Wednesday, 23 September 2009
-
Sovereignty or Fatalism?
This is a post by a friend and co-worker: Click and Read I would recommend adding him to your blog lists. For the most part, I have enjoyed his blogs and love the conviction/encouragement that they bring. The topic of this particular blog prompted a different response...
And this is my response:
To the highly esteemed Rev. Ray Hollenbach,
I've been thinking about this post for quite some time now. I often have a hard time articulating my thoughts, so I passed the majority of the response off to one of my best friends and pastor, Kyle Claunch. Anything that makes sense or that is thought provoking is probably his; anything that is confusing or just silly is probably mine.
The first thought is about your argumentative style. Being a "Christian Fatalist," I could have become offended by the title of the blog alone: "Christian Fatalism: Missing His Glory". However, I feel I know you fairly well and know that offense is not what you are after in your blog (I think we would both agree that the Gospel is offensive in its own right to a dying and lost world). Because of our past relationship and your graciousness in previous conversations, it was no stretch for me to simply see the title of your blog as a way to express your passion for your beliefs (and with no tongue-in-cheek, I believe you are very sincere in your passion for the Gospel). Getting to the point, I think framing your opponent's position in the weakest possible light is a bit dangerous. To present an opposing view as weak and easy to defeat may only serve to demonstrate the weakness of your own position. A good theological argument deals with the opposing view in the strongest possible light. For example, it would be a touch unfair to write a blog titled "The Impotent God of the Arminian/Open Theist: Stealing God's Glory" or something to that effect. This would be unfair as the position you hold is not designed to rob God of his glory, even if I think that is the end result.
Thought number two is spurred on by this quote, "Part of the glory of God is his ability to accomplish his will in the midst of the complexity of a billion human choices. He does not over-rule our lives." In order for this to be true, I see two options: (1) You can argue that God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future free choices that men make. Rather, he is so wise as to be able to respond to any given choice and still maintain control. This is the position of open theists. Or... (2) You can argue that God knows the future free choices of men exhaustively and by his foresight, he is able to formulate a plan for the universe in which all of the free choices of men are taken into account. This is the classic Arminian position. I would think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you would hold to the Arminian view over the open theist view.If one holds to the former position, that God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of all possible future free choices (openness), then one could respond by pointing out a number of very problematic biblical texts to demonstrate that this position is not easily defended with the Scriptures (Isaiah 46:9-11, Psalm 139:16, Ephesians 1:4-11, Romans 8:29-30, 1 Peter 1:1-2). I'm quite sure the open theist has a list of verses of their own that would start an interesting discussion.
If one holds to the latter position (Arminianism), then one has no problem with the passages about God's foreknowledge. Rather, the greatest problem (in this discussion) is a philosophical-theological one. First, if God knows the future exhaustively, including the future choices of men, then those choices are not free in the sense that you mean them to be. For, if God knows the choices, they are certain choices and man would not be “free” to choose otherwise.
Second, not only does the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge render human choices certain, it renders God powerless to intervene in the affairs of the world. If God knows the future exhaustively, then he has to know the outcome of all human decisions as well as the outcome of all of his own decisions. His knowledge of it renders it certain. To change it based on his foreknowledge means that his foreknowledge was wrong (and therefore not foreknowledge at all). For his foreknowledge to be based on a prior goal means that he foreordained it. So, his knowledge of the future is owing to the fact that he ordained the future to be what it will be. Here is the dilemma. If God has foreknowledge of future choices but he does not foreordain them, then he has no control whatsoever over any of the future. If God's foreknowledge is based on foreordination, then you have a God who controls everything exhaustively, including the choices of men. The only other alternative is to deny God's foreknowledge, which the open theists have done. Incidentally, this is precisely why they have become open theists. They see the problem with Arminianism.
The third point I want to respond to is your first "danger" of Christian fatalism. To be honest, it dodges the issue. You are assuming that my logic, as a “fatalist”, only produces one possible path to follow when you say that this view of God "strips away responsibility for our choices and undermines the call of God to repentance as a way of life." Is it not a possibility that one can hold to the view of “Christian fatalism” and still believe that repentance is a way of life (me being an example)? It is true that you have properly articulated one possible logical extension of the position. However, you should not assume that people are bound to reason in that direction. I think that a student of the bible finds that many biblical teachings would contradict other biblical teachings if one were compelled to embrace all possible logical extensions. For example, the same thing could be done with the deity of Christ: If Jesus is fully God then his temptations must not have truly been temptations. God cannot sin, or he would not be God. Furthermore, James says "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). If Jesus is fully God, then the writer of Hebrews would not be able to say, "He was tempted in all things even as we are, and yet without sin" or "He was tempted in the things that he suffered so that he might come to the aid of those who are tempted" (Heb 4:15, 2:18). Therefore, anyone who believes that Jesus is fully God clearly denies that he is able to be tempted and sympathize with those who are tempted. You see the problem? This is a logically plausible argument, but it is not logically necessary. There are other possible ways of explaining the situation. In fact, any Christian wishing to embrace Christ as Lord must find other (biblical) ways of explaining the situation. This is also practically true for all my “fatalistic” friends. I do not know any one of them who deny the ongoing need for repentance, and I would be surprised if you knew one yourself.
