents. How is this more loving than saving the person outright?
If Henry would bother consulting the London Confession of 1689 for example, he'd find that we believe in choice and free will. We deny what Henry means by these terms.
And where is Henry's argument for free will? Henry is right, he doesn't begin with the love of God as his axiomatic postulate. He begins with libertarian free will. So, I'll ask him again, given the same set of circumstances, why does Billy believe while Sally does not?
Where is libertarianism in the Bible?
The noncalvinist position does not limit the love of God, it is calvinism that intentionally and wrongfully limits God’s love and mercy to only the elect. They are the **grace restrictors** not the noncalvinists.
Yes, it does. God is seen to value free will more than mens' lives in your twisted world, Henry.
Henry can only continue leveling this objection by limiting the quality of God's love. God loves, but not enought to save a man. God loves enough to send His son to make men saveable (Geisler), not enough to actually save them.
And notice he keeps repeating himself like a petulant child who doesn't get attention.
Jesus’ death on the cross for the world was an act of love that was merely SHOWING RATHER THAN DOING. ***AN EMPTY GESTURE***?
Steve pegged this objection to your illustration. Once again, Henry can't follow his own argument. Steve's responses were pegged to Henry's illustration.
Hays advocates that God coerces us to be saved as He thinks that is **more loving**
a. This assumes, without argument that when Scripture says "cannot come" it means something other than that. Henry is assuming, without argument, that men are not unable to come to Christ.
b. Oh yes, he talks about the work of the Spirit, but this is just lip service, for Henry has never argued for universal prevenient grace. No, he has argued for "wooing" and "circumstances," an external call. That's not UPG.
c. And what Calvinist says that God "coerces" us? Can he quote Steve to that effect? Can Henry name some Reformed theologians who make that argument? Henry has to rely on tendentious characterizations, because he refuses to believe what Scripture says in John 6. In point of fact, men come quite willingly. Men are not "coerced." Men are raised from spiritual death and they believe as a natural response.
In fact, Henry's argument from beginning to end is ethical, not exegetical.
And while we're at it, Henry believes in eternal security, so his belief in free will only goes so far. As soon as a man converts his free will is limited. Eternal security is not a doctrine that is compatible with libertarian free will.
He speaks of the lifeguard swimming to the drowning person, asking them **once** if they want to be saved, and then leaving them to drown. This does not accurately reflect the noncalvinist view at all.
A. So now Henry comes back with caveats not in his original...yet again. Henry's own illustration depicted this occurrence just once.
B. And doing this action more than once does not help Henry's argument. No, in Henry's world, the lifeguard may continue to go to the person, teasing them that he'll save him if he consents. Henry is a sadist.
C. And what about those people that *never* get to hear the gospel?
So Hays the Calvinist, is presupposing the libertarian view of free will in the analogies which HE CHOSE HIMSELF.
He is crafting an analogy based on your own principles. Once again, you can't seem to follow your own argument.
And in Steve's analogy, he's taking the role of God in theology. But God is not constrained by anything other than His own nature, so there is a sense in which He has the freedom to do otherwise.
Steve is confronted by a situation where his best friend/brother is suicidal. Since God has predetermined every event, say that God had predetermined that the suicide occur. In that case, Steve could not and would not intervene. It would in fact be impossible for him to intervene and save their life.
But Steve, of course, does not have knowledge of God's decree. Further, you're confused, Henry. Compatibilism does not deny that a person can, lacking exhaustive foreknowledge of the sovereign decree of God, perceive themselves to be able to intervene, but that person can do so and prevent the suicide, if that person wants to do so. We do not deny the power to do otherwise if you want to do otherwise. We deny the power to do otherwise given the same set of circumstances repeated. By way of contrast, you can provide no reason for the person's decision to intervene if he can intervene, can you?
1 corinthians 10:18 implies that God provides all the conditions necessary for the correct operation of the human will in the instance of a Christian being tempted. If compatiblism is true then necessary conditions are also sufficient conditions. Therefore if compatiblism is true, then all Christians have the necessary and sufficient conditions present in them to not sin. But Christians do sin. Therefore compatiblism is false. Therefore Christians have libertarian freedom at least some of the time.
ReplyDeleteSo, why does that person make a choice. Why is he lead into sin?
Scripture tells us. Rather than making a deduction from philosophy, tell us why Scripture says we are lead into sin?
In libertarianism, choices are uncaused. Scripture directly contradicts this notion.
Also, I need not prove compatibilism. All I need to prove is that our choices have antecedent causes. We do not invoke it as a rationalistic principle. We invoke it because it closely resembles what we find in Scripture, but we do not teach that it is an exact fit. By way of contrast, Orthodoxy and Arminianism invoke libertarianism itself.
Turning to B.S.:
2. On what basis do you claim that Romans 9 is about Israel?
Um, that would be on the basis of Romans 9.
Not an answer. Exegete the text.
Wow. Are you ignorant. But sorry, the charges of Erastianism won’t fly. History shows otherwise.
Really? Is the Russian Orthodox church not the de facto state church? What is the Church of Greece? Romania? Is Orthodoxy not one of two state churches in Finland?
I didn't claim anything about Erastianism, did I? Erastianism and "state church" are not convertible ideas. They intersect, but they are not the same. Orthodoxy doesn’t begin with the opposition that Calvinism does, and thus avoids universalism altogether. Some will be saved. Some will be damned. God loves them all.
B.S. hasn't bothered to read D.A. Carson on God's love.
Is B.S. familar with Infralapsarianism?
Gene apparently doesn’t know that God wills for all men to be saved, not all who will be saved. Pretty inept if you ask me.
This is a confusion of God's preceptive will and His sovereign will. It would help if B.S. would familiarize himself with the opposing position.
Please exegete the appropriate texts. I'll be happy to watch you conflate sense and reference repeatedly.
There is an infinite real diversity of goods that God always works, and those goods are both ineffably distinguishable from and ineffably one with his essence/nature.
The ability to choose from available goods is not denied by Calvinism and need not lead to libertarianism. Again, it would help if B.S. would acquaint himself with the opposing position.
But, I tell you what, start with the Garden of Eden and demonstrate that Adam and Eve’s natures determined them to sin. Or go to the other Garden, Gethsemane, and try to explicate Jesus’ human will as unsubsumed under his divine will AND avoid the heresy of monothelitism.
Calvinism has a doctrine of will prior to the fall (libertas Adami). Again, it would help if B.S. would acquaint himself with the opposing position. Adam and Eve chose to sin for reasons sufficient to themselves. Libertarians can provide no reason. Christ's human will's prevailing desire was to obey the Father. There is no need to postulate libertarian freedom. How about showing us a text that says that choices are uncaused.
Everything I have claimed is Orthodox teaching, which you can substantiate by reading the liturgies, the canons, the dogmatic definitions and the Fathers.
And when we've done that you have replied that we don't understand Orthodoxy and we must experience it. You speak with forked tongue.
I gave a list of readings in another response above.
But how can I know which Fathers are preferred over others? What do I do when they contradict each other? Why those liturgies? How can I know which portions to believe and which to disbelieve? And if I can't get it from a textbook, how do I get it from the Fathers? What's the difference?
Ad ignorantiam, eh. Nice try. Still a fallacy.
B.S. can't answer the question put to him.
Notice that B.S. merely asserts his claim and does not demonstrate it.
Straw man. Diversion. Category error.
Straw man? Is there salvation outside the one true Church? Yes or no. What is the one true church?
