Pages

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Dishonoring Christ


Here are some reactions to Michael Sudduth’s deconversion:

Sean Choi Thanks for sharing this, Michael!
 
Kevin Timpe "I wish to especially thank my Christian friends who – due to their love for me and passion for truth – will continue to be gracious interlocutors with me on matters that we equally deem of ultimate importance." May this be true. Thanks, Michael, for your honesty and trust.
 
Jim Beilby Thanks for your transparency and thoughtfulness, Michael.
 
Oliver Crisp Michael, I echo Kevin's sentiments. Thank you for providing us with this statement.
 
Luis Carlos Rodriguez Beautiful story Prof, Thank you. Reading this inspired me to read once again Yusuf Islam's (Cat Stevens) religious conversion and I noticed a few similarities, particularly the idea of conversion as a gradual sacred process rather than as an immediate one. As a Perennialist Catholic who loves the other Abrahamic traditions, who also wrote his masters thesis on Confucianism and Daoism and who will write part of his dissertation on Hindu and Buddhist thought, I very much agree with many if not all of yours and Swami Tripurari's thoughts on a "reasonable inclusivist understanding of religion", "transcendental consciousness as the aim of nearly all religions" and "God as different manifestations in different traditions".
 
John G. Hartung Mike, I appreciate and am humbled by the fact that you included me in your note. And I with others thank you for your full statement on this. I actually have three eyes on this now. My colleague at work who co-belligerates with me against modernity and student relativism actually re-enacts with me the old old dispute between the scholastic theologians and the anti-Christian plotinians. He is both a Mahayana Chan Buddhist and a philosophical Neo-Platonist. And as you might expect the biggest dispute is between a religion of self-sufficiency versus a religion if other-dependence. There is no point in discussing the historicity of redemption since there is no prior possibility that we need it in the radical sense that Christianity supposed, especially in my Reformed understanding of it.

Notice something missing from these responses? What’s missing is any suggestion, any hint, that apostasy is shameful. That turning your back on Christ, that embracing Krishna instead of Christ, dishonors Christ. And what could be more dishonorable than dishonoring Christ?

These comments focus on the horizontal axis of religion to the utter exclusion of the vertical axis. The social dimension. As if all that matters is showing the apostate (or backslider) utmost sympathy and understanding. As if the apostate is a real person, but Christ is not. As if Christ is just a theological abstraction.

But what do we owe God? What about the apostate’s obligations to God? Apostasy is an act of supreme ingratitude to God.

Even reprobates have much to be thankful for. Many reprobates get better than they deserve–thanks to the very Lord they repudiate. Christ has made life much pleasanter for reprobates than it was under paganism.

When we confront apostasy, Christ should be at least as real to us as the apostate.

Imagine if a man deserted his wife and kids. Or cheated his elderly parents. Would we thank him for his transparency?

If we have a duty to honor our parents, how much greater is our duty to honor Christ. And how much worse if Christ is dishonored. Is the living God a reality we live by? Or is he just an idea? Are we just comparing different ideas of God on our checkerboard? 

11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account (Heb 4:11-13).  

32 comments:

  1. I have to agree. I have been shocked that people think that since (they think) exlusivism is arrogant, therefore it is false. I also am shocked that people who claim they love christ aren't begging mike to repent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Notice something missing from these responses? What’s missing is any suggestion, any hint, that apostasy is shameful. That turning your back on Christ, that embracing Krishna instead of Christ, dishonors Christ. And what could be more dishonorable than dishonoring Christ? ... Imagine if a man deserted his wife and kids. Or cheated his elderly parents. Would we thank him for his transparency?

    If we have a duty to honor our parents, how much greater is our duty to honor Christ. And how much worse if Christ is dishonored. Is the living God a reality we live by? Or is he just an idea? Are we just comparing different ideas of God on our checkerboard?
    "

    Very insightful.

