Pages

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Prettiness is next to godliness

Perry Robinson posted the following quote on his blog:

“At the same time, in spite of these laudable efforts, [Paul Jacobs and Richard Muller] it is difficult to avoid the impresison that at a crucial level Calvin has failed to integrate his doctrine of election thoroughly with the broader trinitarian theology of revelation, redemption, and human response that we are highlighting here. For example, in Comm. John 17:9, Calvin asserts that Christ ‘commends to the Father only those whom the Father himself willingly loves.’ Here, as at many other points, the will of the Father is understood as something omniously arbitrary, rather than as being intrinsically and perichoretically related to the divine manifestation of grace in the Son. Examples could be multiplied. It appears that in spite of the helpful trinitarian direction Calvin has taken in formulating his undersanding of the divine-human relationship, at the point of the doctrine of election his normal emphasis on the thorough perichoresis of Father, Son and Spirit in the divine operations has been effectively and inexplicably suspended.”

Philip Walker Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship, Oxford, 1995, 168, ednt. 6.

“It may be taken as further evidence of his committment to the perichoresis of the trinitarian hypostaseis in God’s economic work that Calvin consistently qualifies the statement that ‘God is the proper object of faith’ with the immediate affirmation that access to God is only through Christ (1159 Institutes II.6.2,4; cf. III.2.6), which appears to turn the relationship around, asserting that the Father offers Christ to us ‘as the goal of our faith’). However, as we have suggested earlier, Calvin is not entirely consistent in focusing faith on God’s benevolence as expressed in Christ. His commitment to the doctrine of the ‘double decree’ (cf. 1559 Institutes III.21.1ff.) leads to the a priori exclusion of the reprobate from this Christological access to God by faith. This results at certain points in severe tension between his otherwise trinitarian paradigm of revelation, redemption, and human response and his doctrine of election. For example, in the1159 Institutes III.2.9-12, he appears to theologically justify the concept of the ‘double decree’ by making a deliberate exception to his normally characteristic insistence that the work of the Son and the Spirit be held together in the exonomy of redemption. Thus-in the attempt to explain why some who appear to believe are not ultimately saved (vf. Hebrews 6:4-6)-he can speak of a ‘lower working of the Spirit…in the reprobate.’ This stirs in them a sense that God is merciful toward them and allows them to ‘recognize his grace,’ but apparently operates apart from the effectual grace that God offers in the Son, and hence does not lead to saving faith (1559 Institutes III.2.11). It seems that Calvin never faced the omnious theological implicaitons of this move for a doctrine of the Trinity that otherwise wants to hold that God’s immanent trinitarian relations are consistently reflected in the ad extra activity of the hypostaseis. In addition, at this point he seems inexplicably to suspend his otherwise rigorous insistence on the thoroughgoing perichoresis for the doctrine of the divine decrees. Rather, he applies that paradigm only to the issue of the elect believer’s assurance of election, while the operation of election itself is apparently excempted from the consistency with God’s otherwise trinitarian nature, and left to an inscrutable divine will.”

Ibid., 189., ednt. 81.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/de-deo-uno-in-calvin/

Butin’s objection, which Perry quotes with approval, is ultimately aesthetic. He apparently finds fault with Calvin’s theology because Calvin’s doctrine of predestination spoils the elegant triadic symmetry.

Butin notes that Calvin does this in light of how he understood passages like Jn 17:9 and Heb 6:4-6.

What’s striking about this criticism is that Butin doesn’t take issue with Calvin’s exegesis of Jn 17 (or Heb 6). After all, doesn’t Jn 17 repeatedly single out the Father as the person of the Godhead who “gives” a people to the Son?

What does Butin (or Perry) think that Calvin is supposed to do in the face of this fact? Should Calvin say, Yes, Jesus–in Jn 17–assigns election to the person of the Father, but that would introduce an unsightly, asymmetrical dynamic into the Trinity; therefore, it’s better to sacrifice what Jesus said to preserve the elegant symmetry of our theological system than sacrifice an artificial symmetry to preserve what Jesus said.