Next, as though I have not been long winded enough, is to address the second danger you mention: "The second danger of Christian fatalism is that believers accept each event in life as part of God’s foreordained plan." I do not see this as a danger at all, but as the very basis of my confidence that good can come out of suffering and evil in the world. I would agree with the argument that God gives good gifts (James 1:17), but that he is not ultimately responsible for the bad ones is where I (and I think, the Bible) would deviate from your argument. To say, “he helps you weather the storm, but he is in no way behind the coming of the storm” is biblically dubious. My response: Who took Job's children, livestock, and property from him? You might say, "Satan," and I would agree. However, that is not the end of the answer. Did God do it? To be consistent, you would have to say, “No,” and I would argue that Job would differ. Job said, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away." Maybe Job was mistaken and the writer of Job just recorded Job’s improper theology. However, the Spirit-inspired author, in the very next verse, says, "In all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God" (Job 1:21-22). Who gave Job his terrible boils? Satan? Yes. God? Job's wife tells him to curse God and die. Job says, "Shall we accept good from the hand of the LORD and not accept adversity?" Once again, the Spirit-inspired writer gives a comment about Job ascribing responsibility to God: "In all this Job did not sin with his lips" (Job 2:10). What about Joseph? Who was behind the beating up of Joseph, selling him as a slave, etc? His brothers? Yes. God? I think you, if you are going to be consistent, have to say, "No! God did not do that to Joseph, but God worked through it for good.” That's not what Joseph thinks: "God sent me before you to preserve life... God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth... It was not you who sent me here but God" (Gen. 45:5-8). Later Joseph says to his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20). The same word is used of God's involvement as of Joseph's brothers' involvement: "You meant.... God meant." Both parties were active in the process but with very different purposes in mind. Theirs was an evil purpose; God's was a good purpose. God's involvement was not merely a wise response to a bad situation, but God was behind the works of the brothers with a good purpose. What about Isaiah's view of God's involvement in adversity, hardship, and evil in the world? Does God, the "Father of Lights" (James 1:17) only claim responsibility and power over the light but not over the darkness in the world? Isaiah says, "I am the LORD and there is no other, the one forming the light and creating the darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isaiah 45:6-7). What if a city comes under pestilence and disease? Did God play any part in sending such things? Once again, I think for you to be consistent, you have to say, "No." But the prophet Amos says, "If a calamity occurs in a city, has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). What about the evil deed of the crucifixion of Christ? Who did it? Evil men? Yes. Did God do it? Once again, for consistency’s sake at this point you would have to say that God did not do it. Rather, God caused it to work for good in the end. But probably, you would make an exception at this point and say that God caused the crucifixion of Christ. And God certainly did (Acts 2:23).
I completely agree that evil and suffering in the world are the result of the Fall and the sinful choices of men, and the ruling hand of the "god of this world," (2 Cor 4:4), the devil. Nevertheless, this does not mean that God is not sovereignly orchestrating the details of history toward a perfect purpose to display his glory in Christ Jesus. The biblical teaching on suffering, evil, and the sovereignty of God is too complex to reduce to a simple either/or formula: Either free choices of evil men did it, OR God did it. The biblical teaching is that both are true. Therefore, man is responsible, and God is sovereign. My confidence that "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28) is a confidence in his control from the beginning to the end, not just a confidence in his ability to clean up the mess at the end.
So to answer your question, “What earthly parent would infect a child with disease in order to teach character lessons?” My God is one that is eternal and is willing to use temporal sickness and disease if it affects the change in character that is necessary to save one eternally. Even you as a parent do this. Sticking with the disease illustration, have your children not been immunized? Isaac, my son who is eight months, has had three sets of shots so far. It was dreadfully painful to have to help hold my son down as the nurse placed a hepatitis shot in his leg. I felt a great sense of responsibility for his pain as I was the one causing it. I was the one who helped bring him into the world. I was the one who brought him to the doctor. I was the one holding him down and causing his pain. However, I subjected him to this pain in hopes that he would avoid a possible future death caused by hepatitis. For a biblical example of this very thing, I look to Romans 8:20 “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope.” God is the one in control of all creation being subjected to “futility.” He does it for one reason: “hope”.
