A Critique of John Piper’s Theodicy: Purposing Evil for the Purpose of Good? Part 1

Posted on August 1, 2013 by StriderMTB

John Piper is a man devoted to God with a genuine desire to extol God’s glory. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is Piper’s claim that his theodicy extol’s God glory. The following critique will seek to demonstrate that Piper’s theodicy is fundamentally at odds with scripture.

The core feature of Piper’s theology is found in the following quote:

“Everything that exists–including evil–is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.” [1]

Piper additionally sums up the matter as follows: “He wills that evil come to pass that good may come of it.” [2]

Here Piper is following his sincere, yet misguided mentor, Jonathan Edwards, who likewise argued that God “willed to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good.” [3]

Let us pause at this juncture and take note of a critical distinction. The Bible is replete with accounts of God overruling the intentions of evil and even using the unintended, un-decreed evils of this fallen world to bring about a good. In this sense God exploits evil and is glorified as one who is capable of redeeming the evils done against us.

None of this is being contested. But Piper and Edwards go far beyond this and argue for a theological hermeneutic that asserts God divinely determined and rendered certain every sordid evil and perverse, God-dishonoring sin so that good and glory come.

However this is exactly what we cannot say. Why? Because scripture manifestly forbids it! The scriptures reject as slander any notion of moral virtue that would suggest such a theodicy.

For instance Paul argues: “But if by my lie God’s truth is amplified to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, just as some people slanderously claim we say, ‘Let us do what is evil so that good may come’? Their condemnation is deserved!” (Romans 3:7-8).

As is patently obvious, Paul condemns as reprehensible slander any notion of a person being morally justified or godly if such a person were to determine that evil happen so that good can come–even if such good is God’s glory being amplified in a context of evil.

Yet Piper would have us believe that the ultimate reason evil exists is directly correspondent with a theodicy that anchors God’s moral perfection into a determinative sovereignty that rendered certain every murder, rape, sexual depravity and God-dishonoring sin so that the good of his glory can be amplified and “shine more brightly.”

In such a muddled, theological framework God’s moral nature becomes indistinguishable from evil itself.

If all of this weren’t enough Paul additionally argues in Romans 6:9 that we “should not sin so that grace may abound.” But Piper’s unflinching commitment to his preconceived assumptions disregards all of this and would have us believe God determinatively rendered certain each person’s sins so that his grace and glory would abound.

The underlying mistake Piper makes is assuming God purposes evil for the purpose of good. Oddly enough Piper seems curiously unaware that Jesus already denounced such absurd theology as a “kingdom divided against itself not standing.”

Sincere as they are, both Edwards and Piper are masters at obscuring true meaning with words. [4] But let us not be taken in with such oratory. It is both theologically and morally bankrupt.

[1] http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be
[2] http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be
[3] http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/is-god-less-glorious-because-he-ordained-that-evil-be
[4] In the sermon cited above Piper quotes Jonathan Edward’s answer to the question as to how God can be the ultimate cause and determiner of sin and yet not be its author.  Notice how Edwards relies on the Arminian language of “permission” to extricate himself from the dilemma:
“If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing… It would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.” But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”
Piper than goes on to quote Edwards further saying, “God is, Edwards says, the “permitter… of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the states of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted… will most certainly and infallibly follow.” As is obvious Piper is being wholly inconsistent with the logic of his own position. In Calvinism all men sin necessarily in virtue of God irrevocably decreeing that they sin irresistibly. For in Calvinism it is impossible for men to choose against God’s decree. It is pointless to say God permits what he necessitates through an irresistible decree. Piper is intentionally obscuring the true horror of Calvinism by softening his language and borrowing Arminian terms to escape the logical implications of his own theology. Does God need to act as a middleman between his will determined and his will coming about? Does God need to get “permission” from himself to follow through with his own prior determinations? Such obvious doublespeak does not give Calvinists like Piper pause. He intentionally fudges to evade the logical implications placed upon his view. For Piper to say that God “permits” sin to come about through his infallible, determinative decree is to simply say God established a world whereby each sin happens of necessity–via God’s eternal decrees men are powerless to resist.  In the Edwards/Piper/Calvinist scheme, man is powerless to control his nature. They redefine “freedom of will” as acting in accordance with one’s strongest motive, which is quite meaningless to say given the fact they also believe God determined which motives will indeed be the “strongest” and irresistibly move our wills in a predestined direction.  All these implications are logically necessitated given their believe in an eternal, meticulously exhaustive decree of God.  Adam’s sin, mankind’s consequent fallen nature, and every subsequent thought, motive, desire, and act are necessitated by God’s eternal, divine decree. A person can no more resist or act contrary to the eternal divine decree than he or she could create a universe.  How then can we speak of God merely “permitting” these “necessitated” sinful acts?” See Ben Henshaw’s devastating critique of Piper’s sermon and reliance on Edwards ill-conceived theology at: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/  (June, 2012).
Posted in Critiquing Calvinism | Tagged , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Graham Cooke: Inheritance Not Needs

Posted on July 20, 2013 by StriderMTB

Today as I was listening to a youtube message by Graham Cooke, I was both blessed and challenged to pray with greater assurance rooted in a self-identity that I am a much loved son of my Father in heaven who longs for me to begin to walk in my inheritance now. And what is my inheritance? That I live and move and have my being in Christ who is fully able, ready and willing to give me the resources of heaven (not a synonym for just money) to carry out his will and be an agent of breakthrough for the advance of the Kingdom. I particularly enjoyed the following comments of Graham Cooke:

“We sometimes pray for our needs when God wants to give us our inheritance. We sometimes pray like a baby when God wants us to pray as a son. We sometimes pray like a widow when God wanted us to pray as a bride. I have a 6-month old granddaughter called Penelope. The kid doesn’t DO anything. She’s a noise at one end and a smell at the other. This kid, since she was born, hasn’t cooked a meal, she doesn’t know how to use a vacuum cleaner, she doesn’t know how to keep her room tidy. The kid does NOTHING! But—she gets her needs met.

Getting your needs met is the baby end of life in Christ. If you’ve been in the ministry for 20 years and you’re still desperately praying in your provisions and needs, there’s something wrong with the dynamic of your relationship with God. The Bible says we are meant to go from glory to glory and to grow from measure to fullness. The more mature we become the more God wants to give us our inheritance. At some point you have to stop praying for your needs and start praying, “Lord what is it you want to give me so that I can take this city?” If you’ve got a prophetic word from the Lord over you about a nation, or a group or a city, you’ve got resources that are tacked on to it. We ought to say to the Lord, ‘I receive that prophetic word, I receive that identity, and I also receive by faith and assurance all the resources that come with that identity.’ If you live in your identity the resources of heaven can come to you. If you’re not living in your identity and your trying to just make life work—then you’ll always just be praying about more personal needs. There is a time when you have to stop praying about your needs and start standing and walking in your inheritance. You will have a different level of expectancy when you know what your identity is.” -Graham Cooke

Posted in Devotion Life | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

The Travon Martin Tragedy in Perspective

Posted on July 20, 2013 by StriderMTB

The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting of Travon Martin has gripped the U.S. in a manner that I find somewhat perplexing. Protests are taking place over many major cities. Is it a tragedy and a saddening loss of life? Yes–no doubt. Yet over 10,000 black Americans have been killed by other black Americans since Zimmerman killed Travon. That is the larger tragedy that needs to be addressed that is unfortunately not being significantly addressed in the very quarters where it most needs to be! Ultimately it is the larger issue where true protest and revolt needs to be proclaimed. As a nation we entertain ourselves with these side-shows of social anomaly because it allows us to absolve ourselves of the responsibility of giving attention and speaking truth to the real issue before us that occurs daily. Sort of like how the nation’s consciousness suddenly gets captivated when tragedy befalls 1st world people despite the fact that such tragedies are common-place in 3rd world countries–yet nobody seems to give a damn. Recently some leading African American voices have said, “I’ve never been more afraid to let my young boys out of the house than I am today.” Seriously? As long as the African- American community sees the “Zimmermans” of this world as the greatest threat to the future of their young boys–and NOT the black culture of violence celebrated and the almost complete absence of fathers in the home–nothing is going to change.

There is no doubt there is racism in the outcome of certain judicial cases and we ought to identify them and seek to redress it. In saying that I don’t think Zimmerman’s acquittal is one of them. Facts are color blind and the facts tell us it was an issue of self-defense within the law. I would hope that if the ethnicities were reversed the same jury would have acquitted Trayvon Martin because of a lack of evidence to warrant a guilty verdict.

My concern is that when the nation has a discussion on racism and injustice we don’t hear enough voices speaking out on the issue of why many black youth get ensnared into a judicial system in the first place. It is principally not because of racism but because of a culture of violence celebrated, a culture of sexual promiscuity celebrated, a culture of paralyzing victimization and a culture that sees fatherhood as increasingly irrelevant in the rearing of young boys. These are the truths that I think are the most uncomfortable for us to face. As long as we think the Zimmermans of this world or even our unfair judicial systems pose the GREATEST threat to young, African-American men, we are truly putting out heads in the sand. This is not just my opinion this is the opinion of many African-Americans. But a “progressive” white media shuts them up because their voice lacks the sensational hype and goes against the narrative of injustice and victimization that others (i.e. Jaskson and Sharpton) are all too eager to grab the mic for. Ben Carson said it best when he described this suppression as something akin to “going off the media plantation.”

Posted in Church and Culture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Religion as a Whirlpool vs. Christ as a Well-Spring

Posted on July 9, 2013 by StriderMTB

When does healthy, spiritual self-reflection end and legalistic, self-absorption masquerading as godly humility and spirituality start?

I’ve been pondering this as I seek to disciple teenagers God has entrusted to my care. I believe the latter is a religious spirit that evaluates Christian “spirituality” on the basis of rule-keeping and one’s conformity to an external set of human regulations. This in turn allows us to personally evaluate ourselves as righteous and godly and others reprobate and ungodly.

It is a trap we are all susceptible to—returning to an external code of rule-keeping that affords us the temptation to compare ourselves with others and briefly “feel good about ourselves.” I say “briefly” because it never lasts. Why? Because there is no rest, no security, no sense of being unconditionally loved when we are constantly measuring ourselves to some external criteria—and thinking God is doing the same.

The awe-inspiring, self-righteous shattering truth is: God is not holding a measuring yardstick that consigns our worth and acceptance on the basis of our moral, behavioral “height.” If God were we could not “boldly approach the throne of grace for mercy in our time of need” as Hebrews declares.

So much of the Christian life is striking the balance. For example, on the one hand, Paul says in Christ we now have liberty through grace, and have been set free from the judgment of the Law that always sought to accuse us and remind us that we “don’t measure up.” Yet on the other hand Paul also said we ought not to think that such liberty and grace affords us a license to sin and indulge our flesh.

With the lives of many current, confessing believers being morally indistinguishable from unbelievers—much can be said of the latter admonition of Paul. However in this short post I want to focus on Paul’s point that through Christ, liberty and freedom have come to us—such that we should forever close the door on the human propensity to find our identity, worth and spiritual standing on the basis of our conformity (or lack thereof) to an external code of regulations.

In many ways I believe Christ was so refreshing for the average sinner of his day who “didn’t measure up” because they intuitively sensed he wasn’t hiding a moral yardstick behind his back. His very countenance and smile told them he didn’t look at them through the eyes of Law but rather the eyes of grace.

In contrast it was the religious authorities—the moral perfectionists who crossed every “t” and dotted every “i”— who were the most turned off by Christ. In fact I think the feeling was quite mutual. Christ seemed to have very little patience for the religious regulators of his day. Why? Because Jesus understood religion is the counterfeit of true, life-giving, thirst-quenching spirituality.

Religion substitutes form for freedom, method for meaning, law for life, segregation for reconciliation and restitution for redemption. Strange as it may sound, the Gospel is principally not a call to repent and “try to do better”, to change bad habits into good habits or to make personal restitution for past wrongs. Those things are certainly good in and of themselves and have their proper place. But the Gospel is not “good news” because it offers us a path towards behavioral modification or personal restitution of wrongs committed (religions like Buddhism and Islam and even secular therapy can achieve the same ends).

Rather it is “good news” because it is the proclamation that what you cannot do for yourself—God has done for you—through Christ. It is the proclamation that the Kingdom of God has come to you, that God has chosen to love you: sin-stained, smelly and hopelessly guilt-ridden as you are. Thus the message of the gospel is not first and foremost a call to do anything–but to believe in someone who has already done everything.

Now it is true that life in Christ is divinely designed to be a journey into ever-increasing wholeness and holiness and away from self-centered, destructive sins–but it doesn’t start with doing and lead to achieving. It starts with receiving and leads to abiding.

Moreover the Gospel is good news because God isn’t counting sins anymore! As Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:19, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.”

Sadly when Christians become overly consumed and worried about their personal sanctification—such that they find themselves forever feeling like they don’t “measure up” to some standard of holiness or virtue—it is a sign they have become overly turned inward and have actually succumbed to a religious spirit of false humility. False humility can occur in one of two ways, both of which are manifestations of the self. The first is you become so turned inward you constantly manifest a “woe is me, I’m not worthy” demeanor that robs you of a life of joy, rest and freedom that only comes when you realize outward performance doesn’t equate to inward spiritual worth.

The second way is when you equate your observance of external prohibitions with righteousness. This leads to self-righteousness, which is nothing less than trying to establish your own righteousness above that of others based on your observance of human commandments and teachings.

For example: “Being a Christian means you never drink wine or alcohol, you never sing or listen to any secular music, you never dance–not even at weddings, you never dress casual for church, you can never wear skinny jeans, shorts above the knee, or form-fitting clothes, you don’t wear make-up, you never try to look attractive, you can’t wear bathing suits in public, you don’t date, you don’t ever smoke, you never enter a movie theatre, you never watch T.V., you never kiss before marriage, you don’t wear jewelry, you don’t braid your hair, you never laugh in church, you never eat pork, you never play poker or with cards, you never get a tattoo, never grow your hair long, never pierce your ears…and on and on.

Some of these admonishments may be personal convictions and even be beneficial to a point, but none of them are explicitly condemned in the New Testament. Yet for many Christians such prohibitions have come to exemplify the very paradigm of what it means to “be a Christian.” PUKE! It is religion—it is a lie and a sham. The problem with such people who try to “get life” from such human commandments is that you can always find someone who is more extreme, more “faithful,” more stringent and more legalistically fanatical than you! It just never ends. There is no rest. There will always be someone who “does it better” than you. The woman who judges another for wearing a form-fitting shirt, will in turn be judged by another for wearing shorts above the knee, who in turn will be judged by another for even owning shorts instead of long pants, who in turn will be judged for not wearing a skirt, who in turn will be judged for not wearing an ankle-length, baggy dress, who in turn will be judged for wearing an “eye-catching” colorful red instead of a dull, unappealing, Amish-grey, homespun curtain thrown over their body …and on and on until women are wearing Taliban issued, full-body burkas.

Similarly the person who says being a Christian equals never tasting wine or having a beer because it supports an industry that contributes to alcoholism can always be condemned by another for using and supporting Google which is the #1 search utility for pornography. Some are now preaching that the internet itself is inherently evil just like fermented grape juice or anything alcoholic is inherently evil (cough syrup?) and therefore Christians should not compromise their faith by engaging in such “sins.”

I’m not at all an avid or heavy drinker, and I’ve never been close to drunk. But I enjoy having a cold beer or glass of wine once in awhile with good friends–especially when I lived in Israel where wine is the custom every Sabbath. My recognition that the Bible condemns only drunkenness and not necessarily the substance of wine or alcohol was not always the case. I grew up in an ultra-conservative, legalistic church. I have seen first hand how the fruit of such legalism is death. Many of those I grew up with, who sat under the zealous tutelage of the “godly life” and who were discipled under the standard of religiosity set forth by the church, ended up later in life either struggling immensely with a sense of God’s loving acceptance and grace or they completely fell away.

Paul says, “the letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life…where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:6,17). I find it quite interesting and unfortunate that Christian denominations who adamantly prohibit any and all alcoholic consumption–as a rule— have higher rates of hidden alcoholism in their congregations than those which advocate for moderation and following the considerations of conscience towards others whose “conscience…and faith is weaker” (1 Cor. 8, Rom. 14:1-2). Anytime we go beyond the requirements of scripture and conflate cultural preferences or personal convictions with scriptural mandate, we introduce a religious spirit that quenches life and ultimately drives certain practices, like drinking and dancing, into hidden shadows where abuse is much more likely to occur in the dark than in the light.

Even worse we place unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of others coming to Christ whereby we burden them down with regulatory additions that have nothing to do with receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. For example it is misguided to say, “If you want to be a Christian you have to first agree to “stop listening to rap music” or “take your earrings out” or “never drink a glass of wine again” or “only vote Republican”, etc.