Calvin was a poor theologian because he clung to the uncouth idea that what we believe God is like should correspond to…well…to what God is like. You know, God’s self-revelation.

If only Calvin brought a more artistic sensibility to doing theology. Pretty it up like a formal garden with sculptured hedges and geometrical figures.

20 comments:

  1. Did not Anselm argue that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son because that relationship preserves symmetry?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the God of the Bible decreed that murder, genocide, rape and torture were moral "goods", would you still embrace that being as your God?

    I think we all have expectations of what is acceptable for the Creator, and anything less would deem Him "unworthy" of our worship.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert: If the God of the Bible decreed that murder, genocide, rape and torture were moral "goods", would you still embrace that being as your God?

    Vytautas: The law of God is a refection of who God is, so that God cannot decree otherwise it terms of including rape and torture in his law, since that would go against his holy nature. It is necessary that God be holy, so that this hypothetical is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Vytautas,

    Exactly. It would be like asking "If squares were round, would you still believe Euclid?"

    But Robert's question actually exposes more than he realizes, so I will answer it anyway in my next comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert said:
    ---
    If the God of the Bible decreed that murder, genocide, rape and torture were moral "goods", would you still embrace that being as your God?

    I think we all have expectations of what is acceptable for the Creator, and anything less would deem Him "unworthy" of our worship.
    ---

    The second paragraph gives away the intention of the question Robert asks in the first paragraph, and thus demonstrates that it's not a legitimate question in the first place. Instead, he is asking the question as a Trojan horse to introduce a conclusion he has not provided an argument for. Ultimately, Robert's question can be restructured to: "What are the grounds for determining morality?" and his question is an attack against the orthodox Christian view that morality is determined by God, and we know it from His Word.

    Robert's second paragraph gives us his answer to the question "What are the grounds for determining morality?" He says: "I think we all have expectations of what is acceptable..." etc. But note that Robert has not argued for either what these expectations are, nor why we should follow them, nor where they come from. Instead, Robert assumes the entirety of his moral belief and further assumes that everyone else must accept it at true too.

    We have dealt many times with questions of what grounds morality here on Triablogue. In fact, my own post on the Euthyphro dilemma back in August answers everything hidden in Robert's question already. So I'll just repeat a section now:

    ---
    Now one could argue, as the Moral Philosophy site did, that that means that God could command slavery, genocide, holocausts or any number of such things. However, God could not have done so, for then God would have a different nature then the one He has. A different God could have commanded those things and been morally good in doing so; this God (Who happens to be the real God) cannot do so.

    And note that it is precisely because God is Who He is that it “doesn’t seem” like an alternate morality would be just.
    ---

    Note that Robert's concept that "we all have expectations of what is acceptable" isn't anything like the above. Our expectations come from us--that's what makes them our expectations. The originate in our own nature. This makes morality completely subjective, in which case Robert's concept falls to the obvious fact that God, too, is a subject and therefore if you disagree with His morality, it's no different than disagreeing with any other subject's morality--making the concept of "morality" pointless. Such morality has no "teeth" to it. It's just opinion with no ability to sway anyone because there's no objective reality to it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ultimately, the only way to ensure we have objective morality is if the standard for our morality is transcendent. That is, it transcends the individual subjects and is true for everyone regardless of what they believe about it.

    The Christian claim is that morality is determined by the immutable nature of God, and that He explains what His morality is most fully within His Word. That is not to say that God doesn't provide other means to knowing morality, for we know from Scripture that even the Gentiles who do not have the law have it written upon their hearts. Yet Paul continues in that very passage (Romans 2-3) to show how much better off the Jews were for having the Law itself--it is a blessing to them that the Gentiles did not have.

    In any case, we have the following argument:

    1. God is the standard of right, truth,holiness, etc., and as such it is impossible for Him to ever sin by definition.

    2. The Bible is the revealed Word of God consistent with His character.

    3. Therefore, if the Bible decreed murder, genocide, rape, and torture to be moral goods they would be moral goods. (Note, the "if" is a hypothetical--this is not something the Bible actually decrees at all.)