Category error? A student of philosophy should know better. If salvation is indexed to visible church membership, whatever that may be, then the gospel is "join the church," ergo, I've not conflated the properties of two domains. So, I'll ask again, where does Scripture direct us to the one true Orthodox church?
I never claimed you can’t understand Orthodoxy without being Orthodox (though admittedly there is a sense in which that is true). Rather, what I have said is that you can’t understand Orthodoxy from books.
No, you claimed that you have to experience Orthodoxy. Apparently, you can't follow your own arguments.Orthodoxy is a living faith, not an dead thing stuck to a board and liable to dissection. If you want to know about what Orthodoxy believes and lives regarding it’s canon, you’ll have to start worshiping regularly at an Orthodox parish. And that’s only for starters.”
Oh, I know what the correct premises are, because the Calvinist premises lead, logically, to Sabellianist unitarianism and/or Christological monotheletism.
Since I know, logically, where they must arrive—unless the holders of the premises are simply inconsistent—I know those premises are false.
That still does not answer the question put to you. You are making assertions without supporting arguments. You were asked to "show your work" as it were, and all you did here was say you know something to be true without demonstrating your thinking, the way you quote from Romans and James without demonstrating the text says what you say it says.
Romans 2:14-16 ESV)
Quoting the text and exegeting it are not convertible principles, B.S. We know what it says, what does it mean? Why don't you actually attempt to exegete these Scriptures?
Calvinism does not teach that men only sin, eg. are utterly depraved.
The text teaches that the Gentiles, who do not have the written Law, do what is on the written Law by way of their consciences and yet they stand condemned for transgressing that law. In short, they know things like murder and theft are wrong. So there is really no substantial advantage in having the written Law for the Jew, since all have sinned. The Jew's accountability is, in a sense greater, because he has the Law, the covenants, etc., in addition to the conscience. This text is about the universal sinfulness of mankind, not being able to do works that accompany salvation.
For somebody who fancies himself capable of recognizing fallacies, you seem unable to miss them when you use them. In quoting James, you've committed two.
SEMANTIC INCEST
This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret or apply to Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.
SEMANTIC INFLATION
The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word.
For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.
Exegete James here yourself.
Is he talking about God declaring a person justified from his sins or of something else? He is discussing the opposition of dead faith, eg. false profession, and a living faith, a faith that shows a life transformed.
This is not discussing the ability to add merit to one's salvation. His main point is that (saving) faith and fidelity are inseparable. Paul wouldn’t deny that. But this isn’t what Paul means by justification. And it isn’t apposite to the conflict with Rome since neither sided denied that connection. The Jacobean position isn’t cast in forensic, vicarious, or hamartiological terms; rather, it is concerned with the probative value of good works.
Your quotation of Philippians is a quotation about "salvation." So, now you've conflated "salvation" and "justification." These are not convertible terms or concepts. It is no barrier to Sola Fide.
As for 1 Tim. 2:4. That's quite easy.All kinds of men are in view here. God desires we pray from kings and authorities not just men like ourselves, because He desires that all kinds of men believe, not just ordinary people. If “all” is always extensive, then in 6:10 where money is the root of all evil, the text would mean money was at the root of the Fall of both Satan and men and every other evil ever committed. Additionally, 2:6 is a paraphrase of Mark 10:45 which recapitulates Isaiah 53:11-12, where the Suffering Servant atones for the sins of the covenant community, not all people without exception.
In addition, the text of 1 Timothy refers to Jewish myths and endless genealogies. We must therefore, understand the content of those myths in order to understand what Paul is saying. These myths were probably from the Midrash and anti-Gentile in tenor and were specifically designed to exclude some from salvation. They would form the basis of Jewish Gnosticism, which was designed to create a special class of persons who possessed the “gnosis.” Thus, to counter this, Paul’s usage focuses on the universal offer of the gospel, not to Jews only, not to a specific class of Jews, but to all classes of men, and all ethnicities.
Incidentally, the argumentation of the universality of kinds is not uniquely Calvinist or even Protestant.
Gene Bridges makes some odd statements about the noncalvinist position:
ReplyDelete"So, why does that person make a choice. Why is he lead into sin?
Scripture tells us. Rather than making a deduction from philosophy, tell us why Scripture says we are lead into sin?"
People choose to sin in the same way that they choose to do most of their intentional actions: for reasons. Now in the case of sin the reasons may be bad, but they are nevertheless reasons. The noncalvinist believes that when we choose the choice is up to us, determined by us (scripture says that we sin when carried away by our own desires), or if you want it in philosophical terms involving **agent causation**.
Now Gene believes that we choose and then act based upon what is the strongest desire which we have in a particular situation in regards to a particular action. So Gene believes that our actions are determined by our strongest desire. Gene also believes that God predetermines every event which occurs. So that means that God predetermines what our strongest desire will be in any given situation. That means that we can only do what God predetermines that we do, we can never do otherwise than what God predetermined for us to do.
If that is the case, then everytime we sin as Christians and every time the nonbeliever sins, we are doing exactly what God wants us to do (again if God predetermines every event then whatever happens is exactly what He wants to happen; Calvinists call this the secret or decretive will of God). He wants us to have a particular "strongest desire" in a particular situation so He predetermines and ensures that we have that desire so we then do precisely the sin that He wants us to do. noncalvinists find this to be false and instead claim that when we sin we do so because we freely choose to sin, and we freely choose to sin not because God predetermined for us to have a strongest desire which then led to a particular sin. In exhaustive determinism we sin in exactly the way God wants us to sin. In noncalvinism we sin because we freely choose to sin and God did not cause it to occur.
Sometimes the Calvinists will try to soften the picture claiming that the nonbeliever is determined or necessitated to sin by his sin nature. But if all things are predetermined, then who predetermined and ensured that the nonbeliever would have the sin nature? And again this does not change the fact that in the Calvinist/exhaustive determinism scheme everything that occurs is exactly what God predetermined to occur. And in the case of believers when we sin we cannot attribute it to being necessitated by our sin nature. But if Calvinism is true then when the believer sins he is doing exactly what God wanted him to do and determined him to do by his "secret or decretive will".
Gene Bridges also wrote:
"In libertarianism, choices are uncaused. Scripture directly contradicts this notion."
First, which libertarians claim that choices are uncaused? The Christians that I know that hold to agent causation (including Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, William Craig, Norman Geisler, Thomas Reid, etc. Etc. Etc.) all hold that the actions of human persons are **self** caused, NOT UNCAUSED. So this is a major caricature/straw man on the part of Gene Bridges here. Edwards may have argued with some who held to the view that “choices are uncaused” but today both the libertarian and compatibilist positions have been modified. Second, where does the Bible argue against **uncaused actions**? The Bible speaks of us doing our own actions (self causation/agent causation) and being responsible for our own actions.
"Also, I need not prove compatibilism. All I need to prove is that our choices have antecedent causes. We do not invoke it as a rationalistic principle. We invoke it because it closely resembles what we find in Scripture, but we do not teach that it is an exact fit. By way of contrast, Orthodoxy and Arminianism invoke libertarianism itself."
Noncalvinists also believe that choices have antecedent causes, again the self is the antecedent cause of his/her own self-caused actions. So Bridges claim that all he has to do is prove that “our choices have antecedent causes” is false. What Bridges has to prove is that our actions are necessitated actions in which we can only do what God predetermines that we do. But Bridges cannot prove this from scripture or philosophically. He has to show that God necessitates every event which occurs, something he assumes but cannot prove.