All such talk is nothing less than the placing of legalistic obstructions and hurdles along the path to Christ that ultimately hinders people discovering Christ. I remember when I first lived in Israel I had a “no tolerance for alcohol” conviction that I equated with “what it means to be a Christian.” It was actually Baptist missionaries who pulled me aside and said, “Matt–you can’t say such things here in Israel. It is customary for Jews to invite you over to their house for Sabbath and the taking of wine is a very heartfelt and bonding tradition they share with you. If you say, ‘Sorry–I’m a Christian and that means I’m not allowed to drink wine’ you have just thrown down a huge obstacle and stumbling block on their road to personally discovering Jesus as Messiah.”

It was a life-changing conversation that helped me identify and shed other areas where I unnecessarily and un-biblically equated certain prohibitions with what it meant “to be a Christian.” I realized that Christ often becomes hidden and tucked away behind these burdensome, religious mandates.

The Pharisees had their own, unique, religious additions they would burden people down with–and Jesus despised all of it saying, “The Pharisees…bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders…For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Mt. 23:4,13) 

The Gospel is not Jesus plus X, Y and Z. It is just–JESUS. There is no “plus.” Once you start bolting things on from the outside and tacking on additional “fine print” to the gospel you lose Jesus and gain religion.

And in the end religion is a human construct that thrives on rule-keeping and outward form but leaves the heart restless, insecure and untouched. Depending on one’s personality it will ultimately lead to a false humility that results in either self-righteous pride or hopeless despair.

As one who was once a radical enforcer of rule-keeping religion, Paul could easily discern its deceptive presence and danger. He had no tolerance for it once he came to realize that Jesus is the fountain head, the well-spring of life; whereas religion is nothing more than a deadly whirlpool in the open sea of humanity that sucks everything into it and can never be satisfied, appeased or quenched.

One can almost hear Paul’s intense emotion as he pleads with people to discern the critical difference between man’s religion of “do not taste, drink, do or touch” and life in Christ.

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery…You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace…He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the cross… Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink…Do not let anyone who delights in false humility… disqualify you… Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules…are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship and their false humility…” (Gal 2:1-4; Col 2:8-23)

Posted in Devotion Life | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism: Matt’s Wrap-Up

Posted on July 1, 2013 by StriderMTB

I thank you Derek for the time and attention you have given to our discussion and for exemplifying a spirit of genuine brotherhood despite are sharp disagreements. If anyone has allowed his passions to get the better of him—it is me 🙂 Passion + blunt frankness + keyboard doesn’t always equal the greatest medium for discussion in my experience. However with the resurgence of Calvinism in many young people—who I believe do not fully know what they are adopting—I cannot think of a more critical discussion to have. We are after all debating whether or not God’s mind is the origin of conception for every evil He allegedly divinely decreed—and the logical consequences of that view.

In your wrap-up you stated that my critique of your Calvinist position is “utterly inaccurate” and “fraught with mischaracterization.” Of course I couldn’t disagree more! I quote you at length in many places and critically engage you in your own words. So this accusation is quite inappropriate. What you construe as mischaracterization is simply the unfurling of the banner of what you believe to its full “glory.” It’s almost as if you would rather keep some of it rolled up under the pretense it doesn’t exist or it is not germane to our discussion. All too often I find the last card Calvinists play is the classic “mischaracterization card” to avoid further explanation.

I’m not saying it’s impossible to mischaracterize Calvinism–or Arminianism. Both sides can attack straw men. But I have not done so and you offer no evidence to the contrary—just more assertion to sidestep logical obligations placed upon your view. In fact you fail to offer a single, demonstrable example in defense of your claim that I have mischaracterized what Calvinism logically ENTAILS. Note I said “logically entails” Derek. Our discussion has never been about what Calvinism’s historic confessions assert or claim. Merely quoting a portion of the Westminster Confession counts for nothing in this discussion. It’s not about what can be claimed, it’s about what can be demonstrated after every stone has been unturned. Why is it that Arminians are constantly accused of mischaracterizing, misunderstanding and misapprehending Calvinism whenever they showcase it fully and filter out all the obscuring language that trades one meaning for another?

Case in point was when you claimed God determinatively decreed everything that occurs—including sin, but when asked I ask if this includes “millstone worthy” evils like children being raped you suddenly and inexplicably re-couch your theology as “God decreed to allow men to freely commit evil—like rape.” Given your habit of conveniently trading in “God decreed all evil” to “God decreed to allow men to freely commit evil,” I asked you more than once to explain WHY Calvinism’s usage of the word “allow” isn’t wholly irrelevant and meaningless given the fact that God causally determines and renders certain what he decrees to occur. You never answered this. You just repeat it over and over. I asked you multiple times, “Does God need to ask permission from himself to carry out his own determined will?” Again—no answer—just more repetition and now the accusation that I’m mischaracterizing your position.

I can only assume your reflexive reaction against my critique and your unwillingness to logically connect-the-dots inherent to your own statements, is an act of sheer-will, Derek. And you exhibit quite a strong will 🙂 Although I am disappointed with your last reply, I cannot say I am very surprised. The questions I presented to you, as well as my request that you undergird your assertions with further explanation that doesn’t appeal to more assertion, (i.e. “you mischaracterize Calvinism”) is ultimately an insufferable task for you or any Calvinist. It is not entirely your fault though—when the multiple layers of articulate oratory, spiritual platitudes, and obscuring language are peeled off one finds a core belief structure that is thoroughly inconsistent, untenable and inseparably coupled with cognitive dissonance that invites confusion and contradiction more than clarity and understanding.

NOW—that’s a lot of assertion, isn’t it? 🙂 So let me now undergird it with examples so that my points don’t just drift aimlessly in a sea of words, assertions and historical confessions unanchored and unsubstantiated.

Let’s examine your chosen theme that runs throughout your last reply:

“You demonstrate a total misunderstanding of key Calvinist convictions… you present Calvinism in an utterly inaccurate way…I cannot think of any mainstream Calvinist who has ever held to the kind of belief you define as Calvinism…I will simply suggest you study the actual beliefs of dozens of historic Calvinist leaders… it is unfortunate that you misrepresent my views on logic and paradox In a way strikingly similar to the way you misrepresent Calvinism.”

And here is a key statement: “Your persistently repeated misstatements about the beliefs of Calvinists have prompted me to attempt to clarify what Calvinists actually believe versus what you claim they believe. This is, of course, not a matter of mere logical proof, but of historical analysis.”

Derek, we need to get one thing clear. My aim has never been to argue, “this is what Calvinists say and conclude about their views.” Rather I have sought to argue: “THIS IS WHAT CALVINISM SAYS AND THEREFORE THIS IS WHAT CALVINISM LOGICALLY ENTAILS.”

You are confusing and conflating two different things: assertive claims with demonstrative claims. I’m attacking the logical coherence of Calvinism’s assertive claims by pointing out that it cannot meet the logical obligations placed upon it to move from assertion to demonstration.

So I fail to see where I mischaracterized what Calvinism asserts and logically entails, Derek. Does it not say God decreed everything–every thought, desire and choice of man? Does it not say God renders certain everything that occurs through his sovereign will? Does it not say that God determined Adam and Eve to fall into sin—despite not having a fallen nature that desired evil?

You can’t deny this Derek—for they are repeatedly stated in your own historical confessions and scholarly proponents.

So what do you deny? You simply deny the logical implications of these views the way I have argued them. So if I’m wrong—where am I wrong? If I overstate my case logically—where? After 25 posts I’m now convinced that you can offer no counter-argument to the contrary. You either highlight the limits of our human logic to critique the Calvinistic, theological portrait of God (the very portrait suspect!) Or you repetitiously appeal to a paradoxical interpretation of scripture that is hermeneutically driven by the very Calvinistic theology under question! So in a sense you are just chasing your proverbial tail. You are busy saying much but proving little, my friend.

A little caveat is in order. I am not suggesting at all that our logic trumps God’s revelatory word! I’m saying they are not incompatible as your view would seem to imply–such that we need to resort to mystery or paradox in the here and now. While some mysteries and tensions in scripture are beyond the reach of our logic to fully plumb their depths, I adamantly refuse to accept the proposition that questions surrounding God’s moral nature in the face of alleged “biblical doctrines” is intended by God to be one of those “mysteries.” This is what distinguishes your view from mine.

Here’s how I would summarize our debate and the questions we started with, which are still unanswered:

1) I know that Calvinism asserts: “God’s will of decree has ultimate, determinative control over what we choose, but that does not invalidate freedom of choice.” BUT DO THEY EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL IMPLICATION? No—they don’t and neither have you.

2) I know that Calvinism asserts: “God conceived of every evil he subsequently decreed, but that doesn’t mean he is the author of the evils he conceived and decreed.” BUT DO THEY EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL IMPLICATION? No—they don’t and neither have you.

3) I know that Calvinism asserts, “God’s mind is the decretive origin for all evils, but that doesn’t mean such evils ultimately originated in his mind.” BUT DO THEY EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL IMPLICATION? No—they don’t and neither have you.

4) I know that Calvinism asserts, “God decreed the very sins we do, such that we cannot choose against God’s prior decree of the sin we are determined to commit, but that doesn’t mean God tempted us to do the very sins he decreed we are to commit.” BUT DO THEY EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL IMPLICATION? No—they don’t and neither have you.

5) I know that Calvinism asserts, “God determinately decreed the sin of X to occur, such that X must occur in accordance with the divine decree, but that doesn’t mean it is meaningless and irrelevant to say God allows the sin of X to occur freely.” BUT DO THEY EXPLAIN HOW THIS NOT A LOGICAL IMPLICATION? No—they don’t and neither have you.

6) I know that Calvinism asserts, “God causally determined the very acts of evil and wickedness scripture says he hates and abhors. But this doesn’t mean God hates himself or hates what he sovereignly decreed.” BUT DO THEY EXPLAIN…do they explain, do they explain… no Derek—there is never a demonstrative explanation to evince claims asserted.

I do not mean to be cheeky or unkind, but the inconsistency of your position is consistent in one key area—you consistently make inconsistent claims you can’t substantiate.

Derek, it does no good to appeal to your “endless quotations” from Calvinists who will “provide veritable mountains of proof” from “dozens of historic Calvinist leaders” if in the end none of them bother to explain or unravel the incompatible nature of what they ASSERT. If an error is asserted 100 times in a row through multiple people through multiple generations, it doesn’t make it any less of an error. The closest anyone came to providing an answer beyond the appeal to mystery is Jonathan Edwards who tried to argue that God is not morally culpable for decreeing evil because God merely withdraws his grace and permits humans to choose according to their own sinful desires. But of course Edwards left out the key point that his view of sovereignty also entails God’s choice of what people desire! It’s like saying, “I’m not responsible for you getting lost and running out of gas—I wasn’t the one driving. I only manipulated and recalibrated the GPS and withdrew the gas from the tank before you left.”

Edwards cannot escape the conclusion that people still do only what God predetermined them to do. In fact in Edward’s view people aren’t even genuinely free to choose what sins they will commit—because each sin itself has been determined in virtue of the fact that the “strongest desire to decisively incline the will” has also been determined by the divine will. Moreover Edward’s theology also entailed that God determinatively decreed that Adam and Eve fall into sin—despite the fact that they did not have a sinful nature that would incline them to desire sin! So how is God not morally culpable for the fall of Adam and Eve? We have yet to hear an answer from your “veritable mountains of proof” from the “dozens of historic Calvinist leaders.”

Lastly you continue to assert there are no real logical problems inherent to your view. Why? Because your presumptive, Calvinistic framework tells you so. And what is your framework? That in our limited, human “two-dimensional” world we cannot make sense of the inconsistent propositions of Calvinism that you seemingly confess a “two-dimensional” world results in. BUT in God’s hidden, “3rd’ dimensional” divine logic perspective all these problems, paradoxes and mysteries disappear.

Let’s just assume that were true, Derek. If so, Calvinists ought not to go around preaching that all these difficult mysteries and paradoxes be dogmatically termed the “doctrines of grace”—as if the propositions of Calvinism were beyond question and self-evident in scripture ! At minimum they should present their thoughts and conclusions as “theory” and “speculation” given your own concession that our “two dimensional” perspective is too limited to make logical sense of these mysterious “infinities” of God’s inner working as you call it. From whence comes the dogmatic insistence among your historical creeds that Calvinism = unquestionable, 1st order doctrine???

All that being said, your example of round squares (cylinders) and square triangles (pyramids) sort of sums up why our discussion has been largely obstructed by your appeals to another reality of logic (God’s alleged mysterious perspective) to avoid logical conclusions derived from this reality (our human perspective). Obviously, Derek, no one denies cylinders and pyramids are the merging of two different shapes that take on a 3rd dimensional shape. However in philosophy “round squares” are routinely considered contradictory by definition because a square cannot have 4 right-angle sides and not have 4 right-angle sides. This would be an actual contradiction—just like a married bachelor. And your view is not posting seeming contradictions but actual contradictions (i.e. God’s mind is both the conceiving and decretive origin of the sin of X occurring, but God’s mind is not the ultimate origin for the sin of X occurring.)

Your view is driven by the continual positing of incompatible propositions that reason and logic argue against it. To avoid this conclusion you posit the existence of an alternate reality of logic called God’s “inner workings” or his “divine logic” that will one day invalidate the Arminian critique over Calvinism’s logical conundrums.

Your appeals to scripture are likewise—not at all objective—but filled with conjecture that makes scripture itself absurd and meaningless in its denunciations against evil and wickedness. As I thoroughly sought to point out in my last exchange:

You believe Proverbs gives us good warrant to conclude that God has predetermined every choice of man—whether good or evil—based on the verses you highlighted. I dealt with those verses and shared why the Calvinistic interpretation is not the only interpretation possible. In fact I shared why it is highly speculative and absurd because Proverbs is not seeking to teach that God directs each of our steps deterministically into wickedness and evil—but rather how submission to God results in God’s guidance and direction away from wickedness! That is one of the fundamental points of Proverbs your interpretive framework is missing. I also demonstrated–not just asserted– how if your view was systematically applied to Proverbs across the board, it would result in numerous errors and contradictions.

In concluding, I can’t let this following statement pass by without a response. You declared:

“Matt, you have asserted that Scripture itself is not sufficient to decide the question under consideration, and have demanded logical proof and argumentation, insisting that these are sufficient to determine the question.  In my view, you have elevated human reason above Scripture by discounting the possibility that direct Biblical propositions can settle the question, and implying instead that the reasonings of your own mind can settle it.”

That is not at all what I asserted. Quite the opposite! In my closing paragraph in post 26 part 2 I stated that I believe God’s revelation–though not fully complete (you stated this yourself)–is still consistent enough in matters of greatest importance to warrant our logical interaction with it and our subsequent making of correct, logical conclusions on that basis. This is after all God’s will. God desires and expects us to rightly divide the word for understanding and not to entertain contradictions. All of your assertion, without explanation, the constant positing of incompatible propositions, and your continual appeal to unsearchable mystery and biblical paradox as a synonym for flagrant contradiction tells me you believe the current extent and volume of God’s divine revelation lacks “key pieces” to qualify it as currently, revelatory consistent, such that it would invite our logical inquiry and any subsequent logical conclusions.

In other words, I have such a high view of scripture and God’s current level of revelation (i.e. scripture), I believe we can make reasonable conclusions based on it and correspondingly rule out absurd inconsistencies that are derived from invalid interpretations of scripture–especially when God’s moral character is at stake. You on the other hand believe God’s revelation in theory settles the matter, but our human reasoning cannot unravel the seeming incompatible nature of God’s revealed truths in scripture at this time. Why? Because you hold that alleged Calvinist doctrines like– “God determinatively decrees and renders certain our sins, but that doesn’t mean he wants us to sin or tempts us to sin”— is an insoluble problem that contains valid questions but whose answers are ultimately sequestered in an other-worldly dimension called God’s “divine logic.”

For example in one of your former posts you asserted that God’s revelation is too subject to fallible reasoning “to think our application of human logic is going to lead us to a detailed understanding….[and]…I hold that clear Biblical propositions DO undeniably settle the matter, whether or not the reasonings of my mind (or yours) can attain to the divine logic undergirding the divinely revealed answer.”

Quite amazingly you then assume your own ability to transcend the default human position of possessing fallible reasoning when you pronounce:

“In other words, my core epistemological presupposition is that Scripture itself is more reliable and trustworthy than fallible human logic.”

In other words, Derek, when you interpret scripture you are of the opinion that you have exercised proper reason and logic according to the dictates of your epistemological, presuppositional hermeneutic to bring forth the right interpretation from the text! But by your own admission you should be agnostic on all these matters until God reveals his hidden, “divine logic that undergirds the divinely revealed answer.”

You essentially deny reason to argue for your own reason in order to make a point. You qualify reason as being too inadequate and too immersed in “fallible human logic” to apprehend the divine logic behind scriptural revelation, and then seek to use this very “fallible human logic” and reason to validate your own “correct claim” on scripture as being the trustworthy interpretation over and against Arminianism.