    On the other hand, we have Robert's view which is:

    1. Robert has an expectation of what is acceptable for God to do.

    2. God's actions in the Bible do not match Robert's expectations.

    3. Therefore...what, exactly? Robert is frustrated by God's lack of conformity to Robert's will? God is wrong?

    Seen here, it should be obvious that Robert puts himself in judgment over God's actions rather than submitting to God's judgment. For what we have is the following dynamic.

    For the Bible believer:

    1. A person, P, believes X is evil.

    2. God says X is good.

    3. Therefore, P knows that P is wrong.

    Yet for Robert:

    1. A person, P, believes X is evil.

    2. God says X is good.

    3. Therefore, P knows that God is wrong.

    This is the created usurping the position of the Creator. As God asked Job: "Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Readers may be interested in another discussion with Robert in a recent thread, in which he repeatedly contradicted himself, ignored arguments for positions he disagreed with, and failed to justify his own assertions about morality. Robert begins with his own beliefs about morality, which he doesn't justify, ignores evidence for other systems of morality, and suggests that other systems are unacceptable if they're different than his.

    As I mentioned in the earlier thread, an atheist could object to Robert's theism in a similar manner. The atheist could assert, without demonstrating it, that no God "worthy of our worship", as Robert puts it, would create a universe with the sort of suffering we see in this universe. When asked to justify his judgment, the atheist could fail to do so, yet keep insisting that other belief systems be held to the standards of his atheistic system. He could ignore the evidence cited for other systems. He could object that Robert's God hasn't explained specifically why He created this universe rather than another, why He allowed the recent earthquake in Haiti, why He's allowing people to die of starvation today, etc. If Robert is going to trust his God without having been given such explanations, then what if his God had created a universe with even more suffering and was allowing even worse things to occur? Since the atheist thinks such consequences are unacceptable, he can reject trust in any God, including Robert's theism, not just Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter writes: "Therefore, if the Bible decreed murder, genocide, rape, and torture to be moral goods they would be moral goods. (Note, the "if" is a hypothetical--this is not something the Bible actually decrees at all)."

    Can you define genocide? Patrick went into great depth defending "herem", so I'm thinking we have different definitions.

    I bring this up to further clarify your below assertion:

    1. A person, P, believes X is evil.
    2. God says X is good.
    3. Therefore, P knows that P is wrong.

    I would say that while I seem to be "sitting in judgment" on Scripture, it's with a conscience informed by Scripture itself. Perhaps our Sunday school teachers spent too much time on the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes and less on the much gorier Old Testament.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Robert,

    My response to you doesn't depend on what the definition of "genocide" is, which is why I used "X" as a variable for any moral claim. It is therefore irrelevant for me to define genocide, and this is nothing but a dodge on your part. Stick to the issue at hand: how can you justify ANY moral claim?

    You say:
    ---
    I would say that while I seem to be "sitting in judgment" on Scripture, it's with a conscience informed by Scripture itself.
    ---

    If this is a case, then you're saying there is an internal critique of Scripture you can offer. Yet we've shown you multiple times already that there is no internal inconsistency with Scripture; there is only an inconcistency between what Scripture says and what you believe. You still need to establish a basis for why you believe what you believe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert said:
    "If the God of the Bible decreed that murder, genocide, rape and torture were moral "goods", would you still embrace that being as your God?"

    Me:
    That's like asking, "What would you do if you found out that 2 + 2 = 5?"

    Secondly, the destruction of the Canaanites was completely justified, and that wrath that fell upon them will fall upon the entire earth when God's patience with sinful man has run out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm glad I chanced upon this comment thread!!!

    I don't what the comment string has to do with the post, but I really learned quite a bit from Peter Pike's rebuttal to Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter asks: "How can you justify ANY moral claim?"

    What are you talking about?

    Where did I make a moral assertion? What claims have I made? Did I claim superior moral clarity?

