Calvinism is Strange Indeed

[dizerner]

And it saddens me that no matter how hard I try to convey these points I have a hard time getting back responses deeper than the level of "if God causes x then man cannot be responsible for x."

No amount of double-speak can make a square circle logical, and perhaps Calvinists should act less like that's possible, and not complain when people don't accept it.

I appreciate that you don't see the point here, but it seems perfectly clear to me that there is no logical or theoretical problem with a situation where God causes a person to intentionally and willfully desire to commit sin and then justly punish the man for committing that sin, because the man's sinful conduct comported with the man's own evil desires.

Sure, if God causes X, then man can be punished for X. But like "free will" Calvinists make the word "responsible" no longer mean the ability to respond (response-able). Indirect causation does not lessen the responsibility you carry for causing something. When King David killed Uriah through indirect causation God held him fully responsible. Why would God not hold himself responsible as well, for indirect causation? If we want to say God "causing" evil is just a necessarily mysterious paradox but he's never really "guilty" for it because he can betray his own character if he so pleases, and has a "dark" side that wants to get evil things done for his glory, we can accept this doctrine as something unknowable like the Trinity. But if we say Scripture necessarily teaches it or if we say God can still be entirely holy and good, I don't see any justification for that. Scripture makes a point of saying that God is light in whom is no shadow of turning, and Calvinism really puts a lot of dark shadows into the heart of God. Think of all the worst evils that have happened in this world, and imagine a God that doesn't just allow the possibility through rebellion, but actually desires for his own creation to harm and blaspheme each other and God, and then with no other possible course of events, deliberately and meticulously decrees and enforces every evil thing that ever happens. Then no longer does God even have any real enemy, as Scripture says he does, but Satan is a servant of God accomplishing all his will. This is not the same thing as God using Satan for something or redeeming something Satan does; Satan's heart to still, kill and destroy, to blaspheme God in the worst way imaginable, and to disgrace and torment what is valuable to God created for his glory: all of that, we find in Calvinism, is God's own heart and pleasure to do. To be a true and consistent Calvinist you really have to fully swallow that. The vilest of evils is God's idea, God's good pleasure, and God's enforcing decree, and so the "enemy" of God is a paper tiger and a deception of all the meaning that could really be in the word enemy. And some people do accept that Satan is God's ally, that Serpent of old deceiving and corrupting the whole world and declaring himself to be god, who will one day be confined to the bottomless pit.

Calvinists end up accepting a doctrine they simply don't fully think out the ramifications of: complete Divine determinism. Here's a paper ruminating on interpreting every Scriptural passage in this light:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-cont ... -Texts.pdf

[CThomas]

Well, I read the article you linked. It might have been more useful if it had actually interacted with the Calvinist treatments of the passages it listed, which are pretty easy to find, but as it is the article was reminiscent of much of this discussion here, namely a lot of assertion with little in the way of reasoned exchange with the opposing view.

Look, I'll be candid. Maybe this discussion has been conditioned by the long history of sometimes acrimonious exchanges on this issue. But for whatever reason I've been disappointed by the strange hostility of tone I've seen here, the dismissive attitudes, the strange ad hominem, and most generally the seeming absolute certainty of assumption that if you can't understand the force of an argument it must be because the argument must be "double speak" rather than something on which you may need elucidation. The fact is, I was not raised a Christian at all, and when I began engaging these issues after converting I had absolutely no preconceptions about who was correct. I've tentatively come to the conclusion that Calvinism seems more likely to be right, but it certainly isn't the case for me at least that I'm simply reflexively defending a system I grew up with or something like that. I've given these issues serious thought and come to my opinions honestly. That doesn't mean I'm right, of course, and I'm always open to argument and correction. But it does mean that I'm not just throwing around meaningless "double speak" without any genuine ideas behind it.

[dizerner]

The article was not meant to counter mainstream Calvinist scriptures, but to perhaps awaken many "soft" Calvinists to the implications of ideas they haven't fully thought out in relation to God's injunctions to do good and not evil.

I don't mean to be dismissive nor insulting of Calvinism. It's an intimidating and logically self-coherent system of doctrine.