Regarding invoking libertarianism, scripture presents the reality that choices occur and that we are responsible for these choices. Scripture presents various instances in which choices are made by persons. If exhaustive determinism were true then there could not and would not be any choices. Whatever scripture presents actual choices argues against exhaustive determinism and establishes the reality of choices. Scripture presents us as being the cause of our own actions/agent causation, and being responsible for our own actions. Scripture does not present that all events are predetermined, this is merely assumed by the Calvinist like Bridges.
Henry
Gene--
ReplyDeleteIn a similar vein to Henry's reply, I will defend my argument from 1 Corinthians 10 for libertarianism.
You said:
"So, why does that person make a choice. Why is he lead into sin?
Scripture tells us. Rather than making a deduction from philosophy, tell us why Scripture says we are lead into sin?
In libertarianism, choices are uncaused. Scripture directly contradicts this notion."
It seems to me that Scripture says persons are led into sin because their hearts have a sinful disposition and sinful desires. But this need not imply compatiblism because
1. Scripture also gives people commands to change their hearts. This could be taken as implying the ability of a human being to control to some extend his or her dispositions.
2. Saying "our choices are caused by our hearts" doesn't answer whether or not our hearts operate deterministically.
"Also, I need not prove compatibilism. All I need to prove is that our choices have antecedent causes. We do not invoke it as a rationalistic principle. We invoke it because it closely resembles what we find in Scripture, but we do not teach that it is an exact fit. By way of contrast, Orthodoxy and Arminianism invoke libertarianism itself."
I think an equal argument from the opposing side could be made as follows:
"Orthodoxy would likewise maintain that it doesn't need to prove libertarianism. All it needs to prove is that Scripture assumes human beings have freedom to in some sense reject God's will. We do not invoke libertarianism as a rationalistic principle, much less something we completely and fully understand. We believe it because it appears to be taught in Scripture, but we do not teach that philosophical models capture its essence perfectly."
One route I could take in defending my prior argument would be as follows: In order to establish compatiblism, we need reasons to think that the heart operates deterministically.
Absent such reasons, there seems to be a question as to why it seems that God provides the necessary condition for Christians to abstain from sin in 1 Corinthians 10, and yet they still sin. If compatiblism is true, then necessary conditions are sufficient conditions; therefore no Christians should sin (or assuming that 1 Corinthians 10:18 is talking about a subset of Christians, they should never sin). But Christians do sin. Therefore necessary conditions are not sufficient conditions when it comes to human agency. Therefore compatiblism is false and libertarianism is true.
And by the way, there are multiple models for libertarian freedom including event-causal libertarians, non-causal libertarians, and agent-causal libertarians (as well as people who are libertarian but agnostic about the validity of the models such as myself).
henry said...
ReplyDelete"In exhaustive determinism we sin in exactly the way God wants us to sin."
In one respect, yes—although this statement is simplistic because it fails to distinguish between ends and means. I've quoted Paul Helm and Thomas Aquinas on that distinction.
MG said...
"Scripture also gives people commands to change their hearts. This could be taken as implying the ability of a human being to control to some extend his or her dispositions."
One problem with this inference is that we have situations in Scripture where a prophet is told to urge apostate Israel to repent, even though the prophet is also told that his preaching will fall on deaf ears. So such commands don't imply the ability to comply with the command.
"If compatiblism is true, then necessary conditions are sufficient conditions."
How does that follow?
"Therefore no Christians should sin (or assuming that 1 Corinthians 10:18 is talking about a subset of Christians, they should never sin)."
Where does 1 Cor 10:18 either state or imply such a thing?
Steve--
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"'Scripture also gives people commands to change their hearts. This could be taken as implying the ability of a human being to control to some extend his or her dispositions.'
One problem with this inference is that we have situations in Scripture where a prophet is told to urge apostate Israel to repent, even though the prophet is also told that his preaching will fall on deaf ears. So such commands don't imply the ability to comply with the command."
I don't think this is what you meant but (I assume you realize this) saying "Israel won't respond" isn't the same as saying "Israel can't respond"; and the two may carry very different implcations. That being said, if I'm correct you are talking about a situation where the implication of God's words is "Israel can't respond". If so, then a principle of "the command just reveals sin, but doesn't imply the ability to not sin" (commonly appealed to in such discussions by Calvinists) could apply.
Your point stands as valid, at least in reference to that situation. But I don't think the principle present in that instance would apply across the board to all types or tokens of divine commands. After all, God punishing a people by hardening their hearts is not happening to everyone all the time. First I think we need reason to believe that God would be hardening the hearts of the people of Jerusalem. Otherwise Jeremiah 4:14 is not clearly analogous to the other incident I believe you are talking about; and if its not clearly analogous, why should we apply the "commands just reveal sin, but don't imply the ability to not sin" principle here? Why not think that the command indicates the ability not to sin?
Even if you don't agree with this defense of my argument, the libertarian may still think he or she is right in believing the people being given the commands could avoid sin. You may consider your reasons for questioning to be sufficient; and yet some libertarians might have an intuition (whether correct or not) that nevertheless, Jeremiah 4:14 implies the ability of Israel to change its own heart. We might be at an intellectual stalemate there, with two sets of conflicting intuitions held by two different people or groups.
"'If compatiblism is true, then necessary conditions are sufficient conditions.'
How does that follow?"
Determinism by definition consists of the belief that when certain conditions are in place (when some prior event occurs), it follows by metaphysical necessity that another specific event will occur.
If libertarianism is true, then all the necessary conditions for it to be possible for someone to act a certain way may be in place, and yet that person may not choose to act that way. Hence the choice of the person prevents there from being a conjunction of necessary and sufficient conditions. This implies that the choice of that person is what makes the sufficient conditions present.
In compatiblism, the choice of a person is not what makes present the sufficient conditions for an act; rather it implies that both necessary and sufficient conditions are in place.
Think about this. Lets say you choose to perform an act of picking up a glass of water. What are the conditions that lead to that act? Mental states; lets assume for simplicity sake that the states that lead to the act begin with a strong desire for picking up the glass, a thought about the glass, and a belief that the glass can be picked up. These states combined cause you (by metaphysical necessity) to choose to perform the action of picking up the glass. Your choice causes (again, by metaphysical necessity) you to actually perform the act of picking up the glass.
Now, lets assume that all of these states and steps are necessary conditions for you to pick up the glass (again this is a very simplified psychology, but bear with me; this example can be translated into more sophisticated construals of the mind). Why are they necessary? Because if one of them weren't present, you wouldn't perform the act in question. It is also clearly the case that they are sufficient. Why? Because they lead to the action.
Its that simple. In the compatiblist scheme, the conditions leading to an act are all necessary because without the right combination of states an action will not be performed. The conditions are also sufficient because that same combination of states which was required for the act to happen do in fact lead to that act. Hence in the compatiblist scheme, necessary conditions are sufficient conditions.
"Where does 1 Cor 10:18 either state or imply such a thing?"
Pardon me, my actual verse that I was arguing from was 1 Corinthians 10:13. I seemed to have misspoken in a very embarassing way. Yikes.
MG SAID:
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is what you meant but (I assume you realize this) saying "Israel won't respond" isn't the same as saying "Israel can't respond"; and the two may carry very different implcations. That being said, if I'm correct you are talking about a situation where the implication of God's words is "Israel can't respond". If so, then a principle of "the command just reveals sin, but doesn't imply the ability to not sin" (commonly appealed to in such discussions by Calvinists) could apply.
Your point stands as valid, at least in reference to that situation. But I don't think the principle present in that instance would apply across the board to all types or tokens of divine commands. After all, God punishing a people by hardening their hearts is not happening to everyone all the time. First I think we need reason to believe that God would be hardening the hearts of the people of Jerusalem. Otherwise Jeremiah 4:14 is not clearly analogous to the other incident I believe you are talking about; and if its not clearly analogous, why should we apply the "commands just reveal sin, but don't imply the ability to not sin" principle here? Why not think that the command indicates the ability not to sin.