Derek, let’s not confuse ourselves further as to what you are asserting. You are NOT saying the Scriptures are trustworthy—you are attempting to say your Calvinist interpretation of the Scriptures is the sole, trustworthy, logically valid interpretation. I believe all of this is quite circular, ultimately self-defeating and betrays the core arrogance of the Calvinist position to present itself as unquestionable and unfalsifiable.

You would have us think that anyone that disagrees with your presuppositional, Calvinist interpretation of the scriptures is accused of elevating human logic above the Scriptures!

Pardon me if I strongly disagree with the charge you seek to leverage against me (and Arminianism in general), insinuating that I somehow allow human reason and presumptive logical conclusions to trump revealed scripture. If any theological position can be accused of fanatically putting their logical grid of assumptions before revealed scripture—it is Calvinism. Calvinism filters every scripture through its TULIP framework with a rigid insistence that denies many patent truths of scripture (need I mention “Limited Atonement?) and makes a host of scriptures meaningless or extremely strained to satisfy a hermeneutical approach. Your interpretive approach to Proverbs being a perfect example.

In sum, Derek, both of us bring our own interpretive framework to the scriptures even though you seem to deny this pertains to you. In my earlier post I highlighted why the discussion isn’t necessarily over the scriptures but rather the interpretive frameworks we are adopting to view scripture. You disagreed with this and simply extolled scripture’s ability to speak for itself—assuming of course you are the one doing the interpreting! I have found this reoccurring theme to be a tad self-consumed and presumptuous.

The admitted, presuppositional framework I have espoused entails such a high view of scripture and deems scripture to be so internally consistent, that God’s revelation—though limited this side of heaven—is fully sufficient by God’s sovereign design to afford a theological point of view that doesn’t ask us to grapple with horrific paradoxes related to God’s moral character juxtaposed with His causal determination of all foul wickedness committed by the devil, demons and humans.

Though I would not hesitate to concede that God is incomprehensible and therefore the interchange between God and his universe contains certain mysteries beyond our cognitive reach, this fact alone doesn’t justify the positing of all alleged mysteries. As one of my friends once said, “The kind of mysteries I must reject is the kind that says, ‘HOW in the world could God act like that and still be good?'”

Calvinism invariable results in the positing of insoluble mystery and enigma on matters where God has clearly spoken–His moral character and trustworthiness. He IS love, He hates and abhors evil, He can neither be tempted by evil nor tempt others to do evil. Yet Calvinism would have us believe that God’s holy mind conceived of every one of our sins and determinatively decreed all the vile, sordid evils of this world–for his glory. In such a world God becomes morally indistinguishable from Satan. This is not a mystery or logical inconsistency God or the Bible intends us to live with.

Despite our very sincere disagreements, I wholeheartedly affirm you as my brother in Christ, Derek, and I appreciate your sincere prayers for me and the ministry I have been privileged to be a part of here in Asia. I fully believe you to be a man of true devotion to the Lord and it is my hope and prayer that the One who is Love would draw us both ever more closer to his heart and mind as we humble ourselves before Him and live each day in His grace and smile. If you ever come through this part of the world—please let me know. I know a good noodle shop 🙂 God bless! -Matt

Posted in Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism: Derek’s Wrap-Up.

Posted on July 1, 2013 by StriderMTB

Matt,

Thank you for taking time to reply and for all of the work you have undertaken in reorganizing our comments into individual posts.

I will make a few final comments here, and then leave off. This has been a most interesting exchange, and I am grateful for the time and thoughtful attention you have given to it.

You can imagine my disappointment in finding your last two posts fraught with the same mischaracterizations of Calvinism that prompted me to write to you in the first place. Here on posts numbers 24 and 25, you demonstrate a total misunderstanding of key Calvinist convictions, proving to me that I have utterly failed to dislodge these misapprehensions from your mind. Throughout our discussion, and especially in these latest posts, you present Calvinism in an utterly inaccurate way, and as a theological position which would actually be blasphemous, heretical, destructive, and entirely inconsistent with Scripture, if the position was actually held by anyone. I cannot think of any mainstream Calvinist who has ever held to the kind of belief you define as Calvinism. Even many hyper Calvinists would cringe at some of the propositions you tell us Calvinists must affirm.

As such, I find your sudden shift to a demand for “argumentation,” rather than “assertion,” to be curious. Your persistently repeated misstatements about the beliefs of Calvinists have prompted me to attempt to clarify what Calvinists actually believe versus what you claim they believe. This is, of course, not a matter of mere logical proof, but of historical analysis. I chose not to inundate you with endless quotations proving that real Calvinists don’t actually believe what you say they believe. A visit to calvinandcalvinism.com will provide veritable mountains of proof. Therefore, beyond the following quotation, I will simply suggest you study the actual beliefs of dozens of historic Calvinist leaders, from the Reformation onward, which have been carefully documented at that site. Best of all, everything there is surrounded by extensive context in order to lessen the possibility of misinterpretation.

Here is what the Westminster Confession explicitly states concerning God’s sovereign foreordination and the origin of evil:

“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (WCF 5.4)

This is what Calvinists actually believe. The Calvin and Calvinism site referenced above will show you various ways Reformed thinkers have logically reasoned through the implications. You may say that this is self-contradictory and impossible. To you, perhaps it is. To them, and to me, it is not.

Note that the WCF does not deny permission of sin, but affirms it, insisting that the permission is not without God’s bounding, ordering and governing of the sins that are permitted. You have stated that the language of permission is an Arminian approach. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t think the WCF is an Arminian creed. Can you now see, from the WCF, that the language of permission is actually, historically speaking, a stock Calvinist answer to the question, and that this is exactly opposite to the beliefs you presented as “Calvinism”? Frankly, if Calvinism was what you claim it is, I would join you in staunchly opposing it. I would actually go further and condemn its adherents as anti-Christian heretics. Fortunately, Calvinism takes a position exactly opposite to the one you say it affirms regarding the goodness of God and the origin of evil.

Throughout our discussion, I have argued from numerous Biblical texts that the Calvinist’s position is both reasonable and logical. You do not accept my arguments, and that is okay with me. But it would be dishonest for you to claim I haven’t presented arguments for my position.

You have asserted that Scripture itself is not sufficient to decide the question under consideration, and have demanded logical proof and argumentation, insisting that these are sufficient to determine the question. In my view, you have elevated human reason above Scripture by discounting the possibility that direct Biblical propositions can settle the question, and implying instead that the reasonings of your own mind can settle it. My position on this is reciprocal to yours. I hold that clear Biblical propositions DO undeniably settle the matter, whether or not the reasonings of my mind (or yours) can attain to the divine logic undergirding the divinely revealed answer. In other words, my core epistemological presupposition is that Scripture itself is more reliable and trustworthy than fallible human logic. I am honestly surprised that you disagree on this point (although it is possible that I have misunderstood your position on this).

Matt, it is unfortunate that you misrepresent my views on logic and paradox In a way strikingly similar to the way you misrepresent Calvinism. The reason may be that I have not explained well enough, or that you have honestly misunderstood, and hope it boils down to one these (or a combination of both). Here again, I can only seek to clarify my position and argue from Scripture.

I can certainly appreciate the logic of your arguments and illustrations regarding things like “married bachelors,” etc. My answer to all of this is simple: matters of divine ordination and human freedom cannot be oversimplified in this way. Sure, there are plenty of either/or dichotomies in our world. Married or not married. Pregnant or not pregnant. Speeding or not speeding. Everyone understand this. However, the existence of either/or dichotomies does not invalidate the possibility of both/and synergies (which are sometimes presented as falsedichotomies). What about this one: square or circle? In two dimensions, this really is an either/or dichotomy. But in three dimensions, we have the cylinder, a “square circle.” We also have square triangles (pyramids) and circular triangles (cones). So . . . what if we human beings could only conceive of two dimensions, and an all-knowing God who sees three dimensions told us something is both square and circle? Would we argue with Him, and say that His claim is illogical? Or would we trust that on His level of understanding it is possible for a cylinder to exist? Stated simply, I view divine ordination and human freedom not as a married vs. bachelor issue, but as a square vs. circle issue. We see squares and circles where God sees cylinders. And again I ask, what prevents God from being able to do things like this? Is He not on a higher level than we are? Is He not wiser? Smarter? More knowledgeable? More capable?

You may think all of this is illogical. You are free to think so. However, I just laid out a sound logical reason for you to affirm and trust God’s harmonious use of both foreordination and genuine human freedom. This is not all as simple as 2+2=4. We are dealing with infinities here. In human experience, we don’t have anything exactly like eternal, divine “ordination” to compare with or argue from. To fully understand exactly how all of this works, we would have to be eternal, divine, all-wise, all-good and all-powerful. I’m just guessing that those shoes don’t fit either one of us, Matt.

Finally, I want to thank you once again for a challenging and enjoyable conversation. I pray you will be mightily used by God in the work He has given you to do, that you will continue to grow in your love for Christ and your knowledge of Him, and that your entire life will be blessed and prospered in Him. I also hope that a large cylinder shape is ordained to be set up somewhere in the New Creation, and that we may freely decide to meet under its shadow for a continuation of this discussion, with a fresh insight and understanding that magnificently humbles us both through a recognition of how little we actually apprehended when we engaged in this discussion. And there we shall worship the Lamb together!

Until then, many blessings, brother.

In Christ,
Derek Ashton

Posted in Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 26: Matt replies–part 2

Posted on June 26, 2013 by StriderMTB

Hey Derek!

I want to repeat my genuine affection for you as a fellow brother in the Lord. In my responses to you I do not want to sound haughty or superior and I certainly do not intend to disparage your intelligence or person. I admire your intelligence and am fully confident you are smarter than I…my only advantage is that my position is correct 🙂 Our responses have gotten lengthier with each reply and this one…well you should get comfortable. I apologize in advance—but the nature of your responses has blurred crucial distinctions and cannot be dealt with in sound bites. I seek to deal with your interpretive approach to Proverbs, the predestined crucifixion, Joseph and his brothers, as well as share my own perspective on the classical problem of evil.

It has been mentioned before but bears repeating. You present the most controversial and tenuous aspects of your view as being outside the reach of logic to offer a definitive judgment or critique. Ultimately it is unfalsifiable and beyond the realm of rational affirmation. It is outside the realm of rationality, not only because it circumvents logical implication, but because inherent to its affirmation is the belief that you were divinely determined to believe it, just as you must concede I was divinely determined not to believe it. In that sense you must furthermore concede that neither one of us is truly weighing the pro and cons of the debate points we are having—rather our differing opinions on the matter are just the effects in time of what God decreed before we were born. Do you disagree? Ultimately in your view I am no more free to change my beliefs over and against God’s determinative decree than I am free to become God himself.

Now on to Proverbs: You believe Proverbs gives us good warrant to conclude that God has predetermined every choice of man—whether good or evil—based on the verses you highlighted. I dealt with those verses and shared why the Calvinistic interpretation is not the only interpretation possible. In fact I shared why it is highly speculative and absurd because Proverbs is not seeking to teach that God directs each of our steps deterministically into wickedness and evil—but rather how submission to God results in God’s guidance and direction away from wickedness! That is one of the fundamental points of Proverbs your interpretive framework is missing.

So Derek I asked you: “In your last response you called to aid Proverbs 19:21 ‘Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.’ Does this verse dictate that God meticulously determines and controls everything humans do—such as molesting children? The Principle of Moral Perfection would say “no.”

I don’t see where you answer the critical question but instead try to evade the horror of it by essentially saying in multiple places, “But your view results in the same conclusion because God foreknows evil will occur but chooses not to stop it!” You additionally try to make the argument that if God permits to allow evil to occur, and doesn’t seek to prevent it, that it is the same as saying God determined it to occur. But this just doesn’t follow. Do you really think the father of the prodigal son who KNEW his son wanted to leave,  ALLOWED his son to leave and chose not to PREVENT his son from leaving with his inheritance is the same as saying the father determined and decreed his son to leave home and squander his inheritance???

Along these lines you ask:

“Does God foresee every evil that occurs? Does He have the power to prevent it from occurring? (if not, what power does He have over evil?) Does He permit evil, or does it happen outside of His control? If God permits evil when He could prevent it, do you think this violates PMP? Does PMP dictate that God never foresees or allows evil?

Similarly in another place you asked:

Do you believe that God foresees your sin? Does He have the power to prevent it? Does He willingly permit it? How is this different from decreeing you to sin?

It is vastly different.  It would only be the same if we were to commit some equivocation fallacy with the word “willing.” As I said before evils which occur can be said to occur against his perfect will (what he desires for people) but can also be said to occur under the charge of his consequent will (what he wills to allow in light of free-will and rebellion)

I will again explain the Calvinist problem of evil and then get to the Arminian problem of evil. Calvinism violates the Principle of Moral Perfection (PMP) because God is the ultimate source for evil’s inventive emergence. In your view God’s righteous and holy mind is the decretive origin for every evil—such as children being molested. In other words God IS the author of every evil decision men make in the sense that God devised, designed and decreed every act of wickedness and deterministically rendered it certain people do the very evils his mind firstly envisioned and “thought up” for each person. Your view presents a picture of a God who has written (decreed) a script for each person’s life and no one is free to act God contrary to how they were predetermined by the divine will. (You may not like this conclusion but you can’t deny it—you can only resort to confessed ignorance).

Therefore God’s will is the ultimate cause, source and controlling agency that brings about evil. This invalidates human responsibility of what they do—because they are not REALLY in control of what they do. It helps the Calvinist none at all to appeal to secondary causation because such secondary agents are not really in control of what they think, desire and do. Rather they are instrumental, intermediary agents carrying out the determinative will of God—and can do no other. As I said before secondary, instrumental causation is no different than my picking up a stick to move a stone. The stick moves the stone—but I’m the principal cause for the stone being moved. Calvinism violates PMP because God is the principal cause for every evil. Each evil thought firstly originated in his mind—and was then passed down to us through decrees that we are not free to resist or reject.

Your only response again and again to counter this logical conclusion is to appeal to mystery or ask us to ignore conclusions derived from human logic because we lack enough revelation or information to make an informed conclusion. But my point is that even if our human perspective is not fully informed—that is no excuse to preach doctrine that (on the limited basis of what we DO know) logically requires us to conclude God is the primary source of moral evil and has the authorial “copyright” over every evil contrived and conceived.

Concerning Proverbs I stated: “Far from saying man’s plans originated in God’s decretive mind and that man is merely the intermediate instrument to bring about God’s decree, the verse actually grounds man’s plans in the mind of man—not God.”

 To which you replied:

“In other words, God decrees to permit man to do what man wants to do? That sounds very familiar. The creature is always the originator of evil.”

Here again, Derek, you are being entirely dishonest with your own position. I cannot tell if this is intentional on your point or not…but I must confess it is a tad frustrating because you keep fudging on your view and adopting Arminianism in order to defend the horrific implications of Calvinism.

Given that the Calvinist view is that God had IRRESISTIBLY DECREED AND RENDERED CERTAIN every evil choice of men, it is patently bogus and meaningless to say God thwarts moral responsibility for evil because he simply “permits man to do what man wants to do.” Derek, you are saying nothing more than “God permits what he had irresistibly decreed and decided must occur.” You are just using words to obscure meaning—surely you must see this. You have now done this a number of times. As I said before, in Calvinism any “permission” or “allowance” is simply a formality of means in God’s system—it’s of no real consequence. It’s like saying, “I have decided to walk to the store to buy milk. Therefore I will permit myself to walk to the store to buy milk.”

That God chooses to sovereignly permit man to misuse his God-ordained freedom is the Arminian position Derek—and it concerns me that you want to play both sides when convenient to shield your own view from logical implications. It makes clarity within our dialogue all the more difficult to achieve. I don’t mean to come down too hard on you because I think you are a good guy and are intuitively unnerved and uncomfortable with just coming out and saying, “Yes—in Calvinism God’s mind conceived of every evil, decreed every evil and rendered certain every evil and therefore should be morally responsible for evil. But it is mystery to me how God is not moral responsible for evil.”

I wrote: “Secondly God’s sovereignty is best seen in overruling man’s ingenuity and evil to bring about his sovereign purposes. There is no violation of PMP in saying God can use, direct and steer man’s own sinful intentions (known to God because he knows our characters) to ultimately fulfill his purposes. That is to say God can exploit man’s plans to fulfill his own purposes. His purposes can trump ours! Again his sovereignty is best seen in overruling evil by exploiting evil for his own good purposes. But it quite another thing to say God decrees evil SO THAT he can bring about good purposes.”

To which you replied:

“What is the difference between allowing evil in order to bring about good and decreeing to allow evil in order to bring about good? Is the “good” of overcoming evil His eternal purpose? Did He foresee it from eternity? Then why not decree to allow it?”

Here again Derek you fall way short of your own doctrine—you simply aren’t unraveling the banner of your theology fully when you attempt to define the Calvinist position as “God decreeing to allow evil in order to bring about good.”