    I wonder if some of these person's aren't operating with Shusaku Endo's view of God in Silence where Jesus tells the priest to trample the fumi for the sake of the villagers. If you've read it, I'd be interested in your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "These comments focus on the horizontal axis of religion to the utter exclusion of the vertical axis. The social dimension. As if all that matters is showing the apostate (or backslider) utmost sympathy and understanding. As if the apostate is a real person, but Christ is not. As if Christ is just a theological abstraction."

    While I'm not against trying to show sympathy and understanding to an apostate in order to bring him to genuine salvific faith in Christ, I definitely do not want such sympathy and understanding to be misunderstood by the apostate as if his/her apostasy is "okay" because it most certainly is not "okay."

    If it's possible to deliver a spanking that also conveys "sympathy" and "understanding" then I'm for that, particularly if it jolts the apostate to abandon apostasy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In this day and age it doesn't suprise me one bit for someone to fall away from Christ.

    The real miracle is when some stays.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like many of you I have tried to put a lid on the scandal of the Gospel. When I was younger, I presented the Christian side as if it was Moralistic Deism. I even realize then that what I presented was not adequate.

    Now that I have been appreciating the reformed theology, I love the true scandal of the Gospel. I try to pick my words such to express to my Arminian friends of the american chrurch the Good News. It is easy to slide down the slope in dishonoring Christ.

    So as I work on this, is it most important to speak authoritatively on actual Word of God? To quote scripture? I understand one must speak from deep knowledge of the historical, grammatical, and content meaning of the what was actually said. In that way one can actually be emphatic, to speak in truth.

    It is so easy to be lazy. It makes me worried that if I even know my Master. Yes, I am introspective. Now I must be outgoing. So many excuses...

    Now speaking of the apostate, it is good post! I find it very biblical. Thanks Steve, for writing on this weakness that you see in Christians!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post Steve, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve, you're a Calvinist, right? Michael's deconversion was planned before the foundation of the world. This is God's doing. This is God's sovereign plan. Michael was ultimately not chosen to be saved. Why are you upset at God's plan? Do you really believe what you say you believe? I'm starting to wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  8. WOW MIKE! Great observation! I'm sure no Calvinist has ever considered that in the history of Reformed thought and will find themselves dumbfounded as to how to answer. R.I.P WTS, RTS, and all other Reformed institutions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MIKE SAID:

    "Steve, you're a Calvinist, right? Michael's deconversion was planned before the foundation of the world. This is God's doing. This is God's sovereign plan. Michael was ultimately not chosen to be saved. Why are you upset at God's plan? Do you really believe what you say you believe? I'm starting to wonder."

    The same event can be good or evil, considered from different angles. The crucifixion is a paradigm-case of a morally multifaceted event.

    Apostasy is evil in and of itself, but can serve a good purpose in the plan of God. Try not to be simplistic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Fall is another example of a predestined event which is evil, considered in isolation, but instrumental to a greater good (e.g. Rom 11:32).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fosi,

    I'm going to delete our comments and carry them over to a separate thread.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike raises a good point. If God scripts all thoughts & actions, from eternity to eternity, such that there is not one random, rogue or unscripted thought, from eternity to eternity, then how can you lay blame or criticism towards a person who does not determine his or her own thoughts? Think about it. As per exhaustive Determinism, Michael's thoughts to convert & later de-convert were all 100% scripted (because remember, the C-God is sovereign over "thought" and in the way that C defines true sovereignty), so how do you blame the person? James White suggests that you can fault them for their motives. But wait, who scripts the thoughts that generate the motives? The anger and emotion of Calvinists who believe in Determinism makes no sense to me whatsoever, and in fact, the Gnostics rejected the OT for the reason that it displayed a deity with emotion, which betrayed the Deterministic paradigm. There are things that Calvinists can reconcile in their mind that I cannot fathom. In fact, I believe that if pressed, a Calvinist could "prove" that 1 + 1 = 3.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike said:
    Steve, you're a Calvinist, right? Michael's deconversion was planned before the foundation of the world...Michael was ultimately not chosen to be saved. Why are you upset at God's plan?

