This is the second of three posts by Ryan Hedrich. Part 1 can be read here: REVIEW: The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson (Calvary Chapel) Pt. 1
Objection #2: Epistemic Repercussions of Determinism
Mr. Bryson makes several miscellaneous arguments throughout his twelfth chapter, which are only given mention in passing but, since all of them are or should be directed at the doctrine of divine determinism (not fatalism), are relevant nonetheless. Prefatorily, I think this is an appropriate time to explain a little more about my own beliefs.
I unhesitatingly believe God is the ultimate cause of all things, because Scripture affirms God causes all things [according to His good pleasure] (cf. Job 23:13-14; Psalm 115:3, 135:6; Isaiah 46:10-11; Lamentations 3:38; Daniel 4:35; Ephesians 1:11). He is active in effecting that which He desires, and everything that occurs is so according to His desire. While God can use instrumentalities or “second causes” to achieve His purposes as well as direct efficiency, the ultimate or first cause of all things stems from God’s direct, efficient, and determinative purpose. The extent of God’s proactive determination is borne out in specific cases as well as general testimony (cf. Deuteronomy 2:30; 1 Kings 22:19-23; Psalm 105:25; Isaiah 10:5-15, 19:17; John 12:37-40; Acts 2:23, 4:27-28). Moreover, as the reader may discern for himself, these passages indicate God causes wickedness as well as moral peace. Isaiah explicitly corroborates this in Isaiah 45:7, a passage in which Gordon Clark pointed out in his book “Predestination” that the Hebrew word for “calamity” denotes or is synonymous with “[moral] wickedness” approximately 50 times in the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 6:5). This fits the juxtaposition between peace and calamity nicely, as God obviously creates moral well-being as well as natural (Romans 8:28-39).
In his entire book, the only passage of these that Mr. Bryson references in Ephesians 1:11, and even in that case he does not think it important to note that it reads God works out all things according to the counsel of His will and good pleasure. Mr. Bryson does not (in this chapter, at least) biblically support his contention that God merely allows humans to “act freely” – by which he means “choose apart from extrinsic antecedent causation” – although he agrees with Norman Geisler that such is biblical. He does mention that “When the Bible uses the word predestination, it is always with regard to the future of a believer” (page 320), but surely Mr. Bryson wouldn’t suggest that where a word is not found, its concept also cannot be found (e.g. the Trinity). He also does not explain, as I have (and am about to again), why a holy God would cause or allow sin.
There is still more to be said in favor of the idea God has actively caused all things. It was mentioned that all of God’s actions stem from His desire to manifest His glory (Ephesians 3:8-10, 20-21, Romans 9:23). Romans 9:15 functions as an argument for the righteousness of God because God’s unconditioned distribution of mercy and compassion manifest His glory, honor, and name (Exodus 33:18-19). Without sin, we could never stand in awe of the multiplicity of His excellences, including His power (Romans 9:11-17; Exodus 33:15-20), compassion, love, and wrath (Romans 9:19-23). All things have been created so that, through the salvation of the church, the heavenly powers might understand the wisdom of God, which is deserving of praise and glory (Ephesians 3). There is no redemption where there is no sin. In order to maximally manifest His glory, men must sin, providing the occasion by which God can fully reveal Himself to His people. Here, however, we are beginning to turn to the reason God has ultimately caused all things and not the proof.
One final, related evidence bears mentioning: as predestination involves intention, and as the success of one’s intention is limited to one’s extent of knowledge, predestination is possible only to the extent that God knows His intentions can be fulfilled and that the particulars relevant to that which He is predestining will not deviate from His plan. Hence, that God eternally knows that the predetermined purposes of His decrees – predicated on His good pleasure – will be effected (Isaiah 46:10-11) also implies He must know that the means by which His decrees come to fruition will not thwart His decrees (Isaiah 14:24-27; Romans 9:19); if God did not know all things eternally – proximate means as well respective ends – He would have no basis upon which to validly claim that means which He did not know could not possibly thwart His decrees. Mr. Bryson agrees that God is omniscient, but grounds God’s omniscience in passive allowance of “freely” chosen sinful events as opposed to God’s efficacious, sovereign will (page 301). What Mr. Bryson does not explain is how God possesses knowledge of what humans will “freely” choose [apart from extrinsic antecedent causation] in the first place.
This is a critical problem for those who believe God “allows” rather than “causes.” For God to know a given proposition is true apart from His own determination means His knowledge would be contingent on contingencies: in this instance, the wills of His creatures. Because we as creatures are temporal, for God’s knowledge to be contingent on our “free will” would deny His eternal omniscience. It is unfortunate that Mr. Bryson – who agrees that God’s sovereignty is nothing if not His “right… to do as He wishes (Psalm 50:1; Isaiah 40:15; 1 Tim. 6:15) with His creation. This implies that there is no external influence upon Him and that He also has the ability to exercise His power and control according to His will” (page 307) – [partially] predicates God’s knowledge on human freedom rather than [completely on] His sovereignty. Mr. Bryson obviously does not intend to deny God’s eternal omniscience, but his position can yield no other conclusion. God’s determination of all things is the only position consistent with His eternal omniscience, so it must be true.
Finally, I do not find any of this to be paradoxical to the definitions of human freedom expressed by Augustine and the aforementioned Confessions or to the fact that God commands what He does not will. As a holy God, He cannot demand anything less than perfection. As a righteous God, He cannot cause anything less than that which will maximally manifest His glory. There is no conflict or tension in these statements. Against these plain proofs and clear harmonies, however, Mr. Bryson has argued that divine determinism leads to an epistemologically untenable position. Briefly examining each of his short arguments in turn:
“Assuming Calvinism is true, how can man (even an Arminian man) do anything to offend God, or please Him for that matter, that God did not sovereignly predestine that he would and should do?” (page 288)
The question “is everything as it ought to be?” lacks specificity. “Ought” implies responsibility, and while it may be jumping the gun to talk about what responsibility presupposes, all Christians should at least agree that it presupposes one to whom one is responsible. Men are responsible to God. God is responsible to Himself (Hebrews 6:13). If the question, then, is “is sinful man as he ought to be with respect to the laws of His sovereign?” the answer is unequivocally “no.” On the other hand, if the question is “ought God to have effected this reality?” the answer is “yes,” as Mr. Bryson can contend – but not substantiate, since one can only know counter-factuals via divine revelation – that a counter-factual world would more greatly manifest God’s glory. Depending on the emphasis of the [currently equivocally worded] question, the answer will vary.
“If Calvinism’s view of God’s sovereignty is true, then every thought (correct or in error), every feeling (good or bad), and every statement (either for or against Calvinism) have been sovereignly determined and decreed by God. If Calvinism’s view of God’s sovereignty is true, we could never actually know it, test it, or argue its merits—we could only “go through the motions” that look like real thinking and arguing but which are actually merely the sovereignly determined and decreed acts or thoughts of God working themselves in, through, and out of us” (page 289).
