Monday, May 05, 2008

Does Reppert weep crocodile tears?

Back to Reppert:

“I think you are making a mistake. You assume that if I accept Hasker's argument for incompatibilism of free will and determinism, that I must accept his arguments against the compatibility of foreknowledge and freedom.”

How is that a mistake?

“I'm pretty sympathetic to open theism myself. It's hardly a reductio in my book.”

So it’s not a mistake after all. Reppert is tacitly admitting a tension between God’s knowledge of the future and man’s libertarian freedom. And he’s relieving the tension by denying God’s knowledge of the future.

“Calvinism attributes to God actions which in any parallel human context would be considered wrong by anyone.”

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true, why wouldn’t it apply with equal force to open theism? In open theism, God puts his creatures at risk. He doesn’t know the outcome. So he’s putting them in harm’s way—“ which in any parallel human context would be considered wrong by anyone.”

““But the ‘illustration’ could have been accomplished in any number of less harmful ways.”

But open theism subscribes to a high-risk version of providence. Isn’t that more harmful that a low-risk version of providence?

“Calvinism has the consequence that, for those whose loved ones are lost, God intended forever to frustrate the prayers of those who earnestly desire the salvation of their nearest and dearest.”

And open theism has the consequence that, for those whose loved ones are lost, God cannot answer our prayers to save them since God can’t save anyone against his will.

“The Calvinists at Triablogue had some debate with me over waterboarding a few months back. But since they knew I wasn't a Calvinist, they avoided using their best argument. They could say ‘Look, we know these terror suspects are Muslims, which means they're probably vessels of wrath headed for the fire anyway. If we can get some information out of them, why not give them a little foretaste of the future?’"

As a Calvinist, I don’t feel the need to win at any cost, by any means necessary. That’s because I can leave the outcome to God.

If, however, I were an open theist, then life would be far more insecure. Far riskier. In that event, I’d be utterly ruthless in dealing with the enemy. Since, as I open theist, I couldn’t count on God to save my bacon, I’d be left to my own devices. Survival of the fittest. Every man for himself. Do unto others before they do unto you. An open theist would be Jack Bauer on steroids.

“I won’t call God a liar. I will call God a provider of incomplete information.”

Why would an open theist hesitate to call God a liar? A God who doesn’t know the future can’t keep his promises. If he can’t keep them, then he’s a liar to make them in the first place.

Reppert also quotes some choice statements by John Wesley, such as:

“You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give.”

Several problems, but I’ll confine myself to two:

i) Wesley was an Evangelical Arminian. As such, he believed in divine foreknowledge. Indeed, Arminian election is conditional election, contingent on foreseen faith.

But since, according to Arminian theology, everyone doesn’t exercise saving faith, then Wesley must represent God as offering what he never intends to give in the case of unbelievers. So Wesley’s God is weeping crocodile tears.

ii) In open theism, God doesn’t know the future. He doesn’t know what free agents will do.

Yet a promise is future-oriented. God’s promise to preserve believers is a case in point (Rom 8).

So open theism has to cast God in the role of issuing a string of broken promises. God is offering what he never intends to give, since the result is beyond his control.

Hence, according to Wesley’s reasoning, the God of Arminian theology, as well as open theism, is “a mere hypocrite, dissembler, and gross deceiver, full of deceit and void of common sincerity.”

So Reppert’s “God”—whichever god, gods, godling, godlet, goddess, demigod, or wood nymph that may be, since Reppert seems to have a pantheon of major and minor deities to suit every apologetic contingency—weeps crocodile tears over the fate of the lost.

Indeed, since Reppert is a fan of neotheistic hermeneutics, there’s no reason for him not to go all the way with the Mormons in their polytheistic reading of Scripture.

19 comments:

  1. “I'm pretty sympathetic to open theism myself. It's hardly a reductio in my book.”

    I think this justifies all of our railings against Arminianism. Arminianism starts with a (Greek) philosophical construct (LFW) as a necessary foundation and forces all Scriptural interpretation around it.

    This leads to (or starts with!) a low view of Scripture. Once that is done, Open Theism is the logical conclusion.

    "So Reppert’s “God”—whichever god, gods, godling, godlet, goddess, demigod, or wood nymph that may be..."

    LOL! If I had been drinking fluid at that moment, it would have come to rest all over my monitor!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am sorry I forget why, and I don't have the book on hand, but in Four Views of Divine Foreknowledge William Lane Craig somehow argues that open theism destroys human freedom. I think it is because in order to accomplish his means God must *force* creatures do certain things to get history back on the track he wants it to be on. If anyone else has the book, it would be a definite aid to this discussion to know if that is true

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve - If, however, I were an open theist, then life would be far more insecure. Far riskier. In that event, I’d be utterly ruthless in dealing with the enemy. Since, as I open theist, I couldn’t count on God to save my bacon, I’d be left to my own devices.

    Vytautas - If life is more risky when God does not know the future, then being ruthless would cause more risk. Why would one act differently on the basis that God does not know something?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Slightly off-topic. Dr. Wayne Grudem thinks open theism is arguably a heresy. (Which I'm inclined to agree with). He also believes that it would be appropriate to have a discussion within the Evangelical Theological Society to determine amending their membership requirement so that open theists are not members of ETS.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My last comment wasn't clear. I mean to say that I'm inclined to agree that open theism is a heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. steve said:
    Vytautas - If life is more risky when God does not know the future, then being ruthless would cause more risk. Why would one act differently on the basis that God does not know something?

