So ... I believe that God, who created the world and everything else that exists, exercises absolute, meticulous and exhaustive sovereignty over all events, including every thought, word and deed of mankind, through His definite predestination and continual providence. I also happen to believe that human beings make real, significant, voluntary and uncoerced choices for which they are morally responsible in a just economy.
This is not "hard" determinism or "soft" determinism, but FREE DETERMINISM.
While our minds can hold the knowledge of His greatness, they cannot hold His greatness. This is an important fact to remember when we feel we must tell God what He can and can't do. Indeed, you may not happen to believe that God employs FREE DETERMINISM in His administration of the universe. But if you don't think it is possible for Him to do so, it is possible that you may not actually believe in the Biblical God at all.
And if you go to the Bible with an open heart to find out how God actually administers His universe, you will find FREE DETERMINISM is the only real possibility.
It is clear that man is a natural force onto himself, and can deny God and God's direction. Determinism, undermines creation and the natural law. It impresses us to be mechanized beings. Even chance can be a profound encounter, and is often misinterpreted as chaotic impossibility; if it was not man's will to bring about an ends by a means.The fact that man can be an obstacle to God is clear in scripture. The asserting of man's will, unto God, would result in a standing Protestantism, not its popular demise. When man thinks himself to be God, or even of his direct will, he must bear the appropriate fruit. Although Arminianism is not humanism nor satanism. Man 's choices and will can lead to Satan. Calvinist practice a piety that differs from us. While undermining the reality of man and god... failing to see man's contribution in rebelling against God, and mistaking social happenstances made by man, as God's. Man cooperation is evident in its necessity.
ReplyDeleteMr. McGranor,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. You make an interesting point about determinism striking us in a way that makes us feel like "mechanized beings." That is exactly the sort of thing we human beings are prone to, and one of the main reasons we react so vehemently against the very idea of determinism. My point in this post is simply that we need not react in such a manner because determinism does not actually undermine our freedom. How we remain free is, to me, a great mystery. But it is one that I feel Biblically compelled to embrace.
Of course, the philosophers have been working on this problem since at least the heyday of the classical Greeks. I side with those who insist (after completely baffling themselves with the problem and its implications) that determinism and freedom are both necessary and compatible (e.g. John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, et al).
Thanks again for the thought provoking interaction. Your comments are always welcome here, since although you often disagree with me, you do so in a way that is neither hostile nor unproductive. As brothers should.
Grace & peace,
Derek
Hi Derek,
ReplyDeleteWe talked some at Arminian Perspectives last month. This topic is timely for me. As you may know from my comments there, I have suspended my belief in Calvinism, and this topic is one of the reasons. You can read my blog if you feel like getting an idea of why I'm questioning Calvinism.
What you say here lines up pretty well with "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Boettner, as well as Charles Hodge's view found in his commentary on Ephesians (particularly chapter 1). For starters, I see compatibilism as being illogical from a philosophical standpoint, yet I do not deny that God being Creator most certainly is able to create a world to function any way He desires--even "apparently" illogical. I just don't think that He has created it that way, and I have a hard time seeing it that way in Scripture.
Boettner flat out says that God causes everything to happen such as thoughts. I know Scripture says that God has worked in the hearts of men to do evil, such as Pharoah. I'm fine there, but I haven't gone too deep into that subject. But if God is--and I hate to switch terms, because that is what I think makes Calvinism so confusing to me--but if God is "Sovereign over" (meant, "causing") all thoughts, even the sinful thoughts of His saved children who struggle passionately to put to death sin, then it certainly is illogical. Why would Scripture say that God commands us to be holy and offer His Spirit to us to fight sin, all the while causing evil thoughts in His children? That I don't get. So Calvinists (like Boettner) are quick to say that God causes the evil thoughts, but when the rubber meets the road, the lingo is changed to put the responsibility of sin back on man.
Another thing I struggle with is the quickness of Calvinist apologists to denounce an over-dependence on philosophy and reason when challenging the five points, yet logic is what undergirds presuppositional apologetics. In other words, when I question someone on the clearly illogical nature of God making a sinful thought in a believer and then God telling him not to think it (Eph 4, Colossians 3), I am told I'm relying too heavily on logic, as you sort of do when you say,
"You may be trying to fit Him into a small space that can't hold Him. That small space is the sum of what you consider logically conceivable. If God must fit into this space, then your mind's capacity, rather than His omnipotent ability, has become the measure of Truth."
Yet we as believers, when using presuppositional apologetics against atheists, will press them on the illogical nature of their atheism in light of biblical truth. But aren't they in the same position as a non-Calvinist before a Calvinist? The circularity of Christian apologetics baffles them, and they say we're being illogical. But we respond by saying they are blind and hardening their hearts and that they just can't see the truth, and that their logic is irrational.