“To even engage in a discussion about free will presumes that a person is free to actually have such a discussion.” (page 323)
Interestingly, William Lane Craig made a similar argument in his recent diatribe against Calvinism. Both his and Mr. Bryson’s arguments are dubious, however. There is simply no apparent reason that a man who has been caused to believe a given proposition cannot evaluate whether or not his belief is sound. The origin of the desires according to which one chooses is, at worst, irrelevant to the question of whether or not one has actually followed the logical principles according to which one may know that his belief is justified and shows, at best, that God is as unconditionally sovereign in His dispensation of justified knowledge as He is in all other matters. Of course, this also has implications as to whether or not evil can be “morally…traced to God” (page 300), but I will deal with that next section.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Ryan,
As you requested, I’m using this thread to reply to your comment at this link:
http://biblicalthought.com/blog/review-the-dark-side-of-calvinism-by-george-bryson-calvary-chapel-pt-1/#comment-98174
When I quoted the ESV’s translation of Romans 2:4 as evidence that God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance, you appealed to Herman Hoeksema, who disagreed about there being textual backing for inserting the verb meant. Actually, this verb or one synonymous appears in other translations:
Interestingly, the Calvinistically inclined JFB Commentary remarks that the clause “not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance” (KJV) means that God’s goodness “is designed, as it is adapted, to do so”; in other words, it is designed or adapted to lead to repentance. The commentary adds: “It is a sad mark of depravity when all that is designed and fitted to melt only hardens the heart (cf. 2 Pet. iii. 9; Eccl. viii. 11).” Perhaps if someone had noted how the commentary’s interpretation meant that an irresistible, internal call is not necessary to induce repentance, the commentators would’ve backed off from their interpretation.
You continued:
Actually, if you trace the pronoun “you” throughout Romans 2:1-5, you’ll see that it denotes the same person or same kind of person, namely, the hypocritical Jew who judges others for what he excuses in himself. God’s kindness, then, is meant or intended to lead even such a hypocrite to repentance, so that such a hypocrite is the object of God’s kindness, temporarily.
You continued:
The sin of the Pharisees remained who had inquired into the formerly blind young man’s healing, because they, though unregenerate, had seen enough to make them guilty of refusing to believe and repent.
In Christ,
Frank
Frank,
Thanks for the reply.
My position regarding the textual invalidity of the idea God’s kindness can fail to lead one to repentance remains. You have no doubt noticed, in your culling of various different translations which agree with the ESV, that there are several that don’t, and that “JFB” provide no textual reason for their interpretation. By way of contrast, you can read Hoeksema’s full thoughts on Romans 2:4-5 here: http://sb.rfpa.org/index.cfm?mode=narrow&volume=73&issue=200&article=1773&book=45&search=dykstra%20drama&page=1&chapter=2&text_search=1
“Actually, if you trace the pronoun “you” throughout Romans 2:1-5, you’ll see that it denotes the same person or same kind of person, namely, the hypocritical Jew who judges others for what he excuses in himself.”
The person mentioned is not specified other than as one who hypocritically judges. Paul certainly will apply his general reasoning to the Jews specifically, beginning in verse 17, but he could very well have in mind hypocritical Gentiles as well as hypocritical Jews in 2:1-5.
“God’s kindness, then, is meant or intended to lead even such a hypocrite to repentance, so that such a hypocrite is the object of God’s kindness, temporarily.”
Perhaps if I simply let Hoeksema speak for me, you will better understand the reasons I have for what I said:
//…The goodness of God leads to repentance.
This becomes manifest in those who come into contact with this fact. It is as though I would say, “Don’t you know that fire burns you?” – meaning, of course, as soon as you come into contact with it. Or, “Don’t you know that poison kills you?” – meaning, of course, when you come into contact with it. So the apostle says: “Don’t you know that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” – meaning, as soon as you come into contact with it.
The natural man does not know that the goodness of God leads to repentance. Does he not know the fact? He does. This is not the meaning. But he does not know it in the sense that he does not experience, taste, that the goodness of God leads to repentance, and in the sense that he despises it. He despises the goodness of God as it becomes manifest in His lovingkindness, forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing, in the sense of not experiencing, that the goodness of God leads to repentance.//
“The sin of the Pharisees remained who had inquired into the formerly blind young man’s healing, because they, though unregenerate, had seen enough to make them guilty of refusing to believe and repent.”
You’ve simply rephrased the words in the passage. I still do not understand how this is relevant to Romans 2:1-5. I am also curious to hear your thoughts on this post, particularly the first seven paragraphs.
Ryan, thanks for bringing up: “allowed”/”caused.”
We have scripture telling us God “causes”, yet we as believers seem to be afraid to believe it. Keep up the good work.
Your most welcome. I enjoyed writing it and am glad others have been able to take something positive from it.
Ryan,
I read Herman Hoeksema’s rationale for not including the word meant or something synonymous in the English translation of Romans 2:4: “Or despisest thou the riches of [God's] goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (KJV). Much of his error stems from his appeal to “the natural man” of 1 Corinthians 2:14 as if it were true that all the lost are natural until their conversion. Granted, some of the lost reject everything spiritually linked to God, but other lost people are of a nobler, fairer mind (Acts 17:10-12). Being convinced that there is an irresistible, internal call—although there is no biblical evidence for such a call—Hoeksema refuses to see that God’s kindness, together with a faithful warning such as Paul’s, is sufficient for mankind to yield to it even though it is not irresistible.
Not having George Bryson’s book, I’ve thought it would be foolish for me to comment on it (Proverbs 18:13). But I’d like to say something about your opening remarks:
Scripture clarifies that “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28 ESV). Indeed, God works things out according to his good pleasure in his dealings with people who trust and obey him. But sinfulness and disobedience in some people have kept him from blessing them:
Yes, we read, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints” (Psalm 116:15 ESV). As regards the wicked, however, we read, “Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn and live” (Ezekiel 18:31-32 ESV).
Believing is what God requires of mankind. “Then they said to [Jesus], ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent’” (John 6:28-29 ESV).
Frank,
Although you never really addressed the passages I cited as support, I will answer your new observations. I hope you don’t mind that I’ve numbered my replies. It’s an organizational habit, not a premeditated plan to dissect (or at least disagree with) everything you write:
1. Paul’s dichotomy between the natural and spiritual man is grounded in the fact only Christians possess the Holy Spirit (2:12). The idea that the natural man implicates something more or something less than a man who is not reborn (cf. 15:44-46) has no contextual warrant.
2. That the Bereans who were willing to compare the claims of the gospel to the OT were more noble than those who did not does not imply that they could have accepted the gospel for any reason other than that they were effectually called by the Spirit, a call which is manifest in Paul’s same letter (1 Corinthians 1:24)!
3. “Indeed, God works things out according to his good pleasure in his dealings with people who trust and obey him.”
Actually, Paul says He works out all things for the good of those who love Him, those whom He has called according to His purpose. Tangentially, here is another example of the effectual call (cf. 8:30). But as we both know the only reason we love God is because He first loved us such that He chose us, predestined us unto sanctification, called us (effectually, since not all who are recipients of the general calling are subsequently justified), justified us, will glorify us, and extend to us every grace necessary for our salvation (8:32).
4. In citing Ezekiel 18, you seem to forget that the context specifies God is speaking of His peculiar people (18:30). The same point is made by Peter in 2 Peter 3:9; God is patient with all those whom He has elected. His patience can be counted as salvation, because He will not allow His chosen (“you”) to perish unrepentant. If He is really patient with everyone, Frank, why does He allow them to die in their sin? If “all things” are given freely to those for whom Christ died, whence comes insufficient desire to believe except in the fact Jesus’ sacrifice was not intended to save all? Not only is belief our responsibility (with which I wholeheartedly agree), but the passage you cite says it’s a work of God! How, then, can God’s working out our good be predicated on our trust and obedience, if it is by His doing *alone* we trust and obey Him in the first place?
Ryan,
You say I never really addressed the verses you cited as support. Do you mean these verses on sovereignty?
Where do these verses say God operates Calvinistically? Job, who remained faithful even while ill and impoverished, trusted that God would complete everything he had appointed for him. But Job never said he had received an irresistible call.
The Israelites who believed that God does all he pleases (Psalm 115:3) knew him to be superior to the nations’ idols, which could do nothing. They trusted that he would bless them; but they didn’t say he never does anything he dislikes such as causing the wicked to die, whose deaths he takes no pleasure in (Ezekiel 18:30-32).