***************************************
Several issues:
1.You’re attempting to shift the burden of proof. But remember that you were the one who was drawing an inference from a particular text. I offered a counterexample.
You can’t discharge your burden of proof by simply saying that I have my own burden of proof to discharge.
You still need to establish that, as a general proposition, a divine command implies the ability to comply with the command.
My counterexample doesn’t prove that a divine command never implies the ability to comply with the command. But it does place a restriction on your ability to generalize or universalize from the nature of a command.
2.Yes, there’s a difference between “won’t and “can’t.” But there is also, and equally, a difference between “won’t” and “can.”
So, at a minimum, the mere existence of such imperatives is neutral on the question at issue.
3. And, in context, the examples I was alluding to did involve an inability to comply, due to divine hardening. Indeed, the command was, in part, an instrument in their hardening.
4.Can we generalize from those examples to every command? No.
But neither can we generalize in the reverse direction without further ado.
So commands, in and of themselves, don’t “imply” anything about ability or inability of the subject to comply.
At most, they are consistent with either ability or inability, depending on the context.
“We might be at an intellectual stalemate there, with two sets of conflicting intuitions held by two different people or groups.”
We might have a stalemate at one level, but be able to move to checkmate at another level.
For even if one set of passages is neutral on the question at issue, another set of passages may be decisive.
If appeal to divine commands is neutral, the predestinarian passages (to take one example) would still exclude libertarianism—although you might stall for time by appealing to Molinism.
“Its that simple. In the compatiblist scheme, the conditions leading to an act are all necessary because without the right combination of states an action will not be performed. The conditions are also sufficient because that same combination of states which was required for the act to happen do in fact lead to that act. Hence in the compatiblist scheme, necessary conditions are sufficient conditions.”
This is equivocal. Yes, a set of necessary conditions may equal a sufficient condition. But this hardly means that necessary conditions just are sufficient conditions. It’s only a certain set of necessary conditions, of necessary conditions in combination, that may add up to a sufficient condition.
A man is normally a necessary condition to make a baby. But he’s not a sufficient condition. It still takes a woman to complete the procreative process.
Compatibilism does not imply that if a man is a necessary condition in procreation, then he is a sufficient condition.
“Pardon me, my actual verse that I was arguing from was 1 Corinthians 10:13.”
But unless you’re using this passage as a prooftext for perfectionism, you don’t believe that it’s always possible for a Christian to refrain from sin.
In context (vv1-12,14-22), this verse has reference, not to temptation in general or to sin in general, but to apostasy.
God will preserve his people from apostasy. Cf. T. Schreiner, The Race Set Before Us, 266.
Steve--
ReplyDeleteI'll drop the point about cleansing of hearts, because though the libertarian may feel it is a sufficient rebuttal, the compatiblist may not; and there's probably little that can be done about that. The point that I think this leads to though is that the argument that "because sin flows from the heart compatiblism is true" doesn't necessarily work (and even apart from my point this argument misconstrues the libertarian position).
Regarding intellectual stalemates, I agree that a stalemate on one issue doesn't necessitate a stalemate on another issue, and you may be able to turn elsewhere for a more decisive argument. I would be interested in hearing an explanation for why " the predestinarian passages (to take one example) would still exclude libertarianism".
Concerning my statements about necessary and sufficient conditions, I think the context of my statements should make it clear that I was already saying what you said ("only a certain set of necessary conditions...")
Regarding 1 Corinthians 10:13,
1. Yes, I believe it is always possible for a Christian to refrain from sin.
2. Why do you think this passage is talking about apostasy?
MG said:
ReplyDelete"I would be interested in hearing an explanation for why 'the predestinarian passages (to take one example) would still exclude libertarianism'."
I don't know why you have a question about that. This isn't just a Calvinist position. It's also a libertarian position. Libertarians oppose predestination because they believe that it's at odds with the libertarian freedom to do otherwise.
"Why do you think this passage is talking about apostasy?"
Have you bothered to read the verse in context? What comes before v13? A discussion of OT apostates. The apostate Exodus-generation.
And that is being used by Paul as a precedent for his subsequent statement about the New Covenant community.
There's a difference between sin in general and apostasy in particular. Apostasy is an especially aggravated form of sin because it removes the apostate from the sphere of forgiveness. The apostate turns away from God.
Steve Hays wrote:
ReplyDelete“We might have a stalemate at one level, but be able to move to checkmate at another level.”
Actually, it is neither a case of stalemate nor is it a case of checkmate. It is not stalemate because the available evidence favors the noncalvinist position. It is not a checkmate in favor of the noncalvinist position because in chess according to the rules of the game and the position of the actual pieces it can be established for everyone that according to the rules of the game the game has been won by means of a mating position. In contrast the disagreement between calvinists and noncalvinist cannot be as decisive because the calvinist who is committed to his calvinism can always reject the available evidence or attempt to reinterpret it in line with his cherished calvinism. And though the calvinist may think that he has a decisive move based on a single bible verse or set of verses, his belief is false. Of course it works in reverse for the noncalvinist as well. Trying to “win the game with one move” is prooftexting (point to only the verse that supports your view while putting the others that go against your view under the rug).
“For even if one set of passages is neutral on the question at issue, another set of passages may be decisive.”
No passages are neutral, the available passages suggest that some events are predetermined, some events are not predetermined. Thus, if we are honest and more concerned about what is true rather than defending a particular system of theology, we will hold to a BOTH/AND position. Since some events are predetermined and some involve libertarian free will, therefore the bible correctly interpreted teaches the reality of both. And hence the falsity of both exhaustive determinism (the claim that events are ALWAYS DETERMINED and free will NEVER exists in any situation) and the version of libertarian free will that claims that we ALWAYS have “contra-causal freedom (we always can do otherwise never having any limitations even by God’s interventions). These are two extreme and unbiblical positions.
We also need to keep in mind that a future event may be pre-determined in two very different ways. In a world where everything is exhaustively predetermined, God may predetermine future events because He predetermined every event which culminates in the future predetermined event (without free will choices being part of the development). If He sets up and completely controls all of the dominos they will fall exactly as they have been set up to fall.
On the other hand, as Molinists point out correctly, God has middle knowledge which means that He can know with certainty what a future freely chosen (in the libertarian sense) action will be. So by His foreknowledge He knows if certain choices are made, certain results and events will occur (like a chessplayer who not only knows what possible moves are available but what actual moves will be freely chosen by means of having foreknowledge). And while these events will occur with certainty, this is not the same as saying they were necessitated events (certain freely chosen actions thus comprise part of the future). A good example is the crucifixion. God by means of His foreknowledge knew that if allowed men to make certain choices, the crucifixion was going to occur with certainty. And yet part of the development of events which resulted in the crucifixion involved free choices (in the libertarian sense) by Pilate, the Jewish leadership, etc. etc.
Also, there is not one set of passages that decisively proves libertarian free will ALWAYS exists and so completely negates any predetermined events. Nor is there one set of passages that decisively proves exhaustive determinism, that all events are determined, and so completely negates any events involving libertarian free will.
“If appeal to divine commands is neutral, the predestinarian passages (to take one example) would still exclude libertarianism—although you might stall for time by appealing to Molinism.”