    Mike, no Calvinist is claiming that they know Michael was not chosen to be saved. Only God knows the secret "list" of the elect. For all we know Michael is among the elect and will eventually be saved. OR maybe Michael is already saved and is temporarily in apostasy. Given Calvinism's doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, all those who have been truly regenarated and saved will die in a state of faith in Christ even if there are times of falling away or even temporary apostasy in between initial conversion and death.

    Since we DON'T KNOW Michael's status of election (or non-election), and since we DO KNOW that God ordains the MEANS as well as the ends, it is NOT TO NO PURPOSE that we attempt to bring him back into the fold. Whether it be by witnessing to him or using any other legitimate means to encourage and convince him to return to Christianity and reject Hinduism. You ask why should Steve or any other Calvinist care? Because we're commanded to love our fellow human beings and seek their salvation while there is time and opportunity in this life. Our efforts are not in vain since even without fruit God will reward faithfulness. But in addition to that God uses secondary causes to bring about what He has ordained will happen. For all we know, God has ordained Steve and other people to do and say things that will eventually lead Michael back to Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Richard Coords said:

    "If God scripts all thoughts & actions, from eternity to eternity, such that there is not one random, rogue or unscripted thought, from eternity to eternity, then how can you lay blame or criticism towards a person who does not determine his or her own thoughts? Think about it. As per exhaustive Determinism, Michael's thoughts to convert & later de-convert were all 100% scripted (because remember, the C-God is sovereign over 'thought' and in the way that C defines true sovereignty), so how do you blame the person? James White suggests that you can fault them for their motives. But wait, who scripts the thoughts that generate the motives? The anger and emotion of Calvinists who believe in Determinism makes no sense to me whatsoever, and in fact, the Gnostics rejected the OT for the reason that it displayed a deity with emotion, which betrayed the Deterministic paradigm. There are things that Calvinists can reconcile in their mind that I cannot fathom. In fact, I believe that if pressed, a Calvinist could 'prove' that 1 + 1 = 3."

    1. Hm, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in your comment. It'd be time-consuming to unpack it all.

    2. However, Steve Hays and others on Triablogue have written and argued at length on these and related issues including distinguishing Calvinism from determinism.

    a. I'd recommend checking out the archives.

    b. Likewise you can Google "site:triablogue.blogspot.com" followed by whatever term(s) you're interested in. For example, "site:triablogue.blogspot.com calvinism determinism" (without the quotation marks) will bring up many different posts. Note a lot of these posts were written in the back and forth of debate so context is important to keep in mind.

    3. By the way, it's unfair of you to poison the well by saying stuff like "In fact, I believe that if pressed, a Calvinist could 'prove' that 1 + 1 = 3."

    ReplyDelete
  15. RICHARD COORDS,

    I recommend you read (a Triablogger) Paul's paper "Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology: A Contemporary Introduction". I think the most up-to-date PDF version of the paper can be accessed at this link from his personal blog: http://analytictheologye4c5.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/free-will-moral-responsibility-and-reformed-theology-a-contemporary-introduction/

    You also have to take into account the fact that there are different kinds of determinism. Theistic determinism is totally distinct from, say, materialistic determinism. While some Calvinists deny that Calvinism is a form of determinism, in his paper Paul convincingly argues for why it is a form of determinism.

    Historic Calvinism affirms that our thoughts, decisions and actions are *really* OURS even though God has "scripted" them in advance. Also, there's no one Calvinistic view on the metaphysical "mechanics" of how God ensures that what He has ordained eventuates. Some Calvinists appeal to continuous creation (or similarly occasionalism) to explain it. Others appeal to some form of compatibilism. Others appeal to the B-theory of creational time and it's implications for a Christian view of a "block universe" whereby the entire universe ("past"/"present"/"future") "was" created "simultaneously" (which is what Steve holds to if I've interpreted his view correctly). A minority of Calvinists appeal to middle knowledge while rejecting a libertarian view of the human will to explain it. Though, other Calvinists deny that middle knowledge comports with historic Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve: I merely thanked Michael for sharing the note. Am I not allowed to do even that without having my motives questioned? It was merely an act of courtesy. (By the way, Paul Manata also offered thanks in the comments to Michael's note, but I notice that he's conspicuously missing from your hit list. Oh, well...)