In Isaiah 46, God said he would accomplish his purpose; however, it is evident from the whole prophecy of Isaiah that God’s purpose was to bless whoever trusted and obeyed him, and to punish whoever refused to repent. “Come now, let us reason together …” (Isaiah 1:18). Nowhere do we read that God acted without regard to man’s response.
Indeed, good and bad come from God’s mouth; however, what God did depended on the behavior of Israel and of other nations whom Jeremiah prophesied about (Jeremiah 18:7-11).
Nebuchadnezzar recognized that God carries out his will in heaven and on earth, but he never said God does not take peoples’ faith and conduct into consideration. In fact, we read that Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson Belshazzar later lost his life and kingdom because he didn’t humble himself like Nebuchadnezzar but used vessels from God’s temple to offer a toast to idols (Daniel 5:15-23).
In Ephesians 1:11, where the pronoun we refers to Paul and other believers, Paul speaks of God’s predestinating believers according to the purpose of God, who works all things in accordance with the counsel of his will. So what is God’s good pleasure? To use preaching to save those who believe (1 Corinthians 1:21). The use of preaching is different from the use of an irresistible call.
“Where do these verses say God operates Calvinistically?”
When they say that God does what He pleases, will bring to pass the end He has purposed, decrees both good and evil (cf. Isaiah 45:7), does according to His will, and works out all things according to His good pleasure. Those are “pro-action” verbs, not “passive,” which would have to be the case if God merely “allows” evil to function as the means by which He accomplishes His ends. You don’t seem to recognize that in each passage, the principle is general. Whatever God pleases, He does. Your interpretation of Ezekiel 18 (which I’ve already answered) makes mince-meat out of the assertion of Job and the Psalmist: God does what He desires. If God desires to save all wicked men without exception, why doesn’t He? After all, His inspired word says He does what He desires. If His patience is really to be regarded as salvation, why isn’t He patient with all wicked men without exception, those who you think are objects of God’s salvific desire? It doesn’t make sense.
You also are ignoring point #3 (above) and the OP’s argument from contingency of knowledge when you suggest that God’s purpose in blessing covenant-keepers is conditioned on man’s will, as though God Himself did not predestine what men would will. Remember:
//as predestination involves intention, and as the success of one’s intention is limited to one’s extent of knowledge, predestination is possible only to the extent that God knows His intentions can be fulfilled and that the particulars relevant to that which He is predestining will not deviate from His plan//
It is necessary, then, that the means by which God executes His plan are also predestined. But this predestination cannot be a “passive allowance” which is predicated on man’s allegedly free will (antecedently, exrinsically uncaused), because then:
//This is a critical problem for those who believe God “allows” rather than “causes.” For God to know a given proposition is true apart from His own determination means His knowledge would be contingent on contingencies: in this instance, the wills of His creatures. Because we as creatures are temporal, for God’s knowledge to be contingent on our “free will” would deny His eternal omniscience.//
I’m not trying to bombard you, but I hope that you are starting to recognize that the flow of thought from these passages I cite is not a consideration I detached from the OP.
“Indeed, good and bad come from God’s mouth; however, what God did depended on the behavior of Israel and of other nations whom Jeremiah prophesied about (Jeremiah 18:7-11).”
But their “behavior” was good or bad, both of which, since you agree that both good and bad are decreed by God, you should now accept (given the above arguments) God ALSO ultimately caused.
“Nebuchadnezzar recognized that God carries out his will in heaven and on earth, but he never said God does not take peoples’ faith and conduct into consideration.”
I didn’t say that. I am at a loss to understand why you are excluding faith from that which “[God] does according to his will among the host of heaven.” It seems to me you read my criticism that you are ignoring these passages and then compounded the problem by ignoring the rest of my post (#3 and #4 especially).
In Ephesians 1:11, where the pronoun we refers to Paul and other believers, Paul speaks of God’s predestinating believers according to the purpose of God, who works all things in accordance with the counsel of his will. “So what is God’s good pleasure? To use preaching to save those who believe (1 Corinthians 1:21). The use of preaching is different from the use of an irresistible call.”
I’m not talking about an irresistible call in Ephesians 1. I already showed that an irresistible call is present in 1 Corinthians 1:24 and Romans 8:30. Ephesians 1 shows that God doesn’t pro-actively have a hand in some matters while He passively allows others. He is rather working out ALL THINGS.
Ryan,
You make a big leap from biblical noun clauses (as he pleases, whatever he pleases, what he desires) to specific Calvinistic operations. The subject of each clause is an indefinite pronoun begging us to ask what God’s desires are and whether there are any conditions to them; besides, no verse you’ve cited says God never does anything he takes no pleasure in. You’re wrong to say I’ve made mincemeat of Job’s and the Psalmists’ use of such clauses. What I’ve done is put the clauses into context so as to note conditions and circumstances you ignore.
You claim that God predestines men’s wills. If true, such a claim would make God’s thoughts and emotions so opposed as to be symptomatic of schizophrenia. For instance, consider Psalm 81:11-17, which I’ve already quoted. There God complains that Israelites, by disobeying him after their deliverance from Egypt, kept him from blessing them and subduing their enemies. Had he predestined their disobedience, his complaint would’ve been against himself.
Consider also Deuteronomy 5:29, where he says of the Israelites, “Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever” (ESV). Coming from someone who unconditionally predestines disobedience, such a statement would be terribly schizophrenic.
Let’s also consider Romans 9:22-24: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (ESV).
Have you noticed how God is said to have prepared the vessels of mercy while the other vessels are described simply as prepared? So far as schizophrenia is concerned, this distinction is important: it helps us recognize that he hasn’t been patiently enduring bad vessels he prepared, as though he enjoyed annoying himself. Have you also noticed that believers, if willing to repent, can become good vessels?
You claim to have introduced two verses that prove God’s use of an irresistible call:
Of course, the adverb irresistibly doesn’t appear as a modifier of the verb called anywhere in these verses. What more need I say? In 1 Corinthians 1:24 the verb called is a participle functioning as a predicate adjective linked by the verb are to the pronoun those. This means the state or status of the persons to whom the pronoun refers is “called” or “responsive” or “obedient.” Their calling should be considered effectual because they yielded to it, not because they couldn’t resist it; for God was pleased to save them through preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21).
In Romans 8:30 the verb called should be understood in the context of Romans 8:28: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (ESV). Aren’t lovers of God the people who trust and obey him? “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me” (John 14:21 ESV). There is conditional force to the adjective clauses who love God and who are called according to his purpose. Thus, if people love God and are called according to his purpose, he ensures that for them all things work together for good. No doubt this calling is not just to salvation but also to a position in the body of Christ, for example, Paul’s calling to be an apostle and the Roman believers’ calling to be saints (Romans 1:1, 7); for it is in the context of our using our gifts in the body of Christ that all things are working for our good.
The calling of Romans 8:30 no doubt is to more than salvation even as Paul’s calling during the heavenly vision that converted him included instructions for him to be an apostle (Acts 26:12-18). Likewise justification in Romans 8:30 is more than an initial declaration of righteousness even as Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4:2 cf. Genesis 15:6) and later by faith and works (James 2:21cf. Genesis 22:9, 12, 16-18). The repeated justification of Abraham no doubt holds true for all believers since “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24 ESV).
This expanded understanding of calling and justification not only flows well from Romans 8:28 but also fits the sequence of events in verses 29 and 30. Predestination follows and is based on foreknowledge. Predestination is to conformity to the image of God’s Son. Predestination precedes calling, which is to service as well as salvation. Calling leads to all events of justification, even justification by works and faith at the judgment on the last day. And justification leads to glorification.