    Jason writes: "Robert begins with his own beliefs about morality, which he doesn't justify ... "

    Yes I did. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." Do we need a dictionary to determine what the word "kill" means? Do you not know? Google it. It means "to intentionally deprive of life". If you're going to say there are circumstances when God's Laws are not binding, I'd say the burden of proof is on YOU, not me, don't you think? Don't throw this back in my face just because I'm asking questions you find uncomfortable.

    " ... ignores evidence for other systems of morality"

    I have no idea what that means.

    " ... and suggests that other systems are unacceptable if they're different than his."

    No I didn't. Did I condemn Peter's view or yours or Patrick's? Did I label any of you as wicked? Did I label you as anything? Show me the quote and if I did, I'll stick my sock in my mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robert: The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." Do we need a dictionary to determine what the word "kill" means? Do you not know? Google it. It means "to intentionally deprive of life".

    Vytautas: The ESV says in a footnote that The Hebrew word for kill in Ex 20:13 also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ROBERT SAID:

    “The Bible says ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Do we need a dictionary to determine what the word ‘kill’ means?”

    You need a Hebrew lexicon, or commentary on the Hebrew text. Remember, the OT was written in Hebrew, not English.

    The commandment is a prohibition against “murder,” not killing in general.

    Moreover, the law of Moses assigns capital punishment for over a dozen crimes, and also has a section on the laws of war (Deut 20).

    Either you’re grossly ignorant of OT ethics or you pick-and-choose your prooftexts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve writes: "You need a Hebrew lexicon, or commentary on the Hebrew text. Remember, the OT was written in Hebrew, not English.
    The commandment is a prohibition against "murder," not killing in general."

    FINALLY! Someone who answers questions! Thank you.

    Fair enough answer. How are we defining murder, though? The unjustified taking of human life? I think I tried that but was scolded for not realizing that infants are not innocent and it can therefore be "justified" to take their lives.


    "Either you’re grossly ignorant of OT ethics or you pick-and-choose your prooftexts."

    The Commandments are understood to be binding for all time, not just until the New Covenant, correct?

    These questions aren't attempts to be traps. I find that ethical questions can get complicated relatively quickly, and I'm simply trying to determine if Scripture resolves these complexities or leaves them up to the conscience of the individual believer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Robert said...

    I think we all have expectations of what is acceptable for the Creator, and anything less would deem Him "unworthy" of our worship.

    That statement really jumped out at me. I don't think Robert means to say that we make God in our own image, but that is what the statement effectively says. His nature and character informs us, not the other way around. This is why a reading of the OT (at least in some places) takes some very clear study and prayerful wisdom from Him. A cursory reading, such as the kind an atheist often does, is insufficient to answer the ethical questions sometimes found there.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Robert said:
    ---
    Peter asks: "How can you justify ANY moral claim?"

    What are you talking about?
    ---

    The same thing I've been talking about with you for several threads now--the issue you keep avoiding.

    We all know you have a beef with the Bible. You have two options: you can either prove an internal contradiction, which you have yet to do, or you can provide an external justification for your morality, which you have yet to do. Yet despite having done none of the footwork, you want to complain about Biblical morality. That might work with others, but it doesn't work here.

    Robert said:
    ---
    What claims have I made? Did I claim superior moral clarity?
    ---

    What you've done is attack the Biblical position without establishing the grounds for your attack, and I have merely asked you to provide the justification for your attack. Quit trying to change the subject.

    Robert said:
    ---
    The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill."
    ---

    Despite the bad translation, suppose God does command "you shall not kill" but then later says in specific cases that you should do so. What follows from that? Does not the one who establishes the command in the first place have the right to abrogate it? Furthermore, if God says *YOU* shall not do something, does that in any way mean *HE* shall not do that very thing? (Newsflash: God has rights you do not have.)

    In other words, is something moral because God says it is, or does God say something is moral because it already is moral? (And as any reader of this site ought to recognize because of how often we've dealt with it, this *just is* the Euthyphro dilemma.)