    - Sean Choi -

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here's the apostle Paul's reaction to anyone who has an attitude like an apostate.

    http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/16-22.htm

    ReplyDelete
  18. AP, thanks. The next time I get tagged in a note in which an apostate announces his deconversion, I'll be sure to call fire and brimstone down on his head.

    - SC

    ReplyDelete
  19. seanc,

    I didn't post what I did in response to you. I didn't even know you posted until after I did. I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with responding to Michael out of courtesy. I've also said in previous blogs here that I think we should lovingly deal with Michael, while at the same time treating him as the (current) dangerous apostate that he is. Which includes warning the flock and refuting his position.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AP, oh, in that case, as Gilda Radner used to say: Never mind! Godspeed.

    - SC

    ReplyDelete
  21. Richard Coords,

    i) You're raising a stale objection that I and others have repeatedly addressed.

    ii) What makes you think my post is "angry" or "emotional"?

    iii) Even if it were "angry" or "emotional," that would be perfectly consistent with predestination inasmuch as my alleged anger would, itself, be a predestined reaction–which serves a purpose in the plan of God.

    ReplyDelete
  22. On p.11, there is a typo which reads, “She promised should would” when he meant to say, “She promised she would.” Anyway, I did not find the article helpful, although I recognize that the intent of the article was not to convince the non-Calvinist, but to educate the Calvinist.

    Re: Steve’s comment. Steve indicates that he was not being emotional, and even if he was, then it was nonetheless, all part of the full scope of God’s predestined plan. However, I had detected in Steve’s comments a sense of *complaint* insomuch that people were lauding tolerance, instead of denouncing apostasy. So my question is, why the complaint all, even if we grant that such is made without emotion? In other words, if Michael is a divine puppet (which I discuss further in a moment), as well as everyone else being puppets, then to complain against God’s sock-puppetry is to complain against the divine sock-puppeteer. Now, you could say that God complains, as reflected in Scripture, and therefore it is just that Christians do no less, but such reasoning wreaks of circular logic, since God’s complaints may very well come from a non-Determinism Being. Further, you could take Steve’s approach, in that any such emotions or complaints may simply fit within the overall scope of a total decree, but that is little more than an overly simplistic, hand-waving argument. For instance, I’ve personally heard one C rail against another C’s significant lapse in judgment, and then an A asked, “Don’t you believe in predestination,” which resulted in a response of, “I don’t want to talk about that.” In other case, with same general situation, the C concluded, “Yes, keep up the good work” (insomuch that the actions for which they were complaining were nonetheless within the full scope of predetermined actions.) In other words, with Determinism, with all things being scripted by God, the saying holds, “It’s all good.”

    Anyway, to affirm as “Historic Calvinism” (as stated above) that “our thoughts, decisions and actions are *really* OURS even though God has ‘scripted’ them in advance,” is akin, in my mind, to being analogous to trying to demonstrate that 1+1=3, and that there are several formulas that can illustrate this *truth.*