We should be careful not to think of these events as an unbroken chain; for they are conditional, applying to people only if they love God and are called according to his purpose (verse 28). Let’s not forget the warning in Paul’s illustration about the olive tree with its natural (Jewish) branches and wild (Gentile) branches:
In your post you repeatedly used the abbreviation OP, which I guess stands for Orthodox Presbyterian. Please let me know for sure so that I might better understand where you’re coming from.
You asked me, “If God desires to save all wicked men without exception, why doesn’t He?” I never said God desires to save all wicked men without exception. Don’t you remember my statement that even a hypocrite can be the object of God’s kindness, temporarily? God is patient and longsuffering, but longsuffering is different from eternal suffering. To people who refuse to love the truth and so be saved, God sends strong delusion so that they may believe the lie and be condemned (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).
For people who have sinned away their day of grace, God has even withheld revelation that would’ve led to their salvation:
Do you see how God refrained from doing what he knew would lead the people in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repent and be saved? Evidently he no longer desired to save them. Something else: what sense would there be to Jesus’ denunciation if Chorazin’s, Bethsaida’s, and Capernaum’s lack of repentance had resulted from the lack of an irresistible call?
If there’s an irresistible call, why did Jesus say, “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Luke 11:32 ESV)? If conversions couldn’t take place without an irresistible call, why would it matter whether the preaching came from Jonah, the Lord Jesus, or Homer Simpson? Do you think it would glorify God at the judgment if the people of Nineveh told the unrepentant generation of Jesus’ day, “We repented, and you didn’t, because we were irresistibly called and you weren’t”?
Before closing, let me say one more thing about God’s creation or forming of calamity or evil. God always acts justly. A good example is his judgment for Korah’s rebellion:
I forgot to note that my closing quotation is of Numbers 16:28-33 in the English Standard Version.
Frank,
“…no verse you’ve cited says God never does anything he takes no pleasure in.”
Unless you’re purporting God is schizophrenic, I shouldn’t have to. If God does that which He desires and works all things according to the counsel of His will, there is nothing God does in which He takes no pleasure.
“What I’ve done is put the clauses into context so as to note conditions and circumstances you ignore.”
I didn’t ignore them. I just distinguished between the general principle (God does that which He desires) and the specific, instructive instances in which we see the application of that general principle put to use. Speaking of context, Ezekiel 18 is about the house of Israel. Why didn’t you mention that verse when you cited it, as though God doesn’t save His elect who are, at present, wicked?
“You claim that God predestines men’s wills.”
I also provided specific examples of such:
//The extent of God’s proactive determination is borne out in specific cases as well as general testimony (cf. Deuteronomy 2:30; 1 Kings 22:19-23; Psalm 105:25; Isaiah 10:5-15, 19:17; John 12:37-40; Acts 2:23, 4:27-28).//
“Had he predestined their disobedience, his complaint would’ve been against himself.”
Your objection is no different than Mr. Bryson’s, which I already answered in the OP:
//The question “is everything as it ought to be?” lacks specificity. “Ought” implies responsibility, and while it may be jumping the gun to talk about what responsibility presupposes, all Christians should at least agree that it presupposes one to whom one is responsible. Men are responsible to God. God is responsible to Himself (Hebrews 6:13). If the question, then, is “is sinful man as he ought to be with respect to the laws of His sovereign?” the answer is unequivocally “no.” On the other hand, if the question is “ought God to have effected this reality?” the answer is “yes,” as Mr. Bryson can contend – but not substantiate, since one can only know counter-factuals via divine revelation – that a counter-factual world would more greatly manifest God’s glory. Depending on the emphasis of the [currently equivocally worded] question, the answer will vary.//
“Have you noticed how God is said to have prepared the vessels of mercy while the other vessels are described simply as prepared?”
Yes. I also notice that Paul said He made and molded those same vessels nonetheless.
“Have you also noticed that believers, if willing to repent, can become good vessels?”
I also notice that you forgot to mention 2 Timothy 2:25, which states repentance hinges on God’s granting of it.
“Of course, the adverb irresistibly doesn’t appear as a modifier of the verb called anywhere in these verses.”
Irrelevant. The word Trinity doesn’t appear in Scripture. The concept of an irresistible call is apparent, however, because those who were said to have been called are mutually exclusive with the reprobate.
“In 1 Corinthians 1:24 the verb called is a participle functioning as a predicate adjective linked by the verb are to the pronoun those. This means the state or status of the persons to whom the pronoun refers is “called” or “responsive” or “obedient.””
How can you possibly derive “responsive” and “obedient” from “called,” exactly? From its part of speech? Lol. The obedience of the individuals isn’t mentioned. The distinguishing factor between those to whom the gospel is foolishness and those to whom the gospel is the power of God is said to be God’s calling, not obedience. One group was called; to them the gospel is wisdom. The other group – the one which was not called – finds it to be a stumbling block. God chose to give this calling (1:26-28), not man.
“In Romans 8:30 the verb called should be understood in the context of Romans 8:28: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (ESV). Aren’t lovers of God the people who trust and obey him?”
Yes, because they were called. Calling precedes love of God, obviously. Your attempts to read back verse 30 into verse 28 are inept. Verse 28 is a point separate from the ordo salutis of 29-30.
“Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me” (John 14:21 ESV).”
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
“There is conditional force to the adjective clauses who love God and who are called according to his purpose. Thus, if people love God and are called according to his purpose, he ensures that for them all things work together for good.”
Wrong. Verse 28 is a statement of fact. Those who love God and have been called according to His purpose are those who God works all things together for good. Correlation does not imply causation. Unfortunately for you, verses 29-30 are not merely correlative, they explain the manner in which we come to obey God in sanctification: His predestination and internal call (since not all are justified, not all have been called).
“Likewise justification in Romans 8:30 is more than an initial declaration of righteousness even as Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4:2 cf. Genesis 15:6) and later by faith and works (James 2:21cf. Genesis 22:9, 12, 16-18).”
James 2 is an excursus on the nature of saving faith in the context of justification before men. If you think we are declared righteous by our [meritorious] works (contra Romans 11:6, Titus 3:4-7), you have bigger problems than whether or not Calvinism is true. Sola fide is a doctrine essential to Christianity.
“Predestination follows and is based on foreknowledge.”
Several points:
1. You have not explained how, if God’s knowledge is predicated on man’s allegedly free will (as defined by Mr. Bryson), God can be eternally omniscient, since man is temporal.
2. Paul rules out the idea election is conditioned on faith or works within the context of Romans 8:29-30 itself: foreknew -> predestine -> call… If God is foreseeing individuals come to faith, He must necessarily be foreseeing people respond positively to His call. But if God’s calling is logically dependent upon His foreknewledge and predestination, how can He foresee anyone come to faith? That is, if God’s call is conditioned upon predestination, how can predestination be conditioned upon a foreseen faith which is conditioned upon God’s call? Unless you belief we come to faith prior to God’s call, you make Paul’s argument circular.
3. The Scriptural usage of “foreknowledge” is not synonymous with “prescience” but choice (cf. Amos 3:2, Acts 2:23, Romans 11:2, &c.). To say God predestines “those whom He [foresees]” implies universalism, as God “foresees” all persons. Then again, to say those whom God foresees are those who will believe is without contextual foundation as well, so you are doubly wrong.
“Calling leads to all events of justification, even justification by works and faith at the judgment on the last day. And justification leads to glorification.”
Again, at no point are we justified by our works. God poured out His eschatological wrath on Christ (Matthew 26:39, Revelation 14:9-10, cf. Isaiah 51:17, 22). All of our sins have been forgiven and Christ’s righteousness has been imputed. This is by faith alone. To suggest we are declared righteous by faith AND works is to suggest Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient. Only by the empty hand of faith – assent to the gospel – can His sacrifice be appropriated to us. Whatever role you believe works plays in effecting justification (or sanctification, for that matter, cf. Exodus 31:13-14) is wrong, perhaps damnably. I’m serious.