That is fundamentally NOT the definitive maxim you are an advocate of. You are advocating that GOD DECREED ALL EVIL—NOT THAT HE DECREED TO ALLOW EVIL. Surely you must see how it is disingenuous and dishonest to blur the critical distinction between rendering it determinatively certain that someone do something and knowing and allowing someone the free exercise of their will do something.

If a teacher determinatively renders it certain that all her students will fail an exam, can we honestly say the teacher “allowed” her students to fail? If a father were to determinatively render it certain that his child disobey him, is it sufficiently accurate to say the father “allowed” his child to disobey him? Of course not. Yet this is the view you are adopting.

Moreover you are taking the position that God renders evil certain through decree SO THAT he can bring about good. In other words you feel God has a need—evil—in order to bring about good. This is quite misguided. Unlike the Calvinist position, the Arminian view is not that God causes evil or even allows evil in order that he can bring about something good. Rather we believe God can overrule the intents of both human and demonic evil and bring about good. That is to say we believe God has the capability to take the broken pieces of a life shattered by evil and stained in death, despair and disappointment, and ultimately use it for good in someone’s life. This is all a work of on-going sovereign redemption.

For example I know of someone who was molested and later became a heroin addict out of depression. She eventually surrendered her life to God and in turn God has redeemed the evil done against her by using her story to bring healing, hope and deliverance to others ensnared by the devil’s schemes. She has become a beautiful soul full of forgiveness and without a trace of the poison of bitterness. No amount of psych-therapy could have achieved her amazing turnaround—it is the glory of God and the sovereign work of God to ransack the evils of this world, overrule their effects and bring about a good purpose that trumps the intent of evil.

But Derek just because God used it for good, does that require us to think God desired and foreordained through a determinative decree that she be molested and abuse her body and soul for years so that he could later deliver her from its evil’s clutches and use her tragic story to help others who have suffered the same ruinous evils (that according to you God also must have decreed…and so and so forth “ad infinitum”)? In what sense can anything truly be called “evil” and worthy of condemnation if God is actually determinatively causing every evil—not just allowing it and seeking to exploit it—in order to do bring about something good?

You’ve asked questions about my views on foreknowledge, etc. At this time my theological persuasion is somewhere in the middle between classical Arminianism and Open Theism with an Arminian grasp of soteriology. I am convinced that God possessing exhaustive foreknowledge of the future does not count against man’s free-will because God’s foreknowledge consists of what we ACTUALLY choose to do. Therefore God’s foreknowledge does not act deterministically upon our wills. If I were to ever adopt the Open View (open theism) it would not be because I think simple foreknowledge and free-will are incompatible. Rather it would be because I think the Open View is persuasively represented in scripture.

That being said I don’t think the Open View has any real advantage over the classical Arminian position because you still have a God who can foresee an infinite number of possibilities and through an infinite intelligence can focus all his “energies” on each possibility as if it were the only possibility. So open theists would still need to answer the classical problem of evil just like everyone else. I do like Greg Boyd’s approach who said:

“We can be assured that God has a good purpose for every tragic event and yet deny that any tragic event happened for that good purpose…The challenge is to fathom an intelligence so great it has an eternally prepared good purpose for every POSSIBLE event that MIGHT unfold.”

Whether someone adopts the open view of open, possible futures or the Arminian view of a foreknown future, Boyd’s essential point is dually valid. God is capable of envisioning how he can take any evil that occurs and overrule it, such that good can come. In that sense he is prepared for every contingency in knowing how to exploit it and ultimately overrule it for our good. But we can also deny that God decrees or causes wickedness for the purpose of bringing about a good purpose. We can take heart in knowing that whatever befalls us in life, we do not need to remain completely victimized by it. It is my current belief that IF we respond appropriately, God is fully prepared to turn any tragedy and any evil around for good in our lives. Nothing is beyond the scope of his redemption. But I do believe much of this sovereign work of God to redeem evils is contingent on our response. I know of many who have allowed the evils done against them to define them, rob them and ultimately bring their life to total ruin because they never allowed God the space or freedom to work in their lives (they refused to let go of unforgiveness, hatred and bitterness.)

In contrast the Calvinist goes way beyond this. In Calvinism the God who seeks to stretch forth his hand to heal us from the wounds of a fallen world, is the very One holding the bloody dagger in the other hand!

So there is a big difference between God allowing freedom to be misused for evil, yet fully knowing how to exploit it to his own advantage (Arminianism), and God decreeing and purposing that evil occur because he needs it in order to use it to his own advantage (Calvinism).

As I said earlier, I believe there is the perfect will of God and the consequent will of God. So let’s take the case you mentioned of a child being raped or molested. I can say that is pure evil—and God had nothing to do with either conceiving of it or decreeing that it occur. Yet it occurs anyway in spite of God’s displeasure and against his consequent will. Why? Because as Alvin Plantinga once said,

“Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so…The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” (God, Freedom and Evil, p.30)

So as we can see in the Arminian perspective evil’s occurrence is not about God’s powerlessness or ineptitude in prohibiting all evil, but rather his sovereign, self-limitation of intrusive power for the sake of moral freedom. So in answer to your question, NO—positing a God who knows man will commit evil and who permits man to commit such evil does not count against PMP. The classical “problem of evil” has always been why an all knowing, all powerful and all good God would allow moral evil.  It is a legitimate question and I believe Arminianism is in the best place to answer it. In Calvinism the question/problem is wholly different—it is why an all-good God would conceive of and then purpose to decree every insidious evil on the planet. In this context the true mystery becomes why God would hold anyone morally accountable for choices they are causally determined to make.

In sum the Arminian position is that God determined and decreed to allow man the capability of committing evil because of the ultimate good of man being a free moral agent. Yet this does not mean God sits idly by on a heavenly perch, doing nothing but passively watching the parade of man’s freedom play out before him. Not at all. God is actively at work to override and exploit the evil intents of man by bringing good out of situations that seem impossible in the natural. Thus in Arminianism we are not completely victimized by evil. God can turn it around for our good. That IS his sovereignty at work.

I can’t tell if you misunderstood what I explained about Joseph or if you haven’t thoroughly engaged it… because it seems as if you are repeating the very points I already addressed that do not require the deterministic rendering you appear to insist upon. For example you state:

“The point is that the same evil event which was “meant for evil” by the brothers was simultaneously “meant for good” by God. Did God foresee and choose to permit the wicked characters and actions of the brothers? This was the human motive and means for Joseph to be sold as a slave in Egypt.”

Yes that is the point, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that God determined their individual wicked characters as a motive to sell Joseph into slavery or murder him. Moreover in having Joseph be sold as a slave God actually saves Joseph’s life because they originally MEANT to kill him (“But they saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him…Come now, let’s kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns” Gen 37:18-20).

Highlighted below are two possible interpretations that accord with the text and avoid God violating the Principal of Moral Perfection. The first is God foreseeing or anticipating what the brothers intend to do and overriding their intentions with his own and the second is God intending to establish Joseph in Egypt in humility and trust and arranging the conditions to bring it about—in part via his middle knowledge of knowing what the brother’s would do in response. Classical Arminians and Arminian-minded Molinists and Open Theists (generally speaking) could adopt their core features because they both avoid the view that God is the decretive author of evil characters and motives (as your view logically entails). So no, what I’m suggesting is not “in perfect harmony with Calvinism” as you stated in your last post. Such a claim could only be made by ignoring the core distinctives inherent to our opposing views.

(1).     As I said the essential “it” was ridding their lives of Joseph—not their wicked, jealous hearts that prompted them to rid themselves of Joseph. The brothers meant “it” for evil—namely Joseph’s harm. But God—in virtue of knowing the character of their wicked hearts and discerning their jealousy and evil intentions decided to exploit their evil intentions for his own purpose—rather than outright prevent their intentions. Moreover for God to supersede, supplant, or exploit an event “meant for evil” by free agents, doesn’t necessitate that he determinatively decree that the evil occur or the means for it to occur! That is the mistaken assumption you and all Calvinists make. God can simply know that event X will (or might) occur and purpose to use it to his own advantage. Of course God would desire that evil, wickedness and rebellions never occur—but knowing full well that evil will occur in a context of free-will, he is fully prepared to respond to it and use it as he deems appropriate. God has a perfect will—what he desires—and a consequent will—what he permits in light of his sovereign intention to create man free.

In the case of Joseph we are fully within our interpretive rights to conclude that God is allowing an evil event to occur, yet God has decided to overrule the intended evil by using it for a good that was not intended by the brothers.

(2).    Now if this explanation is not satisfactory to someone and we want to press it even further and ascribe even more providential control to God (that still avoids the Calvinist interpretation of an irresistible, eternal decree that determinatively necessitates evil characters and choices) an Arminian (and a Molinist) can say God—via his middle knowledge—can know what we will do in any given circumstance. Or in the open view God can know all the possibilities and anticipate with a high decree of accuracy what we might do in any given set of circumstances. Either way God could have exploited the brothers’ undetermined, un-decreed jealousy and hatred by providentially arranging circumstances that allowed a caravan on route to Egypt to pass by–knowing full well the character of Joseph’s brothers would trigger them to freely act in a particular manner that he knows will ultimately result in His sovereign plan (to establish Joseph in Egypt for a saving purpose) to be realized.

It is critical to note that nothing in the text requires us to think that God determinatively decreed before the foundation of the world that Joseph’s brothers would murderously desire to hate Joseph—only that at some point in time (we aren’t told when) God saw fit to exploit their wicked characters and steer their intentions in a manner that fulfilled his own saving purpose concerning Joseph and later Israel. God can use anything. God has the ability to even use sin, evil and the devil, but that doesn’t mean he approves of such evil or determined such evil. Your entire theological construct confuses God’s ability to use evil with God’s approval of evil in virtue of decreeing all evil. Thankfully God can use the greatest of tragedies and turn them around for our good–but that does not mean such tragedies come from God for good. That God can usurp and overrule the evil intentions of this world and use them for good is his glory and sovereignty. And it is right that we celebrate God’s sovereignty in this way. But to say that all the evils of this world come from God through divine decree is a lie from hell we ought to reject at all cost. Nothing less than God’s moral character is at stake.

So in conclusion over the matter of Joseph, rather than believe God is using the evil intentions of Joseph’s brothers for good, you place extreme assumptions upon the text and hold that God must have determinatively decreed and rendered certain the wicked characters and intentions of the brothers as the means to bring about his good purpose concerning Joseph. You would have to concede this since you wrongly assume God must predetermine all the means (exhaustively and systematically) to reach a determined end.

But God—being infinite in his creative genius—could have utilized (used) any number of means to get Joseph into Egypt and eventually raise him up for a saving purpose.

In this sense we can say it was God’s plan for Joseph to be sent to Egypt, for Jesus to be crucified. Yet this does not require that we think God determinatively decreed the wicked characters of Joseph’s brothers, the Jews, Pilate and the Romans to reach these ends.

Concerning your earlier appeal to Christ’s predestined crucifixion, the related texts only require us to understand that by God’s “predetermined plan and foreknowledge” Christ was “delivered over” to “wicked men” to carry out their own wicked intentions—intentions that are fully known to God. It bears repeating that the event of the crucifixion was predestined—not the evil motives and characters of those involved. This where I think most Calvinists get tripped up. God can exploit and use to his own advantage the evil characters and intentions of others. God can override the wicked characters of people–not by decreeing that they first occur–but by exploiting them for his own purposes. You erroneously think God needed to exhaustively and meticulously predetermine all the means in order to reach a predetermined end. As such you think God had to predetermine certain persons to have certain evil characters to do certain things to arrive at a certain, predetermined end (i.e. Christ’s death). But this just doesn’t follow. When you read that Herod, Pilate and certain Jews “did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen” you automatically and mistakenly assume that Herod, Pilate and others must have had their individual, wicked characters causally determined via God’s irresistible decrees in order to carry out the crucifixion. this just doesn’t follow. I hate to quote dump on you but I believe this point to be the principal assertion of Calvinism that drives their exegesis so I want to respond with an “official” response:

Jacob Arminius whose explanation would encompass both traditional Arminianism and Molinism states: “God, indeed, “determined before” that death should be inflicted on Christ by them.  But in what character did God consider them when He “determined before” that this should be done by them?  In that character, surely, which they had at the time when they inflicted death upon Christ, that is, in the character of sworn enemies of Christ, of obstinate enemies and despisers of God and the truth, who could be led to repentance by no admonitions, prayers, threats or miracles; who wished to inflict every evil on Christ, if they could only obtain the power over him, which they often sought in vain.”

In other words God could have sovereignly arranged Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem to occur when it did—knowing it would naturally force the hand of the ruling authorities to respond in a manner resultant in Christ’s crucifixion. Arminianism and Molinism allow for God to foresee obstinate hearts and characters, and know what men would do given a certain set of circumstances. Whereas in Open Theism God’s knowledge of such obstinate hearts and characters is derived from his knowledge of the condition and situation of Israel “at the fullness of time” and knowing Jesus would get crucified given certain conditions.

Now, you may be tempted to say, “But if you allow that God can providentially arrange certain conditions to acquire certain events to reach a predetermined end—like the crucifixion—then I can equally say God has compatibilistically determined each and every necessary condition to bring about every sinful thought, desire and choice to carry out every depraved act of mankind throughout history!”

However this is an unwarranted extrapolation. It is thoroughly ridiculous for Calvinists point to the crucifixion and think they have good grounds to hold that God has also determinatively rendered certain all moral evils such as child pedophilia, spousal abuse, adultery, and every rental of a rancid porn movie—the very evils Christ sought to overcome in death. To attempt to highlight the crucifixion of our Lord as a hermeneutical perch to sit upon whereby we can cast God’s determinative ordination net into the world and “catch” every sin and every sordid evil event of world history is absurd and wide of the mark.

Put simply to view the one act which removed the sin of the world as the hermeneutical key to justify how God could have ordained all the sordid sin of that world is an exegetical leap that is unwarranted and ill-advised. I don’t think the one event in history to rid the world of sin is very sound evidence that God ordained all the sin in that world!

I also can’t help but discern that the two, most often repeated examples Calvinists look to in order to bolster their view that God determinatively decreed the evil choices of all men—have an obvious saving purpose in view. In both the case of Joseph in Egypt and Jesus being crucified, God is acting in a unique fashion to bring about a divine saving purpose for humanity. Why these texts would be used to justify all the insidious, God-defying evil in our depraved world is beyond me—and beyond God.

You then asked:

“Was God in control of this evil, such that He could have prevented it?”

God can prevent anything if he so wills, Derek. Arminians have always said the argument is never about “Can God?” but “Would God?” There is a vast difference between the two that gets muddled in the Calvinist view due to construing sovereignty only in terms of sheer power. This results in other sovereign considerations getting lost. Moreover when I speak of God’s permission and allowance it’s not as if impersonal evil comes knocking on God’s door and says, “Can I cause that husband to commit adultery?” or “Can I cause I cause child abuse in that family?” and God says, “Sure, go right ahead.” Rather in allowing evil and sin, God is actually allowing his own sovereign creational intention to be realized—which is a world permeated with beings morally capable of both good and evil. And God refuses to abort one sovereign intention to fulfill another. God will not override his own sovereign intention to create man free in order to prohibit man from misusing the very freedom He sovereignly chose to bestow upon him.

God could only prevent all evil by countermanding his sovereign decision to create man free. That God does desire and will to prevent evil and wars against it—I have no doubt. I am quite confident that some evils have been prevented because of God’s intervention. However God’s intervention is itself conditioned upon various realities—two of which would be prayer and the body of Christ coming into agreement with God that releases the supernatural. Moreover I believe any intervention on the part of God in prohibiting evil involves a sovereign “juggling” of many considerations or variables. For instance God could know that preventing one evil to occur could invariably result in a greater evil. For example (and this is just speculation) God could have known via his middle knowledge that if he prevented Hitler from rising, an emboldened Stalin would have arisen to even greater power and marched all over Europe causing even greater injury and evil to countless millions (Stalin was far “worse” than Hitler if one is counting body bags).

Inherent to everything I’m saying, Derek, is the presupposition (i.e. framework) that God, for whatever reason, has sovereignly chosen to self-limit his himself (i.e. his power). God has chosen to create and fashion the cosmos in a manner that allows aspects of this world to be subject to the wills of free agents other than God’s. That is to say: God has sovereignly chosen to not always get his way. This should not surprise us. Ultimately in only such a context can the scriptures honestly say God is “provoked” by evil and that he “abhors and hates” the wickedness of men that sows discord into his creation.

Now you asked about whether or not God is in control over the evils of this world. The word “control” is notoriously fraught with assumptions so we need to unpack it. When the Calvinist speaks of “control” he has in mind “meticulous omnicontrol.” I assume you mean it in the same way. However, when an Arminian speaks of God “being in control of the world” he means “God is in charge.” And there is a difference between meticulously controlling something and being in charge of something. Being in control or being in charge is essentially about ultimate authority—not being omni-causative. A king can be said to be sovereign over his kingdom and yet not meticulous control everything his subjects do.