    ******************************************

    Being ruthless wouldn't be riskier for me.

    If God doesn't know the future, then we can't trust in his providence. If he doesn't know the future, then we can't trust in his promises.

    So we'd have to fall back on our own resources.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He also believes that it would be appropriate to have a discussion within the Evangelical Theological Society to determine amending their membership requirement so that open theists are not members of ETS.

    Hah hah! Fat chance!

    Because any question of heresy can never be confirmed by any objective, empirical evidence (such as God zapping someone for touching the ark), you will never be able to protect yourself against heresy! In fact, you can never be certain that you currently do not believe heresy!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thnuh: Because any question of heresy can never be confirmed by any objective, empirical evidence (such as God zapping someone for touching the ark), you will never be able to protect yourself against heresy!

    Vytautas: Heresy is what someone beleives. It is not an event such as when the ark was touched. If heresy is an event that happens in history, why would I need to protect myself against it?

    Thnuh: In fact, you can never be certain that you currently do not believe heresy!

    Vytautas: If you currently believe in Calvinism, then you are certain that you do not believe in Open Theism for example.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for the link to Geisler's resignation Thnuhthnuh. I'm sympathetic to Geisler's reasoning, it certainly appears that ETS has not done a good job of balancing unity-in-diversity, and has tilted significantly towards doctrinal compromise with heresy.

    FWIW, Dear Doctor Victor Reppert, if you see this, what are your thoughts about this article about Jonathan Edwards observations about our sin nature as explicated by George Marsden and Tim Challies?

    Sin: What We Do or What We Are?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "In fact, you can never be certain that you currently do not believe heresy!"

    Actually, you raise a good point. But probably not your intended one.

    With respect to heresy, it seems rather contingent on the frame of reference. And who's defining the frame of reference.

    For example, as a 5 Sola Christian I'm sure that some will argue that I'm a heretic according to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church.

    I don't know for sure obviously, but I would not be surprised to see "heretics" in heaven. Particularly if you're "heretical" on a doctrine or practice that has relatively minor import.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But how can you guarantee your frame of reference won't gradually slip over the years? Look at Billy Graham (inclusivist, non-literal hell). Look at weirdos who become obsessed with eschatology (ex. Chick).

    There's nothing solid to correct you like an experiment you can perform, or a mathematical argument. In 10 years, you might become like "Oakwyse" or Redding or Heyward.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thnuh said:
    ---
    There's nothing solid to correct you like an experiment you can perform, or a mathematical argument.
    ---

    Why should there be? You're making an assertion here, but you've failed to provide any reasoning for your claims.

    In ten years you could be a die hard Calvinist, Thnuh. That this is a possibility (from our perspective) doesn't mean anything about whether Calvinism is true or not. Therefore, I don't argue, "You should be a Calvinist because in 10 years you might become one anyway." Why then are you arguing, in essence, "You should abandon your beliefs because in 10 years you might abandon them anyway"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm just saying because this doctrinal slippage/doctrinal error is uncorrectable by concrete means, agnosticism should be the default position (as we are agnostic about Russell's teapot by default).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thnuh: I'm just saying because this doctrinal slippage/doctrinal error is uncorrectable by concrete means.

    Vytautas: Confessions are the concrete means to correct error.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But some liberal/emergent types will dispense with the creeds/confessions, claiming they're the product of greek philosophy/enlightenment rationalism/political councils, and that thus they're being truer to Jesus' teaching by jettisoning them, etc., etc.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why does the disagreements of liberal/emergent types with the reformed confessions imply that one cannot know what is contained in the documents themselves? How could someone's disagreement over what is true effect my ablity to know the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thnuh said:
    ---
    I'm just saying because this doctrinal slippage/doctrinal error is uncorrectable by concrete means, agnosticism should be the default position (as we are agnostic about Russell's teapot by default).
    ---

    Let's just say I'm agnostic by default about your method being used here....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Vytautus said:
    ---
    Why does the disagreements of liberal/emergent types with the reformed confessions imply that one cannot know what is contained in the documents themselves?
    ---

    This gets to the point rather nicely. Anyone can claim they disagree with any position. That doesn't make their disagreement a cause for concern.

    I can stand outside and say, "It's a sunny day." Someone can stand next to me and say, "No, it's snowing." The fact that he's an idiot doesn't make me worry about whether or not it's really snowing.

    If someone says that White Fang is about a vampire in Transylvania, I can counter that the text itself says it's about a wolf in the Yukon. That someone might have honestly mistaken White Fang for Dracula does not mean that I have any reason to doubt what I've read of Jack London and Bram Stoker.

    Finally, if someone says that God cannot know the future, I am fully able to read the text of Scripture itself and present an argument for my position that God decreed the future so He must know it. The fact that there is disagreement with my position does not affect my argument; only a counter-argument could even possibly do so.

    To assert that we must be agnostic is pure foolishness. Indeed, most things in life do not require us to begin with a presumption of ignorance. After all, Russell was not agnostic about the existence of a tea pot in space. He was certain, just as we are, that it was never there.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Some people (including myself) believe that agnosticism is stupid. Does my disagreement with thnuh stop him from being an agnostic?

    ReplyDelete