First, the divine commands are not neutral. While some may involve situations where the people for whatever reason cannot obey the commands, by far **most** commands presume situations where the people can obey or choose to disobey the commands (in the libertarian sense). For example commands to Christians can be both obeyed and disobeyed by Christians. So the divine commands are not neutral but are instead suggest the reality of choices and libertarian free will. With the divine commands the preponderance of evidence suggests that in many situation libertarian free will obtains and people can choose to both obey or disobey the particular command. Which choice they make is usually up to them.
Second the predestinarian passages are incapable of excluding libertarianism. This is so because Calvinists including Hays regularly make what I call the SOME TO ALL mistake. Those familiar with basic principles of logic know that one cannot arrive at a justified conclusion of a universal truth from particular instances. With respect to the predestinarian passages, there are some instances of such verses. But they are not universal negatives which necessarily exclude libertarianism. Instead they are particular instances of predetermined events. And as **particular instances ** of predetermined events they are incapable of justifying a universal conclusion (that all events are predetermined). You are not rationally justified in going from the fact that SOME instances referred to in the Bible concern predetermined events, to the conclusion that THEREFORE ALL events both in the bible and in history are predetermined events. This is partly why when Manata provides some verses of instances of predetermined events, I did not find this a very convincing argument. He left out the possibility that some future events may be predetermined by means of freely chosen actions being foreknown by God. Manata was also making the SOME TO ALL mistake, making an unjustified universal conclusion from particular instances. Now Steve Hays is making the same mistake in claiming that some predestinarian passages lead to the conclusion that all events are predestinarian and that libertarianism is thus excluded by these particular instances of predestination.
Third, one need not appeal to Molinism, though Molinism does contribute the helpful notion of middle knowledge. One need only look at all of the bible verses to see that some events are predetermined (and may involve freely chosen actions), some are not. So the truth is neither calvinism nor extreme libertarianism/Arminianism.
Henry
Henry is now arguing with MG as well as me. That's an imprudent move on his part since MG has a far more agile mind that Henry. But, by all means, Henry—take on yet another, superior opponent.
ReplyDeleteSteve--
ReplyDelete"I don't know why you have a question about that. This isn't just a Calvinist position. It's also a libertarian position. Libertarians oppose predestination because they believe that it's at odds with the libertarian freedom to do otherwise."
Hm. I think there are particular understandings of predestination that libertarians oppose; but I don't think all understandings of it are inconsistent with libertarian agency.
"Have you bothered to read the verse in context? What comes before v13? A discussion of OT apostates. The apostate Exodus-generation."
I saw those references, and I understand your argument (and anticipated it). The reason I hesitate to affirm this is because the temptation is described as "common to everyone". Im not sure exactly how to read that. But I don't think that the specific temptation to apostatize is common to everyone; after all not all people are in a position to become apostate.
"And that is being used by Paul as a precedent for his subsequent statement about the New Covenant community."
Hm. How does this point relate?
"There's a difference between sin in general and apostasy in particular. Apostasy is an especially aggravated form of sin because it removes the apostate from the sphere of forgiveness. The apostate turns away from God."
Right. Im familiar with the distinction (and I've read parts of the Schreiner book you cited earlier; its pretty good, though I disagree with it).
Oh, and Steve--thanks for the compliment. :)
MG said:
ReplyDeleteI saw those references, and I understand your argument (and anticipated it). The reason I hesitate to affirm this is because the temptation is described as "common to everyone". Im not sure exactly how to read that. But I don't think that the specific temptation to apostatize is common to everyone; after all not all people are in a position to become apostate.
**********
Apostasy would be a special case of a general liability to sin.
In context, the particular sin or temptation in view is idolatry, which, in turn, would amount to breach of covenant. Breach of covenant is apostasy (unless the backslider is penitent).
The covenantal framework is implicit in Paul's allusion to OT, covenantal usage in his phrase about God's fidelity (cf. Deut 7:9; 32:4).
Steve--
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"Apostasy would be a special case of a general liability to sin.
In context, the particular sin or temptation in view is idolatry, which, in turn, would amount to breach of covenant. Breach of covenant is apostasy (unless the backslider is penitent).
The covenantal framework is implicit in Paul's allusion to OT, covenantal usage in his phrase about God's fidelity (cf. Deut 7:9; 32:4)."
Ok, got it.
Here's an issue that I see. There are a number of possible temptations this could be referring to. You have argued that the temptation in question is a temptation to commit idolatry thereby breaching the covenant and severing oneself from God. So here's the possibilities:
1. Paul is talking about any kind of sin that all people perform.
2. Paul is talking about idolatry that all people are tempted to perform.
3. Paul is talking about any kind of sin, and thinks this sin causes apostasy.
4. Paul is talking about idolatry that all people are tempted to perform, and thinks this sin causes apostasy when done by Christians.
Would you affirm 4.?
#4 is the most contextual.
ReplyDeleteRemember that it's often possible to pose a more specific question than a text of Scripture was designed to answer or actually state.
Frequently a writer, Biblical or otherwise, depends on an unspoken understanding between himself and his immediate audience.
At this distance we have to go with the mostly likely overall interpretation.
Steve Hays wrote:
ReplyDelete"Henry is now arguing with MG as well as me. That's an imprudent move on his part since MG has a far more agile mind that Henry. But, by all means, Henry—take on yet another, superior opponent."
Steve when will you cease engaging in the constant abusive and sinful comments towards me?
You know what the bible says about how christians are to interact with one another: you need to do a better job of doing these things in your interactions with me. I want to engage in a civil and rational discussion so there is no need for your repeated belittling comments and personal attacks.
Regarding "arguing with MG as well as me". That is not accurate. While I may disagree with elements of MG's Eastern Orthodoxy, that is not the issue here. The issue here is libertarian free will versus exhaustive determinism and especially as it relates to the nature of temptation. MG holds a libertarian free will though he is as he says "agnostic" as to precisely which version of libertarianism that he holds. MG and I then are in agreement that your exhaustive determinism is false and libertarian free will is true. Regarding Eastern Orthodox folks such as MG, in my experience I have found them to be delightful people. They love the Lord, love God's people, and the ones that I know have very healthy families and faith communities. So actually I agree with MG on quite a lot. And we both disagree with you concerning free will and exhaustive determinism.
Regarding your and MG's intellectual superiority. Your comments are prideful and as a point of logic fallacious. The truth of a proposition is not determined by the intelligence or lack of, of those holding the proposition. Dennett says that nonbelievers are far more intelligent than believers and claims that they are the "brights" and we are the non-brigthts. Even if that were true, that would not change the truth of Christianity one bit. In fact, God enjoys using the supposedly less intelligent over the "brights" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:25-29). You want to believe that you are smarter and superior, that is your choice that does not change the facts of the case (i.e. your exhaustive determinism is false, your calvinism is false, libertarian free will is both a reality and presented in scripture).
Now having said that, MG Hays is wrong about 1 Cor. 10. Yes the immediate context is apostasy. However Paul says in v. that he wants the New covenant believers to learn from the mistakes that occurred in the Old Testament era. He then interjects his statement about the GENERAL NATURE of temptation in v. . So while Paul had been talking about apostasy, he shifts to his (at the time) present day readers and urges them to learn from the past and encourages them with some teaching on the general nature of temptation. Many temptations are common to man, God is faithful to not allow believers to face temptations which they cannot endure. God provides a way of escape from temptations.