“We should be careful not to think of these events as an unbroken chain; for they are conditional”
Again: irrelevant. God ensures the appropriation of His grace to His people (8:32). You want to try to put conditions on God’s “freely given” grace too?
“Let’s not forget the warning in Paul’s illustration about the olive tree with its natural (Jewish) branches and wild (Gentile) branches.”
Let’s also not forget that was predestined as well (Romans 11:32). All nations are able to be grafted into Christ only because God consigned the Jews to disobedience.
“In your post you repeatedly used the abbreviation OP, which I guess stands for Orthodox Presbyterian.”
Original post, actually.
“You asked me, “If God desires to save all wicked men without exception, why doesn’t He?” I never said God desires to save all wicked men without exception.”
If God desires to save any wicked person but doesn’t, why doesn’t He? This doesn’t apply to me because I believe God does what He desires and, hence, saves all those whom He desires to save.
“Don’t you remember my statement that even a hypocrite can be the object of God’s kindness, temporarily? God is patient and longsuffering, but longsuffering is different from eternal suffering.”
His patience is to be regarded as salvation (2 Peter 3:15). Why? Because God will not let one perish unrepentant (2 Peter 3:9) while He is patient with them. Now, for what reason would God stop being patient? Because people refuse to believe? But according to you, He already knew they wouldn’t believe (how, you haven’t explained), so what was the point in being patient with them to begin with?
“Do you see how God refrained from doing what he knew would lead the people in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repent and be saved?”
Sure. I also know that God knows they would have repented because God determines all things. Counterfactuals are only an obstacle if you believe, as you seem to, that men’s wills are extrinsically and antecedently uncaused.
“Evidently he no longer desired to save them.”
Where is it said He desired to save them, ever?
“If there’s an irresistible call, why did Jesus say, “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Luke 11:32 ESV)? If conversions couldn’t take place without an irresistible call, why would it matter whether the preaching came from Jonah, the Lord Jesus, or Homer Simpson?”
Because God’s irresistible call is not irrespective of His decreed means by which said call is effected (e.g. Romans 10).
“Do you think it would glorify God at the judgment if the people of Nineveh told the unrepentant generation of Jesus’ day, “We repented, and you didn’t, because we were irresistibly called and you weren’t”?”
2 Corinthians 10:17
“Before closing, let me say one more thing about God’s creation or forming of calamity or evil. God always acts justly.”
I don’t disagree, obviously.
“You claim that God predestines men’s wills. If true, such a claim would make God’s thoughts and emotions so opposed as to be symptomatic of schizophrenia.”
That was the best moment in the discussion.
Regarding god creating/causing evil, and Isaiah 45:7, compare Gen. 44:34 and 47:9.
The word for evil here does not implicitly have a moral connotation – you have to get such a nuance from the context. Rather, “evil” just means “hurt”, “pain”, “disaster”, etc. Any moral connotation comes from a nuanced understanding of the word.
God does not cause moral evil. God causes pain and destruction, as well as good (which also does not have an implicitly moral connotation). Morality is not referenced in that particular set of words.
Ok. Now tell me how that relates to the context of Isaiah 45:7, including the juxtaposition of calamity with well-being (does God not create “moral” well-being?) and verses 9-11, especially.
Juxtaposition: The juxtaposition is between evil and peace, not “good” as I previously said. (I just assumed that, whenever I argue this point, that the readiness to attribute morally evil works to god suggests that the “other word” must be “good”. Oops.)
Anyway, in keeping with the contrast between light and dark, the opposite of peace is not moral evil, but chaos, which is consistent with the primary meaning of the word for “evil” used here.
The point of the verse is that god is declaring his power (similar to what he said to Job at the end of the book).
Verses 9-11: Here, I have nothing to contribute. I will give you the satisfaction of knowing that a related passage, Rom. 9:19 is a problem for me; though I would suppose that it has to do with God’s right to choose, rather than having to do with a right to punish people for any or no reason (punishment implies guilt, which is not ‘no reason’).
Naturally, I don’t think you can so easily disassociate 45:7 from the context. The very fact that the semantic domain of “evil” and “well-being” entail each of our offered interpretations means that the context should determine which best fits. And, naturally, the fact that the same objector in the Pauline context makes himself known here indicates that the evil and well-being which God creates is synonymous with the hardening and mercying/compassioning in Romans 9, only more explicit. But I won’t argue the point if you won’t. My case hardly rests on this one passage anyways.
I submit that “raised thee up” does not entail Pharaoh’s creation, but his rise to power, like as is consistent with other passages concerning rulers (e.g. Dan. 2:21 “he removeth kings, and setteth up kings).
In which case, Pharaoh’s hardening may be interpreted as a punishment for prior offenses (a la Jn. 12:39 “therefore they could not believe”).
The net understanding being that god raised someone to the position of Pharaoh at a time foreordained, knowing he would be of a certain disposition, and effected his plan, accordingly.
It’s not necessary to make god out to be the author of the evil he himself opposes.
Besides, one can’t be guilty of something unless they themselves are the reason they missed the mark. God can do whatever he wants – he can even save and destroy who or whatever he wants – but he cannot claim that the reason he destroys is because of guilt, if, in fact, there was no guilt.
“I submit that “raised thee up” does not entail Pharaoh’s creation, but his rise to power, like as is consistent with other passages concerning rulers (e.g. Dan. 2:21 “he removeth kings, and setteth up kings).”
I don’t dispute that.
“In which case, Pharaoh’s hardening may be interpreted as a punishment for prior offenses (a la Jn. 12:39 “therefore they could not believe”).
The net understanding being that god raised someone to the position of Pharaoh at a time foreordained, knowing he would be of a certain disposition, and effected his plan, accordingly.”
I disagree. Not only is this argument predicated on God’s omniscience, which is suspect if one doesn’t believe that God causes all things (see OP), but I think an analogous case in Scripture shows in what manner God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Deuteronomy 2:30). Pharaoh’s heart was hardened “as the Lord had said” in Exodus 7:13, but that proves God hardened him, since when God said his heart shall be hard against the miracles, God was the hardener (7:3).
“It’s not necessary to make god out to be the author of the evil he himself opposes.”
You’ve only tried to deal with one argument for that, and, honestly, not very well, imo.
“Besides, one can’t be guilty of something unless they themselves are the reason they missed the mark.”
Part 3 of this series will deal with responsibility, so I’ll save my comments on your last paragraph till then, should you wish to repost them at that time.
Ryan,
I must apologize for not responding to you sooner. My family and full-time job, as well
as other activities, limit my posting time; besides, I’m not the fastest typist. In the time
I have, I’d like to focus on those things that seem most important.
According to your original post, your Calvinism rests on your belief that God does what
he desires and that he works all things according to the counsel of his will. This
foundational belief is why you also believe that God never does anything he takes no
pleasure in.
As a Calvinist, shouldn’t you be careful about your interpretation of the word
all? During my 10-plus years in Calvinism, when non-Calvinists would claim that God
loves all people, I would refute them with verses mentioning God’s hatred of some people. If
you’ve done the same in similar discussions, why don’t you appreciate my quoting of
Deuteronomy 5:29, Psalm 81:8-16, and Ezekiel 18:30-31, which show God unhappy with
unrepentant people, people he had rather bless than curse? Surely those passages deserve
your consideration, especially since they could require you to believe that God works all
kinds of things—not all things without exception!—after the counsel of his
will.
To get around Ezekiel 18:30-31, you dismissed it as irrelevant, a passage addressed to
“God’s peculiar people.” So why did you cite Psalm 115:3? Isn’t Psalm 115 addressed to Jews
(see verses 9-10)? Isn’t the same true of Psalm 133, from which you culled verse 6 (but see
also verses 4, 19-21)?