I do however have problems with the way most Calvinists explain their beliefs. You should not use the word "free" when there is no real freedom. You should not use the word "responsibility" when there is no real ability to respond. It's that simple, to not hide exactly what you believe. There are divine determinists that are "up front" with the fact that there is no real freedom nor responsibility, and I think it's a godly thing to be "up front." We are all just living out exactly whatever God wanted, and God still holds us accountable for what he, himself, scripts us to do, because somehow he can morally transfer the guilt of what he's done into our desires. I don't hate Calvinism, in many ways I would love Calvinism in that it relieves me of all real responsibility (anything conditional upon my free will) and gives absolute security (everything is simply explainable as "God's direct will" somehow). I personally found, however, that Calvinism's ideas ended taking away my security because I could never truly know whether I was a vessel of wrath being deceived into thinking he was a child of God. I found it much simpler and more secure to simply preach and believe exactly the promise given in Scripture and not speculate some underhanded "behind the scenes" puppeteering going on just from a handful of deterministic sounding verses.

I'm sorry if I sounded disrespectful or caustic in any way.

[TheEditor]

This is the polar opposite of what we're saying God does, which merely "causes" the outcome by letting the man do what the guy wants to do anyway.

Then you are not espousing Calvinism. This "allowing" one to follow the obstinancy of one's own heart does not require God to be a micro-manager. For instance, Rotherham points out that a better translation of "cause " is to merely "allow".

In support of such rendering, the appendix to Rotherham's translation shows that in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that "even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission." So, whereas at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives "caused the male children to live," in reality they permitted them to live by refraining from putting them to death. After quoting Hebrew scholars M.M. Kalisch, H.F.W. Gesenius, and B. Davies in support, Rotherham states that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharoah is that "God permitted Pharoah to harden his own heart--spared him--gave him the opportunity, the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is all."---The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa. 10:5-7.

But this understanding is more in harmony with Arminianism than Calvinism, as is your previous statement. So, I am wondering what your point is?

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

The point is whether the man decides his own desires. I believe I have adequate defenses for Eph 1, John 6, and Romans 9.

Btw, Rotherham's is an excellent piece of work, I was so happy to get a copy back in the late 90s. It became my favorite translation for several years until I found the New Jerusalem Bible.

[CThomas]

Dizerner, no need to apologize. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with different views, but as I say I do think the sometimes caustic history of interactions in this area can infect discussions from both sides. Please believe me when I tell you that I am in no way "hiding" my true views. When I use the linguistic formulations I do, it is because they are the best way I can think of to convey my honestly held views. Maybe I'm wrong, but I assure you that I am not dishonestly covering up what I really believe.

Editor, there's not much to say in response to your latest post, since it addresses exactly one word of my prior message and ignores all the rest. If you had considered the rest of what I had written you would have seen the way in which I understand divine allowance and causality to be related.

Best,

CT

[dizerner]

Fair enough I guess... makes it harder when the same term means different things to both sides, perhaps that is unavoidable.

[TheEditor]

Hi CT,

You r response seems unnecessarily curt. I focused on one word ("cause") because that was the subject of your post to me. You followed my analogy to a point, but said the difference lay in the fact that

"This is the polar opposite of what we're saying God does, which merely "causes" the outcome by letting the man do what the guy wants to do anyway",

and so I addressed you. It does no good to address your second point to me, namely:

this whole set of issues is complicated and difficult, and I'm not trying to convince you to become a Calvinist. My ambition here is much more modest. I just want you to see that these sort of arguments that attempt to dismiss Calvinism on casual a priori grounds without doing the hard work of exegesis are wrong, and rest upon a confusion

because this really isn't an issue for me. I have looked at the arguments for Augustinianism and found them wanting. My feeling is that the only thing that makes the "exegesis"(?) "hard work" is the mental gymnastics necessary to make it work to an otherwise rational and reasonable and merciful person.

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Hi CThomas,

Getting back to my OP.

Acts 17:30 New American Standard Bible

30. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

How are we to make sense of Paul's statement if a large part of mankind is helpless, with no hope of repenting, unless God chooses and regenerates them first? I realize the Calvinist can and will argue that "all" doesn't really mean all, but then "everywhere" could be said to be figurative also.

[Singalphile]

... makes it harder when the same term means different things to both sides, ....

Indeed!

And also every one seems to have his or her own individual understanding of these types of things.