A cruise ship captain can be said to be in control or in charge of his ship and yet not meticulously control everything his sailors or guests do—such as when they use the toilet or what they choose on the menu. There are certain “ports of call” that the ship captain has decreed and determined that his ship make—but a great deal of what takes place on the ship is out of his determinative control. In fact the sailors can choose to go about their duties lazily or even disobediently and impede and delay the very “ports of call” the ship captain has determined. I believe God has decreed certain “ports of call” that human history is to make—the crucifixion being one of them and the second-coming being another. Nothing could and nothing will prevent them from occurring. Yet I think even these predestined points of history uniquely interplay with a world immersed in genuine indeterminacy and contingency. The scriptures tell us, “In the fullness of time God sent forth His Son” which is to say when all the conditions were right, God sent forth His Son. I also find it interesting that Peter says that we can “hasten the day of the Lord” (2 Pet. 3:12) and that even Jesus implies that “the end will come” only after his followers are faithful to “preach the gospel of the Kingdom as a witness to the whole world” (Mt.  24:14).

You ask: 

If the sin of Joseph’s brothers was foreseen and permitted by God in order to bring about what He planned and purposed, did they have the ability to choose otherwise?

 Yes they did have such ability and thus they are morally responsible. God’s foreknowledge does not act deterministically upon our wills. An Arminian can say God knew they would not choose otherwise but that is not to say they could not choose otherwise. There is a fundamental difference between what God knows we will not do and cannot do. That God knows what man will do or would do in any given situation doesn’t mean man could not do something other than what God knows he will do. This is rather critical to understand. Because in your deterministic view God’s irresistible decree causally determines what we will do, must do and cannot fail to do—thus we are incapable of choosing contrary to God’s decree.

You ask:

“How about eternally purposing to allow a pre-defined amount of evil in order to bring about vastly more good?”

Again bro—you are not at all being consistent or forthcoming with your view. In Calvinism the God who “purposed to allow a pre-defined amount of evil” is the same God who conceived how much evil he would decree for the world. It is ludicrous to continue to speak of God “allowing” anything if he determined and rendered certain it would take place! Is God schizophrenic? Does God need to get permission from himself to allow the very things he decreed, Derek? To even ask such a silly question is to answer the question.  Yet this is Calvinism. The Arminian framework is that God has purposed to allow genuine freedom to be misused because only genuine freedom is capable of moral good.

In my earlier post I pointed out that the general principles in Proverbs (like God’s direction and guidance) is conditioned upon the assumption that we are submitting to God and trusting God and walking in wisdom. I tried to point out that such an assumption is completely lost and irrelevant in Calvinism because God directs your steps into both good and evil! Maybe I could have been clearer though. At any rate you oddly replied that Calvinism still maintains we are responsible to submit to God in order to receive his direction and guidance. You attempted to make this point when you said:

“We believe in the proper balance of human choice/responsibility and God’s sovereignty. We do not in any way deny human choice/responsibility.”

But don’t you see, Derek—that doesn’t make any sense in your view. It is completely irrelevant if one submits to God or not! A person’s very submission or rebellion is itself determined by God and God will direct their steps into evil regardless of their posture before him. That’s the argument you are making. You are trying to use verses about God’s sovereign direction and guidance over our lives (that assume our responsibility to submit to God) to PROVE THAT GOD DIRECTS PEOPLES PATH INTO EVIL AND SIN AND REBELLION AGAINST GOD! There is no balance!

So while you personally may not deny man’s responsibility—your view logically does! That’s the point. Your view cannot explain how man is held morally responsible for being causally determined to do what he does by God’s irresistible decrees. You only offer up mystery for how man possesses genuine freedom in a context of causal determinism and you now you can only offer up mystery as to how man is held responsible given determinism. You only ASSERT things in the critical junctures of our debate—you don’t ever prove or demonstrate them. It is the weakness of your position.

Here’s another good example. You said:

“Calvinists believe God is as morally perfect and meticulously sovereign as He reveals Himself to be throughout Proverbs.”

In other words you feel compelled to assert that God is morally perfect because so many verses in Proverbs speak of his righteousness and hatred of evil. Yet on the hand you believe God is so meticulously sovereign that he conceived of every evil men are determined to commit—including all the things Proverbs says God abhors and hates and we ought not to do! How is this not a “house divided against itself” Derek? Can you explain this without appealing to mystery? The dialogue is not furthered by simply appealing to alleged examples where you think this mysterious hybrid comes into being in Jospeh or Jesus…because your interpretations themselves are suspect.

You stated:

“We also believe in the principles of Law and Gospel, so it is natural that we are commanded and held responsible. Again I am concerned that you may not be aware of the historic/classical Calvinistic approach.”

Your concern should by why Calvinism can only assert things but never demonstrate why their conclusions and interpretations don’t logically become incoherent and meaningless. Everyone familiar with the argument knows historical/classical Calvinism posits logically inconsistent propositions and then punts to mystery when pressed to explain them. Please don’t take this the wrong way—I’m not questioning your intelligence or character, just your argumentation…or lack thereof…which I think is fair game.

When I pointed out to you multiple examples of where a Calvinistic, universally deterministic rendering of many verses in Proverbs results in gaping un-truths, you stated:

“I believe this is a misguided and dangerous approach to exegeting the Wisdom Literature. Proverbs certainly contains general observations about the world and people as you indicate, but it also contains absolute and unobservable truth about God…is God ALWAYS wise? Does God ALWAYS hate evil?…The things Proverbs reveals about God are not generalized. They are God’s self-revelation, and are not reflecting human observations. They are the Holy Spirit’s unveiling of God’s hidden ways… Your approach here would seem to reduce His self-revelation to mere generalization and human observation.”

Here Derek I believe you are clearly conflating two things: 1) God’s conditional actions towards man, and 2) God’s self-revelation as to his character and person.

Verses about God hating evil, loving righteousness, being righteous, being wise, etc are revelations of his character and personage. As such they are universally binding on God. But you confuse divine self-revelation of God’s character with God’s general approach towards humanity—which scripture bears out repeatedly is largely determined by our submission and lack thereof. For instance here are some verses that would be in the same category as those you highlight in Proverbs which you think: 1) teach a universal rule of application and 2) gives you warrant to conclude that God determinatively directs man’s steps into doing evil—such as sovereignly directing a rapist to his victim or an adulterer to his affair. Please notice how they assume man’s submitted posture before God and are not always universal in their application.

Proverbs 1:7-8 “The LORD is a shield to those whose walk is blameless, for he guards the course of the just and protects the way of his faithful ones.”   (Yet some faithful followers of God die in tragic car crashes and are not always protected and shielded from evil)

Proverbs 9:10-11 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. For through wisdomyour days will be many, and years will be added to your life.    (Yes the fear of the Lord is the ultimate fountain of wisdom. However some who fear the Lord don’t have many years added to their life. Some have their lives cut short by illness, etc.)

 Proverbs 16:7 “When the Lord takes pleasure in anyone’s way, he causes their enemies to make peace with them.      (Though generally true, we shouldn’t think that God “causes our enemies to be at peace” with us at all times universally. For many of God’s faithful have suffered at the hands of their persecutors and enemies. God was pleased with Paul and he was beheaded. God was pleased with Peter and he was whipped and beaten, etc.)

There is very little I can add to Proverbs 16:33 and your subsequent remarks and questions. I feel you didn’t understand what I wrote or didn’t thoroughly engage it. My point was God’s direct intervention in casted lots had a clear, cultural, and specific context conditioned on submitting to God that he make his will known—and that key point would not have been lost its original hearers.  The verse is highlighting that God is more than capable of overruling the random effects of casted lots and intervening at will (such as to make his will known)—not that God DOES intervene at will in every roll of the dice in every gambling foray. You’re just assuming that and to assume it makes much of Proverbs admonition against gambling to get rich quick rather meaningless.

This would lead to the larger question as to why is God upset about anything in Proverbs if he unilaterally decided it should occur and can’t occur absent his decision and decree? I would really like an answer to this.

Thanks for taking this long journey with me Derek 🙂 I finally arrive at my last point about the different frameworks we are working from.

On the one hand you would agree that Proverbs is principally about exercising wisdom to stay on the path of righteousness and to preserve our lives from being ensnared by ungodly evil.

Yet on the other hand the compatibilistic view you are advocating is that God’s sovereignty means everything we think, desire and do—whether it be good or evil or wise or unwise is ultimately the result of being irresistibly determined by God.

You think verses about God establishing our paths and directing our steps are not selective actions on the part of God whereby he directs our life into righteousness conditioned on our submission and obedience, but speak to God’s universal determination that decreed every persons steps into sin and every path into evil.

Your view makes Proverbs wholly untenable and meaningless.

Proverbs 11: 20 says, “The Lord detests those whose hearts are perverse, but he delights in those whose ways are blameless.” Yet you would have us believe that Proverbs also provides interpretive grounds to believe that God—who detests perversity— determined some hearts to be perverse and carry out specifically decreed perversity.

Proverbs 8: says, “To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.” But you would have us believe God decreed EVERY evil behavior and ever perverse word that comes out of every person’s mouth. Yes? So how do you make sense of that?

Is sum you are asking us to believe that when read in the right framework and when approached with the right assumptions, the book of Proverbs (a book about preserving one’s steps and path from evil) is ACTUALLY meant to inform us that God deterministically directs every step we take into wickedness and decreed every path of ungodly evil he decided and predestined we are to be ensnared by. Does this make sense to you?

I can’t help but conclude it is all a tad absurd Derek and ultimately undermines both the message of Proverbs and God’s perfect righteousness (i.e. PMP).

I am at a loss as to what would motivate you to cling so tightly to such a framework of interpretation. As I said—in the end it really comes down to the right framework we adopt to interpret scripture and not necessarily proof-texting our way through scripture. Both sides of the debate can do this, which is why the debate should really be about the interpretive framework that is filtering our exegesis. I would rather adopt a framework of Proverbs that does not ultimately ground the origin, conception and emergence of all wickedness in the decretive will of God—especially when a central theme of Proverbs is abstaining from unrighteousness. Furthermore I would rather adopt a framework that doesn’t collapse into confusion and absurd incoherency and then appeal to mystery or paradox to retain its rightful place among biblical interpretation.

At minimum your compatibilism seeks to not be subject to human, logical inquiry—which results in its most controversial aspects being shrouded in confusion. What you so often state as mystery to avoid logical implication, I see as only incoherency. Either way the result is confusion because you yourself concede that from our limited, human perspective your view merely has the appearance of contradiction. Perhaps we should keep in mind the admonition of Paul: “God is not the author of confusion…” If he didn’t mean that in reference to our “limited, human perspective” interacting with “limited divine revelation” then I don’t know what meaningful context is left.

In conclusion, Derek, I thank you for the opportunity to address your questions and articulate my concerns and sincere disagreements with your view. I am not sure what more can be said that hasn’t already been said. I believe God’s revelation–though not fully complete–is consistent enough in matters of greatest importance to warrant our logical interaction with it and our subsequent making of logical conclusions on that basis. All of your assertion, without explanation, the constant positing of incompatible propositions, and your continual appeal to unsearchable mystery and biblical paradox to avoid logical implication, tells me you believe the current extent and volume of God’s divine revelation lacks “key pieces” to qualify it as revelatory consistent, such that it would invite our logical inquiry. But if you want to offer one last rebuttal, that would be fine. I’ll close out our discussion with my reply.

God bless brother,

Matt

Posted in Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 26: Matt Responds part-1

Posted on June 26, 2013 by StriderMTB

Hi Derek, in your first post I do appreciate your attempts to articulate your views further. But I am having trouble discerning how my arguments are actually being countered 🙂 Tis true. It seems as if you are more or less repeating or restating mere assertions—assertions which I have already rebutted or asked that you substantiate beyond your appeal to mystery or ignorance. Instead of seeking to actually counter my rebuttals your adopted approach is three pronged:

1)   You constantly appeal to assertion but not argument.

2)   You conveniently and illegitimately adopt an Arminian framework of God decreeing to permit evil to escape Calvinism’s framework of God determinatively decreeing evil.

3)   You attempt to curtail logical implications of incompatible assertions by implying that we should not approach God’s limited revelation logically but in a way that suspends logical judgments until God fully reveals the secret inner-workings of his decrees.

Some of my comments will be blunt—please don’t mistake it for anger. Such as this: It is wholly disingenuous of you Derek to claim “God has decreed everything that occurs” as you have REPEATEDLY CONFESSED and then when I press you on the insidious implications of this, you suddenly and inexplicably convert your theology to Arminianism and say “God only decrees to PERMIT evil.” This is just blatantly dishonest, Derek, and I’m afraid I have to call you out on it because it has become somewhat habitual in our discussion and has greatly retarded potential progress we could have had.

For example I specifically asked what would make you want to defend the thought that God unilaterally decreed everything from the color socks you choose to child abuse, domestic violence and the “script” of every perverse porn film? Instead of owning up to the full measure of your beliefs, (i.e. God determinatively decreed child abuse, etc), you try to evade the unpalatable implications and state:

“God only decrees to permit evil; he does not author it, directly cause it, or even allow it apart from the creature’s own autonomous volition….He ordains that the creature is allowed to do evil… The creature is the origin, author and direct cause of evil. God simply ordains to permit this.”

No, Derek—this is quite false. You cannot say God decrees all choices men make and then when faced with the implication that God has decreed rape and child abuse suddenly say “Calvinists believe God decreed to PERMIT child abuse.” Hardly, Derek. In Calvinism God doesn’t truly permit anything because God has decreed everything! In Calvinism God doesn’t permit child abuse. In Calvinism God has specifically chosen who is to be abused! Moreover you cannot claim God has determinatively rendered certain every person’s sin and then try and make it more palatable in saying, “God decreed to ALLOW people to autonomously choose their sins.”

There is no reason to continue our discussion if you don’t have the conviction to stand by the most controversial elements of your theology. Right? 🙂

I feel like one trying to argue that apple trees grow apples and therefore can’t grow oranges. But you insist that apple trees grow oranges. So when I take you on a long walk to an apple orchid and show you the apples growing on it—you suddenly say, “See Matt—I told you apple trees don’t grow oranges—they grow apples. Then when we trudge all the way back home and are safely distant from visually seeing any  apple trees you state, “I see no reason, Matt, why apple trees can’t grow oranges.” (Matt smacks head in frustration).

My contention, Derek, has always been that Calvinism violates God’s moral perfection in virtue of the fact that God is said to determine and decree every foul evil that occurs in the world. In contrast Arminianism does not violate God’s moral perfection because we hold that God does not determinatively decree evil, rather we hold that God decreed to permit and allow evil for the sake of genuine freedom being realized.

Then your reply is to essentially retort, “No, Matt—Calvinism doesn’t violate God’s moral perfection because we only believe God decreed to PERMIT and ALLOW the evils men choose.”

In other words, Derek you are adopting Arminianism in order to argue against Arminianism and for Calvinism! You are intentionally obscuring the very meaning and issue we are debating by conveniently dropping the language of decree and picking up the language of permission whenever your view tastes too sour in your heart. In my earlier post I presented you clear reasons why you can’t adopt the language of permission in a Calvinist context whereby God has rendered certain everything that occurs through irresistible decrees. Rather than counter my arguments—you just repeat statements already disapproved. We can’t repeat our way to truth now can we?

I specifically asked you to parse the difference between God’s holy mind decreeing that evil occur and authoring that evil occur. In direct reply you state:

“Calvinism says that God is not the direct, sole or originating cause of evil; and certainly not its author. He permits it.”

Then immediately afterwards you astonishingly declare:

“I addressed the difference in previous comments, and have now done so again.”

No, you haven’t done so at all Derek! All you’ve done is make assertion, after assertion, after assertion. NO ARGUMENT. NO DEMONSTRATION. NO SUBSTANTIATION. NO EXPLANATION.

We can’t assert our way to truth any more than we can repeat our way there. The question asked that you explain the difference between 1) God’s holy mind conceiving of and decreeing that the evil of X occur and 2) authoring the evil of X to occur. Your rejoinder to such critical questions is to all to often to say, “Calvinism says…,” or “I’m not sure your familiar with what Calvinism says…” or “Calvinism since the time of Augustine has always said…”

I don’t care what Calvinism says, Derek. I’m well aware of what it says. I’m interested in what it can demonstrate, explain and substantiate. So please may we have an answer? All you’ve done again is offer assertion. Merely saying, “Calvinism has historically said God is certainly not the author of evil” is not an answer to my initial question: “If God’s mind is the decretive origin of the sin of X occurring how is God’s mind not the author of the sin of X occurring?”

