All the various religions and philosophies past and present are variants on three basic worldviews: Calvinism, atheism, and Manichaeism.
For example, freewill theism in its various forms (e.g. Arminianism, open theism) is a variant on the Zoroastrian or Manichean outlook on life. Representatives of this viewpoint include Zoroaster, Mani, Arminius, Wesley, Roger Olsen, Clark Pinnock, and Gregory Boyd–to name a few.
The theology of the Arminian, Manichaean or Zoroastrian is essentially and radically dualistic. He may claim to be a monotheist, but he’s really a bitheist or ditheist. In his theology, “God” is a code word for the good God (Zurvan/Ahura Mazda) while “Satan” is a code word for the evil God (Ahriman/Angra Mainyu).
The Arminian, Manichaean, or Zoroastrian must oh-so gingerly pick his through the minefield of life, assigning the good things to Zurvan’s creative hand and the bad things to Ahriman’s creative hand. All the good things were made by Zurvan while all the bad things were made by Ahriman.
He tiptoes through the world, in a chronic state of tension, for he never knows–from one moment to the next–what lies around the corner. Which part of the world will he bump into? The part made by Zurvan, or the part made by Ahriman? In his theology, it’s all-important to distinguish the two and put each one in airtight compartments. The neo-Manichean oscillates between blessing and cursing his lot in life.
By contrast, the Calvinist accepts everything from God’s hand with thanksgiving and gratitude. For the Calvinist only believes in one God. He accepts the totality of God’s handiwork and overruling providence. The tragedy with the comedy. For you can’t have the comic upturn without the tragic downturn.
For a Calvinist, every experience that God sends our way is a way to experience the goodness of God. A way to discover the wisdom of God. The greatness of God. We need to learn how to find the value each experience that God has given us. For what makes our own life good and meaningful comes from sharing in his goodness.
Of course, this doesn’t come naturally or easily. A Calvinist doesn’t like pain and suffering anymore than the next man. But we live by faith, trusting in the wisdom and goodness of God. For God brings good out of evil, and he decreed the fall for that very purpose.
You can go through life, like the Arminian, Manichean, and Zoroastrian, kicking and screaming and biting and scratching every step of the way. Curse the darkness. Rage, rage against the dying light.
Or, like the Calvinist, you can put your faith in God and then begin to seek the hidden, deeper wisdom of his designs. It’s not that everything is good in itself. Some things are evil, taken in isolation. But they exist for good reason.
Life in a fallen world is often harsh. Full of loss and longing. Yet you, and all your loved ones, are fallen creatures, too. Were it not for a fallen world, none of your loved ones would even exist. Be in your life, for long or short.
And life in a fallen world is a place in which some of us are also favored to learn what it feels like to be redeemed. Delivered. Forgiven.
And then there’s atheism. The atheist, like the Manichean, and his modern counterparts, sees no good in evil. No overarching purpose.
The Arminian wants the good without the bad, while the atheist–by disowning God–loses the good. All that’s left is irredeemable evil.
An Arminian hangs onto his tenuous faith by remaining sufficiently plastered to avoid lucid thoughts about God, good, and evil. An Arminian is a boozy atheist, while an atheist is a sober Arminian.
By contrast, the Calvinist doesn’t live in a state of acute anxiety and chronic recrimination.
A father gives his five-year-old son a pet dog. Over the years, the son will grow to love the dog. The dog will never betray him. The dog is always happy to greet him and be with him. Overjoyed to share his company. The dog will be with him throughout his childhood and adolescence.
Yet, when the father gives his young son a dog, he knows the day will come when his grown son must say good-bye. Must bury the dog.
The lifespan of a dog is brief compared to the lifespan of a man. The boy will outlive the dog. And then he will be full of sorrow. He will miss the dog. The pain of separation. Emptiness.
Was it cruel to give his son a dog–foreknowing the outcome? Knowing full well that his son would become very attached to the dog–only to watch it age and die, or even put it to sleep? Should the son blame his dad? Hate his dad?
Or should he cherish the greater good in having a dog–if only for a time? That it’s better to have happiness with sadness than not to have the happiness without the sadness?
In order to show how some thing is better than another thing, you have to show the superiority of the one thing AND the inferiority or deficiency of the other thing.
ReplyDeleteYou can't just say that this is what you're for and not also say what you're against, if you're trying to establish the clear superiority of another choice.
And thus, in showing how Calvinism is so much more satisfying and accurate and true than is Arminianism, it is necessary to show how deficient Arminianism is.
If offense is taken, it shouldn't be taken as personal.
This could have been a nice post.
ReplyDeleteInstead, it reveals a deep abyss of selfishness on the part of the Calvinist.
Life is difficult and painful for everyone, but for the unfortunate unElect, their suffering has meaning only in the scope of how it benefits the Elect. They are, in the end, just trash for the fire.
So the Elect console themselves by choosing to believe that everyone is really another Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler at heart. It empowers them to excise any of that nettlesome "survivor's guilt" from their system.
This could have been a nice comment.
ReplyDeleteInstead, it reveals a deep abyss of envy on the part of the unbeliever.
The unbeliever begrudges the good fortune of others. He’s like the resentful Ex who murders his kids on the grounds that if he can’t have custody, then no one should have them.
He’s like the disgruntled sniper who imagines that if he’s unhappy, then no one else should be happy either.