Actually, we shouldn’t dismiss the Old Testament. It’s very important. As Paul told
Timothy:
Paul also said things in the OT were written for our instruction (Romans 15:4; 1
Corinthians 10:11).
When I noted the absence of the adverb irresistibly in 1 Corinthians 1:24 and
Romans 8:30, you said my criticism was irrelevant because the word Trinity doesn’t
appear in Scripture. What you should’ve done is provide the evidence necessary to prove your
belief in the irresistible call.
All you provided was the assumption that the word called must mean “irresistably
called” since it was being used only of believers. I’ve countered with passages attributing
belief versus unbelief to things other than an irresistible call (Matthew 11:20-24; Luke
11:32). It remains for you to prove that your assumption of an irresistible call is
warranted.
I also offered an assumption, namely, that the word called implies responsiveness
and obedience. Though you consider that laughable, I must ask whether you’ve considered the
word church, which is used of believers collectively. Isn’t church derived
from the Greek word ekklesia, which denotes a called-out assembly? Although all
people are called to come out and be separate, only those who obey the call are considered
part of God’s assembly of called-out believers.
I urge you to embrace the biblical doctrine of justification by works. You’ve told me:
“James 2 is an excursus on the nature of saving faith in the context of justification before
men. If you think we are declared righteous by our [meritorious] works (contra Romans 11:6,
Titus 3:4-7), you have bigger problems than whether or not Calvinism is true. Sola fide is a
doctrine essential to Christianity.”
Actually, sola fide is an unbiblical doctrine, and James 2 nowhere teaches
justification before men. To my knowledge, the phrase faith alone appears in just one
verse: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James
2:25 ESV). To see that justification by works is justification before God, let’s consider
the whole relevant passage:
Please note the important question whether workless faith can save (verse 14). It lets us
know that the passage concerns salvation by God. Please also note that the words you
see (verses 22, 24) mean “you perceive” or “you understand.” They don’t mean that James
or his reading audience witnessed what Abraham and Rahab had done; in fact, what Abraham and
Rahab did was witnessed by relatively few people—which undercuts the idea of
justification before men.
Please also note James’ emphasis on helping poor believers (verses 15-16). It should
remind us of 1 John 3:17: “… If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need,
yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (ESV). It should also
make us think of Matthew 25:31-46, where benevolence or the lack thereof to poor or
persecuted believers is the Son of Man’s basis for blessing people with eternal life or
cursing them with eternal punishment.
I must close now. Lord willing, I’ll write more later.
I must apologize for the formatting above. I don’t know what happened. My HTML tags worked fine on my desktop just as they’d done for earlier posts. For some reason, this board didn’t like them this time.
I’ll try again.
Ryan,
I must apologize for not responding to you sooner. My family and full-time job, as well as other activities, limit my posting time; besides, I’m not the fastest typist. In the time I have, I’d like to focus on those things that seem most important.
According to your original post, your Calvinism rests on your belief that God does what he desires and that he works all things according to the counsel of his will. This foundational belief is why you also believe that God never does anything he takes no pleasure in.
As a Calvinist, shouldn’t you be careful about your interpretation of the word all? During my 10-plus years in Calvinism, when non-Calvinists would claim that God loves all people, I would refute them with verses mentioning God’s hatred of some people. If you’ve done the same in similar discussions, why don’t you appreciate my quoting of Deuteronomy 5:29, Psalm 81:8-16, and Ezekiel 18:30-31, which show God unhappy with
unrepentant people, people he had rather bless than curse? Surely those passages deserve your consideration, especially since they could require you to believe that God works all kinds of things—not all things without exception!—after the counsel of his will.
To get around Ezekiel 18:30-31, you dismissed it as irrelevant, a passage addressed to “God’s peculiar people.” So why did you cite Psalm 115:3? Isn’t Psalm 115 addressed to Jews (see verses 9-10)? Isn’t the same true of Psalm 133, from which you culled verse 6 (but see also verses 4, 19-21)?
Actually, we shouldn’t dismiss the Old Testament. It’s very important. As Paul told Timothy:
Paul also said things in the OT were written for our instruction (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11).
When I noted the absence of the adverb irresistibly in 1 Corinthians 1:24 and Romans 8:30, you said my criticism was irrelevant because the word Trinity doesn’t appear in Scripture. What you should’ve done is provide the evidence necessary to prove your belief in the irresistible call.
All you provided was the assumption that the word called must mean “irresistably called” since it was being used only of believers. I’ve countered with passages attributing belief versus unbelief to things other than an irresistible call (Matthew 11:20-24; Luke 11:32). It remains for you to prove that your assumption of an irresistible call is
warranted.
I also offered an assumption, namely, that the word called implies responsiveness and obedience. Though you consider that laughable, I must ask whether you’ve considered the word church, which is used of believers collectively. Isn’t church derived from the Greek word ekklesia, which denotes a called-out assembly? Although all people are called to come out and be separate, only those who obey the call are considered part of God’s assembly of called-out believers.
I urge you to embrace the biblical doctrine of justification by works. You’ve told me: “James 2 is an excursus on the nature of saving faith in the context of justification before men. If you think we are declared righteous by our [meritorious] works (contra Romans 11:6, Titus 3:4-7), you have bigger problems than whether or not Calvinism is true. Sola fide is a doctrine essential to Christianity.”
Actually, sola fide is an unbiblical doctrine, and James 2 nowhere teaches justification before men. To my knowledge, the phrase faith alone appears in just one verse: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:25 ESV). To see that justification by works is justification before God, let’s consider the whole relevant passage:
Please note the important question whether workless faith can save (verse 14). It lets us know that the passage concerns salvation by God. Please also note that the words you see (verses 22, 24) mean “you perceive” or “you understand.” They don’t mean that James or his reading audience witnessed what Abraham and Rahab had done; in fact, what Abraham and Rahab did was witnessed by relatively few people—which undercuts the idea of justification before men.
Please also note James’ emphasis on helping poor believers (verses 15-16). It should remind us of 1 John 3:17: “… If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (ESV). It should also make us think of Matthew 25:31-46, where benevolence or the lack thereof to poor or
persecuted believers is the Son of Man’s basis for blessing people with eternal life or cursing them with eternal punishment.
I must close now. Lord willing, I’ll write more later.
I would just like to go on record here and say that I believe that grace and faith are given by god, and that faith necessarily produces works which is how you know that faith is genuine; but the works themselves accomplish nothing salvific.
Ryan,
In the OP, you say “Mr. Bryson obviously does not intend to deny God’s eternal omniscience, but his position can yield no other conclusion.”
The Bible doesn’t formally teach epistemology, and yet you are willing to use the extrabiblical laws of epistemology in some cases, but not others.
(It is my position that the Bible assumes that the responsibility is on the reader to know good epistemology, and that it is attainable by all of us apart from the Bible).
Do you suppose that since it is not logically possible for god to punish the guilty if they aren’t the source of their offense (since guilt implies intent), that the Biblical doctrine of Omniscience is qualified in some sense by some aspect of the nature of god of which we are not aware?
That seems a safer conclusion than to make god out to be the author of moral evil.
“The Bible doesn’t formally teach epistemology, and yet you are willing to use the extrabiblical laws of epistemology in some cases, but not others.”
Nonsense. You have no idea what I am “willing to use.” In point of fact, I am a Scripturalist:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/3rdE092.php
“Do you suppose that since it is not logically possible for god to punish the guilty if they aren’t the source of their offense (since guilt implies intent), that the Biblical doctrine of Omniscience is qualified in some sense by some aspect of the nature of god of which we are not aware?”
