Calvinism is Strange Indeed

[TheEditor]

Nice rejoinder. But unfortunately it does what all Augustinian views of God do, in my opinion, and that is that by your response, the father in my analogy allows the child to be killed--because it is his neighbors son, not his. If you did something like that, the community would want your head or at least be tarred and feathered, and I would be first in line with the feathers.

All portrayals of God through the lens of Augustine betray a God that is schizophrenic and sadistic. He tells us to be good to our enemies and pray for them, but He Himself keeps them alive against nature for the sole purpose of roasting them for eternity; for his "good pleasure". Maybe the Right Reverend Phelps has the correct view of God after all? It reminds me of the line from MP and the Holy Grail when they were reading the instructions for the Holy Hand-Grenade "To blow thine enemies to bits, in thy Mercy"....only in this case we don't even have the "mercy" of being blown to bits--just suffer. And we didn't even get to have the "choice" to reject God. Hmmmm....

Could it be that there is a "Third Way" to view God's sovereignty other than Calvinism or Arminianism? Palagianism is another way, possibly. But, it's also possible that God has a bigger plan, and that Christianity is a 'pilot scheme' of sorts. Just as there was an "advantage of the Jew" according to Paul, perhaps there is also an "advantage of the Christian" in the bigger picture; and this picture is much bigger and goes far further than we apprehend at this point. I don't know. But I believe there are answers; we just may be seeing through too dark a glass; or asking the wrong questions.

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

Nice rejoinder. But unfortunately it does what all Augustinian views of God do, in my opinion, and that is that by your response, the father in my analogy allows the child to be killed--because it is his neighbors son, not his. If you did something like that, the community would want your head or at least be tarred and feathered, and I would be first in line with the feathers.

All portrayals of God through the lens of Augustine betray a God that is schizophrenic and sadistic. He tells us to be good to our enemies and pray for them, but He Himself keeps them alive against nature for the sole purpose of roasting them for eternity; for his "good pleasure". Maybe the Right Reverend Phelps has the correct view of God after all? It reminds me of the line from MP and the Holy Grail when they were reading the instructions for the Holy Hand-Grenade "To blow thine enemies to bits, in thy Mercy"....only in this case we don't even have the "mercy" of being blown to bits--just suffer. And we didn't even get to have the "choice" to reject God. Hmmmm....

Could it be that there is a "Third Way" to view God's sovereignty other than Calvinism or Arminianism? Palagianism is another way, possibly. But, it's also possible that God has a bigger plan, and that Christianity is a 'pilot scheme' of sorts. Just as there was an "advantage of the Jew" according to Paul, perhaps there is also an "advantage of the Christian" in the bigger picture; and this picture is much bigger and goes far further than we apprehend at this point. I don't know. But I believe there are answers; we just may be seeing through too dark a glass; or asking the wrong questions.

Regards, Brenden.

Hi Brenden and God Bless,

There are many hard contradictory accounts of His Majesty, Holy and Righteous Judge of all heaven and earth, that we cannot reconcile fully; at least in our mortal state. For instance observe the following:

1. God says He hates an unrighteousness tongue.
a. Proverbs 6:21 (LXX) or other translations 6:16-17
b. John 8:44 (The Devil being the father of lies)

Then we read this account of YAHWEH and His Divine Counsel:

2 Chronicles 18:18-22 (LXX) Then Micaiah said, "No, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing at His right and His left. And the Lord said, 'Who will deceive Ahab king of Israel, to go up so he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?' So one spoke in this manner and another spoke in that manner. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, 'I will deceive him.' And the Lord said, 'In what way?' So he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And the Lord said, 'You shall deceive him and prevail. Go out and do so.' Listen therefore! The Lord put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours.

Therefore, who's going to bring a charge against YAHWEH?

Moreover, God, in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, judged the unbelievers for rejecting The Gospel by somewhat the same means, deceit, sealing their fate, vs.11.