"Why love if losing hurts so much? I have no answers anymore, only the life I have lived. Twice in that life I've been given the choice; as a boy and as a man. The boy chose safety, the man chooses suffering. The pain now is part of the happiness then. That's the deal."
ReplyDelete--Shadowlands
Well stated, Steve.
ReplyDeleteBlessings,
Stephen
"Instead, it reveals a deep abyss of envy on the part of the unbeliever."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's the best analogy to equate a desire for temporal goods with eternal ones.
But okay, let's go with it. A wealthy man sits at a lavish feast at a table filled with more food than he could possibly eat. Outside the gates is a starving man covered with filthy rags. The man has no particular desire to see the rich man starve himself, but he's in desperate need of sustenance.
The wealthy man, seeing the poor man's plight, shakes his head and says, "Thank you Lord, for this bountiful and gracious blessing you've put before me. Had I not seen that poor fool outside the gate, I would probably be less appreciative of your many fine gifts!" Then he continues eating and sends his guards to carry the poor man off and throw him off into a ditch filled with sewage.
Is this man a moral man, in your estimation?
If you're going to be consistent, he is, and the starving man is the envious, sinful one.
What an interesting universe you live in!
John,
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between justice and injustice depends on the prior distinction between guilt and innocence. It’s symptomatic of your moral blindness that you constantly use examples which fail to take that baseline ethical distinction into account.
My recommendation would be to come up with an analogy that actually speaks to the question on the table. Your attributing to Calvinists the vilest of motives and behaviours will not advance our discussion, nor your position, one iota.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet is a straight biblical and theological discussion without all the overwrought emotionalism.
John,
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between justice and injustice depends on the prior distinction between guilt and innocence. It’s symptomatic of your moral blindness that you constantly use examples which fail to take that baseline ethical distinction into account.
Right-0, Steve.
Excellent post.
I've still got coffee coming out of my nose from reading the line, "An Arminian is a boozy atheist, while an atheist is a sober Arminian."
That's classic.
That's not only Rich, but Factually Challenged and Historically Inacurate! I'm ROTFL on this one for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1) John Calvin, whose education was the modern equivalent to an Associate's Degree, simply was not smart enough to invent a systematic theology like TULIP, ergo, he had help from somewhere, an unciteable source.
2) The most probable source were secret texts from sects whose basic themes were Predestination, an old doctrine which was prevalant among the Gnostics, and Neo-Gnostic sects like the Nanicheans, the Bogomils, and the Albigeneses.
3) Calvin had access to the Bogomils anf the Albigeneses. Even though the Catholic Church declared Crusades against them to break their power, they were not anihilated, and still exist even today.
4) By copying and customizing the old doctrines of the Albigeneses, Calvin had a readymade constituency, a power base to which he could play to.
5) Calcin's writings show the unmistakeable influence of the Gnostic Scriptures; in particular, the Gospels of Judas, Thomas, and Phillip. In all likelyhood, Calvin oned personal copies of these Ancient Text. It is no acccident that all inquiries as to what was John Calvin's Library have been stonewalled. Also of note is that John Calvin had no qualms about deleting certain contradictory books from the Bible, like James, Hebrews, and Esther.
6) The desire to remake the Bible in his own image is enshrined in Article XXXI of the Westminster Confesssion, which basically overrules any and all CHurch Councils. It is a simple matter, after the passage of time, to declare the Council of Carthage null and void, and to reconvene another Calvinist Church Council like Dordt correcting the errors of Carthage, making certain necessary corrections to Scripture such as deleting offending books such as James, Hebrews, and Esther, and to include other "more biblical" books such as Judas, Thomas, and Phillip.
Tell me, how does Calvinism ignore its Manichean Roots?
John said:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's the best analogy to equate a desire for temporal goods with eternal ones.
I don't Steve was "equating" them. I think he was giving an analogy from the earthly world that we can apply to both the temporal earthly world, and the eternal state.
John, I think you analogy fails because the Christian (and therefore also the Calvinist) is required (by Divine Command no less) to love his neighbor as himself. Part of the fulfillment of that command is by the sharing of the Gospel with non-Christians as well as seeking their temporal good too. Think of Jesus' parable of the Samaritan and His lesson for us human beings.
Gal. 6:10
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
James 2:15
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
While Christians are called to be thankful for their temporal and eternal blessings, we are also commanded not to gloat because of blessing we have but others don't have.
1Cor. 4:7 ...And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?
So your complaint shouldn't be directed at Steve and his argument (or the attitude you attribute to him) but toward God who has the Sovereign right to grant or withhold His blessings.
Matt. 20:15 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?'
At this point, a non-Calvinist *might* not be able to complain against an infralapsarian position. He'll have to attack the supralapsarian position. Since under the supralapsarian scheme, the decree to elect some humans and reprobate others is logically prior to the decree of the fall. Though, under a *Modified* Supralapsarian scheme, the decree to elect/reprobate deals with the election and non-election of *sinful* human beings prior to the decree of the fall. Though, this position has been criticized by some as being implicitly infralapsarian.
See Phil Johnson's article on the various views on the order of God's logical decrees here
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
A brief response to MD:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading that post, I think that I know who is really factually inept.
