Theology for the Masses

Conversations in Theology and its interaction with Culture

Browsing Posts tagged Calvinist

Is Al Mohler a deterministic Calvinist? It does not seem so: So . . . Why Did I Write This? The Delusion of Determinism where he is responding to Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain.

As a matter of fact, this capacity and accountability is rooted in the biblical concept of the imago Dei — the image of God.   Our Creator made us as moral creatures and planted within us the capacity of conscience.  All this refutes the concept of moral determinism.

I’ve heard that rhetoric before, yet doesn’t Calvinism subscribe to moral determinism? [1]

Update: Tom corrected me on Calvinists describing themselves as (hard) determinists.  They subscribe to compatibilist soft determinism.  For more on this, see parableman’s posts on this topic:

  1. Determinism and Fatalism

  2. Arguments for Determinism

  3. Arguments for Free Will

  4. Freedom and Determinism: Possible Views

  5. Libertarian Freedom and Incompatibilism

  6. Problems with Libertarian Freedom

  7. Arguments for Compatibilism

  8. Compatibilist Freedom

  9. Moral Luck: The Cases

  10. Moral Luck: Responses

 

I myself subscribe to incompatibilist libertarianism, which Jeremy (and I assume Calvinists in general) rejects in favor of compatibilist soft determinism. 

  1. This is where I get the Calvinists to do my homework for me. []

Once upon a time, there were two men who were similar in many ways. Both were powerful and creative. Both were kind and loving. Both were well-respected in their towns. Both were fathers. And both were exceptional artists. In fact, the artistic community argued all the time as to which was the greatest, and the general consensus was that their crafts surpassed mere human judgment.

The first man announced an art show to be held in his private gallery at his home. He invited all the most prominent artists and art critics in the world, and promised that the revelation of his latest work would surpass all he’d done before. The night of the show arrived, and the artist’s home was truly a who’s who of the art world – everyone who was anyone was there. As the evening progressed, everyone agreed that these pieces were truly astounding, that they far surpassed the artist’s previous works. Frequently, guests were found weeping as they viewed various pieces, so moving was his mastery of his craft.

Several hours into the evening, the gallery door swung open and the artist’s young son came running into the gallery, clutching a piece of paper in his hand and saying, “Daddy! Daddy!” The artist was in front of the central display piece of his show, and when the son ran up, he excused himself from his conversation and bent down to his son.

“Yes, my boy,” he said softly, “what is it?” The boy excitedly waved his paper in front of his father.

“Look, Daddy! I did it just like you!” The artist took the piece of paper and turned it over. On it was a finger-painting, clearly crafted with all the patience and skill of a five-year-old.

“This is very nice, son. You did a good job,” the artist said, with the patronizing kindness unique to parents. “Why don’t you go show it to Mommy?”

“Put it on the wall, daddy! Put it by yours!” the boy begged.

“Son, this is a serious art show,” the artist replied. “Your daddy is a very important person, and he makes art that is beautiful and praiseworthy. You’ve just done a finger-painting. It wouldn’t be right for me to hang it in here, with all these glorious pieces of art that I’ve created. To display anything you’ve created in here would demean and devalue all of the glorious things I’ve done. I’ll hang this in my office.”

Dejected, the child left, finger-painting now crumpled in his small, unskilled fingers. As he shuffled out of the gallery, the crowd – which had been silently observing – began to whisper their approval. It would be a shame, they agreed, to tarnish the obvious brilliance of this room with such amateurish work. It was clear that the boy would never be half the artist his father was.

Shortly thereafter, the other artist also announced an opening, and he too promised work to surpass all that he’d done before. And once again, the cream of the art community crop gathered in a home gallery to experience an opening of epic proportions. And, as promised, the pieces were brilliant… each more beautiful and breathtaking than the last. And the final piece, the grandest of them all, the pinnacle of the opening surpassed everyone’s hopes. It was quite clearly one of the greatest masterpieces ever committed to canvas.

And once more, several hours into the opening, the door to the gallery cracked open, and this artist’s young daughter ran in, also with a painting in hand. “Daddy, Daddy!” she cried, “Look! I did just like you!”

The father swept his daughter up in his arms and with a growing smile looked down at his daughter’s crude, unskilled finger-painting. “It’s beautiful, honey. Simply beautiful. I know just where I’m going to hang it.”

With that, he set her down and handed the painting back to her. Then he walked over to his masterpiece, the central exhibit of his opening. As he approached it, the whispers in the room – which until now had been muted – grew into a low hum. The father grasped his painting and pulled it down off the wall and cast it to the floor, then turned to his daughter. “Honey,” he called, “may I have your painting?” The child brought her paper over to him and handed it up. The father took it and mounted it in the place where his crowning achievement had once stood. As he did so, the murmering grew to a dull roar, the outrage of the guests clear as they eyed the abandoned masterpiece.