If God is not the ultimate cause, He is – since He is omnipotent – the ultimate allower. This is not the question. The question is on what cause that which He allows is predicated. If not God (ultimately), then something extrinsic, something contingent on God Himself – temporal. Hence, something which would nullify God’s eternal omniscience. The argument is very clear and contains no premises not furnished within Scripture.
Frank, I’ll read your reply and look to respond later. Don’t worry about “delays.” We all have lives off of the Internet and I’d just as soon not make this discussion into a “who can filibuster the other guy to death first.” Bye for now.
Your argument is very clear, to be sure; but not only does the Bible not argue this point formally – and therefore you must use logic learned apart from the Bible to make sense of certain facts on your own – but your argument proves too much, in that you make god out to be using words that have no meaning (such as “guilt”).
Now, in that you are willing to use logic not provided by the Bible, why not choose to believe that god is not violating the laws of logic, and at least say that there’s probably something about the nature of man and the nature of god that I don’t understand, and hold god’s sovereignty and man’s free will in some sort of tension?
I think you should learn a little more about Scripturalism before you make such hasty conclusions:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16
“…not only does the Bible not argue this point formally – and therefore you must use logic learned apart from the Bible to make sense of certain facts on your own”
What do you mean by “formally”? There is no book specifically dedicated to it, maybe, but then again, neither is there one on the Trinity. On the other hand, each subject is contained within Scripture nonetheless, and a systematic theologian is able to draw it out. Also, logic is not “learned” (cf. above link).
“…but your argument proves too much, in that you make god out to be using words that have no meaning (such as “guilt”).”
Is this a question of language? If you read the article, you would know God mediates ALL knowledge to our minds.
“…why not choose to believe that god is not violating the laws of logic, and at least say that there’s probably something about the nature of man and the nature of god that I don’t understand, and hold god’s sovereignty and man’s free will in some sort of tension?”
Because I just provided an argument which shows that you can’t rationally believe in the law of non-contradiction, God’s eternal omniscience, and man’s “free will” (antecedently and extrinsically uncaused).
“I think you should learn a little more about Scripturalism before you make such hasty conclusions:”
I’ve had this argument before.
“What do you mean by “formally”? There is no book specifically dedicated to it, maybe, but then again, neither is there one on the Trinity. On the other hand, each subject is contained within Scripture nonetheless, and a systematic theologian is able to draw it out. Also, logic is not “learned” (cf. above link).”
The Trinity example proves my point: We already have the capacity – prior to even picking up a Bible – to apply the laws of logic to statements in the Bible in order to see if they’re reconcilable. One not even need to believe the Bible in order to come to the conclusion that it teaches a triune god.
That is what the theologian (or anyone else who tries to understand the implications of any written work) is doing when he draws out doctrines such as the Trinity – he’s using his god-given mind (whether he realizes it’s god, or not) to draw conclusions using the laws of logic.
“Is this a question of language? If you read the article, you would know God mediates ALL knowledge to our minds.”
Well, if a word means one thing in a certain context, it can’t mean something else at the same time; so, if “guilt” entails being the source, and also entails intent, then either man is the source of the offense, or god is – it can’t be both.
“Because I just provided an argument which shows that you can’t rationally believe in the law of non-contradiction, God’s eternal omniscience, and man’s “free will” (antecedently and extrinsically uncaused).”
Well, you’ve provided an argument which shows that you can’t rationally believe these things if these are the only things to consider. But if, like I offered, there is something about the nature of god and man to which we are not yet privy, then something like this would account for man’s free will and also god’s sovereignty.
I think there is a different meaning, though, that we both pour into the idea of god’s omniscience. Your understanding seems to entail the following notion (from the article referenced): “It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false.”
This is easily disproven: Can god create a reality in which he does not exist?
Agilius,
“The Trinity example proves my point: We already have the capacity – prior to even picking up a Bible – to apply the laws of logic to statements in the Bible in order to see if they’re reconcilable.”
That isn’t the issue. The issue is determining how we justify our knowledge-claims. You are thinking in terms of chronology rather than in terms of logical dependency. “The Bible is the sole, extants grounds of justifying knowledge-claims” is an axiom which itself implies certain propositions known (e.g. the nature of the canon). But while these propositions must be self-attested by the principle of the axiom (else arbitrary), they needn’t be thought of as premises upon which an axiom must be [fallaciously] constructed. The way in which the nature of the canon relates to the axiom of the Scripturalist (e.g. http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2010/01/johannine-corpus-and-canon.html) is the same way the “laws of logic” relate to the axiom, as the link I cited in my most recent post shows. We may apply the laws of logic chronologically prior to being able to justify this process itself, but chronology or history should be obviously distinguished from logical dependency. We justify the historical, chronological means of discernment by the axiom, the logical dependency.
“Well, if a word means one thing in a certain context, it can’t mean something else at the same time; so, if “guilt” entails being the source, and also entails intent, then either man is the source of the offense, or god is – it can’t be both.”
God is never the immediate cause of sin. He never violates His law. If you want to show how being the ultimate cause of sin violates God’s law, be my guest.
“Well, you’ve provided an argument which shows that you can’t rationally believe these things if these are the only things to consider. But if, like I offered, there is something about the nature of god and man to which we are not yet privy, then something like this would account for man’s free will and also god’s sovereignty.”
This is a cop-out, and a bad one at that. There is simply no mystery attribute which can solve the tension inherent in the relation between God’s omniscience and so-called human freedom apart from a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Either God is the ultimate cause of all things or the ultimate “allower” of [at least some] things. If the latter, you predicate God’s knowledge on our [allegedly extrinsically, antecedently uncaused] will, in which case His knowledge is contingent on the temporal. Period.
“I think there is a different meaning, though, that we both pour into the idea of god’s omniscience. Your understanding seems to entail the following notion (from the article referenced): “It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false.””
I didn’t write that. Reread the article.
“You are thinking in terms of chronology rather than in terms of logical dependency.”
Not so. That is not my position.
We can’t begin to understand the Bible unless we come to it with language and logic skills learned prior to picking it up. For example, you can’t so much as make the argument that the Bible claims to support your position unless you bring a standard to it whereby you can determine if it indeed makes your case.
Also, there was a time when there was no Bible.
“God is never the immediate cause of sin. He never violates His law. If you want to show how being the ultimate cause of sin violates God’s law, be my guest.”
And batters are never the immediate cause of home runs – bats are. This, though, is not a relevant distinction to make.
Also, you’re assuming I even have the ability to make the attempt to show this or that, which I think is revealing; From your point of view, all things happen because god decided it should be so, so maybe you could not blame me for not agreeing with you.
“This is a cop-out, and a bad one at that. There is simply no mystery attribute which can solve the tension inherent in the relation between God’s omniscience and so-called human freedom apart from a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Either God is the ultimate cause of all things or the ultimate “allower” of [at least some] things. If the latter, you predicate God’s knowledge on our [allegedly extrinsically, antecedently uncaused] will, in which case His knowledge is contingent on the temporal. Period.”
I think it’s a rather effective cop-out. One that doesn’t insist that in him there actually is darkness.
And the only way, it seems, to hold god’s sovereignty and man’s free will, both of which are true, is to suppose that there is something about the nature of god and the nature of man that we are not aware of that accounts for them both.
Agilius,
“For example, you can’t so much as make the argument that the Bible claims to support your position unless you bring a standard to it whereby you can determine if it indeed makes your case.”
You can’t justify the use of those standards *propositionally* apart from divine revelation. I insist you are still thinking in chronological terms.
“Also, there was a time when there was no Bible.”
And? What does this have to do with anything? I said “The Bible is the sole, *extant* grounds of justifying knowledge-claims.” Divine revelation is contained in Scripture.
“And batters are never the immediate cause of home runs – bats are. This, though, is not a relevant distinction to make.”