And MG the libertarian conception of free will does much better in dealing with the these passages. For us, we realize that when a believer is faced with a temptation, the believer has a choice between giving into the temptation or resisting the temptation. We trust that the Lord will provide a way of escape from temptation just as He promises. This is significant because it shows that God is sovereign over circumstances (He has to be to be able to always provide a way of escape from any particular temptation) and yet we retain our ability to choose, and we must make the choice of resisting the temptation (God does not take over our bodies and make the choice for us). All of this is common sense for most Christians. On the other hand, those who espouse exhaustive determinism end up with a view in which we will always do precisely what God predetermines for us to do. And so whenever we **do** give into temptation, that is precisely what God wanted and predetermined for us to do (so we could not have done otherwise since they do not believe that free will is the ability to do otherwise; and we had to sin and give into temptation by necessity). If exhaustive determinism is true, it also makes a sham of God's promise to provide a way of escape from the temptation (if He wants us to given into a particular temptation we will do so of necessity and we cannot do otherwise, so we will find ourselves in situations where we cannot not give in to temptation where we cannot avail ourselves of His promise to provide a way of escape).
Henry
HENRY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve when will you cease engaging in the constant abusive and sinful comments towards me? You know what the bible says about how christians are to interact with one another: you need to do a better job of doing these things in your interactions with me.”
I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.
“I want to engage in a civil and rational discussion so there is no need for your repeated belittling comments and personal attacks.”
You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.
For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.
Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.
“Regarding your and MG's intellectual superiority. Your comments are prideful and as a point of logic fallacious. The truth of a proposition is not determined by the intelligence or lack of, of those holding the proposition. Dennett says that nonbelievers are far more intelligent than believers and claims that they are the ‘brights’ and we are the non-brigthts. Even if that were true, that would not change the truth of Christianity one bit. In fact, God enjoys using the supposedly less intelligent over the ‘brights’ (cf. 1 Cor. 1:25-29). You want to believe that you are smarter and superior, that is your choice that does not change the facts of the case (i.e. your exhaustive determinism is false, your calvinism is false, libertarian free will is both a reality and presented in scripture).”
You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.
Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges, Manata, and Peter Pike—of whom can and have argued circles around you.
BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part.
“And MG the libertarian conception of free will does much better in dealing with the these passages.”
To the contrary, Henry’s libertarian theory of the will negates the promise of 1 Cor 10:13. According to Arminian theology, a true believer (a regenerate child of God) can commit apostasy and thereby lose his salvation. Arminians believe that this can happen and has happened on many occasions.
Steve Hays’ verbal ridicule and hateful speech towards people is completely unacceptable and sinful according to scripture. There is no evidence of him attempting to live out what the Bible says we ought to be choosing to do in regards to how we are to interact with people both believers and unbelievers. The unacceptable speech can be documented as He has made repeated hateful, sarcastic, condescending, abrasive, belittling comments towards both unbelievers and believers with whom he disagrees theologically.
ReplyDeleteI wrote to him just today (6-14-07) and asked:
“Steve when will you cease engaging in the constant abusive and sinful comments towards me?”
I added:
“You know what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with one another: you need to do a better job of doing these things in your interactions with me. I want to engage in a civil and rational discussion so there is no need for your repeated belittling comments and personal attacks.”
And Steve Hays immediate response to my words contained no apology, no hint of remorse, no attempt to cut out the sinful manner of speaking with me. Instead he writes the following words, again reiterating his false accusation that I am a false teacher (and if we know our bible we know that accusing someone about being a false teacher exhibiting the traits discussed in the NT regarding false teachers is tantamount to saying that they are going to hell) and continuing his sinful abusive speech. Here is Steve Hays response to my appeal to being civil and rational and cutting out the unnecessary personal insults and personal attacks:
====================================================================
“I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”
“You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.
”For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.”
”Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”
“You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.”
”Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.”
”BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part.” (6-14-07)
===================================================== ===============
I am now going to contrast what Steve Hays has been saying towards me, with what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with and speak with one another. I will share two sets of statements here. First the public comments on Triablogue by Steve Hays directed towards me (and this is not an exhaustive listing of them), second Bible verses about how we ought to be acting towards one another. A friend of mine suggested providing this contrast if Steve Hays continued in his sinful abusive speech towards me.
======================================================================
Set 1 = public statements by Steve Hays towards Henry:
Henry seems to have a problem thinking outside his own little box. (3/22/07)
Sigh. Someone else who can’t follow his own line of reasoning. (3/22/07)
The most charitable interpretation of Henry’s statement is that he’s very young, naïve, and inexperienced. But for those who haven’t led such a charmed life or sheltered existence, the source of bitter regret is not that we could have done otherwise, but that we couldn’t bring ourselves to do otherwise. (3/23/07)
This is a purely emotional appeal, which is the last resort of the scoundrel. You reject the witness of Scripture because you dislike the consequences. (3/23/07)
It's a pity that Henry is so forgetful. (4/1/07)
As usual, Henry can't follow his own argument (4/1/07)
Henry never fails to miss the point. (4/1/07)
No, the major reasons are as follows:
i) Many people are just as illogical as Henry. (4/1/07)
Henry is now advertising his ignorance of Biblical lexicography.(4/8/07)
Henry pays lip service to Scripture, but he’s too lazy to consult the standard commentaries, lexicons, or monographs on lexical semantics. (4/8/07)
Such is Henry’s forked-tongued rhetoric on secular philosophy. (4/8/07)
Henry also doesn’t know the difference between sense and reference.(4/8/07)
Henry is ignorant of the doctrine he’s opposing. (4/8/07)
Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms. (4/8/07)
I would be prepared to cut Henry some slack if he were an honest man. But he prevaricates. He raises objections. When we answer him on his own grounds, he then chooses to ignore the counterarguments, change the subject, or repeat himself ad nauseum. (4/8/07)
I said:
”Steve Hays’ claims that I am a false teacher going to hell for eternal punishment.”
Which, of course, I didn't say. Henry suffers from a persecution complex. He's looking for a pretext to back out of a losing argument. (4/10/07)
Another palpable characterization of this thread. His problem (among others) is that he is not an honest disputant or truth-seeker. (4/10/07)
An honest and honorable man would withdraw his initial objections if he's been answered on his own grounds, and can show no flaw in the counterargument. (4/10/07)
That, however, is not what Henry does. He thinks that he's entitled to unconditional respect when he conducts himself in an intellectually disreputable fashion. (4/10/07)
I hold professing Christians (as well an unbelievers) to a minimal standard of intellectual honestly. (4/10/07)
If Henry doesn't know this, then Henry doesn't know very much. But, of course, we've already established his ignorance in past exchanges. (6-1-07)
Henry keeps reminding us that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. (6-1-07)
I hate to break the news to the impoverished little mind of Henry, but words frequently have more than one meaning. (6-4-07)
Perhaps, though, Henry is a closet homosexual activist who would use the same line of reasoning with reference to the sense of yada in Gen 19. (6-4-07)
Henry, could you try, just for once in your life, to be less of a dimwit? (6-4-07)
Henry is a chronic liar. If I had a brick for every inch that his nose grows, I could build a road from Alaska to Argentina. (6-4-07)
This is a splendid example of Henry’s Biblical illiteracy. (6-4-07)
Observe how Henry keeps using singular nouns with plural pronouns. His addiction to transgender usage is further evidence that he must be a closet homosexual activist. The Arminian chapter of ACT UP. (6-4-07)
ii) BTW, Henry must believe that all children who die before the age of discretion are damned. Same with all Christians who die in a state of senile dementia. Same with all adults below a certain IQ. (6-4-07)
How did he ever get to be a seminary prof, anyway? Did he marry the daughter of the seminary president? (6-7-07)
I know it makes your widdle head hoit to think logically, but with daily practice, a few baby steps at a time, you may just get the hang of it. (6-7-07)
Henry has a real problem thinking through the ramifications of his own position. He needs to work off all those layers of intellectual baby-fat. (6-7-07)
I realize that Henry finds it difficult to grasp the obvious, but maybe a little light will suddenly switch on if we keeping drawing his attention to the obvious. (6-7-07)
Or is his commitment to Arminian freewill so fanatical that he would let his own brother blow his brains out without making an effort to wrest the gun from his hands? (6-7-07)
He's like the parody of the spoiled, only child, who's used to receiving uncondition approval from his doting parents for whatever he says. (6-7-07)
No wonder he’s an Arminian. It’s the theological projection of an overgrown child. The theology of the middle-aged brat. Henry remains the center of his theological universe—ever compliant to his petulant whims. (6-7-07)
Because Henry lacks the intellectual honesty to accurately represent the implications of his own position, someone else will have to do it for him. (6-10-07)
Is Henry dense? “More loving” is a wedge issue. One may introduce the comparative to then leverage the superlative. (6-10-07)
Henry suffers from reading incomprehension. (6-10-07)
Henry, in his linguistic naiveté, doesn’t appreciate the difference between the etymology and meaning. (6-10-07)
Another one of Henry’s problems is that he doesn’t even know the meaning of English words. (6-10-07)
Robots are people, too! Clearly they need to add I, Robot to the curriculum at Henry’s backwoods seminary. (6-10-07)
How is it that Arminians know so little about human nature, especially in matters of the heart? Did Henry grow up within a Shaker community? (6-10-07)
How is it that Henry, like other Arminians, is so obvious to social psychology? So clueless about the world around them? (6-10-07)
Henry is now arguing with MG as well as me. That's an imprudent move on his part since MG has a far more agile mind that Henry. But, by all means, Henry—take on yet another, superior opponent. (6-12-07)
I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”
You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.