Still smiling, but eyeing the crowd with comprehending eyes, the Father picked his daughter back up. “My dear child,” he began, never taking his eyes off of her, but addressing the crowd with his voice, “you are my greatest creation, the crowning joy of my life. Nothing else I have ever or will ever create could compare with you.” As he continued, voice choked with love and… yes pride, tears filled the corners of his eyes. “You made something the same way I do, and you did it as well as you could. Nothing could make me happier, or bring me greater glory and fame than this beautiful, talented person you’re becoming.”

The girl never left his side for the rest of the evening. And the father never ceased to display his most glorious masterpiece.

These may or may not be distinctively Christian, but they have in some way helped me grow in my faith.

10. Between Two Worlds – John RW Stott

This is Stott’s work on the history of preaching. Well written and inspiring, this is a must read for anyone interested in the foolishness of proclamation.

9. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and Confrontation with the World – DA Carson

This Calvinistic biblical scholar has for years been a great influence on me. Though I disagree with the general theological leanings, I am always challenged when I read this text – and I believe I’ve read it at least 4 times.

8. Live to Tell – Brad Kallengberg

This is the only Kallenberg text I’ve ever read. He suggests alternative evangelism strategies that are not locked in the shackles of modernity. Accessible to laypeople.

7. The Covenanted Self – Walter Brueggemann

This was my first Brueggemann text and will, therefore, always be one of my favorites. It is a series of essays Brueggemann wrote on Covenant and community. It can be a bit academic at times, but is always challenging…you have to dig to find diamonds, after all!

6. Let the Nations Be Glad – John Piper

Once upon a time I was a Calvinist and John Piper showed me that Missions was still central to Calvinistic theology. Now that I’ve thrown off my afore-loved Calvinism, I still maintain that this book still challenged me to grow in ways I would have neglected otherwise.

5. Savage Systems – David Chidester

Chidester is a Religious Studies scholar who does a lot of work in South Africa. He catalogues the “progress” of Christianity as it became/is a bedfellow with Colonialism there. This book was the first to bring to my attention the atrocities committed in the name of Christ during the Colonial years – atrocities we are yet to apologize for or set right.

4. Peculiar People – Rodney Clapp

This is Clapp’s version of Hauerwas’ Resident Aliens. He challenges Christians to break free from the Constantinian mold and be a distinctive, peculiar culture which is irrelevant to the world.

3. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind – Mark Noll

This text kicked my *bleep* when I was a junior in college. It showed me all the ways I was failing to take my faith seriously by ignoring the intellectual side of Christianity. To this day I cringe when I confront the anti-intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism of American Evangelicalism. This book is single-handedly responsible for me attending the University of Missouri.

2. Exclusion and Embrace – Miroslav Volf

Volf uses the metaphor of Exclusion and Embrace as he wrestles with ethnic, gender, and religious conflict. How can we forgive and love our enemies? Tis not an easy task – but Volf has the best answer I’ve ever encountered. A must read for everyone!

1. The Prophetic Imagination – Walter Brueggemann

Brueggemann taught me to envision alternative worlds where the church’s identity and imagination were not held captive by the Empire. If I have a prophetic voice at all, it’s because of The Prophetic Imagination.

What are your top books?

Later I will make a list of my top 10 Classic works.

Often when discussing Calvinism with my Reformed friends, I hear them use language like “God allowed/permitted sin.” This kind of rhetoric seems strange, though, coming from a group of people who believe, as the Westminster Confession of Faith says, that “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

Logically consistent Calvinists recognize this problem and concede that God must have ordained and caused evil as well as good. As John Piper has said, “Everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.” That is, God didn’t merely “permit” sin or “allow” it; He actively caused it as its Primary Cause.

John Calvin (as quoted by Piper) even goes on to chide those “inconsistent” Calvinists who want to use “permit” and “allow” language when it comes to sin, “John Calvin denies that there is any “mere permission” in God: From this it is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be not by [God’s] will, but merely by his permission. Of course, so far as they are evils, which men perpetrate with their evil mind, as I shall show in greater detail shortly, I admit that they are not pleasing to God. But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely [= idly] permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.”

Now, to be fair, Calvinists believe that God ordained, indeed determined and caused, sin to come into the world without in any way morally implicating God. Essentially God is the Primary Cause of sin and human agents are the Secondary Cause. God determined before creation that humanity would Fall, but because God is only the Primary Cause and not the actual agent committing or having the desire to sin, God cannot be held culpable.

Let me loosely, if not inefficiently, illustrate this*

God Determines (Primary Cause)

Humans Have the Desire
(The Immediate Cause) which God has Determined**

Humans Sin
(Secondary Cause)

The logic of this aside (for we will concede the point just for the moment and assume that a God who punishes people for actions that they could not have in fact chosen otherwise is actually good) I think it is important to note that nowhere in this model is there room for “permission” language. God does not permit anything; He causes everything – in such a way that He is not responsible for any of the negative results (but curiously all of the positive ones).

Now, when Calvinists slip into “permit” language, not only does it violate the Compatibilistic Freedom model they cling so tightly to, but they are actually employing Libertarian Freedom language. Indeed, John Piper has made this very point, “But we should not assume, as Arminians do, that divine permission is anything less than sovereign ordination.” In other words, it is logically inconsistent and theologically misleading for a Calvinist to say that God “allowed” instead of “caused” something just so it will sound more palatable to their audience.