Isaiah 46:10 (LXX) declaring beforehand the latter events before they come to pass and are accomplished together. I say, 'All My counsel shall stand, and I will do whatever I will to do.'

On a side note - All this talk about "being saved" was directed at the pending destruction and Wrath of God about to be poured out in The Land. That's what the hearers were being saved from, it was their salvation to be exempt from this judgement, consummated by the final judgement which happened in the spiritual realm at the close of the Old Covenant Age.

Post Apostolic Era, it appears that the angels will indefinitely separate the just from the unjust, the just entering the spiritual realm of the kingdom and the unjust a judgement of fire, whatever it is compromised of.

There are some truths in all views most likely, however, we are left speculating some of the time.

[psimmond]

TheEditor,
If you haven't read Kenneth Keathley's "Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach" (http://www.abebooks.com/Salvation-Sover ... -PLA-_-v01), I highly recommend it. I grew up with Classical Arminian beliefs but realized this system did a poor job of explaining just how God's knowledge of future events left us real choices. Then I followed Boyd and became an Open Theist for a while, but eventually abandoned that because I realized this system did a poor job of explaining prophesy--those that have been fulfilled and those that God has promised to fulfill.

I agree with Open Theist William Hasker when he says,

If you are committed to a 'strong' view of providence, according to which, down to the smallest detail, 'things are as they are because God knowingly decided to create such a world,' and yet you also wish to maintain a libertarian conception of free will—if this is what you want, then Molinism is the only game in town.

[dizerner]

If God only creates freewill creatures that he knows will freely choose what he wants, he has thereby influenced their decision. This is the only problem with Molinism that I can see. The way someone like William Lane Craig uses it, God "tweaks" the outcome of infinite possible worlds to get the best result balancing all the factors he wants. He even goes so far as to say he thinks all who would not hear the Gospel would always reject it freely anyway. I think that kind of speculation goes as much against the revealed Text as Calvinism does. But certainly God's omniscience and predestination can easily be explained by simple middle/foreknowledge.

[CThomas]

Nice rejoinder. But unfortunately it does what all Augustinian views of God do, in my opinion, and that is that by your response, the father in my analogy allows the child to be killed--because it is his neighbors son, not his. If you did something like that, the community would want your head or at least be tarred and feathered, and I would be first in line with the feathers.

I think there are two separate questions here that need to be kept distinct. First is what we think the moral way is for God to treat His children. The second is what we think the moral way is for God to treat those who are not His children. You only address the second, but I think it's important to start with the first. I preface this discussion by saying that I engage in it arguendo, although I have enough other basis to know that God is good that I would never presume to sit in judgment of His conduct. My preferred approach is to engage in careful exegesis of the scripture -- as much as you say you think doing so is unnecessary here -- and then learn to be good on the basis of what God has done rather than the other way around. So that is a standing objection to this line of attack against Calvinism, but as I say I'm willing to engage it with you in this hypothetical manner to see where the argument leads even on your own terms.

So the first question, it seems to me, is how you think God should treat His children. Would you envision a good father as one who protects his children and takes care of them or as one who simply says what the right thing is and then let the chips fall where they may, even if the child rushes headlong to his doom? I ask this because this was the premise of your own challenge to me. You questioned the morality of a father who would allow this to happen, and my only response here is that it's a description of the view you hold, not mine. You don't answer that point in your latest response.

