Tuesday, August 18, 2009

How to fell a Birch tree

I see that Billy Birch has done a post attacking Calvinism. Let’s touch on few basic problems with his post.

1.He bandies the term “author of sin” without ever bothering to define his terms. Given that he has pretensions to becoming a church historian, it wouldn’t hurt him to learn how to define historical usage.

2.He also needs to explain how Calvinism makes God the “author of sin” (whatever that means), while Arminianism exempts God from that accusation.

3.Apropos (1), here’s another example of his inept historical analysis:

“But the Calvinist perspective on the doctrine of God grows darker still. Not only has God freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and is not at all responsible for what he has foreordained, but human beings somehow retain a measure of free will, stating, ‘nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures.’ What they are suggesting is that God has strictly and freely foreordained what comes to pass by his will, is not responsible for what he has foreordained, and that mankind retains free will to do that which God has foreordained. That is not freedom. And this is not antinomy, friends, this is blatant contradiction. I cannot ordain that a man fall down a flight of stairs (ordaining the cause and effect as well) and then declare him responsible for falling ~ telling him that he freely fell.”

It should be evident, even from the text he cites, that the Westminster Divines are defining freedom as the absence of coercion (“violence”). Predestination is not coercive. Hence, their definition of freedom isn’t blatantly contradictory or even apparently contradictory.

Birch also begs the question of whether responsibility is compatible with determinism. He offers no argument. Just raw assertion.

3.In addition, he uses the word “responsibility” as if that were synonymous with "culpability." But what’s inherently odious about stating that God is responsible for whatever happens?

If we say that Jane and Jerry are responsible parents, does that mean that Jane and Joe are bad parents? Is “responsibility” synonymous with “evil”?

What if we said that Jane and Jerry are irresponsible parents? Does Birch think that would be complimentary?

4.In addition, to say that God is responsible for whatever happens hardly means, without further ado, that God is solely responsible–much less culpable.

5.I’d add that the Westminster Confession is not an exercise in philosophical or polemical theology. It’s just a statement of faith. It doesn’t attempt to furnish a detailed defense of its various claims. That’s not the nature of a creed.

Is Birch so simple-minded as to think he can dispose of a complex belief-system by quoting a few phrases from a public creed?

6.Finally, he turns a blind eye to the real issue:

Either God was able, but unwilling, to prevent a world containing sinners–or else he was willing, but unable, to prevent a world containing sinners.

Which alternative does Birch affirm?

7 comments:

  1. Actually I find Mr Birch to be quite articulate and enjoy reading his blog posts. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for Institutes. Having read both the works of Arminius and Institutes, this tree falls with Arminius.
    Calvin's God is one who is disconnected, somber and uncaring and an elitist and i suppose that is the crux of the dissension. Jesus came for all men, as the father wish none to perish (sic). Calvin;s God on the other hand destines man to hell with no opportunity for redemption, forgiveness or grace.
    Bless you

    ReplyDelete
  2. On the other hand, localtheo, there was a judge who actually sentenced a murderer, rapist, and thief to death. What an evil, sick, twisted judge he was when he could have offered mercy and grace to that criminal instead of punishing him like he deserved!

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOCALTHEO SAID:

    "Jesus came for all men."

    And what's the value of Jesus merely coming for all men unless all men come to Jesus? Just a feel good gesture? What's the value of Jesus coming to men whom he will never bring to himself.

    "As the father wish none to perish (sic)."

    What's the value of an ineffectual wish? How is that any improvement over human wishes?

    "Calvin;s God on the other hand destines man to hell with no opportunity for redemption, forgiveness or grace."

    And the God of Arminius knowingly creates men who will refuse the offer of the gospel. Knowingly creates men who will spend eternity in hell–even though he could have spared them that fate by never creating them in the first place. For that matter, if men are free to do otherwise, why didn't the God of Arminius choose to create the possible world in which men say "yes" to Jesus rather than "no" to Jesus?

    You take great comfort in empty symbolism. In nice words that make no difference.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Guys
    Peter that is a disappointing response but typical.
    Steve why then did God in his grace assign humanity free will? Or is God so tyrannical as to force submission on his creation?
    Election and predestination smack of elitism full stop. The high view of being elected is nothing more than elitism and class distinction.
    If I understand the bible correctly and I believe I do that is not the God of the bible.
    I have a question for you guys do you worship God or Calvin's theology which one is your God? Grace and freedom or legalism and tyranny?
    Having a choice in accepting Christ is a great blessing, having the freedom to serve God faithfully enforces the fact that God is relational and loving, not cruel and forceful.
    Take the time for a considered response not a knee jerk hyper-calvinist view.
    bless you
    pete

    ReplyDelete
  5. LocalTheo aka pete said:

    Hi Guys
    Peter that is a disappointing response but typical.
    Steve why then did God in his grace assign humanity free will? Or is God so tyrannical as to force submission on his creation?
    Election and predestination smack of elitism full stop. The high view of being elected is nothing more than elitism and class distinction.
    If I understand the bible correctly and I believe I do that is not the God of the bible.


