Fun With Paradoxes

I came across this brief, entertaining and informative video on YouTube and decided to share it here. I also decided NOT to share it. However, I was only deciding NOT to share it with those who never watch it. Thus, you may decide for yourself whether I did or did not choose to share it with YOU. :)

Either way, it is a free and well meant offer of the video, backed up by a full provision of what is being offered (this is a Moderate Calvinist's inside joke for those of you who missed it).

Enjoy!



The video begins with one of the classic paradoxes of the Greek philosopher Zeno, and then goes on to explore time travel, parallel universes, physics, mathematics, artificial intelligence, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Quite an accomplishment for a mere six minutes!

Calvinistic Compatibilism: A Discussion of Divine Causation, Human Freedom and Moral Responsibility

Below is an excerpt addressing the subject of divine causation and compatibilism. This has been adapted from a series of responses I recently shared with some non-Calvinist Christians who have taken an incompatibilist position (i.e. their belief is that God's pre-determination of everything is incompatible with human freedom of choice and moral responsibility). I argue here for the opposite view, that God's sovereign pre-determination of everything is perfectly compatible with human freedom of choice and moral responsibility for our actions. This is excerpted from an ongoing conversation in the comments at the following blog post:
http://atheologyintension.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/2376/

Dear Non-Calvinist friends:

You present an interesting argument. The main thrust seems to be that Reformed theology makes God the author of evil, and in so doing removes man's freedom and moral responsibility. This objection is not new; it has been a common challenge faced by Calvinistic thinkers for centuries. I believe the argument is flawed, and I will explain why in detail. First, here is a summary:

1. The argument fails to distinguish between hyper Calvinism and mainstream Calvinism
2. The argument is based on a faulty understanding of mainstream Calvinism, which affirms compatibilism rather than mere determinism.
3. The argument is based on a faulty understanding of compatibilism, which affirms human freedom and responsibility in addition to determinism.
4. The argument groundlessly assumes compatibilism is impossible and self-contradictory.
5. The argument is based rationalism rather than a sound, Biblical epistemology (theory of knowledge)
6. The argument gives undue credit to the human mind's ability to peer into the unrevealed. 
7. The Argument fails to present a Biblically and logically sound alternative to the Reformed approach, which it rejects based on multiple misunderstandings.

Historically, Calvinists have taken a variety of positions, from a VERY SOFT compatibilism to a VERY HARD determinism. You have quoted from several examples of this diversity. A.W. Pink (depending on the day of the week), Vincent Cheung and Gordon Clark are in the line of the more hyper brand of Calvinists, who are most likely to espouse the hardest form of determinism without apology. You extol this as being somehow more “consistent.” Others like Piper, Packer and Frame are more likely to express a compatibilism that affirms human freedom as a mystery within (and even upheld by) divine ordination. I have read Calvin’s discussion of free will in the Institutes; he is a textbook compatibilist, at least in that part of his writings.

So I think it is a bit unfair for you to say Calvinistic ordination always “collapses into causal determinism” and then disparage the softening statements of compatibilism offered by the more moderate voices in the group. This would be akin to me saying that an Arminian view of free will collapses into Pelagianism (or perhaps Open Theism), while ignoring the Classical Arminian’s affirmation of Total Depravity (which strongly inhibits – or rather, kills –  libertarian freedom), and Prevenient Grace (which ackowledges the deadness and – gratefully – affirms our need for divine grace). I prefer to view the more moderate/mainstream Calvinists’ softening statements as evidence of a commitment to Biblical balance, preventing them from falling into the philosophical trap of hard determinism (the kind hypers veritably revel in). I do not see the softening statements as logical contradictions, but an attempt to be consistent with Scripture, grounded in the humility that confesses God’s ways are superior to our highest intellect.

I cannot see how God can be God without ordaining all things. I find this inconceivable simply because it is contrary to His Word:

• Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
• Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.
• Proverbs 20:24 A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?
• Isaiah 46:8-11 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.”
• Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will …

At the same time I cannot see man’s God-given freedom as less than a genuine, morally responsible and unconstrained liberty. Here I am just agreeing with Calvin and other compatibilists. We insist that God can ordain everything without denying his creatures real freedom. We cannot turn from either of these conscientiously held convictions.

Photo borrowed from
www.tominthebox.net

One of the great difficulties in this discussion is the fact that you and I are speaking two very different philosophical languages. We embrace opposing assumptions and presuppositions (although I would guess we fundamentally agree that Scripture is inerrant and Christ alone saves, by grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone).

Your arguments presuppose that freedom of will is incompatible with God's pre-determinate counsel. If I agreed with this presupposition, I would find your arguments unassailable. However, do you have any way to prove that this really is the case? Do you have a Biblical argument to prove this?

