Here I’m reposting some comments I originally left over at Victor Reppert’s blog.
[Reppert] "But what are we asked to believe if Calvinism is true? We are asked to believe that God decreed the deeds of everyone before the foundation of the world. The Holocaust, the killing fields of Pol Pot, the 9/11 attacks, and the entire content of Dawkins' The God Delusion were all decreed before the foundation of the world."
What's the moral difference between saying that God decreed the Holocaust and saying that even though God foresaw what would happen if he did x, and could have prevented it had he refrained from creating the conditions which precipitated the Holocaust, that he went ahead and created the sufficient preconditions in full knowledge of the inevitable outcome, although it was within his power to do otherwise?
If you're going to appeal to moral intuitions, then how would the moral intuitions of an atheist regard your alternative as any improvement over Calvinism?
"The CD was made in eternity and plays out in time, just as it was intended."
What is your alternative?
i) That God had no intentions for the world? That he had nothing specifically in mind when he chose to create the world?
Or:
ii) That God had intentions for the world, but the world didn't turn out the way he intended it to be? The outcome caught him off-guard?
"The deeds that are sinful are nevertheless deserving of everlasting punishment for the humans who perform them, even though the creatures who perform them cannot do otherwise, given those decrees."
Bracketing my commitment to Scripture and Calvinism for the moment, and just working from raw intuition, I don't find your objection morally problematic.
Are you claiming that agents are blameless in case they couldn't do otherwise even if they wouldn't do otherwise?
Intuitively speaking, freedom to do otherwise, if morally relevant at all, is only relevant in case the agent would have done otherwise.
And if he wouldn't do otherwise, then it makes no difference if he could do otherwise.
Even this would need to be glossed. To do otherwise doesn't necessary mean that an agent chooses good over evil. Rather, he might choose a different evil.
So, for your intuitive objection to have any traction whatsoever, you need to demonstrate that, according to Calvinism:
i) The damned would have done otherwise if given the chance (whatever that means), and
ii) They would have chosen good over evil.
"God could have decreed that no one ever sin, or God could have decreed that everyone receive the saving grace of Jesus Christ, but apparently it results in greater glory to himself if he damns, probably, the vast majority of the human race, especially those where the Gospel hasn't reached."
Depends on what you mean by "results in greater glory." As Wilhelm a Brakel explained a long time ago, what this means is not that God is the beneficiary, but that the elect are the beneficiaries. It doesn't add anything to God's glory. It is better to be fallen, and then redeemed, than to be unfallen.
Josh Hickok said...
"The obvious answer is that there is another (free) agent involved that brings evil about."
How does that exculpate God if God could prevent another (free) agent from bringing that about? If you put a woman in a jail cell with a rapist, and you knew the outcome (which is predictable), would that let you off the hook because another free agent carried out the deed?
Remember, we're working off of pure moral intuition now.
alan rhoda said...
"I'm a whole lot more confident that my deepest moral intuitions are sound, than I am that Scripture (as we have it today) is inerrant."
If your last ditch argument against Calvinism is that Calvinism is Scriptural, but Scripture is erroneous, then I appreciate your concession. It doesn't come down to how we interpret Scripture. That's a red-herring.
To reject Calvinism, you must also reject the witness of Scripture.
This is an off-topic question. But I have seen a lot of Victor Reppert inspired posts lately. And I think it carries good value. After all, a lot of arminians have converted to calvinism, and visa versa because of polemical exchanges.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I'm curious: Who's the most well-known Calvinist who was formerly a staunch Arminian? And visa versa, who's the most well-known Arminian who was formerly a staunch Calvinist?
Probably the most well-known Arminian who was formerly a staunch Calvinist would be Arminius himself.
ReplyDeleteTuad: c2a would be Clark Pinnock, who finally realized that (duh) Heb 6 and 10 *were* describing people in a state of salvation who renounced it by an act of their own free will. He's so arminian he's open theist.
ReplyDeleteRead them yourself, TUAD and see if you still think calvinism is true.
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I've seen anything that Arminius wrote that indicated "staunch Calvinism."
Then again, the works of Arminius are fairly sparse.
You may be right, but I cannot recall seeing any evidence of it.
-Turretinfan
Thanks Mitch. That really is a good answer. Who's the most well-known and well-regarded and respected ex-Arminian turned Calvinist?
ReplyDeleteTHN,
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed perseverance ad nauseum. Read those posts and then post comments that actually move the dialogue forward.
Turretinfan,
ReplyDeleteI am going only by the historical account of his life. It seems that he started question the Calvinism of his mentor
Theodore Beza when he was asked to defend predestination. In his attempt to defend the Calvinism that Beza was advocating he began to doubt his theology. I agree that from his existing writings one would not find anything that would say that he was a “staunch Calvinist”.