1) First off, Calvin had quite a brilliant mind, and had several scholarly mentors such as Martin Bucer. Incidentally, you sound like you would make a perfect conspiracy theorist. :P
2) No, the ancient texts which he and most other reformers borrowed from were St. Augustine’s writings. Calvin would actually have considered himself to be an Augustinian (like Luther and all of the Reformers would have). Your conspiracy theory (or probably scrawny hypothesis at this point) flies in the face of the evidence.
3) So what. You still need to show that he relied upon them in his documents which unsurprisingly, you have not showed a single shred of evidence for, just a lot of mere assertions.
4) Calvin was interested in power??????? Heh, another Arminian history twisting slander.
5) Another worthless assertion…. Surely you know that there was a debate about certain books going on at the time of the reformation? Luther took an anti canonical position on James while Calvin took a pro canonical position on James. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vi.i.html
6) Calvin was dead by the time of the Westminster assembly. (pointing out the obvious). And no, Calvinists do not accept the false heretical books as Judas etc. (check the Geneva bible and see if they are included). Calvinism is a biblically based system which brings out what God has said, not what we want God to say.
What exactly is your problem with the WCF chapter XXXI? Should the church not call synods and councils on matters of ecclesiastical importance anymore? The Councils are not infallible which is what article IV is getting at.
I notice your blog has no bibliography or sources cited. May I ask where you derived these ideas?
ReplyDeleteWhich ideas?
ReplyDeleteModerate Democrat wrote:
ReplyDelete"The desire to remake the Bible in his own image is enshrined in Article XXXI of the Westminster Confesssion, which basically overrules any and all CHurch Councils. It is a simple matter, after the passage of time, to declare the Council of Carthage null and void, and to reconvene another Calvinist Church Council like Dordt correcting the errors of Carthage, making certain necessary corrections to Scripture such as deleting offending books such as James, Hebrews, and Esther, and to include other 'more biblical' books such as Judas, Thomas, and Phillip."
There wasn't just one council in Carthage that ruled on the canon of the Bible, and they were regional councils, not ecumenical. There was widespread disagreement with the Carthage councils, regarding their canon of scripture, among mainstream Christian sources from the time when those councils occurred onward, up to the time of the Reformation. See here and here.
The ideas you present in the article. What are your sources?
ReplyDeleteBOB ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete"The ideas you present in the article. What are your sources?"
Why would I need sources to draw logical connections? This is not an exercise in historical causation.
Steve Hays said, “Why would I need sources to draw logical connections? This is not an exercise in historical causation.”
ReplyDeleteThis is an exercise in historical comparison. You have compared Arminius, Wesley, Olsen, Pinnock, and Boyd to Zoraster and Mani. You are comparing the Arminian, Manichaean, and Zoroastian theologies.
Therefore, you must have done historical research to do such a comparison. So, what are your sources?
Logic connection, Bob, not historical connection.
ReplyDeleteIt compares ideas, using historical illustrations. That's not the same thing as claiming that one idea is derived from another–by some historical process. Are you unable to draw that elementary distinction?
ReplyDeleteYou show your gnosticism by believing that pure logic apart from facts is sufficent to dicsover truth. Logic is merely a machine that takes in facts and produces conclusions. Garbage in, Garbage out. Bad facts in, bad conclusions out.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, there are multiple logics distinguished by how they DEFINE a contradiction. The Calvinists use a logic that defines a falsehood as anything that refutes their concept of God's sovereignty. To them, sovereignty, the exercise of power, defines falsehood as anything that remotely suggests that God is not sovereign. From that 'definition of falsehood', the logic of Calvinism is impeccable.
However, IS IT TRUE that sovereignty as an attribute of God is the supreme one? If so, then Calvinism is justified and true. But if not, then elevating it to a position it is not falsifies Calvinism because there would be an attribute of God more elevated than Sovereignty which, if contradicted, would modify the way God exercises that Sovereignty. This, by the way, PROVES the accusation that Calvin was one obsessed with power. However, since he does not exercise it, he merely WHORES himself to the worship of it. He is like the model who is married to Putin: there's nothing about the guy that is attractive, but he's powerful, and that's what she adores. Not him for himself or his attributes, but the power he holds. Or he is like the prostitute who sells herself to the richest man who wants her, but she does not value him, but his money.
Calvin merely ASSUMED that sovereignty was God's supreme value. This is UNSUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE. In Exodus 34, when God reveals himself to Moses, he FIRST talks about his grace, mercy, forgiveness, and love. THEN he talks about his sense of Justice. THEN he stops. Nothing about being omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent.
[[[continued]]]
ReplyDeleteThis order is revealed in the 10 commandments. The second commandment reveals the fact that God is a jealous God: jealousy is the sole product of a lover being rejected by the beloved, who loves another more. The demand to be number one is reflected in the first commandment. Envy is when one lusts for another's things and is frustrated, but jealousy is exclusively when one lusts for another's love and is frustrated.
The third commandment reveals God's intention not to hold a man guiltless who takes his name in vain. Finding a man guilty or innocent is an attribute of justice, and must take first place, BEFORE the exercise of any penalties arising from one's ability to execute them (sovereignty). That is, the power exercised by sovereinty is held in check UNTIL judgement is rendered. THIS IS NECESSARY, for the Judge of all the Earth MUST DO RIGHT, as Abraham said to God, and in response to which God agrees to parlay for Sodom. (In the end, God still does right, because the angels explicitly say they can't do ANYTHING until Lot, the only righteous man in Sodom, leaves. And Sodom is not destroyed until Lot arrives at Zoar.)