    If killing is wrong because God commands that killing is wrong, then you have no basis to disagree with any exceptions God includes along with the general rule, for the only reason that killing is wrong is because of God's command. If, on the other hand, killing is wrong *independent* of God's command, then there exists a moral law superior to God and you need to show why God must obey this moral law. Further, if this law is above God, then God is not the highest authority. You must show what is that highest authority. In short, by what basis can you say that killing is wrong? What is your justification for that?

    If you're not even willing to get into any of this then it pointless to continue since you will have demonstrated you don't understand the very subject you're trying to talk about. And since Steve and I have written several articles on this already, it's obvious that you haven't read anything put forth on this subject already--including this very thread.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I said that Robert hasn't justified his own beliefs about morality. He responded:

    "Yes I did. The Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill.'"

    You've been arguing against the Bible, so how would a citation of the Bible explain to us how your system of morality is justified? If you don't believe in the Divine inspiration of scripture, then in what sense are you getting your morality from scripture? If you believe in the Divine inspiration of some parts of scripture, but not others, then which parts do you believe in and why? Citing "though shalt not kill" in the process of criticizing the Bible as morally unreliable doesn't tell us how your system of morality is justified.

    You write:

    "Do we need a dictionary to determine what the word 'kill' means? Do you not know? Google it. It means 'to intentionally deprive of life'."

    Why are you participating in discussions like this one if you're so ignorant of the relevant issues? When Steve mentioned some problems with your definition of "killing", you responded:

    "FINALLY! Someone who answers questions! Thank you. Fair enough answer."

    As Steve told you in the process of answering your question, "Either you’re grossly ignorant of OT ethics or you pick-and-choose your prooftexts." Why would you need somebody to explain to you that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew rather than English and that the Mosaic law allows for executions and warfare?

    Furthermore, in the previous thread I linked above, you referred to "God's law to not commit murder". Yet, now you're acting as if you didn't know what the commandment meant until Steve explained it to you.

    And you tell us that you've "FINALLY" come across "someone who answers questions", even though I, Peter, and others have been answering your questions (and your unreasonable assertions) in multiple threads. In the earlier thread I just linked, Patrick Chan wrote in response to you, "God's word states 'you shall not murder.' But the word 'murder' is the Hebrew word ratsakh which refers to unlawful or forbidden killing." Patrick then went on to cite examples of allowable killing in the form of self-defense, executions, and warfare in the Mosaic law. Again, why would you act as if killing in general was being condemned, and why would you act as if Steve was the first person to correct you on the issue?

    You keep contradicting yourself.

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  19. (continued from above)

    When I referred to evidence for other systems of morality, you wrote:

    "I have no idea what that means."

    I explained what it means in the earlier thread. I cited 1 Samuel 3:19-21 as an example of the sort of evidence the ancient Israelites had for the reliability of Samuel, who delivered the commandment to kill the Amalekites. I also explained that evidence for the Divine inspiration of scripture, evidence we've discussed in depth at this blog, gives us reason to trust the Biblical system of morality. You keep ignoring what people have already said in response to you.

    You write:

    "Did I condemn Peter's view or yours or Patrick's?"

    Yes, you did. In the earlier thread linked above, you made comments such as the following:

    "Yet, here [in 1 Samuel 15], it seems that murder was not just NOT condemned, but even commanded on numerous occasions. So, on such a basic issue of morality as murder seems to be, Scripture can't even provide a consistent message, unless it's perhaps 'don't kill unless commanded otherwise'."

    You write:

    "How are we defining murder, though? The unjustified taking of human life? I think I tried that but was scolded for not realizing that infants are not innocent and it can therefore be 'justified' to take their lives."

    In the earlier thread linked above, I gave you multiple reasons why God could command the execution of infants apart from "infants are not innocent", and you ignored those reasons. You're ignoring them again in this thread. Why should people keep discussing such issues with you when you're so unreasonable in the position you initially take, you keep contradicting yourself, and you keep ignoring what people write in response to you?

    ReplyDelete