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Having said that, let’s consider an illustration from the demonic realm. According C, if God didn’t script, decree, preordain, determine and predestine the thoughts of the demonic realm, then there is no way, logically speaking, that God could possibly know what any one demon will think next, unless God scripted their next thought, and this illustration is therefore carried forward into the overall context of the demonic realm, culminating in the concept that God has scripted each and every thought of every demon, from eternity to eternity, or else He’d have no clue as to what they would think up next. How such a paradigm could avoid an impression of puppetry, I cannot fathom. Therefore, with exhaustive puppetry in focus, from eternity to eternity, in which God knows preceding and proceeding thoughts, because He has scripted them, in order to foreknow them, then it follows that every member of the demonic realm is exactly and precisely what God has made it to be, and without deviation in the slightest detail, or else He couldn’t know what they would think next. Carrying this principle over to Michael, God knew that Michael would commit apostasy, not because it is Michael’s self-determined thought, but rather, God knew that Michael would commit apostasy because He scripted it, in order to have knowledge *of* it, in order to maintain omniscience. (Now of course, we have no logical formula to explain how God is eternal, having neither beginning nor end, and therefore, we are in a poor position to also demand a logical explanation for how such an inexplicable Being could possess omniscience, meaning that a C cannot demand a logical solution, as in Determinism, as the explanation of omniscience. Otherwise an A could demand of the same C, a logical solution for how God is eternal. But the matter of God scripting all choices, and man somehow being free, does, in contrast, demand a logical explanation, because the context of such a concept does not deal in the inexplicable. In other words, C's should be required to establish a logical solution for how man can be free, even though his choices are 100% scripted. C's ought not be allowed to simply invoke a "mystery."

    ReplyDelete
  24. If the only explanation for how God could know the very next thought of any given demon within the demonic realm is because God has precisely scripted it, and that absent of such divine scripting, God *could not possibly* otherwise know it, then it follows, 1) that the demonic realm relies upon God for its each and every successive thought, from eternity past to eternity future, and 2) the demonic realm does only and precisely what God dictates its thoughts to be, and 3) the source of all calculating malice within the demonic realm, stems from the creative mind of God. (Note: If the unpardonable sin is a matter of attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the work of the demons, then what about the reverse, in that, attributing the work of the demons to the Holy Spirit? Of course, I’ve been repeatedly told that I’ve completely misrepresented everything, and completely misunderstand everything, and I have no idea what I’m talking about, and there’s some link that I need to read, which will provide a more glamorous view of the “Reformed Faith.” Yes, thank you. There’s no need to repeat yourself, and while such intimidations are effective hand-having techniques to *dispatch* the critics of Determinism, they are in no way *satisfactory* to the critics of Determinism. The concerns remain. How does one distinguish the works of God from the works of the devil if the devil thinks only and precisely the complete set of thoughts that God gives him? How do we call the devil our “enemy,” if the enemy thinks no other thoughts besides the ones that God immutably gives it?)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Now, you could say that God complains, as reflected in Scripture, and therefore it is just that Christians do no less, but such reasoning wreaks of circular logic, since God’s complaints may very well come from a non-Determinism Being.

    One way that some Calvinists deal with this is to affirm that God has two wills (e.g. John Piper, and before him R.L. Dabney). This can explain how God may approvingly ordain something that, in itself (and by itself) he does not desire or approve of. He does so because of greater over-arching purposes, as well as in light of second-order good that are a consequence of such decreed events. Not all Calvinists take this route (e.g. Steve doesn't).

    Also, it seems that you're equating Calvinism with fatalism. Here's a quote from chapter 26 of Boettner's _The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination_

    Practically [notice he says "practically", not "officially"], Mohammedanism holds to a predestination of ends regardless of means. The contrast with the Christian system is seen in the following story. A ship crowded with Englishmen and Mohammedans was ploughing through the waves. Accidentally one of the passengers fell overboard. The Mohammedans looked after him with indifference, saying, "If it is written in the book of destiny that he shall be saved, he shall be saved without us; and if it is written that he shall perish, we can do nothing"; and with that they left him. But the Englishmen said, "Perhaps it is written that we should save him." They threw him a rope and he was saved.