It is ONLY in the fourth commandment that we see God displaying is power when He cites His creation of the world. YET, even in the fourth commandment, Justice demands EQUAL APPLICATION of the commandment of rest upon all those who labor, refusing to even exclude the beasts of burden from the commandment. And is it not ironic that the fourth commandment does not require a worship on a day of work, where God exercises his power in creating the world as he sees fit (i.e. sovereignly), but on a day when God DID NOT WORK???
Behold the poor Calvinist! He watches the Master Builder construct the House of the World, and becomes enamored with the power tools! He marvells at the power of the hammer, the exquisite cutting edge of the saw! He carefully notes that God consults no one else but himself as He designs the Doorposts of the Universe, and at His murmuring "That is Good", correctly concludes that God does all according to His pleasure. However, ask the Calvinist WHY God constructs the World, and he is at a loss. "IT is a mystery!" he exclaims, "other than that he does it solely to display his power and ability and SOVEREINTY in his choice of how he makes all!"
But let us ask the question of God, and he states "I build this house for those whom I love. I judge all based on my desire that I render my goodness and mercy and grace upon them."
For those who hold that God has declared that his goodness and his justice are his own supreme values, the creation of man and the world is no mystery. Sovereignty is not a motivation of God. Mercy, Goodness, and Justice are what motivates God. Sovereignty is merely a MEANS to expressing those ends. That God's sovereignty is supreme is without question, for they flow from his abilities, which are infinite.
Apart from Love and Justice, the causes of the sovereign workings of God are meaningless and a mystery, producing contradictions. Does not our Lord jesus Christ agree in the working of his miracles? All of them were works that either sprang from Love or from Justice. All his words were either love or justice (declaring righteousness, that which is right and good). The pharisees were NOT satisfied with his miracles, but demanded a miracle whose motivation was to exercise the sovereignty of Israel by destroying Rome! He never did such, because Sovereignty is not a motive to God, but merely a means to serve his highest values of Love and Justice.
Thus, the proper way to judge an idea is to see if it contradicts love or justice, not that it contradicts sovereignty. We see, therefore, that by THESE criteria, Calvinism is a grave error, since its conclusions expressly uphold sovereignty while denying both love and justice.
Sovereignty is NOT supreme. It SERVES Love and Justice.
And the Greatest of These is Love.
Because God is Love.
Can you clarify whether you believe that Manichaeism affirms Free Will?
ReplyDeleteI think that it's fairly standard that Gnostic Manichaeism is fatalisticly deterministic.
Turretinfan said: “Logic connection, Bob, not historical connection.”
ReplyDeleteSteve said: “It compares ideas, using historical illustrations. That's not the same thing as claiming that one idea is derived from another–by some historical process. Are you unable to draw that elementary distinction?”
----------------------
I do not understand the difficulty here.
First, I do not recall suggesting that one idea was derived from another. I specifically said, “You have compared Arminius, Wesley, Olsen, Pinnock, and Boyd to Zoraster and Mani. You are comparing the Arminian, Manichaean, and Zoroastian theologies.” As such, we are comparing historical theological positions with each other.
But to do this, you had to research these historical positions, looking that the details of each historical system of thought to determine how they correlate and how they contrast.
---------------------
Second, Steve Hays said, “Why would I need sources to draw logical connections? This is not an exercise in historical causation.”
That answer should be obvious, even to the most elementary of intellects. You cannot draw logical connections unless you have common elements to connect. And you cannot have true common elements without having done the research.
I do not think this is an unusual request.
So what are your sources?
GERALD OWENS SAID:
ReplyDelete“You show your gnosticism by believing that pure logic apart from facts is sufficent to dicsover truth. Logic is merely a machine that takes in facts and produces conclusions. Garbage in, Garbage out. Bad facts in, bad conclusions out.”
Except that I didn’t employ pure logic apart from “facts.” Rather, I employed logical in relation to similar ideas.
Indeed, if my post had been fact-free, like a formal system, you’d find nothing objectionable in what I said.
Ideas can be true or false regardless of who first thought of them. Their historical origin is irrelevant to their veracity, or lack thereof. You’re committing the genetic fallacy.
“By the way, there are multiple logics distinguished by how they DEFINE a contradiction. The Calvinists use a logic that defines a falsehood as anything that refutes their concept of God's sovereignty.”
No, Calvinism doesn’t use any special type of logic. The problem is with positions like libertarianism which contradict the Biblical concept of divine sovereignty.
“However, IS IT TRUE that sovereignty as an attribute of God is the supreme one? If so, then Calvinism is justified and true. But if not, then elevating it to a position it is not falsifies Calvinism because there would be an attribute of God more elevated than Sovereignty which, if contradicted, would modify the way God exercises that Sovereignty.”
You need to show that Calvinism prioritizes the divine attributes, giving precedence to sovereignty. I await your documentation from representative Reformed confessions or theologians.
“Calvin merely ASSUMED that sovereignty was God's supreme value.”
Document from Calvin where he elevated divine sovereignty above other divine attributes. If that were the case, then Calvini would not have opposed the voluntarism of the Sorbonnists.
“Finding a man guilty or innocent is an attribute of justice, and must take first place, BEFORE the exercise of any penalties arising from one's ability to execute them (sovereignty).”