I think there's a double standard there where as a Calvinist I would dismiss the Arminian's God-given use of logic, and yet when accused of doing the same I shrugged it off by saying the unbeliever doesn't know what he's talking about. God gave us logic, yet when it comes to Calvinism we're not allowed to utilize it when questioning the system itself, not only philosophically but biblically.
And that is where I find myself, reading clear teachings of Scripture without Calvinistic presuppositions and coming up with an alternate interpretation which I have begun to see as biblical AND logical. I appreciate any comments or insight you might have to offer.
Blessings,
Gene
www.thegraceapparatus.wordpress.com
Gene,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I would very much like to pursue further discussion, however I have very little time at present (my business life has been unexpectedly successful this year, taking up more and more of my time). Please be patient and I will try to get a half decent (and hopefully edifying) response written and posted within the next few days (possibly even next weekend).
In the meantime, you may want to check out my thoughts on some of these issues in this old post from 2011: http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2011/09/calvinism-systematic-theology-and.html
Of course, that is just scratching the surface. Hopefully I can gain the opportunity to converse further.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek,
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear your work has been blessed...always a good thing! Take your time in responding, it will only help me to be self-controlled with my internet use :)
I read the old post and I'm not sure it helped much to be honest--at least in regards to specifics. Perhaps as you think about my comments this will help to focus our future discussion: How do we know that our interpretation of Scripture/theology is accurate so that we can make the claims you've made that to believe otherwise (contra Calvinism) is to really disbelieve Scripture and God? I'm honestly trying to arrive at the most biblical position, but there are so many inconsistencies that I just can't believe I'm supposed to just believe what doesn't make sense in the Major doctrines (i.e. the Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity with regards to regeneration preceding faith, or with Unconditional Election when the texts that are used for it can easily be interpreted otherwise--Eph 1:4).
To make it simple, feel free to respond when you have time to my first set of comments and we can take it a little at a time. Have a great week!
Gene
Gene,
ReplyDeleteHere are a few thoughts. I hope they are helpful to you.
You said: What you say here lines up pretty well with "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Boettner, as well as Charles Hodge's view found in his commentary on Ephesians (particularly chapter 1).
I am glad to hear that!
You said: For starters, I see compatibilism as being illogical from a philosophical standpoint,
You are not the first person to say that Compatibilism strikes you as illogical. But can you demonstrate how and why it is illogical, based on Biblical presuppositions?
You said: yet I do not deny that God being Creator most certainly is able to create a world to function any way He desires--even "apparently" illogical. I just don't think that He has created it that way, and I have a hard time seeing it that way in Scripture.
I commend your open mindedness on this point.
You said: Boettner flat out says that God causes everything to happen such as thoughts.
We have to be careful to stay balanced here. Surely God causes everything that happens, in some sense. But He does not necessarily cause everything in the same way. In other words, God causes good in a different sense than evil. For a given "evil" event, you might have God willing the event for His good purpose, and evil being introduced only by the motive and will of the creature. So in that event, the creature wills against God and His commands and thus commits evil, while God wills good and brings about His purpose through the event (Joseph tells His brothers, "You meant IT [the event] for evil, but God meant IT [the same event] for good). From the broader perspective, God ordains to allow the imposition of the creature's evil will, and thus can be said to have "caused" the evil event. But in the evil event, God does only good. This is the best sense I can make out of Romans 8:28-30 and Ephesians 1:11.
Continued . . .
Gene,
DeleteYou said: I know Scripture says that God has worked in the hearts of men to do evil, such as Pharoah. I'm fine there, but I haven't gone too deep into that subject. But if God is--and I hate to switch terms, because that is what I think makes Calvinism so confusing to me--but if God is "Sovereign over" (meant, "causing") all thoughts, even the sinful thoughts of His saved children who struggle passionately to put to death sin, then it certainly is illogical. Why would Scripture say that God commands us to be holy and offer His Spirit to us to fight sin, all the while causing evil thoughts in His children? That I don't get. So Calvinists (like Boettner) are quick to say that God causes the evil thoughts, but when the rubber meets the road, the lingo is changed to put the responsibility of sin back on man.
I am bound to believe that God "causes" everything in some sense (Isaiah 45:5-7). Yet evil is caused in a way that does not make God directly responsible or in any way culpable for it. Usually, some sort of disproportionality is proposed to explain this. For example, a Calvinist might say that God directly causes every good thought that any person ever thinks, while indirectly allowing evil to arise in human hearts from the evil that is already there (II Cor. 8:16 is one of many Biblical examples of direct causation of good in believers. Conversely, the Pharaoh story states that both Pharaoh and God hardened Pharaoh's heart). Thus God can "cause" evil thoughts, and be "sovereign over" them, just by allowing (not preventing) them. For the believer who is engaged in a sanctification struggle, this understanding leads to crying out to God for more grace and His help, and at the same time recognizing our own evil is our responsibility and comes from us (and recognizing that unless God continues His work in us, we cannot possibly overcome evil). If we are choosing evil and saying, "God is causing me to do this," we are using what seems like good logic in a destructive and imbalanced way, thereby dooming ourselves, much as Paul mentions in Romans 3:7-8. Notice that Paul does not fight against the logic by offering some other explanation; he simply condemns the seemingly logical conclusion. The extension of a logical deduction from Scripture that is not balanced out by the whole of the Book is a dangerous thing!