With this foundation in place, let me return to your original life illustration of the young Christian lady who came into the pregnancy center; what hope is provided her if her God did not cause this to happen? Why did God not intervene sooner? What happens if her free will messes up God’s working to change the bad into good? After all, was it not her free will that got her into this in the first place? Worse yet, what if another person’s free will interferes with what God is trying to do? To me this brings less hope, but rather the opposite, despair. Would I flippantly tell a girl who walks into a pregnancy center, “God did this!” No. However, I would also never say that God was not working through all of the choices involved with a good purpose and wise design to bring about a good result in her life if she will repent of her sin and cling to Christ. There is no assurance that God can do what he says he will do (work all things for our good) unless he was not only aware but working to cause the circumstances. What I would try to express to the young lady in the right time is that she intended her actions for selfish pleasure much like the Jewish leaders intended their actions against Jesus for selfish gain (Joseph’s brothers as well). Personal responsibility needs to be accepted and repentance is necessary. However, in all of this, God was planning an opportunity to show his glory. With a repentant heart, watch God reveal consequences such as unexpected pregnancy or the death of Christ, as blessings such as a baby or forgiveness for sins.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to sinkingfoster's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in sinkingfoster's local time zone: GMT -12:00 (International Date Line West)
Comments (9)
Kris,
Your analysis (and distinction) between Arminianism and Open Theism is fair and skillful--until you make the argument that since Arminiasm has an inconsistency about God's eternal council (how can foreordination of events be based on foreknowledge without impinging on God's ultimate causation) one must take the logically plausible extension of Open Theism. It's not as if Calvinism doesn't have a similar logical difficulty: how can a good God cause evil in the world and not be morally culpable for it? To this answer you might hear some Calvinists make some flimsy arguments about different types of wills and the nature of causality or some other such twaddle, but if you really push a Calvinist, he will admit that he accepts the difficulty because of his faith, and because it is the teaching of Scripture that God does not sin, nor can He be tempted by sin. The (true) Arminian is in the same boat--just on the other side of the sea.
I might even agree with you that the biblical teaching better supports the Calvinistic understanding, but the Arminian objections cannot be so easily dismissed or set aside.
If it really were as easy as citing a few proof texts from Genesis and Romans 9, the "error" of Arminius would not persist in the lives of so many who are otherwise intelligent and faithful expositors of the Scripture.
A further rebuttal: there is something truly repugnant to the Christian spirit about naming God as the ultimate source of calamites. Most Calvinists I know are not really comfortable with saying that God caused the rape of my sister, for instance, in the same way that he causes men to be saved. Some of the fire-breathers will affirm it with a maniacal timbre in their voice--thinking their heinous (and unscriptural) view of a misanthropic God authoring sin in the world somehow wins the argument--but generally these people's lives and testimonies are so callous and unloving that their arguments are never even seriously entertained (by me) because their lives discredit their arguments right to be heard.
To sum up: you might be able to make the case that an Arminian robs God of His glory--but others might be able to make the case that a Calvinist robs Him of His goodness.
As I said, I think the preponderance of evidence does fall on the Calvinist side--but even in saying that I would stoutly maintian that not all of the Scriptures can be explained in this framework--and I would further argue that the mystery Paul defends in Romans 9, "19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? " is a valid question. I have no real issue with a potter declaring some clay fit for destruction, and some for glory. However, if the clay was fully and totally created by the artist, and the clay has no truly free or independent propertie in and of itself, then the "fault" of the dishonorable vessel ultimately lies with the artist, and not the clay. This answer is clearly unaplatalbe, unscriptural, and blasphemous. Yet it is the inescapable logically necessary conclusion of the Calvinistic understanding of this passage. When pressed on this issue, a Calvinist will demur, cite Paul's argument that it is not our province to know the answer to this question, and then try and move on by calling it a "mystery of the faith." And this is an appropriate response, as it seems to be the teaching of the Scripture--but knowing this to be the case, it does make the Calvinist seem more than a bit hypocritical (and often times, smug) when he lambastes the Arminian for wrestling with the same dillemma (albeit from the other side of the equation) and is forced to conclude that the answer is a mystery of the faith, and not logically explainable.
The scriptures maintain that both God's Sovereignty and Goodness are complete. On that we can agree. Get past that, and your looking for trouble. No less than Jonathan Edwards--that great hero American Calvinism--found himself believeing heresy when he considered the issue; twice! I'm not counselling you to not strive with the issue, but I am telling you that it is irresolvable. At some point you will have to revert to the answer, "the mystery of God."
That's why Christianity is a faith, and not an argument. Kierkegaard wasn't right, but he wasn't all wrong, either.
I miss you man--hope you're doing well.
@manhouser - I am doing well and thank you for your response. Truly, I always enjoy reading your thoughts. Hope you are doing well also.
The response by Dan above was very articulate, well thought-out and contained a lot of wisdom concerning a very difficult subject. His analysis of the dilemma that the Calvinist and the Arminian both face was spot on. Both have to appeal to mystery at some point, as Paul most clearly says in Romans 9:19-20. And the primary difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian, when pressed, is indeed where they locate the mystery. However, recognizing that both groups face a dilemma from opposite sides of the question does not reduce the significance of the differences in the positions they espouse. As Dan himself said, the two are in the same boat on opposite sides of the sea. What is being missed here is how broad that "sea" is and how weighty are the implications of choosing the "boat" in which to sail.
Dan admits that the preponderence of biblical evidence is on the side of the Calvinist, a point with which I heartily agree. He further points out that many faithful and godly Arminian expositors have reached different conclusions; I also heartily agree with this (and I am thankful for them -- thank God for the likes of the Wesleys and G. Campbell Morgan!). There is tremendous agreement between the two camps when they are willing to engage one another charitably. God be praised for the agreement. But let us not ignore the difference. Rather, let us press on to understanding. I am not interested in resolving the mystery that Paul himself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could not resolve (Rom 9:19-20). But I am greatly interested (as all men should be) in understanding the proper locus of the mystery. I desire to place the ultimate mystery where Paul places it.
So, where are we to locate the mystery? The Arminian deals with the tension between the assumed libertarian freedom of man and the sovereignty of God by an appeal to God's simple foreknowledge (he knows the future exhaustively as a matter of foresight). In this way, God is able to maintain control of world history while maintaining the libertarian freedom of the will of man. I propose that the mystery the consistent Arminian must admit is as follows: foreknowledge (by the definition of knowledge) is certainty. Therefore, the decisions of free creatures are rendered certain by the foreknowledge of God before they are formed. How can they then be free? Furthermore, the future actions of God are also rendered certain by the foreknowledge of God. How is God, then, free to act if his foreknowledge is merely foresight and not foreordination? This is the Arminians dilemma.
The dilemma for the Calvinist is, as Dan has pointed out, not a dilemma concerning the relationship of man's freedom to God's sovereignty, but a dilemma concerning the relationship of God's sovereignty to God's goodness (a dilemma which certainly pertains to the nature of human freedom). This is the classic problem of evil. This, I would argue, and I think Dan agrees, is where Paul locates the mystery. Specifically, the dilemma is, how can God hold men accountable ("find fault") for their own actions when God is the ultimate cause of and King over all that comes to pass? This is the precise question that Arminians press upon Calvinists! It is a dilemma. It involves great mystery. To delve too deeply here is to stand on the brink of the ineffable, or worse, to risk blasphemy! Nevertheless, it is precisely the dilemma which Paul admits that he faces. One should hardly call it a "demur" to appeal to mystery at this point when that is what the apostle does. Paul does not pretend that his theology of divine sovereignty is without dilemma. But he is clear concerning the locus of the dilemma. And the Calvinist's dilemma, not the Arminian's is the dilemma of Paul.
One final thought... To appeal to mystery here is not a cop out as some have suggested. I have heard it said, "I can't believe Paul punted there." Paul did not punt. Instead Paul helped to remind us all of the boundaries for all appropriate theological and philosophical discourse: a recognition of the difference between Creator and creature. The reason this is mysterious is because the Creator has not revealed the resolution of this dilemma fully. The place of the creature may be one of investigation, but it is not one of arrogance. The creature cannot shake his fist at God and cry, "Unfair!" That violates the boundaries. Paul encourages his skeptical readers to follow the practice of Job when faced with the mysteries of God: "I place my hand over my mouth" (Job 40:4).
@kdclaunch - Well thanks for the compliments.
I'd be remiss if I didn't note that your argument is more clear and articulate then mine, though. I'll chalk some of that up to my ambivalence (two-willedness) on the subject, and the rest up to composing at 6:00 a.m. (I'm not sure what clock Kris' xanga account goes by, but it's clearly not EST). I didn't think "demur" carried any really negative overtones--but I will confess that "twaddle" was unnecssarily inflammatory. While I'm open to Calvnistic soteriology, I don't think very much of Reformed eschatology--I suppose my frustration with some of that spilled over into this discussion--my apologies.
I agree with your analysis that the Calvinistic "cloud of mystery" much better corresonds with the scriptural parameters of mystery then the Arminian's.
I would argue the real error in Arminian thought is not that it is anti-thetical to scripture, but that it is presumptuous. My personal conjecture is that God often chooses to limit Himself in the moral agency of His creatures, endowing them with a legitimate freedom of the will (and I'm not meaning to open up all the corresponding questions of imputed sin, the noetic effects of the fall prevenient grace, etc.). However, there are clearly times where God does intervene directly, and He is not acting improperly in doing so. As I noted this is conjecture, and I strive to leave it as such. However, it leaves me the attractive option of not having to address the hard problems of much theodicy, and does provide a matrix in which free will and sovereignty can be (somewhat modified). The Arminian's problem is that he takes this supposed "free will" as an inalienable right promised him in the Scriptures. In short, he has elevated a logical possibility into a Scriptural certainty.
I mention this not to lecture on about my private (and very probably incorrect) belief, but rather to sharpen the the parameters of the "cloud of mystery." If true, the Arminian's mystery "how does God truly cause things for which He bears no moral responsibility" exists within the larger cloud of the Calvinist's " how does God truly maintain His goodness when He ultimately causes moral evils." The problem is that the Arminian's smaller cloud of inquiry is defined by supposition, whereas the larger Calvinistic cloud is delineated by Scripture.
I hope the above does not read as esoteric twaddle or mere tautology--what I'm trying to argue is that Arminians posit a possible narrowing of Calvinism's larger mystery. They go into error when they hold their logical system over and against clear Scriptural teaching that God does at least sometimes directly influence moral agency (and retain His goodness). In the end analysis, maybe I'm the one punting! :)
A final note though, although they seek to be "the church reformed, always reforming," there are many in the Calvinistic stream who seem to elevate their logical system over the clear meaning of Scripture. Calvinistic interpretations of 1 Jn. 2:2, 1 Tim. 2:5, and 2 Pet. 2:20 (among many others) seem strained, at best, to me.
Props to my new friend, Dan! I would disagree with some of your conjecture, but I appreciate your mind and your charitable spirit. Grace and peace! Props to my friend Kris's twaddle as well! =)
@kdclaunch - NIce meeting you, as well. And sorry about the copious typos...I kind of hate proof-reading.
I'm glad Kris and Andrea get to be around such a thoughtful and godly man.
The reason this is mysterious is because the Creator has not revealed the resolution of this dilemma fully. The place of the creature may be one of investigation, but it is not one of arrogance. The creature cannot shake his fist at God and cry, "Unfair!" That violates the boundaries. Paul encourages his skeptical readers to follow the practice of Job when faced with the mysteries of God: "I place my hand over my mouth" (Job 40:4).
So, when I'm at your house next time and we start to talk about this, I'm going to say, "It's a mystery to me boss". And if if hasn't been revealed fully, why are we arguing about it? This conversation is good, but DARN it wears me out.
Lori
Perhaps we are looking at this after the wrong fashion. I would posit that ultimately the only real choice we have is, "Are we going to listen to the Spirit of God leading us towards Christ or are we not?" All the other decisions that we make are predetermined from the making of that decision. If you decide not to then you are obviously going to do whatever it is that best suits your own person interests and your own personal gain. Any actions you make contributing to the well being of others is because you gain something from it personally. If you decide to listen to the Spirit then your path is clear: REPENTANCE. This is mirrored in the choice that Adam had, obedience or disobedience. Adam chose the latter and then blamed God for it. (Gen 3:12) I don't think this solves anything but I hope it adds perspective. I also think that people are to eager to forget the wrath of God thus the question is posited, "How could God allow this to happen?" Wrath that condemns all of mankind to separation from God forever by our very nature. We are deserving of so much worse than the things that befall us in this life. God hardened Pharaoh's heart for his glory (Ex 9:16) the idea that the actions of evil men being ordained by God, detracting from His goodness (in my opinion) limits the power of the Almighty. We in our sin are as evil as any mass murderer. The Bible doesn't say well if you just lie but don't murder anybody you'll be okay. God finds ALL sin abhorrent. Yes I just equated lying and murder. Does that make you uncomfortable? It shouldn't. They both receive the same punishment (Romans 3:23 & Romans 6:23). It's in our limitations as people and in our pride that we think that we are better than murderers and rapists (apart from the blood of Jesus) but we're not. Which I think brings us to Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Even though we do the things that God hates He loves us and sent His Son as our propitiation. He loves the murderers too. Jesus died for them as well.
-Jed (I don't have a Xanga acct, I'm not trying to be anon)