And you need to show how this is at odds with Calvinism.
“However, ask the Calvinist WHY God constructs the World, and he is at a loss.”
Supralapsarian Calvinists are hardly at a loss to answer that question.
“But let us ask the question of God, and he states ‘I build this house for those whom I love. I judge all based on my desire that I render my goodness and mercy and grace upon them’.”
Did God also build the house of hell for those whom he loves?
“Thus, the proper way to judge an idea is to see if it contradicts love or justice, not that it contradicts sovereignty.”
No, the problem way to judge an idea is to see if it contradicts Scripture.
“Sovereignty is NOT supreme. It SERVES Love and Justice. And the Greatest of These is Love. Because God is Love.”
And if love is God’s supreme value, then when he rained fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, was that consistent with his values?
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"Can you clarify whether you believe that Manichaeism affirms Free Will?"
Can you clarify how that's relevant to my comparison?
You had said, "freewill theism in its various forms (e.g. Arminianism, open theism) is a variant on the Zoroastrian or Manichean outlook on life."
ReplyDeleteI'm asking whether you are asserting that Manichaeism is some sort of variation on "freewill theism." All the evidence seems to point to Gnostic Manichaeism being a Deterministic philosophy instead. Can you clarify?
Bob Anderson said...
ReplyDelete“But to do this, you had to research these historical positions, looking that the details of each historical system of thought to determine how they correlate and how they contrast.”
I don’t have to show how they contrast, since that wasn’t the point of my post. That’s irrelevant to the point at issue.
And do you think I mischaracterized Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism? If so, how so.
“That answer should be obvious, even to the most elementary of intellects. You cannot draw logical connections unless you have common elements to connect.”
You haven’t shown how the common elements are missing in my comparison.
“So what are your sources?”
So where is your argument?
Augustine never accused Arminians of being neo-Manichaeans.
ReplyDeleteConsider the following quote from Augustine, concerning the Manichaeans and "free will":
Augustine: “So holy and learned catholic men, such as are attested to be so by the report of the whole Church, praise [1] both God’s creation, and [2] marriage as ordained by Him, and [3] the law given by Him by means of the holy Moses, and [4] the free will implanted into man’s nature, and [5] the holy patriarchs and prophets, with due and fitting proclamation; all which five things the Manicheans condemn, partly by denying, and partly also by abominating.” (A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV, Chapter 33: Opposition of the Manichean and Catholic Dogmas)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xviii.vi.xxxiii.html
So if, as is the intent of this blog post, is to suggest that Arminianism falls within the "Manichaean" branch of the purported tri-fold branches of theology, as a form of "neo-Manichaenism," then I find it odd that Arminianism should be lumped in with a theology that opposes free will, and I also find it strange, that never before in the history of theology, has Arminianism ever been linked with a deterministic theology.
So that's why it is being requested of Steve Hays, the author of this blog, to cite some source, to defend his rather bizarre assertion. So far, we are simply being stone-walled.
BOB ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete“So what are your sources?”
There are various sources for Zoroastrianism/Manichaenism. Among others I’ve had occasion to read, World Religions, Geoffrey Parrinder, ed. has entries on both. Another reference work which gives attention both in relation to Shia theology is History of Islamic Philosophy, Seyyed Hossein Nasr & Oliver Leaman, eds. The status of Zoroastrianism also crops up in Isaiah studies.
Among Arminians authors I’ve read: Abasciano, Arminius, Cottrell, Forster/Marston, Grider, Klein, I.H. Marshall, Miley, Oden, Olsen, Picirilli, Shank, Walls, Wesley, and Witherington.
Among open theist writers I’ve read: Basinger, Boyd, Hasker, Pinnock, Rice, and Sanders.
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete“I'm asking whether you are asserting that Manichaeism is some sort of variation on ‘freewill theism.’ All the evidence seems to point to Gnostic Manichaeism being a Deterministic philosophy instead. Can you clarify?”
I compared them on the problem of evil, not action theory, per se. Weren’t you paying attention?
“Augustine never accused Arminians of being neo-Manichaeans.”
Naturally, since he antedates Arminius by centuries. And I’m not the one who introduced Augustine into the discussion in the first place.
“So if, as is the intent of this blog post, is to suggest that Arminianism falls within the ‘Manichaean’ branch of the purported tri-fold branches of theology, as a form of ‘neo-Manichaenism,’ then I find it odd that Arminianism should be lumped in with a theology that opposes free will, and I also find it strange, that never before in the history of theology, has Arminianism ever been linked with a deterministic theology.”
You find it odd because you disregard my actual comparison and try to recast the issue. Since you can’t refute the actual comparison, you resort to diversionary tactics.
Moreover, two different belief systems can be similar in some respects and dissimilar in others. Isn’t that obvious?
“So that's why it is being requested of Steve Hays, the author of this blog, to cite some source, to defend his rather bizarre assertion. So far, we are simply being stone-walled.”
To the contrary, you’re the one (among others) who’s stonewalling by your evasive refusal to engage the actual argument I presented.