For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.
Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”
You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.
Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.
======================================================================
Set 2 = Bible verses on how Christians are to interact with and speak to other Christians:
“and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.” Eph. 4:24-25
“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” Eph. 4:29-32 (unwholesome words, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, malice, are not acceptable; instead kind, tender-hearted, forgiving ought to be done)
“for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.” (Eph. 5:8-10) (children of light do not talk to each other as the children of darkness do to each other)
“Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:14-15) (blameless, innocent, light in a dark world)
“so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10) (our actions ought to be done in a manner worthy of the Lord; we are to be good witnesses manifesting Jesus’ character to both unbelievers and especially believers = “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” Gal. 6:10)
“For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.” (Col. 3:6-8) (Christians may have experienced anger, wrath, malice, slander, abusive speech, in the past as nonbelievers, but it should no longer characterize them, or be practiced by believers, as saved persons these things are to be put aside and replaced by love, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc. etc.)
“And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.” (Col. 3:12-14) (we are to be compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, patience, bearing with one another, forgiving)
“Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; for indeed you do practice it toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, to excel still more” (1 Thess. 4:9-10)(love other Christians and **excel** in it)
“And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Tim: 2:24-26 – Note while this is spoken about how we are to act towards nonbelievers, if these things are true of that interaction how should our interaction be with other believers??? Even when the unbeliever wrongs us we are to be patient when wronged, correcting them with gentleness realizing that God is the one who has to change their heart)
“To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Pet. 3:8-12)(are to be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, humble, not returning evil for evil or insults when insulted)
“Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” (1 Pet. 4:8-9) (above all love ought to characterize the interactions between Christians)
“You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the might hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time” (1 Pet. 5:5-6) (God hates pride and opposes the proud but gives grace to and relates better with people who are humble)
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:2-7, presents the character traits Christian leaders/elders are to have, shows what Christian maturity looks like, if you do not manifest these traits you are not a mature Christian no matter how smart you may be; examine the posts and see if they manifest these character traits or not)
“Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1 Jn. 3:15-16)(the posts have repeatedly manifested hatred rather than love)
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 Jn. 4:7-8) (a genuine believer will consistently be manifesting love towards other believers irrespective of whether or not they hold the same doctrinal beliefs)
“If someone says, “I love God”, and hates his brother, he is a liar, for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” (1 Jn. 4:20-21)(we have a right to ask of a professing Christian: where is the love? If you hate other Christians, that suggests you are not one of His people)
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (Jn. 13:34-35). (Jesus said it himself, love of one another, not intellect or contentious arguing, is what shows people belong to Him, intellect without love is no different than the nonbelievers, just as anything without love is worthless, cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3)
“Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly, it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7, if a person loves other believers and unbelievers, we ought to see what is described here in their posts on the internet as well)
Now having seen some of the sinful things which Steve Hays has said towards me. And comparing his statements with the biblical admonitions of how Christians are to speak and treat one another. Hays needs to change his manner of interacting and speaking towards me. He needs to better practice what the Bible says about the manner in which Christians are to interact with one another. If he claims to be a Christian then he needs to live out what the Bible says, obey the exhortations and commands of scripture in regards to how to interact with other people. And if he has problems with the Bible verses mentioned here, or refuses to practice them, then he needs to have some interaction with the God who expects His people to be living these things out in every area of their lives.
Henry
Henry's sanitized version of Scripture notwithstanding, here's some of what the Bible actually has to say about apostates, false teachers, and unbelievers:
ReplyDeleteActs 8 (New International Version)
20Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."
1 Timothy 1 (New International Version)
8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Hebrews 10 (New International Version)
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
2 Peter 2 (New International Version)
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
Jude 1 (New International Version)
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.
11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.
Exodus 15:1-18 (New International Version)
The Song of Moses and Miriam
1 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD :
"I will sing to the LORD,
for he is highly exalted.
The horse and its rider
he has hurled into the sea.
2 The LORD is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation.
He is my God, and I will praise him,
my father's God, and I will exalt him.
3 The LORD is a warrior;
the LORD is his name.
4 Pharaoh's chariots and his army
he has hurled into the sea.
The best of Pharaoh's officers
are drowned in the Red Sea. [a]
5 The deep waters have covered them;
they sank to the depths like a stone.
6 "Your right hand, O LORD,
was majestic in power.
Your right hand, O LORD,
shattered the enemy.
7 In the greatness of your majesty
you threw down those who opposed you.
You unleashed your burning anger;
it consumed them like stubble.
8 By the blast of your nostrils
the waters piled up.
The surging waters stood firm like a wall;
the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea.
9 "The enemy boasted,
'I will pursue, I will overtake them.
I will divide the spoils;
I will gorge myself on them.
I will draw my sword
and my hand will destroy them.'
10 But you blew with your breath,
and the sea covered them.
They sank like lead
in the mighty waters.
11 "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ?
Who is like you—
majestic in holiness,
awesome in glory,
working wonders?
12 You stretched out your right hand
and the earth swallowed them.
13 "In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.
14 The nations will hear and tremble;
anguish will grip the people of Philistia.
15 The chiefs of Edom will be terrified,
the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling,
the people [b] of Canaan will melt away;
16 terror and dread will fall upon them.
By the power of your arm
they will be as still as a stone—
until your people pass by, O LORD,
until the people you bought [c] pass by.
17 You will bring them in and plant them
on the mountain of your inheritance—
the place, O LORD, you made for your dwelling,
the sanctuary, O Lord, your hands established.
18 The LORD will reign
for ever and ever."
Judges 5:1-31 (New International Version)
The Song of Deborah
1 On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song:
2 "When the princes in Israel take the lead,
when the people willingly offer themselves—
praise the LORD!
3 "Hear this, you kings! Listen, you rulers!