    God judges us based on our duty to obey His revealed will as well as on our finitude. He doesn't judge us based on our knowledge of His secret will of decree; which for the most part He doesn't reveal to us. You also have to take into account the fact that we can only see the present and can only fallibly predict the future consequences of certain events if they occur (or of choices that are made). Based on those epistemic limitations, we are obligated to make certain moral decisions. Of course, the farther into the future, the less accurate and more vague our predictions are. God, on the other hand sees the end from the beginning. God sees all the consequences of all possible events and therefore can know that second-order goods can or will come from ordaining certain prior evils or harmful events. We don't have that ability and therefore aren't allowed to make decisions based on long term consequences. As sovereign, God can choose which of those second-order goods will come about. I'm not saying that either man or God should have (or does have) a consequentialist approach to morality, but consequences are taken into consideration.

    In other words, with Determinism, with all things being scripted by God, the saying holds, “It’s all good.”

    It *is* true that when God wills, He wills willingly, not unwillingly. Yet, just because God ordains/wills something doesn't mean that God approves of it or sanctions it (in the sense of God being glad about it or delighting in it). In Calvinism, all things WORK for the good. Not that everything IS good. God is not equally indifferent OR equally pleased with the specific things He ordains. Nevertheless He ordains them for an ultimate greater good and goods.

    ...culminating in the concept that God has scripted each and every thought of every demon, from eternity to eternity, or else He’d have no clue as to what they would think up next. How such a paradigm could avoid an impression of puppetry, I cannot fathom.

    In Calvinism, God's counterfactual knowledge within His natural/necessary knowleedge doesn't itself determine what will happen. Rather, that's due to God's free knowledge of what He decides will happen in creation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You make statements like"
    "...that God could possibly know what any one demon will think next..." AND "...He’d have no clue as to what they would think up next..."

    God knows what will happen because He has foreordained what will happen. That's not equivalent to saying that God "couldn't" know what demons *would* or *could* choose/think "unless" God foreordained it. You need understand the distinctions between (and the implications of) 1. God's natural knowledge, 2. God's free knowledge, and 3. God's supposed middle knowledge; and how that relates to the creaturely will (whether it's libertarian or not).

    How such a paradigm could avoid an impression of puppetry, I cannot fathom.

    Again, you assume that there's ONLY ONE Calvinistic view on the mechanics of how God causes what he has ordained to eventuate. The one that seems to fit your description (some might say caricature) is the hard determinism of occasionalism (cf. Vincent Cheung's book mentioned below).


    In other words, C's should be required to establish a logical solution for how man can be free, even though his choices are 100% scripted.

    But what kind of freedom does man have? Calvinists have argued that the Bible suggests it's not libertarian because of passages like the following (many more could be cited)

    "The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will." - Prov. 21:1 ESV

    "But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day." - Deut. 2:30

    "For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the Lord commanded Moses." - Josh. 11:20

    "for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. " - Rev. 17:17

    It's passages like these that Arminians and Arminian-like folk have a problem dealing with. Despite your dislike of the analogy of puppetry, the Bible unabashedly uses puppetry-LIKE analogies. The Bible describes God as a potter, and creatures as clay. The Bible say that God has the will of human kings in His control like humans can direct channels of water. The Bible says that God hardens hearts. The Bible say that puts it in people's hearts to do such and such things.

    This doesn't mean that Calvinists can only hold to one particular view of determinism. Namely, hard determinism and occasionalism like the position of Vincent Cheung (see his book The Author of Sin).

    The fact is that there's more flexibility in Calvinism than you seem to be aware of and you're painting Calvinism, and therefore it's alleged problems, with a broad brush.

    Btw, I don't hold to Cheung's views, but neither do I reject them as necessarily false. He could be right. Nevertheless, all of your complaints really only apply to a view of predestination like Cheung's (the highest or firmest kind of Calvinism). And frankly, your complaints don't really touch them because Cheung has answers to such complaints.

    C's ought not be allowed to simply invoke a "mystery."

    But that's precisely what people who hold to Arminianism (or Arminian-LIKE theologies) often do with respect to those passages that appear to deny human freedom.