Deterministic Manichaeism is not a variant of freewill theology, especially for the problem of evil. There is simply no similarity, nor has any legitimate source ever suggested it. That’s why a “source” (such as a quote) has been requested of you.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that you realize why I mentioned Augustine. He was a deterministic, Gnostic Manichaean for nearly a decade before his conversion to Catholicism through Ambrose, and when he retracted his earlier Catholic views on free will, he returned to his deterministic roots of Manichaeism, he had to defend against the charge of Manichaeanism. This was something that he never charged of his opponents, as you are doing.
ReplyDelete1) All the Councils, prounouncements, etc. about what should be put into the Bible can be overruled by Artocle XXXI of the Westminster Confession. Your Point?
ReplyDelete2) You obviously haven't read the Gospels of Judas, Thomas, amd Phillip, not to mention various other Gnostic Texts that support TULIP Calvinism, though I would wager that John Calvin did. You beg the question: where did he get those books? The Bogomils or the Albigenises? Funny how what was in John Calvin's Library is a Deep Dark Secret
3) I wont begin to comment on how you deviate from established history. What passes for history in Trollblog is something we avoid stepping on in cow pastures.
You need to look AGAIN at my comment to see that you have missed the essential point of it. You cite the objection I USED to have with holding love as Gods *SOLE* value, which was how a loving God could judge anyone. I WAS mistaken, and you ARE mistaken, that it was the ONLY value God had. He has TWO: Love AND Justice, as I have shown from my references to Exodus. Thus, your citation of how a loving God could destroy Sodom and Gomorrah is bootless, for I explcitly cited how God's Justice played into the decision to destroy them, as well as how both Justice and Love dictated that the destruction be delayed.
ReplyDeleteBut your cavil about love implies you deny the importance of love within God's value system. Are you disagreeing with Paul's statement in 1 Corintians 13?
In discussing my post with Brian Abasciano, He pointed out that I had erred in granting the validity of Calvinist sovereignty, since it is defined too broadly. Some reflection, and your comment, indicates that he was correct. I did not want to complicate the discussion of value systems with a side-discussion of sovereignty, but it appears that I will have to, since it is possible to claim that Calvinists do not believe that sovereignty is a supreme value, but argue and act as if it was. However, I have heard that you are not exactly orthodox when it comes to Calvinism, and I have not read your other posts to determine what you believe about sovereignty. Could you be so kind as to save us both some time and point me to some of your posts where you explicitly define it and illustrate its use as you see it within the Calvinist system? It is certainly pointless to debate issues with each other if one misunderstands the other.
BOB ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete“So what are your sources?”
Steve said - There are various sources for Zoroastrianism/Manichaenism...
Now that was not so hard, was it?
You really only mention one book. When I write, I generally provide embedded references so that people can verify where I am pulling the data from for the categories of comparison.
You also mentioned an issue with contrasting view. I was not suggesting you contrasted anything. I said historical comparisons will provide for correlations and contrasting ideas.
Which raises another point. Depending on how broadly we base our categories, we could probably correlate anything.
For example, you said about the Arminian that "“God” is a code word for the good God (Zurvan/Ahura Mazda) while “Satan” is a code word for the evil God (Ahriman/Angra Mainyu)."
But does the Arminian really believe Satan is a God?
Can you provide evidence (since you have said you have researched this) of where Arminius, or Wesley, or Olsen have claimed that Satan is a God in the same sense that we would say Yahweh is God, or Jesus is God?
Do not Calvinists believe in Satan?
Steve said - "You haven’t shown how the common elements are missing in my comparison.
ReplyDeleteSo where is your argument?"
I have not made an argument, I have asked for the sources of your comparison.
You mention a number of Arminian authors - Abasciano, Arminius, Cottrell, Forster/Marston, Grider, Klein, I.H. Marshall, Miley, Oden, Olsen, Picirilli, Shank, Walls, Wesley, and Witherington.
Can you provide us with a quote from any of the Arminian authors where Satan is shown to be equivalent to god?
BOB ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Can you provide evidence (since you have said you have researched this) of where Arminius, or Wesley, or Olsen have claimed that Satan is a God in the same sense that we would say Yahweh is God, or Jesus is God?”
Are you trying to play dumb? Try to master the concept of a logical implication. It isn’t difficult.
In fact, it’s quite possible, as well as common, for people to deny implications of their position which, nevertheless, are implicit in their position. Is that a novel concept to you?
A murderer may deny that he committed the murder. Yet he may also let slip some information about the crime scene which only the murderer would know.
To take an example from your own side, Arminians like Wesley and Roger Olsen regard Reformed theism as diabolical. Can they quote any Reformed theologians who agree with that assessment? No.
That’s not the point. The point is whether or not that’s a valid inference. Capiche?
Try not to raise palpably unintelligent objections to my post.
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete“Deterministic Manichaeism is not a variant of freewill theology, especially for the problem of evil. There is simply no similarity, nor has any legitimate source ever suggested it.”
Are you just slow on the uptake? Is that your problem?
For example, there are secular versions of libertarian freewill as well as theistic versions. Would you therefore say there’s no relevant difference between the worldview of a secular libertarian and the worldview of a theistic libertarian? Try to be intelligent about this.
Is determinism a variant of freewill? Irrelevant, since that wasn’t my argument.
Try to keep more than one idea in your head at the same time.
For example, some atheists are libertarians while other atheists are determinists. Yet we can still compare them with respect to their atheism. Is that rudimentary distinction too difficult for you to grasp?
Gerald Owens said...