Now turning to the second question, you ask about the moral treatment of other people's children. But we are both monotheists, so neither of us believes that there is some other god standing in relation to the lost as a human child stands with regard to a different human parent. So I don't think the analogy makes sense by its terms. I think the real moral question that is driving you here is one that has nothing to do with Calvinism, since it exists on both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist view equally. It is rather the question of the ultimate fate of the lost. I respect those who -- perhaps like Steve Gregg, I'm not sure exactly how his views come out in this area -- question the traditional views of hell. It sounds like a complicated question and one I don't claim to have studied adequately to have firm answers yet. But the fact is that on the traditional view of hell, God lets people go there without saving them on both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist view. He has ample power to prevent that if He wants to do so, but He chooses not to do so. If you think this is a problem for Calvinists, then it is equally a problem for you, and one you haven't offered any answer to yet. I say again that if your answer is that God believes allowing the damnation of individuals is worthwhile in order to have them be able to exercise a libertarian free will or something of the sort, then you open up the obvious retort by the Calvinist that there is thus no longer any principled objection to consigning people to hell in the face of a greater good, and the Calvinist can similarly postulate such grounds, namely those set out in Romans.

[psimmond]

dizerner said: If God only creates freewill creatures that he knows will freely choose what he wants, he has thereby influenced their decision. This is the only problem with Molinism that I can see.

If I plant acorns knowing they will turn into oak trees and not apple trees, am I influencing them?

[dizerner]

dizerner said: If God only creates freewill creatures that he knows will freely choose what he wants, he has thereby influenced their decision. This is the only problem with Molinism that I can see.

If I plant acorns knowing they will turn into oak trees and not apple trees, am I influencing them?

No, of course not, but if you only plant trees you know will freely choose to be oak trees, I think the concept of freedom is lost. Therefore God can't actually causally effect what trees will be what without interfering with real freedom, even though he can perfectly know which trees will be which.

[psimmond]

dizerner, I think I see what you are saying. You think if God influences our decisions then those decisions are not freely made, right? Why is this? I suspect my previous post influenced you to write the response you did. By influencing you, did I remove your ability to freely choose?

I believe the Bible makes it clear that God has made salvation possible for all people. Those who choose not to respond to his grace are still loved by him and play a part in his plan, which is to gather to himself for eternity all who will place their faith in him. I believe God has been providentially active in the affairs of humans since the beginning, and I'm glad that he has been, but I fail to see how this has stripped me or you of our freedom.

[dizerner]

Free will is, to me, about being in the image of God. We are not in any way similar to God except one thing: we can create a decision ex-nihilio, out of nothing. Only God himself could create ex-nihilio. There are things that can influence us, things that can persuade us, things that can tempt us, things that can repel us, but take away that ability to fundamentally choose out of our own self-created determination, and we are no different than apples falling from a tree, or robots programmed to blindly and thoughtlessly carry out a task; we become pawns, and only pawns, and not friends or lovers of God. God has a plan for us, but we don't have to walk in it. God has a will for us, but we don't have to pursue it. God has a command for us, but we don't have to obey it. Shakespeare was the real author of Hamlet, and decided everything his characters did. But God has allowed us all to be our own Shakespeares. Not to decide when or how we know him, but to respond to his grace and pursue him over the things of the world. These are the called, chosen and faithful, these are the bride of Christ.

[psimmond]

dizerner wrote: Free will is, to me, about being in the image of God. We are not in any way similar to God except one thing: we can create a decision ex-nihilio, out of nothing. Only God himself could create ex-nihilio. There are things that can influence us, things that can persuade us, things that can tempt us, things that can repel us, but take away that ability to fundamentally choose out of our own self-created determination, and we are no different than apples falling from a tree, or robots programmed to blindly and thoughtlessly carry out a task; we become pawns, and only pawns, and not friends or lovers of God. God has a plan for us, but we don't have to walk in it. God has a will for us, but we don't have to pursue it. God has a command for us, but we don't have to obey it. Shakespeare was the real author of Hamlet, and decided everything his characters did. But God has allowed us all to be our own Shakespeares. Not to decide when or how we know him, but to respond to his grace and pursue him over the things of the world. These are the called, chosen and faithful, these are the bride of Christ.

I think humans possess certain attribute that make us like God, but I think we are kidding ourselves if we say our decisions are not shaped by various influences. If influence equals causation, as you seem to be suggesting, then freedom is nothing more than a fairy tale. Your standard for freedom appears to be unattainable and unrealistic.