If a husband secretly hires an assassin to kill his wife, he may not be the one who directly pulls the trigger, but can we say her death did not originate in his will? Can we deny that her death is authored by his mind? Can we deny he is ultimately morally responsible for her death? Obviously not! The question over authorship and the origin of evil is about who firstly conceived that a specific evil occur? You must say God did. So explain to me why Calvinists have good grounds to assert since Augustine that God is not the author of evil? (Though that is not true either.) EXPLAIN to me how God can conceive of an evil I am to commit before I am born, and determinatively render it certain that I commit it, yet be said to not tempt me to commit that very evil? Note I said: EXPLAIN. My guess is you will say something along the lines of “These mysteries are too deep for our minds to plumb because God has not given us enough revelatory information to logically interact with.”

What I found to be quite ironic after you adopt the Arminian position of God “permitting evil for the sake of autonomous wills” rather than “decreeing evil”, you suddenly reverse your direction, convert back into full-fledged Calvinism, and try to argue that the Arminian doctrine of foreknowledge coupled with God’s allowance of sin and evil is to invariably make God the ultimate cause of evil—just like Calvinism. I found it very telling that you conceded that in a Calvinist context “God is the ultimate cause of evil” in virtue of decreeing all evil. However is it true that Arminianism invariably results in the same outcome as Calvinism? Not at all.

This claim of yours is sporadically seeded throughout your posts, so it needs to be dealt with in a number of places. I will start with this quote:

“If you affirm that God knows about and permits evil, then in some sense are you not committed to the belief that He willed it and is its ultimate cause?”

No. There is a vast difference. If I were to walk into your house and observe you command your son to touch a red, hot stove, and then subsequently watch him scream in pain by obeying you, could you honestly tell me you merely permitted your son to touch the hot stove so as to learn the consequences of disobedience? Obviously not. The language of command and the language of permission are worlds apart—as is the language of decree and the language of permission. I will address more of this in later comments.

Another concern I had over your first post is that it elicits a great deal of confusion that is blurring paramount distinctions between what I am asserting and what you are asserting. This is very unnecessary.

For example I stated that the Principal of Moral Perfection (PMR) would not allow God’s holy mind to be the origin of conception and decree for the decadent evils that plague our world and which God abhors. This is what you believe and therefore your view violates PMP. In reply you argued:

“In theory, this all sounds pretty good. However, skeptics use this type of argument against Christian theists when they assert that a morally perfect God would never create a world in which evil exists with His knowledge or by His permission. It does indeed appear that an omnipotent, loving God could create a world free of evil (and the possibility of evil).”

In saying this you are adopting the skeptic’s false premise wholesale—which is: Why didn’t God just create a world in which our wills are free, but God guarantees that they also always freely choose to do the right thing?

But the faulty logic of this is quite simple to observe. For how can God guarantee that our supposed “free” wills will always and perfectly choose the right thing— unless He coercively makes us choose the right thing.  But that is absurd. For not even God can causally determine someone to freely do anything. The statement itself invokes a contradiction. As Alvin Plantinga points out:

“Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.”

Now since compatibilism itself entails one large contradiction and is forced to radically re-define “freedom” in compatibilistic terms, then perhaps Plantinga’s analysis of the contradiction inherent to the phrase “God determines we do things freely” doesn’t concern you. But it does concern logic. Then again when logic threatens the coherence of your view you suddenly and consistently want to highlight the limits of human logic and God’s current level of revelation and appeal to mystery.

I will address more of this later. But suffice it to say Arminianism does not violate PMP because God can only eradicate the possibility of evil in the world by removing the possibility for good.

These leads to how you approach certain words rooted in philosophical meaning and assign alternative meanings to them that completely ignores their proper context. This is also causing unnecessary confusion. For example when I stated that God, in virtue of being the greatest conceivable being, (philosophically speaking) would be morally perfect (and not determine all evil), you stated in reply:

There is one major flaw in the argument, and I answer with this slight alteration: “God, in virtue of being God, is the greatest inconceivable being.” I strongly distrust the ability of human conceptions to rightly apprehend an incomprehensible and transcendent God. (based partly on Isaiah 55:9)

My friend you are confusing “conceivable” as it is understood in philosophy with a layman sense of “understandable.” In other words I am not saying God is the greatest being that can be understood completely and comprehensively. Basically I am just saying God is the greatest and most perfect being in all existence and it is greater to not determinatively decree all evil than to decree it. IF God were to be truly and completely “inconceivable” (as you stated) in a philosophical sense, it would mean we would have no point of reference to even discuss him because he wouldn’t exist. We would be unable to even conceive of the word “God.” That I believe God is incomprehensible in his glory, nature and love is without a doubt. But you have confused the sense of these words. Perhaps I could have spelled it out better. Feel free to just drop the word “conceivable” and you will still get my underlying argument.

You then stated:

“Looking at your comments in general, I am not sure you grasp the articulate nuances of Calvinistic theology. Calvinists clearly and emphatically affirm that God is ONLY GOOD, ALL GOOD, and SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for EVERY GOOD that occurs. God is both entirely innocent of evil, completely victorious over it, and never subject to its tyranny.”

What I fully grasp, Derek is that articulate assertion is not enough. One must be able to explain one’s assertion in a reasonable manner. This Calvinists cannot do and you have given us no reason to conclude that you have done any different when it most matters. I fully appreciate the fact that you are capable of making assertions that God is only good, all good and ultimately responsible for every good in virtue of decreeing every good that occurs. But what you have not done is demonstrate in any reasonable manner why God wouldn’t ALSO be ultimately responsible for all the foul evils he conceives of and determinatively decrees—and which cannot take place outside his decree. The picture of God you present who is allegedly “entirely innocent of evil, completely victorious over evil, and never subject to its tyranny” is the same one who rendered all evil certain! So mere assertion, Derek is woefully inadequate. It is the same as the Westminster Confession trying to proverbially pull the wool of our eyes in saying  “God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass (including all evil) and this not by bare permission…yet God is not the author of evil.” To assert such controversial, paradigm encompassing dogma and then appeal to mystery in order to extricate one’s self from the obvious inconsistency is what should put Calvinism on the extreme margins of biblical merit.

I stated that in Calvinism, God is the ultimate origin and cause of evil in virtue of sovereignly decreeing all evil and rendering it certain (if not necessary).”

To this you replied:

“Decreeing/ordaining evil is not the same as originating it…I think we would both agree that God is the ultimate cause of evil, and yet not it’s origin or author (because He is incapable of desiring to do evil). Do we even disagree on this point?”

“Both agree that God is the ultimate cause of evil?” Hardly, Derek. This statement betrays the greatest confusion in our dialogue and I can only assume you have completely imagined that my view makes God “the ultimate cause of evil.” You certainly haven’t demonstrated it! This has been dealt with above but I will address it more when I spell out my thoughts on the problem of evil in the latter half of this post. Secondly explain for us why “decreeing/ordaining evil is not the same as originating it”???

Again—all I see is another assertion without an argument. It popped up again when you said God can be the “ultimate cause of evil, and yet not it’s origin or author because He is incapable of desiring to do evil.”  Yet since you hold all acts of evil originated in God’s decretive mind you have again offered another assertion without an argument. You admit God’s sovereign mind has conceived of every evil and determinatively decreed every evil, and you admit Calvinism makes God the ultimate cause of every evil choice. YET you now want to assert God is not the ultimate origin of the very evils he decreed because 1) he doesn’t desire to do evil and 2) only decrees and render it certain that evils be done by secondary wills/causes?

I have repeatedly sought to get you to interact with the critical point that within your view God’s will is the PRIMARY origin and cause of everything that occurs. In your view nothing can occur that God has not determinately decreed and rendered certain. Our wills are merely the SECONDARY, INTERMEDIATE causes of events carrying out the PRIMARY will of God. So explain to us why God’s decretive will is logically and chronologically prior to our will of decision, yet God’s preceding will of decree is not the ultimate origin of the very evils he willed us to make? It does helps your case none at all to simply make another assertion that humans desire to do the evils they do—because God’s will of precedent has determined what they desire!

You stated:

Calvinism does not violate or deny God’s moral perfection. It exults in the triumphant display of it, and rejoices in the fact of it. You seem to be saying that God’s moral perfection and His foreordination of all things are mutually exclusive. I take this as a false dichotomy, along with your assertion that foreordination and freedom are incompatible.

Here is just one large paragraph of more assertion without any substantiation to back it up. My argument is that Calvinism does violate God’s moral perfection and I EXPLAIN why. I also explained repeatedly why logic entails that your view results in an external, causal determinism that causally restricts choice to only what is externally determined–thereby invalidating genuine freedom of the will. You don’t deny the logic or offer a logical rebuttal or defense—you just deny the usefulness of logic to speak to the issue on why causal determinism and freedom are incompatible.

You ask:

“What prevents God from foreordaining in a way that does not invalidate freedom or implicate Him in evil?”

When you state “What prevents God from foreordaining…” you really mean: “What prevents God from causally determining our wills to choose the evils he decreed in a way that does not invalidate freedom…” Since this very statement entails a logical impossibility in the same category as: “What prevents God from creating a married bachelor?” then your question is both absurd and meaningless, unless you think God can do what is logically impossible. It has nothing to do with what can be logically done but God lacks the ability or power to achieve it. Do you think God can create a married bachelor, Derek?

Here is more conjecture without an argument that makes our dialogue all the more tiresome and prohibitive of progress:

“I believe strongly enough in his omnipotent wisdom to suppose that He can accomplish these things, and I think highly enough in His moral perfection to suppose that He can do it without violating His holiness, justice, purity, or goodness.”

It’s just not enough to claim such things Derek. After all we are debating the very claim you are making and you aren’t offering any argument as to how “God accomplishes” what I argue is logically incoherent for God to do and thus scripturally absurd to hold otherwise.

Moving on, I shared with you that simply saying, “The Bible says so…” as you tend to do isn’t sufficient in these arguments because we are both approaching the same texts with different guiding assumptions I called “frameworks.” The frameworks are directing and guiding our nuanced interpretations of scripture not vice-versa. Therefore I said the real argument is over the framework we adopt because ultimately it determines what we filter in and filter out, what is possible to concede to and what is impossible to concede to. I then pointed out that the presuppositional grid framework you adopt is that God sovereignty MUST entail that God has meticulously determined and planned every evil thought, desire and choice—such that it MUST take place. In contrast my framework is that if the Principal of Moral Perfection is true—if God’s nature truly is morally perfect and righteous—then the claim “God decrees all evil and renders it certain” is a false claim. The question then is, “Whose framework is correct?” But you disagree and state:

Scripture is sufficient when rightly handled. The problem is that we don’t always want it to say what it says, so we start downplaying what we don’t like and emphasizing what we do like. I believe you have done exactly this in your argument regarding the book of Proverbs.

Here, Derek, you are saying nothing more than “My framework is correct! My framework is correct!” But we will soon see how your own interpretation of Proverbs is so heavily weighted and emphasized by the grid of your assumed framework, it ends up positing the most absurd and bizarre conclusions.

But not surprisingly you have prepared yourself for this critique by preemptively trying to extol absurd and bizarre conclusions (which you term unexplainable…paradoxes) derived from your framework as being some sort of godly virtue! You state:

Part of my appeal to Biblical paradox is based on a rigorous commitment to taking all of Scripture at face value all the time, as far as is humanly possible, even if it doesn’t seem to fit the system. This makes you think more, leaves you without an explanation sometimes, and takes your trust in the Bible through tests that result in an increase of faith faith and understanding. I am convinced that system-driven exegesis is actually a hindrance to sanctification. Although it is impossible to be completely unbiased, it is well worth working toward.

Let’s remember God is not the author of confusion—which is pretty much what you are extolling as a virtue in your framework. What you call “paradox” and “leaves you without an explanation” (another appeal to mystery to avoid confusion and incoherency) is nothing less than very, very bad thinking. Moreover there does not exist a greater “system-driven exegesis” than Calvinism! It is wholly driven by a grid of assumptions (framework) that can only assert, but not EXPLAIN how: 1) being causally determined by an external will to freely commit the sin of X isn’t a contradiction, 2) God decrees and renders certain my sin but doesn’t tempt me to sin, 3) God’s mind is the conceiving origin for all evil but evil’s occurrence doesn’t originate with his mind, 4) God’s mind is the decretive origin for all evil, but he is not the originating author of the evils he decrees, 5) God’s will is the ultimate cause of evil, but God is not responsible for the evil he causes because he determinatively controls the wills of secondary, intermediate agents to bring about the evil he determines, 6) God determinatively decrees and renders certain all evil, but God only does this by permitting autonomous wills to freely choose to do evil, AND ON AND ON AND ON the logical inconsistencies continue to be asserted without explanation— except to say the Bible embraces all these paradoxes and our minds are too limited to comprehend and unravel the mysterious appearance of these disjointed, oxymoronic, incoherent statements.

Now you add we must embrace it all through “trust…and an increase of faith.” Sorry but my trust and faith is that God’s revealed truths DO COHERE and that genuine biblical mysteries aren’t synonyms for incoherent propositions. Your faith is that despite God’s revealed truths being inexplicable and incoherent to our finite minds, in the end God will unravel it all coherently.

You strangely ask:  “What contradictions have I asserted? Where have I stated that any given proposition is both true and not true in the same way and at the same time?”

We’ve covered this before…a number of times. You never offered any rational rebuttal—just more assertion, appeal to mystery and appeal to ignorance because God hasn’t willed to reveal his “secret working” that allegedly absolves the contradictions. But again–here are just two examples Derek:

Logic dictates that if we are causally determined by factors outside our own wills to choose something, we do not choose it freely. Thus to say we were determined to choose X by causal factors external to our wills, IS to therefore to say we did not choose X freely. Therefore you state a contradiction when you argue our autonomous wills freely choose what God’s will determinatively decreed we choose. You are in essence saying: “Our wills are autonomous and free” and then saying “our wills are not autonomous and free” because you collapse back into determinism. Your argument is not with me but with a right use of philosophical terminology and logic.

And another: Your view holds that God’s mind is the conceiving origin and decretive origin for the evil of X occurring. Then you turn around and deny that God’s mind is the ultimate origin of the evil of X occurring.

Your argument is not with me, but with logic. So as I see it, the real paradox is not in the Bible, but exists as false assumption in your head.

You further assert:

I am saying that my view agrees with God’s Word, reflects God’s revelation, and may possibly be difficult to explain (in terms of mere human logic) at some points where God has not directly spoken. That is a far cry from absurdity!… When it comes to His eternal workings, which He has not seen fit to describe to us in detail, it could be a bit presumptuous for us to think our application of human logic is going to lead us to a detailed understanding.

This all sounds interesting, Derek, even dare I say “spiritual” but you are simply repeating the same false assumption and false claim that any appearance of incoherency or inconsistency in your view is ONLY a product of our limited, logical apprehension of God’s full revelations that God has chosen to shield from us. When the lofty, spiritual sounding verbiage is stripped out all you are asserting is that because humans are not privy to God’s full disclosure and revelation we must suspend our temptation to think too logically about what God has revealed. Because IF WE DO—we will be faced with irrational propositions that we cannot make sense of—such as saying God’s moral perfection means he can’t tempt anyone to evil, but there is no problem with him conceiving of every profane thought, word and deed and determinately rendering it certain that men carry his will of decreed evil.

In short you are just saying the appearance of inconsistency and incompatibility only exists in the limited revelation we have now—but one day God will offer full disclosure concerning his “eternal workings” and until then we must have faith and avoid the Arminian temptation to think God’s current revelation is sufficiently consistent to reject propositions that seem to be incompatible or inconsistent.

But I now offer you another opportunity to prove otherwise: Can you tell us, Derek, how God conceives of our evils, decrees and determines our evils and yet doesn’t tempt us to evil? I’m quite confident though you will claim that the answer to such a question lies outside the realm of logical inquiry and outside the realm of God’s current, Biblical revelation—but I remain hopeful for something more substantive.

Let me reiterate that I do believe there are genuine mysteries in the Bible where God has not fully revealed himself. But these mysteries don’t revolve around incompatible revelatory truths that logically fall out of engaging the limited, biblical revelation we have. In other words, propositions that appear to be logically incompatible (i.e. we freely choose what we are causally determined to choose) are not inherent to the limited revelation God has revealed—as you assume. That is the difference between a true mystery of God’s revelation and what you propose as mystery. You state you are unable to explain how your views can be reasonably understood and logically explained because God’s revelation is currently too limited “to think our application of human logic is going to lead us to a detailed understanding.”

Thus conclude this book 🙂 I shall post my second reply to your second post next.

Shalom, Matt

Posted in Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 25: Derek Responds

Posted on June 24, 2013 by StriderMTB

Matt,

You bring up many interesting points here. I am compelled to respond to a few of them, as follows.