Of course, there are many Calvinists who do not fall into this trap – as I have just demonstrated with Piper and Calvin. But this post if for those who think is permissive to do so – If you do indeed find “determination” and “causation” language morally abhorrent when it comes to evil and sin, then you would do well to become an Arminian or Open Theist – for that is exactly their complaint! If you do not believe in a God who caused the Holocaust or little girls to get raped, then by all means, abandoned your Reformed views.

In either case, let us not continue employing Calvinistic rhetoric and “permit” language together. For if Calvinism is right, God is not being glorified by such a denial of His Sovereignty.

However, if you are Reformed and you wish to retain your right to “permit/allow” language, you should at least understand that you are falling outside traditional, classical Calvinism, and your position is logically incoherent within that system This ought to tell you something as well b/c for your classical Calvinists, like John Piper, have no problem saying, “It is not wrong to say that God causes evil and sin.”

*Calvinists, I’m trying to be fair in this illustration, so if you think something could improve it, then please let me know – I don’t want to be misleading.

**Calvinistic/Compatibilistic Freedom maintains that a person makes a free choice so long as that choice is immediately caused by an inner state (desire). The person acts according to their own desire, and is therefore making a free choice. They could not act otherwise, but they do act according to their desire, and are therefore responsible for their decision and action.

Discuss. What are you impressions about this patient and the chaplain sent to console him in his dying hour? I can’t help but think that there is something to what this patient was getting at. Postmodern “spirituality” and the weak Christianity we see (I am thinking of the Unitarian Universalist I saw with Honzo JR) doesn’t help when it comes down to it and a person needs to know that there is something on the other side and how to deal with their guilt that they have. I think this man points out that our souls cry out to know a transcendent God who is just and righteous as well as loving and forgiving. What do you guys think about this clip? I leave this open to where ever it takes us. It should be fun.

(H/T: Contemporary Calvinist)

Sorry Cheepham, I forgot that you can’t watch videos on youtube. Is there another site you can watch this clip that I can find for you?

My only question to the authors of this blog in light of this video: are you a man? I know I’m not after watching that video and peeing my pants!

(H/T: Irish Calvinist)

What I find interesting in the following logical syllogism is that the Calvinist, in order to avoid being a universalist (5), has to to deny premise 1 or redefine God’s love – which is to deny premise 2. If Calvinists were honest about this, Calvinism would die out fairly quickly in churches because the denial of 1 or 2 goes against what most church people consider God’s fundamental attribute. In other words, complete openness on this subject would be the death of Calvinism.

P1.God truly loves all persons.

P2.To truly love someone is to desire their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you can.

P3.The true well being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.

P4.God could determine all persons freely to accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.

5.Therefore, all will be saved.

Gone too far?

Comments

Here is a video clip of John Hagee describing his book In Defense of Israel. Has his dispensationalism gone too far? How would you describe his thesis? My first reaction once I picked my jaw up off of the floor was the man is a heretic or a blasphemer, some may consider that to be an overreaction. Some of my thoughts can be found here.

HT: The Contemporary Calvinist.

I am moving ahead full steam in my series on “Objections to Calvinism.” The next three posts in this series will deal with objections that I have personally encountered, mostly at Theology for the Masses. In my previous post, I examined the objection that election is a source for pride. I argued that a person cannot truly understand Unconditional Election as the Bible describes it and yet become prideful and arrogant because of this election of God. It is unbiblical and defeats the reason why God elects unconditionally, namely to destroy human pride and declare the glory of God in Jesus Christ. So I am actually not going to go in the order I originally said I was going to go. I want to spend more time meditating on what I want to say about prayer. Today, I wish to examine the fourth objection that I listed, Predestination and Living a Holy Life.

continue reading…

The first objection that I want to tackle in my series on “Objections to Calvinism” is that of Election and Pride. Now this is not an objection that has personally been raised to me. No one has actually said to me, “I am not a Calvinist because it makes you prideful and arrogant.” But I have heard of people raising that issue with others and so I’d like to tackle this issue first before getting into some objections that have been raised to me personally.

continue reading…

I want to begin a post series trying my best to answer some objections to the doctrines of Grace that I have encountered over the last two-plus years. The ones that I will attempt to answer are these: Election leads men to be proud and arrogant because they are “elect;” Why should I pray according to Calvinism; Why should I evangelize; Why should pursue holiness. I will take them in the order listed.

But before I get into the objection of pride because of election (I haven’t really heard this objection personally, unlike the other three, but I know it is out there), I to address an historical issue. Namely, the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. The last three objections–prayer, evangelism, and holy living–stem out of an apparent failure to distinguish Hyper-Calvinsim. The following is based off of the discussion of Hyper-Calvinism at Theopedia.com.

continue reading…

Powered by WordPress Web Design by SRS Solutions © 2010 Theology for the Masses Design by SRS Solutions

Bad Behavior has blocked 349 access attempts in the last 7 days.