    1. With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you understand Reformed theology at all -- at least judging by your responses so far. You should try to understand what it teaches before you start criticizing it.

    2. Also, you use emotionally charged rhetoric. There's no argument for why you think Calvinism is not Biblical. You don't offer philosophical let alone Scriptural reasons for why you think what you think. Where's the substance? It's all huff and puff: God is "tyrannical"; he "force[s] submission" upon us; our theology "smack[s] of elitism . . . and class distinction"; this is "not the God of the bible". In fact, one might say your words are "knee jerk" reactions to what you think "Calvinism" is all about.

    3. Why do you use such rhetoric? Are you intentionally trying to caricature our position? Are you trying to poison the well here?

    I have a question for you guys do you worship God or Calvin's theology which one is your God? Grace and freedom or legalism and tyranny?

    1. These are false dichotomies.

    2. Also, I'd point out that the system of theology that has traditionally been known as "Calvinism" doesn't depend on what Calvin himself taught. "Calvinism" doesn't stand or fall on Calvin. We'd say we follow Calvin (and anyone else) only insofar as they follow the Bible. Only insofar as they faithfully teach what the Scriptures teach. Only insofar as they make an argument for why they believe the Bible teaches such-and-such, it's exegetically sound, it's a reasonable argument, etc.

    3. But as I understand the Bible I do believe the system of theology known as Calvinism -- or the doctrines of grace or however you want to label it -- is true. There are arguments for why we think so on this very blog as well as elsewhere. For starters, you might like to read Don Carson's or Tom Schreiner's commentaries on various books of the Bible.

    Having a choice in accepting Christ is a great blessing, having the freedom to serve God faithfully enforces the fact that God is relational and loving, not cruel and forceful.

    On the face of it, I don't think there's anything a Calvinist would disagree with. We were in bondage to sin, but God made us willing to choose to trust Christ. Because God first loved us, we enter into a "relational and loving, not cruel and forceful" relationship with him.

    Or as Arminian Charles Wesley put it:

    Long my imprisoned sprit lay,
    fast bound in sin and nature's night;
    thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
    I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
    my chains fell off, my heart was free,
    I rose, went forth, and followed thee.


    Take the time for a considered response not a knee jerk hyper-calvinist view.

    1. Again, with all due respect, your responses thus far have been far closer to "knee jerk" responses than ours have been. In the past and present, we've brought up reasonable reasons (philosophical and Scriptural) for our positions. Actually, you haven't even dealt with the points Peter and Steve brought up in this very combox.

    2. There's a pretty huge difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. You should read up on the differences before you start throwing around labels.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Having a choice in accepting Christ is a great blessing, having the freedom to serve God faithfully enforces the fact that God is relational and loving, not cruel and forceful.

    Practically speaking, if LFW is true, then not only can we enter into a "relational and loving, not cruel and forceful" relationship with God, but we can also leave it.

    But how "relational and loving" can God be toward Christians if he knows at least some of those who have entered into a relationship with him will end up leaving him? Thus, LFW seems to pit God's love against God's omniscience in such a way as to possibly keep God from loving the Christian as much as he might want to love the Christian since he knows a Christian today might not be a Christian tomorrow.

    But let's say you disagree with what I've just said. Okay, let's look at it another way. We can see the Bible describes God's love toward his people in Christ as a special or particular love different from other types of love he has for other people (see Carson's The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God). So for the person who becomes a Christian but then leaves the faith, is this then suggesting that God's love can move from loving them with a common love for all people (such as in sending unbelievers rain for their crops and so forth) to special love and back to common love again? Can God's love be different toward those who are Chrstian one moment but not Christian the next moment?

    And if so, is God's love toward us in some sense dependent on our free will? What does this say about God then?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Theo said:
    ---
    Peter that is a disappointing response but typical.
    ---

    Yes, it is rather disappointing to see your original point ulterly demolished in one fell swoop. And since you claim it's typical, I agree that you seem to be the type of person this would happen to a lot.

    ReplyDelete