You said “I am committed to the view that God has not decreed or predetermined all evil because I am committed to a hermeneutical principle I have coined “The Principle of Moral Perfection.” (PMP) God, in virtue of being God, is the greatest conceivable being, yes? And it is greater to be morally perfect than not to be morally perfect, yes? As such it seems rather obvious and morally obligatory to hold that a being who has predetermined all evil is less morally perfect than a being who has refrained from predetermining all evil.”

In theory, this all sounds pretty good. However, skeptics use this type of argument against Christian theists when they assert that a morally perfect God would never create a world in which evil exists with His knowledge or by His permission. It does indeed appear that an omnipotent, loving God could create a world free of evil (and the possibility of evil). He did not do so; thus a non-Christian would argue that He either does not exist or is not the greatest conceivable being in terms of His power and love. How would you answer these arguments of skeptics, since they themselves appear to be able to conceive an even greater being than the God of the Bible as you understand Him to exist?

There is one major flaw in the argument, and I answer with this slight alteration: “God, in virtue of being God, is the greatest inconceivablebeing.” I strongly distrust the ability of human conceptions to rightly apprehend an incomprehensible and transcendent God. (based partly on Isaiah 55:9)

Looking at your comments in general, I am not sure you grasp the articulate nuances of Calvinistic theology. Calvinists clearly and emphatically affirm that God is ONLY GOOD, ALL GOOD, and SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for EVERY GOOD that occurs. God is both entirely innocent of evil, completely victorious over it, and never subject to its tyranny. Think about the implications of these statements. Do you agree with them? Do you think it is possible that in your zeal to preserve God’s innocence you may have compromised other important attributes? It is all too easy to overcompensate. This is part of the reason we have to be guided by Scripture.

You said “Therefore I find that both logic, morality and biblical consistency require me to be committed to the view that God is morally perfect and therefore not the ultimate origin and cause of evil in virtue of sovereignly decreeing all evil and rendering it certain (if not necessary).”

Decreeing/ordaining evil is not the same as originating it. If God is the ultimate cause of everything that occurs–even on your view–how is evil exempted? Is it any better to say that evil occurs with God’s foreknowledge and permission, and that He could prevent it but chooses not to? If you affirm that God knows about and permits evil, then in some sense are you not committed to the belief that He willed it and is its ultimate cause? I think we would both agree that God is the ultimate cause of evil, and yet not it’s origin or author (because He is incapable of desiring to do evil). Do we even disagree on this point? I recently discussed this at length with Roger Olson in the comments at his December 2012 post entitled, “Calvinism and the God-as-Author Analogy.” You might find that conversation interesting.

You said “If the “Principle of Moral Perfection” (PMP) is true than we are bound by it just as much as we are bound to the basic principle “God exists.” With this in view I think you can understand why it is incumbent upon us to return to passages that apparently at first glance seems to violate [PMP] and ask ourselves, “Are there other possible, valid interpretations available that do not violate PMF?” I have become convinced that there exists no Calvinist proof-text that cannot be re-interpreted in a manner consistent with biblical exegesis and which does not violate [PMP].”

Calvinism does not violate or deny God’s moral perfection. It exults in the triumphant display of it, and rejoices in the fact of it. You seem to be saying that God’s moral perfection and His foreordination of all things are mutually exclusive. I take this as a false dichotomy, along with your assertion that foreordination and freedom are incompatible. What prevents God from foreordaining in a way that does not invalidate freedom or implicate Him in evil? Is it a lack of power, ability, wisdom? I believe strongly enough in his omnipotent wisdom to suppose that He can accomplish these things, and I think highly enough in His moral perfection to suppose that He can do it without violating His holiness, justice, purity, or goodness. I would question whether you or I possess enough moral perfection to be competent in judging God’s decision to permit evil as a means of glorifying Himself. After all, some of the evil He has permitted is OURS! So our view of moral perfection may need some alteration (via Scripture and the work of the Spirit).

You said “It is important that we understand this because the divide between Calvinism and Arminianism cannot be resolved through simply appealing to scripture. . . . Both sides are using scripture—sometimes the same ones! But scripture alone is not sufficient. . . . Frameworks ultimately determine what we filter in and what we filter out, what is possible to concede to and what is impossible to allow.”

Scripture is sufficient when rightly handled. The problem is that we don’t always want it to say what it says, so we start downplaying what we don’t like and emphasizing what we do like. I believe you have done exactly this in your argument regarding the book of Proverbs (more on this later). Part of my appeal to Biblical paradox is based on a rigorous commitment to taking all of Scripture at face value all the time, as far as is humanly possible, even if it doesn’t seem to fit the system. This makes you think more, leaves you without an explanation sometimes, and takes your trust in the Bible through tests that result in an increase of faith faith and understanding. I am convinced that system-driven exegesis is actually a hindrance to sanctification. Although it is impossible to be completely unbiased, it is well worth working toward.

You said “Your framework is that God has meticulously determined and planned every evil thought, desire and choice—such that it MUST take place … Moreover you assume the scriptures support your notion that God has decreed every evil choice throughout history. In contrast my framework is that if the Principal of Moral Perfection is true—if God’s nature truly is morally perfect and righteous—then the claim “God decrees all evil and renders it certain” is a false claim. The question then is, “Whose framework is correct?” I can’t think of a greater cause to defend than the glory, holiness and righteousness of God against false, theological claims that logically hold him to be the ultimate origin, determiner and author of every evil.”

Classical Calvinism (all the way back to Augustine, at the very least) affirms that evil is ordained only by permission. It is not ordained in the same way that good is ordained, because God is not at all evil but is entirely good. The creature is the origin, author and direct cause of evil. God simply ordains to permit this. If He gave us libertarian freedom, without directly causing good in us, evil would be the only possible result. The reason I say this is that I believe so strongly in God’s moral perfection and omnibenevolence that I cannot conceive of the possibility of any good ever occurring apart from His direct causation. “There is none good but God alone.” “Apart from You I have no good thing.”

You said “I truly feel the very character and glory of God is at stake in this discussion Derek. I hope you can appreciate that fact—for it is where most Arminians are coming from today. (I honestly wonder where you are coming from? Fidelity to scripture? What would make you want to defend the thought that God unilaterally decreed everything from the color socks you choose to child abuse, domestic violence and the “script” of every perverse porn film?)”

God only decrees to permit evil; he does not author it, directly cause it, or even allow it apart from the creature’s own autonomous volition. So, while the decree includes everything that occurs (both good and evil), God’s direct causation and authorship only includes the good. He ordains that the creature is allowed to do evil only as a means for Him to do even more good. From your perspective, how does God get credit for the good that occurs? Can good happen apart from His direct authorship? Further, when a person is committing a horrific crime such as you mentioned, do you believe that God’s sheer mercy is keeping him alive and thereby in some sense permitting him to do the horrific things he is doing? Do you believe that God is actively doing the “good” of extending that person’s life, even as the person does evil? Is God showing mercy by allowing that person to live? Or does this thought somehow violate God’s moral perfection and implicate Him in the evil that is being done by that person?

You said “God’s perfect goodness is his glory! That is why God literally said to Moses, “I will cause my goodness (glory) to pass before you and I will proclaim the name Yahweh before you” (Exo. 33:19).”

Totally agree. This is a critical exegetical connection that is also well supported throughout the New Testament.

You said “Just to be clear, my underlying contention is that the Arminian framework preserves God’s glory and moral perfection whereas the Calvinist framework makes God the cause and author of evil (the very antithesis of glory). You can deny this but you have yet to parse the difference between God’s holy mind decreeing that evil occur and authoring that evil occur.”

Calvinism says that God is not the direct, sole or originating cause of evil; and certainly not its author. He permits it. I addressed the difference in previous comments, and have now done so again.

You said “Ultimately it is about choosing a theological position that has the least amount of interpretive problems and preserves God’s holy character and glory from derision.”

I disagree. Faithfulness to Scripture — and full submission to God’s truth expressed there — is the most important factor in evaluating any theological system. Affirming God’s truth according to Scripture will not prevent scoffers from deriding His character; in fact, it may only provoke them to further mockery (unless God changes their hearts).

You said “With that said let me address … some of the verses you believe commit you to the framework that God decreed all your decisions—including your sin.”

Do you believe that God foresees your sin? Does He have the power to prevent it? Does He willingly permit it? How is this different from decreeing to allow you to sin?

You said “Yes we are limited in our knowledge—I agree. But you are asserting contradictions that are in every sense incoherent and absurd.”

What contradictions have I asserted? Where have I stated that any given proposition is both true and not true in the same way and at the same time?

You said “Derek, no matter what I say that logically or scripturally invalidates your view, you can simply say, “The contradiction only exists in our human perspective.” It is un-falsifiable because it can’t be challenged by argument, logic…words! This seems to me a tad dangerous—if not gnostic. You are more or less saying your view is absurd from our human perspective but its ultimate truth lies hidden behind the curtain of mystery and exists in the realm of a secret, hidden perspective known only to God.”

Sure it can be challenged. It can be challenged by the Word of God. I am not at all saying my view is absurd from the human perspective; rather, I am saying that my view agrees with God’s Word, reflects God’s revelation, and may possibly be difficult to explain (in terms of mere human logic) at some points where God has not directly spoken. That is a far cry from absurdity! On the other hand, it is bordering on absurd to suggest that my view has any kind of connection with or similarity to gnosticism. The proper name of the hermeneutic I am representing here is presuppositional Biblical epistemology. How are we to know things that God has not revealed? When it comes to His eternal workings, which He has not seen fit to describe to us in detail, it could be a bit presumptuous for us to think our application of human logic is going to lead us to a detailed understanding.

You said “If I ever sound flustered or blunt just know it comes from a good place. Sometimes blogs are a poor medium for debate and reflection.”

This is a tough conversation to have with anyone anywhere, especially when there are strongly held convictions on both sides. I appreciate your gracious attitude, which is all too often missing from these discussions.

Blessings,
Derek

(Continued in subsequent post…)

Matt,

Thank you for taking time to work through some of the Scripture passages I mentioned.

You said, “In your last response you called to aid Proverbs 19:21 “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.” Does this verse dictate that God meticulously determines and controls everything humans do—such as molesting children? The Principle of Moral Perfection would say “no.”

Does God foresee every evil that occurs? Does He have the power to prevent it from occurring? (if not, what power does He have over evil?) Does He permit evil, or does it happen outside of His control? If God permits evil when He could prevent it, do you think this violates PMP? Does PMP dictate that God never foresees or allows evil?

The purpose of the Lord that stands — no matter how horrific the evil that occurs — is to bring about greater good.

You said, “Far from saying man’s plans originated in God’s decretive mind and that man is merely the intermediate instrument to bring about God’s decree, the verse actually grounds man’s plans in the mind of man—not God.”

In other words, God decrees to permit man to do what man wants to do? That sounds very familiar. The creature is always the originator of evil.

You said, “Secondly God’s sovereignty is best seen in overruling man’s ingenuity and evil to bring about his sovereign purposes. There is no violation of PMP in saying God can use, direct and steer man’s own sinful intentions (known to God because he knows our characters) to ultimately fulfill his purposes. That is to say God can exploit man’s plans to fulfill his own purposes. His purposes can trump ours! Again his sovereignty is best seen in overruling evil by exploiting evil for his own good purposes. But it quite another thing to say God decrees evil SO THAT he can bring about good purposes.”

What is the difference between allowing evil in order to bring about good and decreeing to allow evil in order to bring about good? Is the “good” of overcoming evil His eternal purpose? Did He foresee it from eternity? Then why not decree to allow it?

You said, “For example you bring up the story of Joseph and how God meant for good what the brothers meant for evil. The “it” you reference is Joseph being sold as a slave in Egypt—not the wicked characters of the brothers.”

The point is that the same evil event which was “meant for evil” by the brothers was simultaneously “meant for good” by God. Did God foresee and choose to permit the wicked characters and actions of the brothers? This was the human motive and means for Joseph to be sold as a slave in Egypt. Was God in control of this evil, such that He could have prevented it?

You said, “And God does no wrong in planning or purposing that Joseph be a slave in Egypt. We owe our very lives to him and if God wishes that I become vulnerable and subject to the evil whims of men such that I serve his overarching purpose as a slave so that good can come, that is God’s prerogative. However we most note the hatred and jealousy of the older brothers arose out of their own wicked hearts and minds (i.e. many are the plans in man’s mind” Pr. 21:9).”

What you are describing here is in perfect harmony with Calvinism. Can you apply this same logic with regard to other horrific evils? Does God “plan and purpose” them? If not, how do they occur apart from His planning and purposing?

You said, “God did not HAVE to create it within them or decree their evil characters before the foundation of the world in order to later exploit their jealousy and sin to achieve his own good intention (“meant it for good”).

Calvinists do not think God creates evil within people. However, if the sin of Joseph’s brothers was foreseen and permitted by God in order to bring about what He planned and purposed, did they have the ability to choose otherwise? As you know, I would answer “yes.” Your view would seem to indicate “no.” If this is the case, were they morally responsible?

You said, “Such is the nature of true, God-glorifying sovereignty: overruling evil for good—not causing all evil to bring about some good. Vastly different.”

How about eternally purposing to allow a pre-defined amount of evil in order to bring about vastly more good?

You said, “Does that sound Calvinistic? Not at all–because the onus is on us to trust the Lord and submit to him in order for our paths to be directed!”

Sure it sounds Calvinistic. We believe in the proper balance of human choice/responsibility and God’s sovereignty. We do not in any way deny human choice/responsibility. We also believe in the principles of Law and Gospel, so it is natural that we are commanded and held responsible. Again I am concerned that you may not be aware of the historic/classical Calvinistic approach.

You said, “This leads to my basic contention that any attempt to ground a universal, deterministic sovereignty in Proverbs is ill-conceived from the start. . . . Proverbs is thoroughly understood by scholars to be within the genre of “wisdom literature” which was not all that uncommon in the ANE culture. It was a form of literature that sought to articulate general wisdom for society to follow. Proverbs in not a book where we should seek absolute doctrines of universal, binding truths. If we do we have on hand dozens of contradictions and falsehood. For example there are highly skilled people in this world who have remained unknown and unrecognized by kings and rulers despite Proverb 22:29 saying otherwise. A soft answer does not always turn away wrath (15:1). Humility and the fear of the Lord do not always bring riches as Prov. 22:6 asserts. Nor do we find that the wise always inherit honor and that fools on this earth are always shamed and brought to disgrace (3:35). Rulers are not always friends with the kind and pure of heart (22:11). Training up a child in the way of the Lord does not guarantee that he won’t depart from it as 22:6 states. Proverbs asserts that the Lord will ensure that the righteous never go hungry and that the desires of the wicked are never realized (10:3), but this is also not universally true. We live in a corrupt world where the wicked do prosper and even Paul said he suffered great hunger.”

I believe this is a misguided and dangerous approach to exegeting the Wisdom Literature. Proverbs certainly contains general observations about the world and people as you indicate, but it also contains absolute and unobservable truth about God. Is the fear of the Lord ALWAYS the beginning of wisdom? Does God ALWAYS hate evil? Does He ALWAYS possess wisdom? Is He ALWAYS righteous? In Proverbs, truths about God’s nature and acts are not just general observations; they are revelation concerning matters we are incapable of observing.

You said, “Should we assume that Proverbs is so untrue to many instances of life that it is contradictory, errant and fallible? Not at all—the genre is general wisdom. And IF, Derek, Proverbs contains many passages that are clearly unfulfilled and tenuous in their universal binding nature, why are you so confident in believing your enlistment of Proverbs 21:19 is announcing a universal truth that God purposes and predetermined everything that occurs?”

Because the things the Proverbs reveal about God are not generalized. They are God’s self-revelation, and are not reflecting human observations. They are the Holy Spirit’s unveiling of God’s hidden ways.

You said, “You didn’t mention Proverbs 16:33 but I see it so often on Calvinist forums (one of Pipers favs) that I would like to deal with it. Any Arminian would concede that God in his power is more than capable of determining the outcome of any casted lot—we just feel the Calvinist is overstepping his case in teaching that God determines every throw of the dice in every monopoly game based on this verse.”

Which roll of the dice IS God in control of? Which rolls are beyond His control? When does He find out the outcome of the game? Does He allow it? Could He have prevented it?

You said, “Moreover this verse is not without its historical context. It was not uncommon in the history of Israel to attempt to discern God’s will in a particular matter by casting lots. For instance when the faithful of Israel gathered together before the Lord to seek his council they would ask that the decision of the lots come from the Lord, such as in Joshua 18:8 where we find that Joshua cast lots for his men “before the Lord” or in 1 Samuel 14:41 where lots are cast to determine guilt between Saul and Jonathan. Many scholars think the Ephod, Urim and Thummim were inanimate objects of divination like flat coins or dice in which the priest or king prayed for God to UNIQUELY manipulate the objects to reveal his will. The writers of the O.T. would not have believed every roll of the dice or every lot cast in every gambling foray was equally manipulated and determined by God! Yet Calvinists would have us believe Prov. 16:33 is asserting such a universal rule.”