John Wesley is the most famous ex-Arminian turned Calvinist. Everyone in heaven is a 5-pointer. The only difference is that some were already 5-pointers when they arrived at the pearly gates, while others saw the error of their ways as soon as their sanctification was perfected in glory!
ReplyDeleteSteve: "Everyone in heaven is a 5-pointer. The only difference is that some were already 5-pointers when they arrived at the pearly gates, while others saw the error of their ways as soon as their sanctification was perfected in glory!"
ReplyDeleteBig, giant, wide Cheshire cat smile. That's the kind of iron-clad conviction I like to see!
But here's where I slip up and show my hick naivete. Given that every heaven-bound Christian is a 5-Pointer, whether they know it or not, and that you also regard non-apostate Armininians as being heaven-bound too, then why do you and Reppert and for that matter, this site and the other Arminian sites, trade such ferocious artillery at each other over points of doctrine that do not prevent a follower of Christ from being redeemed by the sacrificial blood of Jesus?
What I'm saying is that if Arminianism is really a soul-destroying heresy, then I'd say it's well worth it to combat it vigorously. But if it's not, then all these exchanges with Reppert et al..., well, what's the point, other than trying to help Arminians grow in sanctification through polemics-in-love?
TUAD,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can find any "ferocious" comments in any of my posts to reppert, or Steve;s for that matter.
Fred Phelps got saved at a Methodist revival, so I guess he'd be the most famous arminian to become a calvinist and he does think arminianism is soul destroying. I said hello to his family when they were up here at nyc picketing the pope and got them to autograph my copy of hatemongers, the movie.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBut here's where I slip up and show my hick naivete. Given that every heaven-bound Christian is a 5-Pointer, whether they know it or not, and that you also regard non-apostate Armininians as being heaven-bound too, then why do you and Reppert and for that matter, this site and the other Arminian sites, trade such ferocious artillery at each other over points of doctrine that do not prevent a follower of Christ from being redeemed by the sacrificial blood of Jesus?
What I'm saying is that if Arminianism is really a soul-destroying heresy, then I'd say it's well worth it to combat it vigorously. But if it's not, then all these exchanges with Reppert et al..., well, what's the point, other than trying to help Arminians grow in sanctification through polemics-in-love?
Speaking solely for myself:
1. Arminianism is a mixture of truth and error. We should help those in error.
2. Armininianism has a checkered history of leading to liberalism and apostasies of all sorts.
a. Denial of Inerrancy and Infallibility. If men have LFW, it's inconsistent to believe in inerrancy. Libertarians, for example in the SBC, who affirm inerrancy but deny the effectual call have problems. The inspiration of an inerrant text and the effectual call turn on the same principle.
b. Historically Arminianism allied itself with Socinianism very quickly. Open Theism today is Socininian.
c. There were more problems with Episcopius and his immediate peers than their soteriology. Most folks don't realize this. They, for example, denied the innate knowledge of God in man.
d. After Francis Turretin died, Geneva allowed Amyraldianism, then Arminianism, and by the 19th century they had apostatized.
e. The Free Will Baptists were almost completely destroyed due to the alliance with Socinianism.
Now, I'm not saying Arminianism qua Arminianism is the problem here. Rather its rationalism. Arminianism is built on rationalistic principles - principles that take on the role of a central plank around which the rest of the theology is structured. In this case, LFW and ideas about God's ethical/moral nature.
Critics have tried to accuse Calvinists of this (predestination) and Lutherans too (justification by faith alone). That's from the 19th century. The problem is, these historians are mirror-reading their own theological methods into the past. Calvinism never did that. Lutheranism never did that. Predestination is very far along in the "theological tree," too far in our theological works for it to be the or a central plank. Ditto for justification by faith alone in Lutheranism.
Indeed, if there is any "central plank" for Protestants, it would be the priesthood of believers, not justification or predestination. But that view too assumes the methods of the 19th century historians, so it's more mirror-reading.
3. Arminians have a nasty habit of "erring to defect" in their fundamental articles. You'll find that observation in Turretin in particular. They were wont to say the Trinity was a fundamental, to take one example. Today, on the blogs, I've seen some "Free Gracers" who are functional Arminians say that Oneness folks like T.D. Jakes are to be accepted as Christian brothers. The Reformed tradition, by way of contrast, differentiates between kinds and types of error and isn't squeamish about fundamental articles of faith.
This is all to say, then, that Calvinism tends to preserve the Protestant rule of faith, whereas Arminianism does not. Calvinism tends to be a conserving force; Arminianism does not. When Calvinism turns into Hyper-Calvinism, its because Calvinists leave Calvinist principles (agreeing that ability limits responsibility for example). When Calvinism becomes Neo-Orthodoxy, it is leaving its Evangelical roots.
So,that's why these discussion get so passionate on my/our part. It's this awareness of what can and has happened that drives them.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant to convey with the word "ferocious" was the impression of "deep intensity".
Dear Gene,
ReplyDeleteMuch thanks for the excellent reply. I understand the "why" better now.