ReplyDelete“He has TWO: Love AND Justice, as I have shown from my references to Exodus.”
And his judgment of the Sodomites is just rather than loving.
“But your cavil about love implies you deny the importance of love within God's value system.”
You pit divine love against divine justice as if God is at war with himself. You then relieve the tension by acting as if one “part” of God (“love”) overrules another “part” of God (“justice”).
I, by contrast, don’t rank the divine attributes. Unlike yours, my God isn’t at war with himself.
“Are you disagreeing with Paul's statement in 1 Corintians 13?”
Paul isn’t making a statement about divine attributes. Rather, he’s making a statement about Christian attitudes. That should be obvious from his reference to hope and faith, which hardly count as divine attributes–unless you’re an open theist.
GERALD OWENS SAID:
ReplyDelete"However, I have heard that you are not exactly orthodox when it comes to Calvinism."
Really? What have you heard? From whom?
In response to my question -
ReplyDelete“Can you provide evidence (since you have said you have researched this) of where Arminius, or Wesley, or Olsen have claimed that Satan is a God in the same sense that we would say Yahweh is God, or Jesus is God?”
Steve has replied -
Are you trying to play dumb? Try to master the concept of a logical implication. It isn’t difficult.
--------
Logical implications must begin with facts, which I am still waiting for you to produce. You have claimed a comparison, so you need to validate it with facts.
You have made the following implication, that for Arminians "“God” is a code word for the good God (Zurvan/Ahura Mazda) while “Satan” is a code word for the evil God (Ahriman/Angra Mainyu)."
I am simply asking you to back up this claim with the facts that you are using for the comparison. I do not think it is unreasonable for someone to ask for the evidence.
Your bio claims that you are a TA at RTS. May I also ask if this is the way you teach students who you claim to assist?
Steve said - "In fact, it’s quite possible, as well as common, for people to deny implications of their position which, nevertheless, are implicit in their position. Is that a novel concept to you?"
ReplyDeleteThis is not a novel concept to me at all.
But it is not I who am denying an implication. It is you who are asserting one. And, so far, it is an assertion without any evidence.
In biblical terms, we would call this a "false witness," where a claim is made without any real evidence. But I know that as a teacher's assistant at a Reformed seminary you would never really want to do that, because you would not want to bring reproach on your school by publishing something false. So I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you have thoroughly researched this issue before making such an assertion.
So can you produce the statements from Arminians that you used to make the inference you have presented?
As an outsider looking in I think that you are missing the point. The idea that Arminius, Wesley… wrote that God is “code” for good god and Satan is “code” for evil god is an implication of their teaching. They did not come right out and say/write this, but this is the logical implications of their system of thought.
ReplyDeleteTo say that you want a direct quote from one of them stating this outright seems a bit silly or perhaps as the are fond of saying around here you are being obtuse:)
Mitch said - "As an outsider looking in I think that you are missing the point. The idea that Arminius, Wesley… wrote that God is “code” for good god and Satan is “code” for evil god is an implication of their teaching. They did not come right out and say/write this, but this is the logical implications of their system of thought. To say that you want a direct quote from one of them stating this outright seems a bit silly or perhaps as the are fond of saying around here you are being obtuse:)"
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would doubt that either Arminius, Wesley or any modern Arminian would suggest that Satan is a code word for an evil God. Therefore, Steve is projecting the idea by extrapolating something further than anyone from that group would consider. Therefore, this idea is not their idea, but Steve's idea. That is, this is not the logical conclusion of their theology, but of a projection made by our author.
Secondly, I do not think I am missing anything. The claim that there is the logical implication of their thought needs to be substantiated in some way through a set of facts that form the basis of the implication. Simply having Satan in your theology is not enough, since then we would have to infer that Calvinism also falls into the family of beliefs that holds to a literal Satan.
The WCF speaks directly to this issue, stating "Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan. sinned in eating the forbidden fruit." (WCF, VI.1, http://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster.htm)
Of course the WCF says that God ordained this to his own glory, but it clearly sees Satan as a power (V.6).
(btw - Do you see how easy it is to embed references?)
Now I have not asked at this time whether Steve's logic is correct. What I am asking for is the substantial facts he is using to make his inference, and references to those facts so they can be verified.
It is easy to project an idea into someone's words. Conspiracy theorist do so all the time. But projecting a perspective beyond the intent of the authors is simply foolish, especially if it neglects the differentiating factors that distinguish those views. We wind up simply presenting out own ideas as strawmen, but claiming they belong to someone else.
For example, I could suggest that since Steve has suggested that God sources all things, suggesting that "evil" is ultimately "good", then we could correlated his view to Hinduism, which proposes that the Brahman is the final source of all that exists.
But such a correlation neglects the differentiating factor between theism and pantheism where nature and God are distinguished in the first and united in the second. In my projection have found a correlative element, but have not compared that to the differences.
It is not enough to say, "I found something that might be in common between these two positions." Steve needs to show an equivalency between the two that overrides the differences.
Of course, Manichaeism is a form of gnosticism, and we know that gnosticism proposes multiple levels of creation in a hierarchy, with the world of light at the top. Here is a good synopsis for you, complete with footnotes that you can verify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Therefore, we can "infer" that what Manichaeism ultimately results in is that "god" is the source of all things. Right? And is that not what has been proposed by our author in this blog as the correct view?