You said: Another thing I struggle with is the quickness of Calvinist apologists to denounce an over-dependence on philosophy and reason when challenging the five points,
Different people defend their positions in different ways. I cannot answer for the tactics some other Calvinists use in defending their stances. My own belief is that all human beings rely too much on their own understanding. Calvinists, Arminians and others demonstrate this error in various ways at different times. Too much faith in logic evidences itself when any believer uses creative exegesis to explain away clear teachings of Scripture, when he appeals to his own logical deductions as though they were equal to Scripture, and when he refuses to affirm things God reveals because he cannot explain them.
You said: yet logic is what undergirds presuppositional apologetics.
Logic is involved and always should be. But God's Word is the true foundation of Christian presuppositionalism.
Continued . . .
Gene,
DeleteYou said: In other words, when I question someone on the clearly illogical nature of God making a sinful thought in a believer and then God telling him not to think it (Eph 4, Colossians 3), I am told I'm relying too heavily on logic, as you sort of do when you say, "You may be trying to fit Him into a small space that can't hold Him. That small space is the sum of what you consider logically conceivable. If God must fit into this space, then your mind's capacity, rather than His omnipotent ability, has become the measure of Truth."
I am saying a person relies too heavily on logic when he refuses to believe that anything outside of his own logical conceptions is possible. I am certainly not saying logic should be rejected or avoided; quite the opposite. Logic gets us to the point of realizing that logic cannot answer every question we have. At the same time, it structures our thinking and leads us to correct conclusions under the higher guidance of Scripture. In Acts 17:2, Paul set the example of "reasoning from the Scriptures."
I would actually say you are relying too heavily on logic when you extend the belief in God's total sovereignty to make Him the direct cause of your evil thoughts. Such thoughts are unworthy of God and clearly go against the Reformed conviction that God is not the author of evil.
You said: Yet we as believers, when using presuppositional apologetics against atheists, will press them on the illogical nature of their atheism in light of biblical truth. But aren't they in the same position as a non-Calvinist before a Calvinist? The circularity of Christian apologetics baffles them, and they say we're being illogical. But we respond by saying they are blind and hardening their hearts and that they just can't see the truth, and that their logic is irrational. I think there's a double standard there where as a Calvinist I would dismiss the Arminian's God-given use of logic, and yet when accused of doing the same I shrugged it off by saying the unbeliever doesn't know what he's talking about.
The issue with atheists is usually that they are rationalists. They believe that logic itself (i.e., their logic!) is the highest authority (rather than God Himself) and that logic can lead them to everything they need to know (rather than God's revelation). Thus they find a way to rationally confirm their own self-deceptions. They are, of course, being consistent with their presuppositions. We try to show them that their presuppositions are an insufficient warrant for their conclusions, and that they need another source of authoritative knowledge. I don't think a professing believer is in the same position because a believer admits that God's Word is supreme in authority. We may try to show a believer that they are relying too heavily on logic IF their logic is leading them away from Biblical conclusions. On the other hand, we might tell another believer that they are not applying enough logic in their study of Scripture because they refuse to arrive at the logical deductions entailed in a given text. In summary, we would say a believer should rely on revelation first and logic second.
Continued . . .
Gene,
DeleteYou said: God gave us logic, yet when it comes to Calvinism we're not allowed to utilize it when questioning the system itself, not only philosophically but biblically.
The Calvinist will generally say that reason and Scripture taken together and in correct proportion will lead to correct conclusions. I encourage everyone to study Scripture diligently, pray fervently, and trust God to lead them to the best conclusions of which their mind is capable. And I have great respect for anyone who does this, even if they don't happen to agree with my specific conclusions at the end of the day.
You said: And that is where I find myself, reading clear teachings of Scripture without Calvinistic presuppositions and coming up with an alternate interpretation which I have begun to see as biblical AND logical. I appreciate any comments or insight you might have to offer.
If you truly believe that Calvinistic presuppostions include God directly putting evil thoughts in your mind, I commend your rejection of it. My major point in the above paragraphs is that you may be viewing Calvinistic presuppositions from an imbalanced standpoint. A commitment to being thoroughly Biblical will only help, and I think it is ultimately a matter of being balanced as a Calvinist.
Thank you for the interesting questions.
Blessings,
Derek
Derek,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the replies. I've been under the weather and have a busy week ahead, so I'm afraid I may not be able to respond for a bit.
Talk to you soon
Gene
I too am a compatiblist.
ReplyDelete