Why? You do realize it is not analogous to compare a physical phenomena (which you cannot justify) with an act of will, right?
“Also, you’re assuming I even have the ability to make the attempt to show this or that, which I think is revealing; From your point of view, all things happen because god decided it should be so, so maybe you could not blame me for not agreeing with you.”
You are just repeating objections I answered in the OP. See the last paragraph.
“I think it’s a rather effective cop-out. One that doesn’t insist that in him there actually is darkness.”
So I take it you are simply going to repeat yourself and not address my demand that you show how God would break His law by ultimately causing sin. Gotcha.
“And the only way, it seems, to hold god’s sovereignty and man’s free will, both of which are true, is to suppose that there is something about the nature of god and the nature of man that we are not aware of that accounts for them both.”
It is no mystery. You believe God can do that which is logically impossible. You forfeit the right to use the very “laws of logic” you purport are necessary “standards” to understand the Bible, which is apparently inspired by One who isn’t bound by such standards. God could mean the very opposite of what is written. Oops :/
“You can’t justify the use of those standards *propositionally* apart from divine revelation. I insist you are still thinking in chronological terms.”
The only way I could accept what you say is if I concluded that everyone has been given sufficient divine revelation to be able to justify the use of those standards propositionally; in which case, your point is moot – the requisite knowledge (and/or capacity) to determine what the Bible says, and whether or not it is true, has been provided to us as part of being human.
No, I am not thinking in terms of chronology. My use of chronology proves that knowledge of the Bible is not necessary in order to have certainty about the aforementioned standards – for if the Bible were necessary, then none of us could be certain about anything until the Bible told us about it; and the fact that we use standards we learned prior to picking up a Bible in order to understand the Bible, we can conclude that the Bible is not the source of grounding for those standards.
“And? What does this have to do with anything? I said “The Bible is the sole, *extant* grounds of justifying knowledge-claims.” Divine revelation is contained in Scripture.”
A far more complete revelation about the nature of god, and of Salvation, is contained in Scripture, to be sure; but there are things we can be certain of apart from divine revelation – if by divine revelation you mean something other than general revelation.
Further, the Bible, not being a formal epistemological study book, exemplifies, rather than teaches, the laws of logic, and we come to the Bible with the capacity to make sense of it, so long as we are not actively being blinded (there’s more to say about this, but I’m sure I will be afforded the opportunity to address those things later).
“Why? You do realize it is not analogous to compare a physical phenomena (which you cannot justify) with an act of will, right?”
*I* realize that, which is why I don’t hold that god causes everything as one would cause a home run.
“You are just repeating objections I answered in the OP. See the last paragraph.”
(…
“There is simply no apparent reason that a man who has been caused to believe a given proposition cannot evaluate whether or not his belief is sound.”
…)
So you believe that man’s beliefs have been caused by god, but he has the capacity to evaluate something of his own accord? How is that consistent?
“So I take it you are simply going to repeat yourself and not address my demand that you show how God would break His law by ultimately causing sin. Gotcha.”
You are the one that posited the challenge, but I reject it as an irrelevant consideration – in part because it can be offered that whatever god does is in accordance with his law, and therefore to say that god doesn’t break his own laws is a useless tautology. In response to your challenge, at any rate, I offered the relevant consideration that the Bible says that in him is no darkness, and therefore not only does darkness have a meaning apart from god, but in that the word darkness entails moral evil, it would be inconsistent with the Bible to say that god causes it.
On another note, you’ve certainly “got(cha)” my ear, friend. Good times.
“It is no mystery. You believe God can do that which is logically impossible.”
Wait … Who’s side are you arguing, now? So you do believe in logical impossibilities?
“You forfeit the right to use the very “laws of logic” you purport are necessary “standards” to understand the Bible, which is apparently inspired by One who isn’t bound by such standards. God could mean the very opposite of what is written. Oops :/”
It is my position that god is bound by the laws of logic, to be sure.
I do not forfeit the right to use laws of logic, since I am willing to believe that there is something about god/man’s nature of which I am unaware, to account for what would otherwise be a logical impossibility: god’s sovereignty and man’s free will.
(Though, again, I think you and I pour different meanings into the word “sovereignty”.)
LOL. That’s long.
We talk a lot.
Ryan,
At 8:20 p.m. on June 9, you replied to me: “Not only is belief our responsibility (with which I wholeheartedly agree), but the passage you cite [John 6:29] says it’s a work of God! How, then, can God’s working out our good be predicated on our trust and obedience, if it is by His doing *alone* we trust and obey Him in the first place?”
The passage consists of Jesus’ answer to a crowd of Jews, most them unbelievers:
Apparently you consider the work of God a subjective genitive meaning “God works.” I think it’s better interpreted as a genitive of origin meaning that God has produced a work for us to do, namely, believing in his Son. The difference between the two kinds of genitives can be seen in these examples. A mother’s love for her child means that “a mother loves her child”—a subjective genitive. The symphonies of Beethoven, however, means that Beethoven originated nine symphonies for other people to perform or listen to.
Interpreting the work of God as a subjective genitive leads to a problem when we consider the concluding noun clause, you believe in him whom he has sent. You see, the pronoun you denotes all the people Jesus was talking to, so that they all would’ve believed if God was working (= doing) their faith in his Son. Of course, it’s clear from the rest of John 6 that nearly all of them disbelieved, for the overwhelming majority of them argued with Jesus and then quit following him (see John 6:66).
In contrast, interpreting the work of God as a genitive of origin jibes well with the context. From verse 28, it is clear that the people wanted to know what God would have them do. Jesus’ answer in verse 29 addresses their question perfectly. Their subsequent disbelief and departure, then, arose from their refusal to perform the work (faith) that God intended for them to do.
A similar helpful passage is Acts 16:29-31:
You see, Paul and Silas, like our Lord, plainly identified faith as something their listeners needed to do.
Note that the Bible does not teach grammar, and so the use of it reveals our expectation that the Bible conforms to these rules, rather than the other way around.
The Bible is not the sole, extant grounds of justifying all knowledge claims. The nature of god and morality, yes – but not all knowledge claims. (Though, even this, as stated, is not strictly precise).
Agilus,
The Bible and its translations are grammatical, I think, because God has desired to communicate with us. Grammar is useful for expressing and interpreting God’s spiritual truths. As fallen creatures, we don’t deserve anything from him except eternal punishment. Yet he has condescended to progressively reveal himself to us so that we might be saved by trusting and obeying his Son.
I consider the Bible mankind’s best tool for discerning the truth and knowledge claims that the Bible addresses. Of course, truth and knowledge claims not addressed in Scripture—for instance, the question whether an Apple or a PC is better—can’t be decided from Scripture.
Frank,
“The Bible and its translations are grammatical, I think, because God has desired to communicate with us. Grammar is useful for expressing and interpreting God’s spiritual truths.”
Yes, I agree. And while I recognize that everyone’s ability to comprehend grammar – or anything at all – comes from god, it must be noted to the Calvinist that god has given everyone this ability, and so it would behoove them to make use of evidence in their evangelism, because presuppositionalism is convincing the wrong kind of people.
“I consider the Bible mankind’s best tool for discerning the truth and knowledge claims that the Bible addresses. Of course, truth and knowledge claims not addressed in Scripture—for instance, the question whether an Apple or a PC is better—can’t be decided from Scripture.”
I agree with this, too, but I would qualify this by saying its not just the ability to be certain of “higher level” claims, such as your Apple vs. PC question, but the foundational questions of logic and epistemology; The Bible assumes, and expects, that the reader has the capacity to know these things.
Hey guys, I should have some down time in the next two days, so I’ll review your appreciated comments and look to reply by the end of the week. I haven’t forgotten and I’m not ignoring you, promise!