I will sing to [a] the LORD, I will sing;
I will make music to [b] the LORD, the God of Israel.
4 "O LORD, when you went out from Seir,
when you marched from the land of Edom,
the earth shook, the heavens poured,
the clouds poured down water.
5 The mountains quaked before the LORD, the One of Sinai,
before the LORD, the God of Israel.
6 "In the days of Shamgar son of Anath,
in the days of Jael, the roads were abandoned;
travelers took to winding paths.
7 Village life [c] in Israel ceased,
ceased until I, [d] Deborah, arose,
arose a mother in Israel.
8 When they chose new gods,
war came to the city gates,
and not a shield or spear was seen
among forty thousand in Israel.
9 My heart is with Israel's princes,
with the willing volunteers among the people.
Praise the LORD!
10 "You who ride on white donkeys,
sitting on your saddle blankets,
and you who walk along the road,
consider 11 the voice of the singers [e] at the watering places.
They recite the righteous acts of the LORD,
the righteous acts of his warriors [f] in Israel.
"Then the people of the LORD
went down to the city gates.
12 'Wake up, wake up, Deborah!
Wake up, wake up, break out in song!
Arise, O Barak!
Take captive your captives, O son of Abinoam.'
13 "Then the men who were left
came down to the nobles;
the people of the LORD
came to me with the mighty.
14 Some came from Ephraim, whose roots were in Amalek;
Benjamin was with the people who followed you.
From Makir captains came down,
from Zebulun those who bear a commander's staff.
15 The princes of Issachar were with Deborah;
yes, Issachar was with Barak,
rushing after him into the valley.
In the districts of Reuben
there was much searching of heart.
16 Why did you stay among the campfires [g]
to hear the whistling for the flocks?
In the districts of Reuben
there was much searching of heart.
17 Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan.
And Dan, why did he linger by the ships?
Asher remained on the coast
and stayed in his coves.
18 The people of Zebulun risked their very lives;
so did Naphtali on the heights of the field.
19 "Kings came, they fought;
the kings of Canaan fought
at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo,
but they carried off no silver, no plunder.
20 From the heavens the stars fought,
from their courses they fought against Sisera.
21 The river Kishon swept them away,
the age-old river, the river Kishon.
March on, my soul; be strong!
22 Then thundered the horses' hoofs—
galloping, galloping go his mighty steeds.
23 'Curse Meroz,' said the angel of the LORD.
'Curse its people bitterly,
because they did not come to help the LORD,
to help the LORD against the mighty.'
24 "Most blessed of women be Jael,
the wife of Heber the Kenite,
most blessed of tent-dwelling women.
25 He asked for water, and she gave him milk;
in a bowl fit for nobles she brought him curdled milk.
26 Her hand reached for the tent peg,
her right hand for the workman's hammer.
She struck Sisera, she crushed his head,
she shattered and pierced his temple.
27 At her feet he sank,
he fell; there he lay.
At her feet he sank, he fell;
where he sank, there he fell-dead.
28 "Through the window peered Sisera's mother;
behind the lattice she cried out,
'Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?'
29 The wisest of her ladies answer her;
indeed, she keeps saying to herself,
30 'Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:
a girl or two for each man,
colorful garments as plunder for Sisera,
colorful garments embroidered,
highly embroidered garments for my neck—
all this as plunder?'
31 "So may all your enemies perish, O LORD!
But may they who love you be like the sun
when it rises in its strength."
Then the land had peace forty years.
1 Samuel 17:45-47 (New International Version)
45 David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands."
Isaiah 14:3-21 (New International Version)
3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:
How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury [a] has ended!
5 The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked,
the scepter of the rulers,
6 which in anger struck down peoples
with unceasing blows,
and in fury subdued nations
with relentless aggression.
7 All the lands are at rest and at peace;
they break into singing.
8 Even the pine trees and the cedars of Lebanon
exult over you and say,
"Now that you have been laid low,
no woodsman comes to cut us down."
9 The grave [b] below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones—
all those who were kings over the nations.
10 They will all respond,
they will say to you,
"You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us."
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [c]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.
16 Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
"Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?"
18 All the kings of the nations lie in state,
each in his own tomb.
19 But you are cast out of your tomb
like a rejected branch;
you are covered with the slain,
with those pierced by the sword,
those who descend to the stones of the pit.
Like a corpse trampled underfoot,
20 you will not join them in burial,
for you have destroyed your land
and killed your people.
The offspring of the wicked
will never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his sons
for the sins of their forefathers;
they are not to rise to inherit the land
and cover the earth with their cities.
Ezekiel 28:11-19 (New International Version)
11 The word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, [a] turquoise and beryl. [b]
Your settings and mountings [c] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.' "
Revelation 18:1-24 (New International Version)
1After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2With a mighty voice he shouted:
"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!
She has become a home for demons
and a haunt for every evil[a] spirit,
a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.
3For all the nations have drunk
the maddening wine of her adulteries.
The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,
and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."
4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:
"Come out of her, my people,
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
5for her sins are piled up to heaven,
and God has remembered her crimes.
6Give back to her as she has given;
pay her back double for what she has done.
Mix her a double portion from her own cup.
7Give her as much torture and grief
as the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts,
'I sit as queen; I am not a widow,
and I will never mourn.'
8Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her:
death, mourning and famine.
She will be consumed by fire,
for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.
9"When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. 10Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
O Babylon, city of power!
In one hour your doom has come!'
11"The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more— 12cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men.
14"They will say, 'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' 15The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn 16and cry out:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet,
and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!
17In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!'
"Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. 18When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' 19They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
where all who had ships on the sea
became rich through her wealth!
In one hour she has been brought to ruin!
20Rejoice over her, O heaven!
Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets!
God has judged her for the way she treated you.' "
21Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
"With such violence
the great city of Babylon will be thrown down,
never to be found again.
22The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters,
will never be heard in you again.
No workman of any trade
will ever be found in you again.
The sound of a millstone
will never be heard in you again.
23The light of a lamp will never shine in you again.
The voice of bridegroom and bride
will never be heard in you again.
Your merchants were the world's great men.
By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
24In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints,
and of all who have been killed on the earth."
Revelation 19:1-3 (New International Version)
Hallelujah!
1After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
"Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2for true and just are his judgments.
He has condemned the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.
He has avenged on her the blood of his servants." 3And again they shouted:
"Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever."
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYour attempts to portray Henry as a false teacher and apostate fall far short of the mark. He has previously defended the essentials of the Christian faith, and his only "fault" is to deny a particular view of Calvinism which you and some others uphold.
The Scriptures you cite are decrees and prophecies coming from God. Are you so arrogant that you think you can substitute your own opinion for that of God or one of his Apostles or Prophets? And don't try to argue that you are judging Henry by his fruit, because your own is quite rotten compared to his.
The Scriptures Henry cited are commands Christains should follow in interacting with others - both believers and unbelievers.
I've had numerous interactions with REAL apostates and false teachers (JWs, Mormons, Unitarians). I've found insulting them does NOTHING to further the discussion, save to gain kudos from those on your side of the argument. Such rhetorical gamesmanship is nothing more than currying the favor of men.
Contending for the faith can get intense - but our engeries should be focused on the other guy's ARGUMENTS, not his character.
Henry quoted: "God stands opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." If you want your ministry to be effective for Christ, lose the pride.
Oh, and I'm not Henry, though I do know him personally. He is one of the finest Bible teachers I've ever studied under. To see him portrayed as you have says far more to me about you than him.
If you feel it necessary to justify your handling of Henry as "correction," then you'll understand my motive for posting this.