I really do not want to get into a detailed discussion here about how we correlate different religions. That is the job of philosophers of religion. But you need to see that facts must drive our inferences.
So to ask for quotes or even verifiable summaries of teachings that can be reviewed is certainly justified anytime we make assertions, especially one as far fetched as what has been presented.
I am simply asking Steve to be a good scholar and provide his references.
Well I’m certainly not a philosopher of religion, but I still think that you are missing it.
ReplyDeleteWhen Steve pointed out that Arminians assign all good to God and all bad things to another source this seems rather dualistic. Now do they come right out and say that? No, but that is a logical inference of the system.
Again the key I think was when Steve said this
He may claim to be a monotheist, but he’s really a bitheist or ditheist.
Mitch said -
ReplyDelete"Well I’m certainly not a philosopher of religion, but I still think that you are missing it."
"When Steve pointed out that Arminians assign all good to God and all bad things to another source this seems rather dualistic. Now do they come right out and say that? No, but that is a logical inference of the system."
Again the key I think was when Steve said this -
"He may claim to be a monotheist, but he’s really a bitheist or ditheist."
-------------
Mitch, that is exactly the point that needs to be substantiated since it is so far from what Arminians teach.
Anyone one can make assertions. But they must be substantiated with the facts used to make the inference.
We can categorize beliefs in any number of ways, grouping ideas around elements that are common to any number of religions. That in no way makes the religions the same.
For example, both Calvinism and Islam are seen as deterministic in some sense. Does that make Calvinism equivalent to Islam?
I think you might object to this, and justifiably so, since Islam has significant differences from Calvinism (or any other form of Christianity). I would be required to substantiate my inference with a series of facts, showing that the common elements outweigh the difference.
(Of course, this could not be done, since being a tradition of Christianity, Calvinism has significant characteristics that are different than Islam.)
What I have requested is simply the justification for the claim.
And that is certainly a proper request.
It seems I am not able to see or understand what you are seeing.
ReplyDeleteI am able to see the dualistic nature that Steve was referring to when it comes to the problem of evil. I see that that is a logical inference that one can make when looking at Arminianism and where it leads.
Seeing though that I am leaving town and will not be able to respond I will just have to disagree with you on this.
Grace & Peace
Mitch said -
ReplyDelete"It seems I am not able to see or understand what you are seeing.
I am able to see the dualistic nature that Steve was referring to when it comes to the problem of evil. I see that that is a logical inference that one can make when looking at Arminianism and where it leads.
Seeing though that I am leaving town and will not be able to respond I will just have to disagree with you on this.
Grace & Peace"
----------------------
Safe journey to you. Thank you for a civil responses.
We will agree to disagree.
Keep in mind a true dualism in theological sense implies an equal weighting to both good and evil in terms of power and influence. That is the only way you could have two-gods with opposite effects.
That is not what Arminians, Calvinists, or any other Christians believe. We believe that God is a sole creator, who created a very good world. The source of evil is seen in ourselves with influences from others who are enslaved to the power of sin. Satan is affirmed in both Arminian and Calvinist (and any other conservative Christianity), and is seen as an adversary to the righteous. But that hardly makes him a god.
The question being asked is, "Where does evil come from?" That is always the fundamental question of theodicy. Job's three friends concluded that it comes from God, a response to Job's sin. Of course, they are declared wrong a the end of that book.
“But your cavil about love implies you deny the importance of love within God's value system.”
ReplyDeleteYou pit divine love against divine justice as if God is at war with himself. You then relieve the tension by acting as if one “part” of God (“love”) overrules another “part” of God (“justice”).
I, by contrast, don’t rank the divine attributes. Unlike yours, my God isn’t at war with himself.
I have not answered for a while since I have been rather amazed at the number of minor revelations and insights I have gotten, plus one major one that will go on my website, while processing your response quoted above. Truly, God does cause all things to work together for good, for I did not expect so much insight to come while responding to such a stupid and clueless comment. While I doubt that my response would be edifying to you, I believe it would prove of use to others.
Firstly, It was my understanding that we were establishing the values of the Biblical God, not come up with imaginary ones unhindered by values to see which one, "yours" or "Mine", would win a p*ssing match. The God of Exodus is omniscient, and thus not hampered by the lack of knowledge that causes such conflicts between Love and Justice that plague us and which you foolishly imputed to God. Since my original accusation is that Calvinists are enamored with the power characteristics of God rather than the character elements that make Him good and worthy of worship and love, I consider your distain for a God who displays the attributes given in Exodus 34, I Corinthians 13, and 1 John 4, as sufficient proof that my statement is true of YOU.
I could cite several of Jesus' parables that illustrate how God works through both Love and Justice, but since you obviously don't heed those scriptures that don't fit your concept of "your" God, that would be casting my pearls before swine, so I shall pull them out in a more fitting environment.
Still, I must thank you for the interesting rabbit trails that your remark opened up, one of which is the interesting possiblity that Lucifer rebelled against God because he believed, along with you, that a God who lives by both love and justice is "weak", "conflicted", and thus "inferior" in some way. Regardless of such thinking that reflects the spirit of this world with regard to those who live by Christian standards, I believe I will throw my lot in with the God of Exodus 34 (and the rest of the scriptures) rather than the god that emerges from a brain engaged in the "MY god can whip YOUR god!" imagination game.