I liken your reasoning to the Slippery Slope argument. And depending on the merits of the argument (and how far the slope's descent is) I will accept some slippery slope arguments. It's like the leaven that's described as a metaphor in the Bible.
I understand what you're saying if I can make a rough parallel to the hills I think are worth dying for: Complementarianism and Inerrancy. (There are other hills worth dying for, but I'm just picking these two as an example.)
If one assumes a doctrinal taxonomy with 1st-order doctrines, 2nd-order doctrines, etc..., then complementarianism and inerrancy are not 1st-order doctrines. But if you deny them, even though it's not a individual-salvific-impacting doctrine, then the accepting of egalitarianism and biblical errancy does terrible damage to the individual and to the overall corporate body of Christ. Because you get "doctrinal creep" and pretty soon these 2nd-order doctrinal violations creep over into 1st-order doctrinal errors that do affect salvation.
Have I captured the essence of what you're saying Gene about the errors of Arminianism with my analogizing it over to egalitarianism and biblical fallibility?
For those of you who haven't seen it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.investigatingatheism.info/
Sorry for derailing and monopolizing this thread.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to say that besides egalitarianism and biblical errancy, the other thing that looks like slippery slope leaven to me is neo-Darwinism as embraced by theistic evolutionists. Well, one more slippery slope leaven that I'm highly leery of is the postmodern epistemology embraced by many in the emerging church.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if I meet an Arminian, say like William Lane Craig, I'm not unduly concerned.
But if I meet a fellow brother or sister in Christ who's embraced any or all or some combination of the following, then I get concerned and worried: Egalitarianism, Biblical Errancy, Neo-Darwinism, and Postmodern Epistemology.
P.S. Now that I think about it, I could probably add the GLBT issue too. Same-sex blessings and GLBT ordinations is another thing that some/many Christians are embracing.
Heh. Maybe Arminianism leads to all the aforementioned things. I don't know. But to this hick those other issues outweigh the age-old arminian-calvinism debate. (Though it's still important!)
TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
ReplyDelete“Given that every heaven-bound Christian is a 5-Pointer, whether they know it or not, and that you also regard non-apostate Armininians as being heaven-bound too, then why do you and Reppert and for that matter, this site and the other Arminian sites, trade such ferocious artillery at each other over points of doctrine that do not prevent a follower of Christ from being redeemed by the sacrificial blood of Jesus?”
1.Offhand, I think my tone with Reppert has been pretty mild in matters of theology.
I was more “ferocious” with him on the issue of counterterrorism.
2.The artillery I use depends on the intellectual conduct of my opponent. If he uses respectable arguments, I’ll treat his arguments with respect.
3.Some Arminians (and other opponents of Calvinism) go so far as to say that the God of Reformed theism is diabolical. For them, Calvinism is synonymous with Satanism.
It’s hard to cut them some slack when there’s no wiggle room in their own position.
4.There can be practical consequences, for better or worse, if we consistently apply our theology to real life.
i) An Arminian is insecure in a way that a Calvinist is not. It’s like a young boy who’s afraid that his dad will walk out the door and never come back.
ii) Our justice system operates on Arminian assumptions. If you’re so evil that you can’t tell the difference between good and evil, then you can cop a plea to insanity and get off the hook.
Not to mention the all-purpose, temporary insanity defense. The Twinkies made me do it!
Likewise, if you drive drunk and kill someone, the law is lenient because you were in a state of diminished responsibility at the time.
iii) Likewise, Arminians tend to take a more Pollyannaish view of what gov’t can accomplish, how to defeat our enemies abroad, how to lower crime, &c.
My other reason is simpler: We should believe whatever God tells us.
ReplyDeleteAnd I will defend the right of Reformed Christians to so believe.
I liken your reasoning to the Slippery Slope argument. And depending on the merits of the argument (and how far the slope's descent is) I will accept some slippery slope arguments. It's like the leaven that's described as a metaphor in the Bible
ReplyDeleteThat's an apt analogy, but the enemy isn't "Arminianism" for me, it's "rationalism." That can take many forms, including the elevation of "Baptist principles" (however defined). It can be "Christology" (That's Orthodoxy's method). It can be eccelsiology (Catholicism for example, Landmarkism another). So, I'm an equal opportunity critic.
If one assumes a doctrinal taxonomy with 1st-order doctrines, 2nd-order doctrines, etc..., then complementarianism and inerrancy are not 1st-order doctrines.
This is where we get into differences between kinds and types of error.
I would call inerrancy first order, because it applies directly to one of two principia of theology, namely Scripture.
I would deny egalitarianism is first order, because it's much further down the tree.
It's terribly difficult to talk about Fundamental Articles, insofar as those who have done so don't always agree on what they are, but they do agree on general principles. I'm saving publication of that paper for another day. Yes, I have written one, but I just keep waiting to post it. You'll have to wait on it :D