    Finally, you're complaints have implications that would make passages like 1 Sam. 19:9 and (especially) 1 Kings 22:13-28 inexplicable.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh, I forgot to post these links:

    Are There Two Wills in God? by John Piper http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

    God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy,As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity by R. L. Dabney www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/mercy.htm

    ReplyDelete
  28. By the way, Vincent Cheung thinks the analogy of puppetry is actually TOO WEAK. He believes God controls creatures and creation with greater power and directness than in the relationship between a puppeteer and his puppets.

    ReplyDelete
  29. When I (or other Calvinists) say that God doesn't normally reveal His secret will of decree, we mean with reference to the future. Obviously, with reference to the past, whatever happened was the fulfillment of God's secret decree which we didn't know before it occurred. But now that it's "behind us", we know what God's secret will of decree for that time and place because of hindsight.

    There are things God has decreed of the future which have been revealed. For example, the return of Christ. On subjects like this, God has revealed His secret will of degree (and so is no longer "secret").

    ReplyDelete
  30. Richard's objection to blaming people for their actions, since they are puppets, given an omniscient God, is exactly mine. And yes, I'm familiar with the various apologia that attempt to reconcile God's omniscience with free will, which boil down to what Pinoy said:

    Historic Calvinism affirms that our thoughts, decisions and actions are *really* OURS even though God has "scripted" them in advance.

    Trouble is, "affirming" something is just making a claim; it's not an argument. I can also "affirm" that 1+1=3, but that doesn't make it so. And I don't see how you can logically reconcile free will with God's omniscience and omnipotence.

    What puzzles me, however, is how Richard, who (please correct me if I'm wrong) is also a Christian, can escape the logical consequence of his own argument. Is Richard's God not omniscient, or not omnipotent; or do we not have free will?

    cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  31. Zilch, it seems you have three objections and a question.
    1. given Calvinism are human actions really their own?
    2. How can human beings be blameworthy or praiseworthy if God has scripted their destinies in advance? Especially if...
    3. human beings are controlled by God like puppets by a puppteer?
    4. Is Richard consistent?

    In answer to #3, not all Calvinists hold to the hard determinism of occasionalism (like that of Vincent Cheung author of The Author of Sin). Therefore, the analogy of God being like a puppeteer and humans being like puppets doesn't directly apply in every kind of Calvinism. In an occasionalist kind of Calvinism (say Cheungian kind) it would be inappropriate to call it an analogy because it's EXACTLY what God does (but more directly and with greater control). With regard to other forms of Calvinism (e.g. those that appeal to compatibilism), it *would* be an analogy since there ISN'T a direct one to one correspondence between the two cases.

    In answer to #1 given compatibilism, I don't see how people's thoughts, decisions and actions aren't their own. The question you pose is more problematic for an occasionalist form of Calvinism. I'll let Cheung defend that position.

    In answer to #2, I believe (if I recall correctly), Cheung solves the problem by appealing to God's Ipse Dixit fiat pronouncement. Obviously that's not going to satisfy most people. However, in a compatibilistic view, *if* a person really does do something (even though God scripted it), it's still really them doing it. The details of the various kinds of compatibilism (e.g. semi-compatibilism, compatibilism proper etc.) and how compatibilism can be used to solve the problems of, or answer objections to Calvinism is beyond my depth. I do what I can to help clarify the issues and defend what I believe to be true, but there comes a point where the discussion is over my head and I leave it up to the Triabloggers. If someone is interested, they can search the Triablogue archives by going to "www.google.com/advanced_search" and typing in "triablogue.blogspot.com" [without "http://www."] in the "Search within a site or domain" field. Then type in "compatibilism" or "compatibilistic" in the "all these words" field. Both Steve and Paul have used compatibilism in discussions on Calvinism.

    In answer to #4, I'd ask the same questions that you (Zilch) asked. Assuming Richard is a Christian, "Is Richard's God not omniscient, or not omnipotent; or do we not have free will?"

    ReplyDelete