What would be the point of saying something OBVIOUSLY manipulated by God is under God’s control? That would be stating the obvious, no?

You said, “There just isn’t good warrant for the Calvinist to universalize this passage deterministically over every bounce of the gambling dice in Vegas! Common sense tells us Prov.16:33 is extolling God’s ability to intervene (at will) into random lots cast, but that such intervention is contextually appropriate to situations where God has a specific course in mind and controls the lots in accordance with his guidance in a certain matter.”

Does God foresee and allow the results of die rolling? When does He not foresee and allow the outcome? If you affirm that God both foreknows and permits the results of every die roll, aren’t you saying in some sense He wills/ordains them all?

You said, “So in sum Derek, if we cannot universalize a host of passages in Proverbs without undermining the book…we ought not to assume that the passages you (and many other Calvinists) cite are intended to unveil a universal theme of exhaustive, divine determination.”

Unfortunately, this view undermines God’s self-revelation, and downgrades it to the level of general observations about people and the world. Calvinists believe God is as morally perfect and meticulously sovereign as He reveals Himself to be throughout Proverbs. Your approach here would seem to reduce His self-revelation to mere generalization and human observation. What you are overlooking is that the point of many verses in Proverbs is to reveal eternal truths and principles about God that are consistent yet UNOBSERVABLE, in sharp and vivid contrast to the earthly realities generally noticed by humans.

Blessings,

Derek

Posted in Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 24: Matt Responds

Posted on June 24, 2013 by StriderMTB

Hello Derek,

Thanks again for your patience. It has been a frustrating week of traveling. One of our older boys from the orphanage I oversee got accepted to a great university in Thailand. I left with him last week but he was issued the wrong visa. We tried to fix the problem in Thailand but were unsuccessful for the most inane reasons that accumulated to the point of taking a few years off my life :) We had to take the long journey back across the border and have been waiting on the embassy here to issue him the correct visa in the hope that he can return to Thailand tomorrow…but delays keep arising. I would rather not think God predetermined it before time began but has allowed it and will ultimately use it for our good IF we respond to it appropriately (i.e. not killing any embassy workers) :)

I would like to begin by laying out some needed borders to frame our discussion from this point on. I am committed to the view that God has not decreed or predetermined all evil because I am committed to a hermeneutical principle I have coined “The Principle of Moral Perfection.” (PMP) God, in virtue of being God, is the greatest conceivable being, yes? And it is greater to be morally perfect than not to be morally perfect, yes? As such it seems rather obvious and morally obligatory to hold that a being who has predetermined all evil is less morally perfect than a being who has refrained from predetermining all evil.

We are told that God hates evil and wickedness and loves righteousness, that God abhors evil and wickedness and that he is provoked by evil (would God decree his own provocation?). Moreover we are told that God cannot lie, cannot be tempted by evil nor tempt others to commit evil (much less decree that they commit evil!) and that God’s eyes are too pure to behold evil (much less decree it as certain!). Therefore I find that both logic, morality and biblical consistency require me to be committed to the view that God is morally perfect and therefore not the ultimate origin and cause of evil in virtue of sovereignly decreeing all evil and rendering it certain (if not necessary).

If the “Principle of Moral Perfection” (PMP) is true than we are bound by it just as much as we are bound to the basic principle “God exists.” With this in view I think you can understand why it is incumbent upon us to return to passages that apparently at first glance seems to violate PMF and ask ourselves, “Are there other possible, valid interpretations available that do not violate PMF?” I have become convinced that there exists no Calvinist proof-text that cannot be re-interpreted in a manner consistent with biblical exegesis and which does not violate PMF.

So those are my cards I am putting on the table. We both approach this topic with preconceived assumptions that guide what we are willing to concede—that I admit. It is important that we understand this because the divide between Calvinism and Arminianism cannot be resolved through simply appealing to scripture.

If it could it would have been at some point in the past 500 years. Both sides are using scripture—sometimes the same ones! But scripture alone is not sufficient. A person can have all the mosaic pieces available and still construct the wrong picture because he is working from an incorrect framework in how the “pieces fit.” The scriptures are like such mosaic pieces—and we are all to aware of how they can be moved and shuffled around to support a host of wrong theologies like Oneness Pentecostalism, Mormonism, etc. The argument can only be “won” by recognizing which framework is correct. Frameworks ultimately determine what we filter in and what we filter out, what is possible to concede to and what is impossible to allow.

Your framework is that God has meticulously determined and planned every evil thought, desire and choice—such that it MUST take place (because you assume if that is not true God could no longer be extolled as sovereign?) Moreover you assume the scriptures support your notion that God has decreed every evil choice throughout history.

In contrast my framework is that if the Principal of Moral Perfection is true—if God’s nature truly is morally perfect and righteous—then the claim “God decrees all evil and renders it certain” is a false claim. The question then is, “Whose framework is correct?” I can’t think of a greater cause to defend than the glory, holiness and righteousness of God against false, theological claims that logically hold him to be the ultimate origin, determiner and author of every evil (the claim is too dangerous and insidious to “punt” to mystery or paradox every time the need arises to absolve God of moral responsibility or escape logical implications). I truly feel the very character and glory of God is at stake in this discussion Derek. I hope you can appreciate that fact—for it is where most Arminians are coming from today. (I honestly wonder where you are coming from? Fidelity to scripture? What would make you want to defend the thought that God unilaterally decreed everything from the color socks you choose to child abuse, domestic violence and the “script” of every perverse porn film?)

Thankfully Calvinists have not cornered the market on God’s glory—despite the attempts of Piper to convince Christendom otherwise. Indeed Arminians like myself believe high-profile Calvinists, like Piper, have so thoroughly made God out to be morally ambiguous that “God’s glory” has become indistinguishable from a cosmic being of supreme power willing whatever. But God cannot “will whatever.” God cannot lie and cannot tempt men to commit evil. Yet in Piper’s portrait, God’s exercise of supreme power “becomes the good” rather than being dictated “by the good.” No longer is God’s morally perfect nature the paradigm of goodness that determines God’s willful use of power. Instead God’s will and exercise of raw power determines what is good. (This is a form of radical voluntarism i.e.– something is right simply because God wills it).

All of this is misguided. God’s glory is ultimately not his exercise of will through supreme, raw power—but his moral perfection that determines the use and LIMITS of divine power. God’s perfect goodness is his glory! That is why God literally said to Moses, “I will cause my goodness (glory) to pass before you and I will proclaim the name Yahweh before you” (Exo. 33:19).

I’m slightly digressing to make a point–sorry. Just to be clear, my underlying contention is that the Arminian framework preserves God’s glory and moral perfection whereas the Calvinist framework makes God the cause and author of evil (the very antithesis of glory). You can deny this but you have yet to parse the difference between God’s holy mind decreeing that evil occur and authoring that evil occur.

Every theological school of thought has its own “horse pills” to swallow. Ultimately it is about choosing a theological position that has the least amount of interpretive problems and preserves God’s holy character and glory from derision. With that said let me address some of your additional comments and then some of the verses you believe commit you to the framework that God decreed all your decisions—including your sin.

You state:

“Scripture and the believer’s experience support both divine determinism and genuine free will of some sort (though not exactly the libertarian variety).”

There is little I can say to this claim that I haven’t already said. First your earlier concession that genuine freedom must entail genuine possibilities “to do otherwise” IS the libertarian position! Secondly the weakness of your view is that from God’s decretive standpoint we are not genuinely free to do other than what God decreed. God’s decree acts deterministically upon our wills and from God’s decretive standpoint we are not free to choose contrary to God’s determination. You don’t deny this because you intuitively know to do so renders divine determinism—and thus your view— meaningless. Moreover in your view multiple possibilities or outcomes do not REALLY exist because you concede that only one outcome has been determined (and therefore must occur). In the end your view posits merely the illusion of free-will in that we are ignorant of God’s decree before we choose in accordance with God’s sole decree. And of course the reason we choose in accordance with God’s decree is because God’s decree causally constrains our choice to one—the one he determined. Thus again your view collapses into causal determinism that invalidates genuine freedom, genuine contingency and genuine possibility.

But you deny all this. You deny that humans are merely experiencing the illusion of free-will and you assert that genuine possibilities of choice REALLY exist—despite the fact that every result and outcome has been predetermined. You admittedly cannot resolve the logical dilemma and obvious contradiction inherent to your view and so you again appeal to inscrutable mysteries. You state:

“I am not at all shy about ascribing great limitations and even apparent contradictions to our perspective.”

Yes we are limited in our knowledge—I agree. But you are asserting contradictions that are in every sense incoherent and absurd. Derek, no matter what I say that logically or scripturally invalidates your view, you can simply say, “The contradiction only exists in our human perspective.” It is un-falsifiable because it can’t be challenged by argument, logic…words! This seems to me a tad dangerous—if not gnostic. You are more or less saying your view is absurd from our human perspective but its ultimate truth lies hidden behind the curtain of mystery and exists in the realm of a secret, hidden perspective known only to God.

I think we have both exhausted all we can say on this matter—so we have to let any undecided readers decide (presumably freely?) for themselves :)
What is left is your contention:

“Our paradoxical human perspective is even expressed in Scripture.”

To prove your point you sought to enlist Proverbs 19:21 ‘Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.’”

And before that you highlighted:

Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.

Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?

I see these verses abound all over Calvinist forums and so in my next post I will attempt to deal with the common use of Proverbs by Calvinists to draw forth proof-texts to substantiate a view of meticulous, divine determinism. I hope to highlight why your use of Proverbs is ill-conceived from the start.

I may be back on the road tomorrow but will try to post it up if time allows. Again I want reconfirm that I have enjoyed the dialogue. If I ever sound flustered or blunt just know it comes from a good place :) Sometimes blogs are a poor medium for debate and reflection.

(Continued in subsequent post…)

In your last response, Derek, you called to aid Proverbs 19:21 “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.”

Does this verse dictate that God meticulously determines and controls everything humans do—such as molesting children? The Principle of Moral Perfection would say “no.” Therefore let us look at other possible interpretations of which I can readily think of two:

(1) Far from saying man’s plans originated in God’s decretive mind and that man is merely the intermediate instrument to bring about God’s decree, the verse actually grounds man’s plans in the mind of man—not God. Secondly God’s sovereignty is best seen in overruling man’s ingenuity and evil to bring about his sovereign purposes. There is no violation of PMP in saying God can use, direct and steer man’s own sinful intentions (known to God because he knows our characters) to ultimately fulfill his purposes. That is to say God can exploit man’s plans to fulfill his own purposes. His purposes can trump ours! Again his sovereignty is best seen in overruling evil by exploiting evil for his own good purposes. But it quite another thing to say God decrees evil SO THAT he can bring about good purposes.

For example you bring up the story of Joseph and how God meant for good what the brothers meant for evil. The “it” you reference is Joseph being sold as a slave in Egypt—not the wicked characters of the brothers. And God does no wrong in planning or purposing that Joseph be a slave in Egypt. We owe our very lives to him and if God wishes that I become vulnerable and subject to the evil whims of men such that I serve his overarching purpose as a slave so that good can come, that is God’s prerogative. However we most note the hatred and jealousy of the older brothers arose out of their own wicked hearts and minds (i.e. many are the plans in man’s mind” Pr. 21:9). God did not HAVE to create it within them or decree their evil characters before the foundation of the world in order to later exploit their jealousy and sin to achieve his own good intention (“meant it for good”). Such is the nature of true, God-glorifying sovereignty: overruling evil for good—not causing all evil to bring about some good. Vastly different.

(2) All of the above entails one possible interpretation of Prov. 21:9 that avoids violating PMP. But even then I am cautious in thinking the writer wants us to think of this verse as denoting a universal truth applicable without exception. Another possible interpretation is to rightly assume Proverbs is intended to GENERALLY instruct—not the wicked but the one seeking wisdom. Therefore when a person submits their plans to God—as the scriptures advise us (“commit your way to the Lord”), the Lord is faithful to ensure “his purpose will stand” in our lives. This is all the more credible when we realize Prov. 21:19 parallels Proverbs 16:9 which states “the human mind plans the way, but the LORD directs the steps.” Yet 16:9 is prefaced earlier in 16:3 “Commit to the Lord whatever you do and he will establish your plans.”

Similarly Proverbs 20:24 “A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?” need not mean that God determined the steps of a rapist to his victim. If it were intended to mean that every person’s steps and path is ultimately controlled by God’s irresistible decrees, then what do we do with the multitudinous verses that advise persons to depart from the path of evil, wickedness and foolishness and adopt the path of wisdom? It is much more likely to assume that the writer of Proverbs is saying that the person who has committed his path to the wisdom and guidance of God will more often than not find himself to be on a journey of faith where full disclosure and understanding is often beyond our grasp. Proverbs 3:5-6 puts it this way:

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, do not lean on your own understanding, but in all of your ways submit to him and he will make your paths straight (i.e. direct your steps).”

Does that sound Calvinistic? Not at all–because the onus is on us to trust the Lord and submit to him in order for our paths to be directed! Yet it is speaking to the same issue as your proof-text of Proverbs 20:24. This leads to my basic contention that any attempt to ground a universal, deterministic sovereignty in Proverbs is ill-conceived from the start. It is wholly irresponsible for us to read Proverbs in a manner divorced and isolated from the overall emphasis of Proverbs—that being to instruct one in the way of the Lord. Calvinists invite many contradictions when they seek to universalize these passages into doctrines and principles that deterministically extend exhaustively to all.

Lets examine why.

Proverbs is thoroughly understood by scholars to be within the genre of “wisdom literature” which was not all that uncommon in the ANE culture. It was a form of literature that sought to articulate general wisdom for society to follow.

Proverbs in not a book where we should seek absolute doctrines of universal, binding truths. If we do we have on hand dozens of contradictions and falsehood. For example there are highly skilled people in this world who have remained unknown and unrecognized by kings and rulers despite Proverb 22:29 saying otherwise. A soft answer does not always turn away wrath (15:1). Humility and the fear of the Lord do not always bring riches as Prov. 22:6 asserts. Nor do we find that the wise always inherit honor and that fools on this earth are always shamed and brought to disgrace (3:35). Rulers are not always friends with the kind and pure of heart (22:11). Training up a child in the way of the Lord does not guarantee that he won’t depart from it as 22:6 states. Proverbs asserts that the Lord will ensure that the righteous never go hungry and that the desires of the wicked are never realized (10:3), but this is also not universally true. We live in a corrupt world where the wicked do prosper and even Paul said he suffered great hunger.

One can go on and on. Should we assume that Proverbs is so untrue to many instances of life that it is contradictory, errant and fallible? Not at all—the genre is general wisdom. And IF, Derek, Proverbs contains many passages that are clearly unfulfilled and tenuous in their universal binding nature, why are you so confident in believing your enlistment of Proverbs 21:19 is announcing a universal truth that God purposes and predetermined everything that occurs?

You didn’t mention Proverbs 16:33 but I see it so often on Calvinist forums (one of Pipers favs) that I would like to deal with it. Any Arminian would concede that God in his power is more than capable of determining the outcome of any casted lot—we just feel the Calvinist is overstepping his case in teaching that God determines every throw of the dice in every monopoly game based on this verse.

Moreover this verse is not without its historical context. It was not uncommon in the history of Israel to attempt to discern God’s will in a particular matter by casting lots. For instance when the faithful of Israel gathered together before the Lord to seek his council they would ask that the decision of the lots come from the Lord, such as in Joshua 18:8 where we find that Joshua cast lots for his men “before the Lord” or in 1 Samuel 14:41 where lots are cast to determine guilt between Saul and Jonathan. Many scholars think the Ephod, Urim and Thummim were inanimate objects of divination like flat coins or dice in which the priest or king prayed for God to UNIQUELY manipulate the objects to reveal his will. The writers of the O.T. would not have believed every roll of the dice or every lot cast in every gambling foray was equally manipulated and determined by God! Yet Calvinists would have us believe Prov. 16:33 is asserting such a universal rule.

In the N.T. we also find a situation in which the disciples gathered UNIQUELY before the Lord to seek his decision by casting lots to fill Judas’s spot as the 12th disciple. These are specific cases where men are seeking the will of the divine and God in turn seeks to reveal his specific will. God is more than capable of honoring their faith. That is the key—it is done in faith. There just isn’t good warrant for the Calvinist to universalize this passage deterministically over every bounce of the gambling dice in Vegas! Common sense tells us Prov.16:33 is extolling God’s ability to intervene (at will) into random lots cast, but that such intervention is contextually appropriate to situations where God has a specific course in mind and controls the lots in accordance with his guidance in a certain matter.

So in sum Derek, if we cannot universalize a host of passages in Proverbs without undermining the book…we ought not to assume that the passages you (and many other Calvinists) cite are intended to unveil a universal theme of exhaustive, divine determination.

There are still substantive comments you have made I want to respond to…plus your enlisting of Acts and the predetermined crucifixion of Christ. I will address those next.

Posted in Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment