On Calvinism pt. 3
I’ve told you about the first two Calvinists who helped me see the merits of their position. And we’ve had some good discussions about it, which tickles me. I never dreamed this would garner the amount of comments – and hits – that it did. Kinda makes me feel like Riverdancing.
The third leg of this tale is slightly different than the first two. I told about George and Trevor in dialogue format, which I think I write slightly weaker in. This part of the story takes place some time after graduation from college, after I had finally taken Trevor’s advice about who to ask my questions of. However, instead of seeking them out directly, I purchased the book they had written on the subject. You can see it on my rarely-updated sidebar: “Who Can Be Saved?” by Dr. Terrance Theissan, putting forth the view of Accesibilism.
The issue that was tying me up in knots was this: I could conceive how predestination and free will could be amalgamated; in fact I saw the necessity of such a duality. I had arrived at an understanding (albeit a new and fragile one) of God’s relationship to the saved – that is, I for the first time began to see how the concept of “the Elect” did not turn God into and evil deity. Rather, I began to see that God was more loving and more glorious than I had hoped. But one question burned inside me and refused to be quenched: If we are saved by accepting the Gospel of Christ, then what of those who have no opportunity to do so?
I asked this question of a few people, all of whom gave me answers that seemed sound yet tasted foul in my mouth as I repeated them. Answers like, “If God had wanted them saved, they would be,” and, “They live away from the Gospel because they aren’t supposed to hear it and be saved, and when the time is right God will bring the Gospel to them.” My issue with these theories were twofold; for one, it seemed very unfair of God to not give everyone the opportunity to be saved, even if he knew the would reject it; and for another, if that was your theology the WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING IN NORTH AMERICA!? GET YOUR ASS OUT THERE AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL because if you don’t get it out there, they have no chance. Yet it seemed that the majority of folks that held this belief had little or no interest in spreading the Gospel at all, rather they for all intents and purposes withheld the Gospel, and did so with smug superiority.
So I was quite distressed, in fact it was almost a deal-breaker between God and me. All those people – Natives, Incas, Celts, Asians, the unborn – who had never heard the Gospel, yet had rich lives with love and suffering and brightness and pain and all the things we did? Mother loving their kids, making sure they didn’t stay out too late; deeds of valour done by desperate men to protect those they loved; sacrifices made by people for those they loved; suffering and dying and all the rest – why, none of it mattered! Not if they never had a chance! Better off they would have been if they had never been born, then they would have skipped the horrors of life and just been ushered into emptiness. I could not accept it! I would not!
Such was my mindset when I cracked this book. I was in a state, let me tell you. Sleepless night followed sleepless night, and by the time I began to read I was physically and spiritually weak. It was last summer, on my week of vacation at the lake. This is what I learned.
Theissan better defined “the unevangelized” than I had. Namely, he not only included the unborn and people who lived before Christ, but infants who die before being able to understand the Gospel, the mentally handicapped who do not have the ability to understand the Gospel, and everyone living after the resurrection of Jesus who never hear the Gospel in an understandable manner OR those who hear it but are unable to recognize it as Good News because of the actions/atrocities of those who bring it. One could hardly expect a tribesman to accept the Gospel of Jesus when the only Christians he has seen have raped his wife, killed his children, and destroyed his home. What of his fate?
Paul writes in Romans: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Rom 1:18-25) This verse has often been cited as proof that those who do not hear the Gospel are all doomed.
But read it closely - "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." This says clearly that they knew God. That those whom the Gospel had never reached knew God as Creator. Yes, it also says that among those people there were those "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" - but it does not say that all did so. Those who do suppress the truth and do not honour him are without excuse. What of the rest? Consider the God-fearing Roman that Peter visits in Acts. Through General Revelation - that is, through God revealed to his creation in nature - humanity is aware of God.
So the question was then posed: how are we saved? Through acceptance of the Gospel? That much seems obvious – but what of Abraham, and David, and Moses, and all the Old Testament people? There was no Gospel for them to accept. Perhaps the system of temple sacrifice? But that originated after several characters in Genesis had already lived and died. How were Adam and Eve saved, for that matter? Can someone be saved if all they recieve from God is General Revelation?
Thiessen has this to say: "Salvation has always been by grace through faith, but the faith that God expects (and gives) is appropriate to the revelation of himself that he has given to a particular individual. God requires people who recieve General Revelation to honour him as the Creator and Provider, to be thankful to him... to cast themselves on his mercy when they are aware of their failure to do what is right. If the Spirit of God were graciously to elicit this response in anyone's heart, they would be saved." So what he's saying is that God is revealed to everyone, even if only through General Revelation. And if someone were to respond to that revelation, would God not save them?
The third leg of this tale is slightly different than the first two. I told about George and Trevor in dialogue format, which I think I write slightly weaker in. This part of the story takes place some time after graduation from college, after I had finally taken Trevor’s advice about who to ask my questions of. However, instead of seeking them out directly, I purchased the book they had written on the subject. You can see it on my rarely-updated sidebar: “Who Can Be Saved?” by Dr. Terrance Theissan, putting forth the view of Accesibilism.
The issue that was tying me up in knots was this: I could conceive how predestination and free will could be amalgamated; in fact I saw the necessity of such a duality. I had arrived at an understanding (albeit a new and fragile one) of God’s relationship to the saved – that is, I for the first time began to see how the concept of “the Elect” did not turn God into and evil deity. Rather, I began to see that God was more loving and more glorious than I had hoped. But one question burned inside me and refused to be quenched: If we are saved by accepting the Gospel of Christ, then what of those who have no opportunity to do so?
I asked this question of a few people, all of whom gave me answers that seemed sound yet tasted foul in my mouth as I repeated them. Answers like, “If God had wanted them saved, they would be,” and, “They live away from the Gospel because they aren’t supposed to hear it and be saved, and when the time is right God will bring the Gospel to them.” My issue with these theories were twofold; for one, it seemed very unfair of God to not give everyone the opportunity to be saved, even if he knew the would reject it; and for another, if that was your theology the WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING IN NORTH AMERICA!? GET YOUR ASS OUT THERE AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL because if you don’t get it out there, they have no chance. Yet it seemed that the majority of folks that held this belief had little or no interest in spreading the Gospel at all, rather they for all intents and purposes withheld the Gospel, and did so with smug superiority.
So I was quite distressed, in fact it was almost a deal-breaker between God and me. All those people – Natives, Incas, Celts, Asians, the unborn – who had never heard the Gospel, yet had rich lives with love and suffering and brightness and pain and all the things we did? Mother loving their kids, making sure they didn’t stay out too late; deeds of valour done by desperate men to protect those they loved; sacrifices made by people for those they loved; suffering and dying and all the rest – why, none of it mattered! Not if they never had a chance! Better off they would have been if they had never been born, then they would have skipped the horrors of life and just been ushered into emptiness. I could not accept it! I would not!
Such was my mindset when I cracked this book. I was in a state, let me tell you. Sleepless night followed sleepless night, and by the time I began to read I was physically and spiritually weak. It was last summer, on my week of vacation at the lake. This is what I learned.
Theissan better defined “the unevangelized” than I had. Namely, he not only included the unborn and people who lived before Christ, but infants who die before being able to understand the Gospel, the mentally handicapped who do not have the ability to understand the Gospel, and everyone living after the resurrection of Jesus who never hear the Gospel in an understandable manner OR those who hear it but are unable to recognize it as Good News because of the actions/atrocities of those who bring it. One could hardly expect a tribesman to accept the Gospel of Jesus when the only Christians he has seen have raped his wife, killed his children, and destroyed his home. What of his fate?
Paul writes in Romans: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Rom 1:18-25) This verse has often been cited as proof that those who do not hear the Gospel are all doomed.
But read it closely - "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." This says clearly that they knew God. That those whom the Gospel had never reached knew God as Creator. Yes, it also says that among those people there were those "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" - but it does not say that all did so. Those who do suppress the truth and do not honour him are without excuse. What of the rest? Consider the God-fearing Roman that Peter visits in Acts. Through General Revelation - that is, through God revealed to his creation in nature - humanity is aware of God.
So the question was then posed: how are we saved? Through acceptance of the Gospel? That much seems obvious – but what of Abraham, and David, and Moses, and all the Old Testament people? There was no Gospel for them to accept. Perhaps the system of temple sacrifice? But that originated after several characters in Genesis had already lived and died. How were Adam and Eve saved, for that matter? Can someone be saved if all they recieve from God is General Revelation?
Thiessen has this to say: "Salvation has always been by grace through faith, but the faith that God expects (and gives) is appropriate to the revelation of himself that he has given to a particular individual. God requires people who recieve General Revelation to honour him as the Creator and Provider, to be thankful to him... to cast themselves on his mercy when they are aware of their failure to do what is right. If the Spirit of God were graciously to elicit this response in anyone's heart, they would be saved." So what he's saying is that God is revealed to everyone, even if only through General Revelation. And if someone were to respond to that revelation, would God not save them?
Consider this: God asks us for faith. Is it really possible that, in all the billions of people who had lived, that none of them responded to their Creator? Let's go back to the Bible. The criminal on the cross - what did he do to recieve salvation? He turned to Christ and asked to be remembered. That's all. I doubt he even knew what Jesus was. He responded to what little he knew, and it was enough. Could this not be the way it is for the unevangelized?
I'm falling drastically short of explaining this argument. Dr. Theissen's book is 2 inches thick, and he's got more years of schooling than I've been alive. I need to wrap this up, but let me just finish with this: I am not trying to say that evangelism is unnecessary, or that other religions save people. far from it. I'm saying that any who are saved are saved by Christ - but that God's mercy may extend farther than we knew. I don't know who among the unevangelized are saved, but I have hope that some - perhaps many - are. And whenever I fear that God is bloodthristy, or evil, or eagerly desiring the suffering of his children, I think of this: "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" Eze 18:23, and "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Pet 3:9
Scripture tells me that God is more merciful and righteous than I am, than anyone is. If I can trust anyone to do what is right - what is really right - I can trust him. And that is where I arrived. Thanks for tagging along.
posted by Grey Owl at 2:52 p.m.
29 Comments:
A minor correction, Grey Owl. In this case, it's Tiessen, not Theissen.
Sorry, man. It's been bugging me.
Grrr... I'll edit it tomorrow.
Funny. I thought your point was that you were a Calvinist.
Good stuff here. From what you have written, I would question Tiessen's emphasis on rational understanding (i.e. the mentally handicapped), but it sounds pretty interesting.
Tiessen, if I am correct, is a Calvinist, right?
Peace,
Jamie
Wanderer - not a Calvinist, although sympathetic to the cause. Maybe a 3-point Calvinist, if there is such a thing.
Jamie - yes, Terry is a Calvinist. I fear I have not represented his point very well here - actually, I wasn't pleased with part 3 at all... just felt too rushed. But thanks for reading.
(The big jerkhead 5 point Calvinist arives...) hey,
interesting post, although I don't know who Teissen is. Still mulling it over, I'll right more later.
Bob - honestly! I don't think anybody here would think of you as "big"...
I encourage you (and everyone) to pick up tiessan's book. It's cheap on amazon, and the most comprehensive examination of the issue - not just putting forward his own theories, but basing his arguments on scripture and the theology of some of the church fathers. Good times.
For those who are interested in the book Grey Owl is referring to, you won't get far searching amazon for Tiessan (believe me, I tried it). Make sure you spell it correctly: Tiessen.
That'll get you what you want.
Or, just click the link to the right under "books I likes." Still haven't corrected the spelling.
I'm only a menno by marriage, you know. I have an excuse.
Terrence Tieseen was one of my favourite profs at Providence when I took a few courses there a couple of years ago (updating my M.A. to an M.Div. because I was considering pursuing a Doctorate degree at the time... story for a different time...)
Tiessen described himself many times as "a reluctant Calvinist"; he didn't like a lot of the implications of accepting Calvin's teachings, but could not come to -- in his own understanding -- reject Calvinism based on studying the Scriptures.
I really respect his "humble Calvinist" attitude and graciousness towards others who don't share his position. He NEVER suggested that those who didn't agree with him were deceived, ignorant, or semi-Pelagian (as some of my friends in Toronto unfortunately label people -- to them, "3 point calvinist" is synonymous with "semi-Pelagian").
We need more humble Calvinists (sounds like an oxymoron, I know) like Tiessen, or Brother Maynard, etc. If you get a chance to take Tiessen's courses on the Development of Historical Christian Thought (they're seminary level) do it; his graciousness towards the various viewpoints of Catholics and Protestants alike is a lesson in itself.
Hey sorry for taking so long to write...anyway, I liked reading about where you are at with the Calvinism/predestination issue, I respect your honesty. Although you gave more attention to scripture in this post than in previous ones I still don't think that it is scripture that has shaped your view one this issue (Leaving Theissen aside). It seems preconcieved notions of what is "fair" for God to do is the most major influence. for example you said:
"So I was quite distressed, in fact it was almost a deal-breaker between God and me. All those people – Natives, Incas, Celts, Asians, the unborn – who had never heard the Gospel, yet had rich lives with love and suffering and brightness and pain and all the things we did? Mother loving their kids, making sure they didn’t stay out too late; deeds of valour done by desperate men to protect those they loved; sacrifices made by people for those they loved; suffering and dying and all the rest – why, none of it mattered! Not if they never had a chance! Better off they would have been if they had never been born, then they would have skipped the horrors of life and just been ushered into emptiness. I could not accept it! I would not!"
This sounds very man centered to me, and by you declaring that for God act in a certin way toward the unreached was unacceptable is to usurp God's right to be God. This is the main issue people seem to have with Predestination and God's justice in general. Wanderer and I on the previous post were discussing the justice of God's wrath, it just seems that as post-moderners we are radically humanistic in our thoughts and a justice dealing God pouring out wrath just doesn't jive with us. How can this be fair is our cry.
I ask the more God centered question of "How can it be fair that the roof hasn't come down on my sinful body as I type?" My point is I think we fail to realize how deserving of wrath we really are because we are measuring ourselves by other men and comparitively we look ok, like most everyone else. Unfortunatly God's standard is much higher than ours when it comes to righteousness, thus we get passages like that of Romans 1.
As far as forming a view on the unevangelized, I have run the gone from one extreme end to another. C.S. Lewis gives an example in the "Last Battle" of the cronicles of Narnia of an opposer of Aslan who was devoted to "Tash". When he stands to be judged by Aslan Aslan says "He counts his service to Tash as service to himself (Aslan)" thus the man is accepted. I held this view until I realized that it had no scriptural support whatsoever, and in reality it really destroys the purpose of preaching the gospel to the unreached, being that they are saved for loving God via incorrect love to a false god.
As far as people being saved by God forseeing that they would have choosen Him had the opportunity been given is equally destructive to the call to preach the gospel in all the world. Paul Copan presents this sort of view in His book "That's just your interpretation" (Good book I enjoyed it although I disagree with his strong Arminianism).
One might say that a calvinistic view of election is destructive to the great commision, but I think not. For calvinists like myself hold that not only has God through decree chosen who would recieve the benefits of Christ's work (through election). But God has also decreed the means through which those benefits would be applied namely the foolishness of preaching.
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe" (1 Cor 1:21)
As far as your response to Romans 1 not directly saying that all have commited the sin of exchanging the truth for a lie, Paul is abundantl clear in Romans 3 saying:
as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.", "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." (Rom 3:10-19)
The main thing I think we need to grasp is the justice of God's judgement on man, with and without revelation. I really don't claim to have a bottom line view of how God will deal with the unreached, but one thing I do think is that the bible is clear that God is perfectly just to condemn all of mankind. He is under no obligation whatsoever to save anyone. But out of sheer mercy (which would be unjust without the death of Christ) God passes over sin and pardons.
Oh and by the way the "Paul Copan" sort of view toward the unreached, presupposes the truthfulness of an election based upon human will.
Again, the picture you paint seems one of a demon rather than God.
God would be righteous to condemn us all, for not being worthy? We are born unworthy? We should be condemned for what we are? We are what he made us to be. Did you forget that part?
So he is righteous to condemn us because he made us insufficient? Because he made us corrupt? If we are so horrible, we are still his creations. Whose fault is it then? Ours for being created?
I truly don't understand this masochistic concept that drives people to enjoy calling themselves deserving of condemnation.
A just God would not create creatures that could comprehend, and abandon them to condemnation for being what He made them to be, while simultaneously offering some lottery of "Elect" that we don't even know whom it includes that get the special prize of deserved torment, a torment not earned by doing anything, but simply being beings that exist.
Wanderer-
Firstly your statements: "Again, the picture you paint seems one of a demon rather than God."
And
"I truly don't understand this masochistic concept that drives people to enjoy calling themselves deserving of condemnation."
These are classic Ad Hominem arguments or name calling.
You speak a lot of what is just and unfair for God to do, yet I wonder where you are getting your standard for this. How do you know what behaviour is just and what is unjust for God? This is at heart the problem with your objection, it is arbitrary.
Also you rely on straw man tactics to try and show that it is unfair for God to judge man for being what He made them to be. As a Christian I know man is NOT in a state of what God created him, there was a fall of man. The fall came by a willful volition to rebel against God. Man is in a state of ruin due to the rebellion of Adam our federal head.
The main thing I pose to you is to ask "Where do you get your standard of justice from?" You are saying that the wrath of God (as I described it biblically) is unjust, I ask by what standard do you come to such a conclusion.
Robby - I liked tiessan's emphasis on humilty and reluctance as well. It makes him more human, less like some others who hold his views (not referring to Bob). Wait - Maynard is a Calvinist?
Bob - I appreciate your response, and the fact that you took your time with it. ONe point before I continue - Romans 3 also is talking about us prior to being saved, and that God gives us the faith to respond to his revelation - for the unevangelized, God would have to give them faith as well - you are right in saying they would be unable to respond on their own. Neither are we.
bob quote:"This sounds very man centered to me, and by you declaring that for God act in a certin way toward the unreached was unacceptable is to usurp God's right to be God" - perhaps it is. Or, perhaps it is a genuine rejection of a false idea about God - namely, that he is not unloving/uncaring towards his people that are living untouched by the gospel. Hey, I'm all for justice and wrath - I know I deserve it - but the more I prayed and read, the more abhorrent the idea of all of the unevangelized being lost became to me. I'm not trying to say tiessan makes an airtight case - he admits he doesn't - but he certainly gives me hope, hope that makes me glorify God more.
and as for your statement: " I held this view until I realized that it had no scriptural support whatsoever, and in reality it really destroys the purpose of preaching the gospel to the unreached, being that they are saved for loving God via incorrect love to a false god" - Tiessen responds, and I shall quote him here- "The point of accesibilism is not to undermine the uniqueness of the gospel or to diminish the necessity of its proclemation; it is to vindicate God's justice toward people who have not heard the gospel. God's ordinary means for saving people, since pentecost, is through the proclemation of the gospel by the church, empowered by the Spirit... we do Christian mission for the Glory of God whose name will be magnified by those who come to know him as father. Although God may be saving people beyond the reach of the church's gospel proclemation, he desires for them a fullness of life, here and now, that is impossible apart from full knowledge of Christ's blessings and life in a community of followers of Jesus."
Wanderer makes a good point - "God would be righteous to condemn us all, for not being worthy? We are born unworthy? We should be condemned for what we are? We are what he made us to be. Did you forget that part? So he is righteous to condemn us because he made us insufficient? Because he made us corrupt? If we are so horrible, we are still his creations. Whose fault is it then? Ours for being created?" This is why I believe in both free will and predestination; because both systems are lacking in explaining God's actions.
I'll write more later.
Grey Owl,
Yes, Maynard is a Calvinist; like Tiessen, he wasn't originally, but his own study of the Scriptures led him to change his view. Get him to tell you the story sometime; as you know, Maynard is one gracious dude with some serious spiritual depth.
I really need to get Tiessen's book -- even though I'm not a full-on Calvinist (which gets me labelled "semi-Pelagian" by some hyper-Calvinist friends), Tiessen's teaching at seminary was brilliant and I learned a lot from him. Partly, I learned great historical theology, and partly, I saw a Godly prof model graciousness, humility, and how to respectfully dialogue with people who disagreed with him.
I'd buy his book just to support his ministry, but I know I'll also find much food for thought in his writings. I think I heard a good chunk of it anyway, during class times, but it would be good to have the printed version for future reference!
Hey all,
While I understand the important of affirming God's transcendence, even above our frail hman conceptions of what is fair or unfair. We need to be careful how we reshape God into our image to fit our own conceptions.
That being said, we are made in His image, thus instilled by God Himself with a capacity to evaluated these issues, even if from a limited level. God may be very well with His right (or righteousness) to condemn all of us to damnation. However, given all that we read about His nature throughout Scripture, it hardly seems like He would want to exercise that right in such a way that, as Wanderer fairly suggested, would seem demonic.
"Mercy triumphs over judgment". This theme is repeated throughout Scripture. God's justice (as opposed to His judgment) is far more restorative than retributive or even punative, which He affirms to HIs people to practice (see OT prophets). It does not diminsh God to believe that He is calling us to move towards the likeness of Christ, which in turn reflects His nature. Therefore, the concepts of fairness, justice and grace that we understand in so-called "human terms" may have more strength than Bob is giving them credit for.
While I would not confidently throw my hat into C.S. Lewis' ideas as seen in the closing scenes of "The Last Battle", neither do I think it is fair for Bob to say it has no Biblical support. Certainly he can believe this to be true based upon his best understanding of Scriptures, but in fairness others of equally sincere and thorough study have come to many different interpretations. All I am saying in this is that it isn't that simple.
I believe that a great deal of what is at issue here is not just the content of what Scripture says, but on how we read, interpret and relate to those Scriptures. Calvin's approach to Scripture is highly reductionistic, namely inductive. While inductive method has done important things for us in the fields of science, philosophy, mathematics and theology, it must be recognized that it is a highly culturalized approach that, used too centrally or to the exclusion of other approaches, will inevitably colour the resulting conclusions. You can have the best mechanic in all of human history at your disposal, but if you need a heart transplant...
What I am trying to say is that Calvin and the other Reformers revolutionized our understanding of Scripture and God and the Church in important and powerful ways, but that they failed to see the limit of their own cultural/historical ability to assess the big picture. The resulting practices in church and local polity are sad proofs/fruits of this narrow view.
Sadly, much of Armenianism is also built on this narrow, mechanistic and reductionist view of Scripture, leaving us to argue views with only half the deck, so to speak. We need to have a more generous embrace of the larger socio-historical journey of the Church, engaging the wisdom of the other that we lack.
Peace,
Jamie
Robby - really? I'll have to ask him at the next theology pub. If there IS another one..
Jamie - good description of the issue, I think we're closer than I originally thought. I'm curious how Bob would respond... how about it, Bob?
"Also you rely on straw man tactics to try and show that it is unfair for God to judge man for being what He made them to be. As a Christian I know man is NOT in a state of what God created him, there was a fall of man."
Now who makes strawman arguments? As a christian you know this? Based on the belief system of christians rather than your strawman theory? Fine. God created us, the system, and all of the denizens therein. It isn't even a freewill vs. predestination thing. God made the system and all players. The only way we could be other than he made us to be is to imply we have the power to undo what he has done. Dangerous ground to walk on. I choose not to tread that "greater than God" line. Instead is the only other option. We play by the rules he set. Therein, we are what we are, and he made us this way. How is that for based argument versus your strawman claim?
"Firstly your statements: "Again, the picture you paint seems one of a demon rather than God."
And
"I truly don't understand this masochistic concept that drives people to enjoy calling themselves deserving of condemnation."
These are classic Ad Hominem arguments or name calling."
No, there was no Ad Hominem attack here. In the first I stated in an argument that is philosophical, the way things seemed to me. Not the way they were. I was expressing my position, not attacking anyone. In the second, you must remember that calling someone a waitress in a conversation that references her work at a diner is not and Ad Hominem attack. Even if deserved, and proper, a focus on guilt (which christians have) is masochistic. Look up the definition. Apply. There are no attacks in the statement, just calling it like I see it, much like anyone else out here.
"You speak a lot of what is just and unfair for God to do, yet I wonder where you are getting your standard for this. How do you know what behaviour is just and what is unjust for God?"
I don't know if you have thus far missed my point, or turned intentionally from it because of distaste for it or its potentially heretical nature, but here goes again.
What do I base my judgement of what is just or unjust for God to do? On myself. On my morals and my ethics. You dance around the corners, I will come straight out. If God were as you say, I would call God to task for it. I question an ability to blindly worship a being such as you describe.
Of course, it is a bit of a circular argument, as my feelings of justice and fairness come from my conversations with God.
One more time just to make sure it sinks in, so if we argue, we argue on the right points. I am not trying to state what God should or should not be. I state what I see God to be, and I state that God needs to actually be worthy of my worship in order for me to do so. I believe God is. I do not believe the God you have painted, if I correctly read you, is so worthy. Fortunately, I also believe you to be incorrect.
Wanderer-
Your argument is straw man because I don't believe a single word of what you have said yet you say it represents my view and proceed to show attempt to show it fallacious. That's cut and dry straw man. And yes that is Ad hominem I don't take pleasure in having pain inflicted upon me.
Enough of that and on to the main issue I wanted you to address which you did. I asked you where you get your standard of justice where with you find the God I have described (biblical) to be as you put it "a demon". You said:
"What do I base my judgement of what is just or unjust for God to do? On myself. On my morals and my ethics."
Without an absolute standard this is all morality and ethics is reduced to, just a matter of personal opinion. How do I know if your views are correct when you say "A" is true and moral while Ted says "A" is not true nor moral? We are left to arbitrarily decide this is relativism.
"If God were as you say, I would call God to task for it. I question an ability to blindly worship a being such as you describe."
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here do you mean that you would ask God to reveal himself to you and that as a Christian I am blindly trusting because I rely on the bible? (clarify)
To respond though God has no need to reveal Himself in a revelatory way to all that call on Him, He has a will of His own. And frankly if you do contact a supernatural being how do you know if it is the true God or some nock off (demon)? Without a standard of truth higher than yourself you are left to again arbitrarily decide what is true.
"I state what I see God to be, and I state that God needs to actually be worthy of my worship in order for me to do so. I believe God is. I do not believe the God you have painted, if I correctly read you, is so worthy. Fortunately, I also believe you to be incorrect."
Again we are left to arbitrarily decide, is God as wanderer describes the true God or as I have? "I state what I see God to be" sounds like your just making God in the image that suits your fancy, wrothless and comes whenever you choose to have a mystical experiece. As a Christian I have a standard God has revealed Himself finally I am not left to subjectively figure out who God is in a mystical way (though there is a mystical aspect to Christianity). The Bible is the standard God has revealed to man, for morals, Himself, and ultimatly redemption. I am not left to make up my own God and pick what parts I like and don't.
"as my feelings of justice and fairness come from my conversations with God."
The problem again is how do we know what Wanderer has found in his personal conversations with God "A" is true when Ted comes along and says of his personal conversations with God NOT "A"? We have no way. This is the bankruptcy of relativism. Wanderer has said my biblical Christian God is false I asked by what standard and he has said in a nutshell "my personal experience shows it to be false." Well my personal experience shows the Biblical Christian God to be true, so who's right? Again we need a standard higher than ourselves.
Jamie-
Excellent post, sounds like you have given some tought to this stuff. I wan to agree with you completely that mercy triumphs over judgement. I may have been comming off over emphasizing God's wrath as opposed to His mercy, but that is because the justice of God's wrath was being attacked.
I agree with John Frame's definition of the Transcendence of God as he describes it in His Lord attributes. God is not transcendant in a deistic unkowable way but transcendent in the fact that He is Lord and we are His. Thus Transcendance and immanence are less dichotomized because in His nearness He maintains His aboveness. (Is "aboveness" a word? Doubtful...)
Oh and I did not at all intend to catagorize love, mercy and grace as "humanistic", I rather was responding to the humanistic usage of them. For instance when I begin to talk about the justice of God's wrath people will spring to their feet saying "God is a God of love!" and I have heard numerous times the wrath of God being cancelled out by "love" on a universal scope (unitiarianism). This is unnacceptable. In Christ alone is the wrath of God extinguished:
"He who has the Son has eternal life, but he who does not have the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)
It is through having Christ's work applied does the sinner come into right standing with God, Christ's work alone.
As I said before I don't claim to have a rock bottom view of the unreached, I reject Lewis' because it is unbiblical. You can only come to such a view through inferring that b/c God is "love" (here i use the humanistic sense) He must deal mercifully with the unreached. This is at best an inference, not explicit expostion.
You hit on an excellent point as you talk about how scripture is to be interpreted saying:
Calvin's approach to Scripture is highly reductionistic, namely inductive. While inductive method has done important things for us in the fields of science, philosophy, mathematics and theology, it must be recognized that it is a highly culturalized approach that, used too centrally or to the exclusion of other approaches, will inevitably colour the resulting conclusions."
I think much work has been done to give us a view that transcends culture via contextualization and hermeneutics. We can look at the original Greek or Hebrew, and the historical setting of each book of the Bible. This gives us great aid in trancending our cultural lenses. To reduce interpretation to mere cultural views is irresponsible though. Much of my charge has been the same to the non-Calvinists, namely that it is their cultural colouring that causes them to see salvation the way they do.
Here I disagree:
"What I am trying to say is that Calvin and the other Reformers revolutionized our understanding of Scripture and God and the Church in important and powerful ways, but that they failed to see the limit of their own cultural/historical ability to assess the big picture. The resulting practices in church and local polity are sad proofs/fruits of this narrow view."
It is only in one area that Baptist, Reformed and Lutheran have historically disagreed, the sacraments. You guys are "emergent" so you seem to like to go against the established church. However, to chalk the denominational differences up to mere cultural impositions upon scripture is almost insulting to those who stood firm against one another on baptism though united in Christ. They saw these issues worth dividing over, some had better reasons than others and went about it in a better manner (I think of Luther punding his fist on the table as he disagreed with Zwingly saysing "It says 'This is My body'!") but the point remains that these issues were important enough for them to disagree and divide over in a sense, I think it is almost patronizing to chalk theological divisions up to mere cultural reading (I don't think you'd disagree I just saying).
Overall though I liked what you had to say, I also don't think calvinism is "reductionistic", that seems to be a gentle way of saying "wrong" because it fails to account for the whole picture. Calvinism (Salvation by grace alone) is part of the picture it is not an all encompasing theological system.
In Christ
Bob,
Thanks for your clarification. Let me add some for my comments too.
You suggest that I "chalk up" certain assumptions about Calvinism, stating that it is unfair to do so, but then go on to say:
"You guys are "emergent" so you seem to like to go against the established church."
This is an unfair and broad generalization. The fact is that I attend a very NON-emergent church, am part of a typical Evangelical mission and spend the vast majority of my time and energy working alongside the established church. I think this is true of most emergent believers on some level. I just want to point out that the assumption you stated is an overused and unfair accusation that, frankly, I am tired of hearing. I am sure you meant nothing personal by it, but just so we are clear. No worries.
That being said, I was not chalking up demoninational differences to mere cultural impositions. In fact, I quite clearly stated that this particular challenge was fairly univerisal in the church. I was also very generously clear in affirm the good that has been done through Calvin and those who have followed/developed his teachings.
However, I stand firmly in my position that Calvin was deeply unaware of some aspects of cultural influence on his understanding and practice of faith. Take the use of torture, for example. This is clearly (to us) an ungodly practice. However, few, on either side of the line, would raise an eye brow, since it was commonly acceptable.
In the end, I am saying that we are incapable of ever FULLY rising above our cultural, historical, etc. biases- emerging church included. We can learn, change, ever reform, but we cannot fully rise above it. Acknowledging this is essential, both in our examination of historical expressions of faith and in our current ones.
Calvin helped develop a brilliant and thorough system of highly hierarchal and legislated doctrine and polity for civic and ecclesial life. While not an absolute definition, it is certain fair to say that such a system was clearly shaped by the inductive method he was trained in his whole career. YOU suggest that this a gentle way of saying "wrong", not me. We owe much our science, technology, health care, etc. to inductive method. It should be affirmed. However, as was common for his era (and our own), he took it as THE way of interpreting and practicing faith. This is by no means a cardinal sin, but it is a failing that needs to be acknowledged and corrected (which is has been on some level by most Calvinist who are not of the 'hyper' variety).
It should also be noted that inductive method is by its nature reductionistic (for better or for worse). The very exsistence of 5-Point is somewhat evidence of a tendency toward this reductionism, no?
I agree with you that Calvinism is not an all-encompassing theological position. That is, in fact, kind of my point. It is my opinion that, especially with the benefit of history, we would all be wise not to too narrowly rely on any one expression of Christianity. While it is a generalization, in my experience, it is Reformed Christians who are the most resistant to this.
Peace,
Jamie
" The Bible is the standard God has revealed to man, for morals, Himself, and ultimatly redemption. I am not left to make up my own God and pick what parts I like and don't."
Are you truly blind to the contradiction between your attack on my position and this statement of yours? You are left to make up your own mind. You declare for the Bible rather than the Tora or the Koran. You chose which set of beliefs you have. All of us fall prey to the same problem. You have no more proof that you are correct than I, hence my point.
We have to define ourselves to act as stewards for a God who does not reveal himself. We must make decisions based on this. We must therefore rely on the fact that we have God's backing to do so.
This wrath and jealousy you speak of becomes weakness for this reason. God could solve all of our questions by coming before us. He doesn't do this. He leaves it up to us. He leaves us with questioning minds, which we therefore must be intended to use. To state that he will damn us for not taking the word of one man instead of another with no reason beyond our own reasoning to do so shows a deity unworthy of our worship. Unworthy because we would then be reduced to puppets wandering around blinfly in a minefield, and why would we thank a creator for that?
If God limits the field and doesn't take into account that we are human, and what intentions correspond to the actions, we can't win. Not outside of arbitrary decisions we have no control over. Why then attempt to follow the rules? Would you walk into a casino and lay your money down on a game titled, "You can't win?" Much less would you risk your life or soul on it.
My arguments are based on logic and faith. The only two tools that any of us can use. Your bible gives you no more weight in the argument, because if I don't believe in it, it is just another example of someone's opinion.
God punishing us for being the fallible creatures he created would be cruel and torturous. I would not worship such a God.
As for your contradiction to the masochist statement, you aren't required to enjoy it to be a masochist. You can also find it necessary, feel spiritually fulfilled, or feel you deserve it. Christians say we deserve our lot, that we are blessed if it is removed from us through Jesus' works. That is masochism. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.
Actually the bible is the Torah, they're the same book. Where this discussion really is at heart is over epistemology and true belief. You have like 25 challanges heaped together, I want to remain on the epistemological issue that I raised before.
You said: "Are you truly blind to the contradiction between your attack on my position and this statement of yours? You are left to make up your own mind. You declare for the Bible rather than the Tora or the Koran. You chose which set of beliefs you have. All of us fall prey to the same problem. You have no more proof that you are correct than I, hence my point."
What I argued for in the face of this baldface relativism was a need for a standard outside ourselves. You raise a sound point by asking how then do we know which standard is true? We have the bible and Qu'ran for example both claiming exclusivistic authority to the one true God. When people raise this point and try to juxtapose the Qu'ran and the Bible as two equally valid alternatives they almost never have actually looked into the matter. Upon examining the Qu'ran one can see that it is of inferior quality to the Bible which the Qu'ran says is also the word of God.
For example (so this isn't just my arbitrary opinion) we see in the Bible that Moses' sister was named Mariam. The mother of Christ was also named Mariam (Hebrew). However when we read the Qu'ran we find that the sister of Moses is said to be the mother of Jesus, the same Mariam. Sorry there is about a 1500 year gap between Moses and Christ Muhammad failed to account for. Also there is really no order or chronology to the Qu'ran. There are many other clear cut errors and contradictions the Quran has with scripture, for example Ishmael was the choosen son of Abraham not Isaac. Keep in mind the Qu'ran was not compiled until roughly the early 8th late 7th century. Almost 600 years after Christ. Who by the way was never crucified in the Qu'ran.
How do we know which is true and false? I think based upon the fact that we have first hand accounts of the life of Christ (apostles, they are more trustworthy than a man 600 years after the fact claiming inspiration yet contradicting the apostles testimony.
The testimony of scripture is validated by its empirically verifiable content. Throughout Redemptive history God has acted miraculously to confirm His word, this is seen through the exodus, and giving of the law, and up to the ministry of Christ. The resurrection of Christ is a statement confirming who He claimed to be, namely the saviour of the world.
This talk of epistemology really does tie back into Calvinist thinking. You are right on I think in throwing the epistemology question back at me. As a Calvinist I believe we are fallen willful rejectors of God, the true God we can stomach one we make up. That being so I believe our reasoning is damaged, and we are bent to reject God.
The best analogy I can give is this: a man comes to the grand canyon and stares at the endless breadth of the gorge turns his back and with a garden shovel delights himself in a trough that he has made. This is the essence of sin, treating that wich is infinitely glorious as a common thing and delighting in an inferior.
What we need is to have our eyes opened so we will turn from making mud pies and rejoice in that which is truly delightful. This is why we need to be regenerated, we are blind, and that blindness is due to no fault in God but we are willfully decieved. I say all this to say ultimatly no argument can convince anyone of the truth God the Holy Spirit must open our eyes. Left to ourselves and our "choosing" we never would choose God, all of this I say on the authority of scripture.
Of course you will object saying why does God than find fault in man? Paul answers this saying:
"As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to 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?" (Rom 9:13-24)
There is a lot in there aout election and God's justice, the point is that Paul by inspiration reckognized that people would bring forward a charge against God's justice thus he says "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"
It's always so tough to jump in after so many comments have come and gone... I'll have to get one of those newfangled belt clip computers, like the one Jamie is surgically attatched to.
That being said...
Jamie - thanks again for commenting; I like where you're going with this. I got your email, and I'll let you know by next week when I have some free time.
Wanderer & Bob - If I can intrude into the dialogue for a moment - it seems that the biggest disagreement here is occuring on the grounds of truth and the knowledge thereof. Bob appeals to the Bible for truth, Wanderer does not. And Bob if I may says so, I doubt you are going to convince anyone of the Bible's superiority over other religious texts. Superior it may be, but you and I give it weight while others do not, and likely will not. I think there is little convincing that can be done in that area.
Ultimately, we are either going to agree, or agree to disagree. We each have our beliefs about truth. That is not to say that we each have our own truth - I am not a relativist. Either Wanderer is Right, or Bob is, or neither are. But we can continue to talk, can't we?
Let's look at what Bob said: "You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to 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?" - that's from Romans 9. And I believe it to be true. Although truth needs context - for example, if one of your friends lost a child, would you give them that verse? Would you tell them that God willed that they suffer? Whether it's true or not, it would not be loving to do so. So you hold them and cry with them, and talk about the day when God will wipe every tear from their eyes. Truth in context.
If that verse in Rom 9 means exactly what I think Bob says it means, then God is doing exactly what Wanderer says; arbitrarily creating some people to die and be tortured forever simply so he looks good. But even Bob admits that we are "willfully decieved" - again a synthesis of free will and predestination. So then the fault of our sins falls on us, not God. And the glory of our salvation falls on God, not us.
Does that make any sense?
Good assesment Grey Owl,
I love apologetics and philosophy so I always try to in a sense argue people to the truth of the Bible, but as I said ultimatly it is God the Holy Spirit that will bring men to truth. I cited Romans 9 to show that Paul had no qualms about God's justice creating people with perfect forknowledge of their ultimate destruction, of course he desired all Israel to be saved (Rom 10-11) Paul was NOT like the Jim Roberts guys rejoicing in the death of unbelievers.
I believe fully that we make willfull choices as a Calvinist, Calvinism is not anti-free will. Rather, I believe as a Calvinist that left to ourselves we will always choose sin over God. Before I was saved I willfully chose to delight myself in smoking pot and going to Grateful dead shows, but God out of His grace changed my affections. I am a Calvinist with an Edwardsian persuasian, so I believe that where the heart goes so goes the will. We always choose what we desire most (affections). And if this verse is true:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?
Thus David prays "Do not let my heart incline to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with men who work iniquity, and let me not eat of their delicacies!"
We need heart transplants before we will desire truth...
Grey Owl - "But even Bob admits that we are 'willfully decieved' - again a synthesis of free will and predestination. So then the fault of our sins falls on us, not God. And the glory of our salvation falls on God, not us.
Does that make any sense? "
No, actually it doesn't. That is what I have been arguing all along. Either we are what God made us to be, or we broke the mold. In the former, he made us to be that which will willfully deceive ourselves, apparently despite his attempts to prevent it, or in the latter we somehow undid God's plan and thus are deserving of punishment. Note that in both cases it demonstrates a power to alter God's plan. If you find a way to prove God's plan remains precise, then those who are damned are precisely planned to. All three of these I take issue with.
Bob - Even if you prove that the story in the Bible is more cohesive than the qu'ran, it doesn't make it right. Ultimately you must have faith. The Bible can prove the faith that it takes to believe in the Bible. It is circular logic.
Wanderer-
"Even if you prove that the story in the Bible is more cohesive than the qu'ran, it doesn't make it right. Ultimately you must have faith. The Bible can prove the faith that it takes to believe in the Bible. It is circular logic."
You're absolutely right, it could be a false dillema to say either A or B, not B therefore A, it may be a false dillema because the possibility of option C. Thus one trying to validate the Bible by eliminating its competitors would only be left with the right to say "Not B, not C, not D, not E...Therefore very probably A" Very probably because to say certainly A would require exaustive knowledge of all possible competitor theories in existance.
My original purpose in raising the issue of scripture as an absolute standard as opposed to begining with one's self as guide, was to show that the one inevitably leads to relativism, while the other absolutism. Your charge is that to come to a belief in the truth of scripture is on the same footing as one coming to a belief non-scripture. I don't agree, I need more time to formulate a tight response to this although I have a rough outline of why I disagree.
However, presuposing the authority of the bible, your charges against God and His justice are arbitrary for you are a creature, what we know of justice is from God. Simply because He has foreknowledge or man has a bent toward sin does not mitigate guilt, at least the inspired writers of the bible didn't think so, they saw your charge and rejected as arbitrary it as Paul in Romans 9 does.
Grey Owl- sorry for kind of dominating your posts with our discussion, its not too often I find a non-Christian with a brain. j/k
"My original purpose in raising the issue of scripture as an absolute standard as opposed to begining with one's self as guide, was to show that the one inevitably leads to relativism, while the other absolutism."
This is only true if you believe scripture to be valid. The reason I put your argument on the same footing is because both of us are rooted in developing our mores on the word of God. They aren't the same words though. So one, or both of us is quite possibly wrong. To step outside of our faiths we would have to see that we are both in a similar field. Acting on our beliefs, and those words we believe to be inspired. To look at it from within our faiths, obviously we have positions that are somewhat at odds with each other that logic alone is unlikely to assail.
"Simply because He has foreknowledge or man has a bent toward sin does not mitigate guilt,"
Simply because? Certainly not. Yet, there is still that stumbling block. It isn't just the foreknowledge. He made us what we are.
There is the quote about the pottery being unable to complain to the potter because one was made for a noble person and the other was not. Flip that coin over and look at the other side. Surely the potter cannot complain when the pot sits there and does nothing. Moreso, if the pot breaks because it is inferior, is the pot to blame? No. It is the potter who made it that way. So if it is possible to punish the pot, could we justly do so. Absolutely not. It is what it is, and it followed it's nature, and is not responsible for the forces acted out upon it. The potter is responsible for the integrity and design, the person who throws the pot against the wall might be responsible for the breaking of it. The pot is only responsible for being a pot.
Post a Comment
<< Home