My presupposition is that God's all-determining will, eternal decree, and continuous providential action are not at all incompatible with creaturely freedom of will. I see God's decree clearly taught in Scripture, so I cannot take that away without a total change of heart in terms of the exegesis. On the other hand, I live in a world in which I experience every moment the liberty of my choices. Uncoerced, unconstrained, and apparently including the ability to choose otherwise than I do. But alas, which am I to believe? God's Holy Word or my undeniable experience?

But there is more. Another aspect of my experience has been my absolute and unquenchable rebellion. Only God's sovereign grace could ever have changed my heart and altered my course. And yet by His grace I did not find myself constrained or forced to believe. I chose freely; yet I could (and would) only choose to believe in Christ by sovereign, irresistible grace.

Then again, God's Word commands me to choose and holds me responsible for the choices I make. It nevertheless says I can have no good thing (faith and repentance included) unless God grants it to me by His mercy.

So now I have God's Word on both sides, and my experience on both sides. What can I do but hold on to both of them? I can't explain how God sovereignly ordains all things and yet keeps me free to choose in ways that render me morally responsible, unconstrained, voluntarily motivated, and apparently not without other options.

So I find myself embracing compatibilism, the belief that there can be a pre-determination of everything by an incomprehensible God without any diminishment of natural human freedom and responsibility. A million "rational" arguments against it won't change my understanding of God's Word or my experiences.

To be clear, when I say a million “rational” arguments won’t convince me otherwise, I am referring to arguments that are purely based on human logic, and thus appear to be “rational,” yet do not take Biblical revelation into sufficient account. I would like to think that all of my Arminian brothers will agree heartily with me on this point.

We are getting down to the root issue here. If I understand your position correctly, you fundamentally disagree with the premise of Christian compatibilism (i.e., that God’s pre-determination of everything is compatible with [and not contradictory to] genuine human freedom), and you do not even think it remotely possible that it could be true.

That last part presents a very strong claim of assurance in the way divine sovereignty and human choices can relate to one another. You are not simply saying they DO NOT relate a compatibilistic way; you seem to be making the claim that they CAN NOT relate this way. The alternative would seem to be a view of divine sovereignty that does not involve pre-determination of everything. I wonder how you distinguish between those events that are pre-determined and those that aren’t? Or is nothing at all pre-determined by God?

Don't fall for "Teeter Totter" theology!

To me, these matters are a great mystery. I view God's sovereign decree and my freedom as much more complex than a mere philosophical "seesaw," which would entail that any gain on one side necessarily results in a corresponding loss on the other. I conceive of my freedom as existing within and being upheld by His all-determining sovereignty.

I find it fascinating that any thinking person would not consider the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human choices to be a mystery. In saying this, I should be careful to define my terms. By “mystery,” I mean an item or area of knowledge which God has not revealed to us explicitly through some means (e.g., the Bible, creation, etc.).

I should also reiterate my definition of “compatibilism,” as mentioned above. It is simply the belief that divine pre-determination of everything does not conflict with genuine human freedom of choice. Jonathan Edwards affirmed this, but also went much further by actually proposing a theory of how it all works. I am not doing that (at least not right now). Although I admire Edwards’ attempt, I don’t view the results as something “revealed by God,” and thus I cannot claim the matter is no longer mysterious to me simply because someone has come up with what they think is a great explanation. Someone else may come up with a better one. Even so, until God reveals this, it remains an area of uncertainty for compatibilistic Christians who regard the Bible as their highest epistemological authority.

So I don't see how compatibilism can ever "collapse" into mere determinism. It involves determinism, yes, certainly. But if you define determinism in a way that automatically rules out the possibility of genuine freedom, I can only say that my compatibilism does not involve that kind of determinism. I would actually join you in arguing against any determinism that rules out human freedom and responsibility. I would equally oppose any version of human freedom that rules out determinism. I refuse to close off these categories as if they are mutually exclusive, since there does not appear to be any compelling reason to do so from a Biblical, philosophical or experiential standpoint.

Do you think it is remotely possible that predestination and freedom are not mutually exclusive?

I am honestly amazed that anyone can have so strong an assurance in ruling out the mere possibility (that God could possibly establish His sovereignty and our choices in a compatibilistic way) that they would even cast accusations of “irrationalism” at those who do affirm it.

By the way, I have never argued that it is virtuous to accept things that don’t make sense. My clearly stated position is that it is sensible for Christians to accept all the teaching of the Scriptures – the whole counsel of God – even if they find some aspects hard to understand or explain.

However, I would challenge anyone to Biblically and logically demonstrate that it is impossible for God to use compatibilism in His administration of the universe. In essence, can you show me how the concept of God’s pre-determination of everything and the concept of human freedom, when taken together, result in a genuine contradiction?

I am not asking whether these concepts strike you as contradictory, if they feel contradictory, if they appear to be contradictory, etc. (or even if you find the idea to be dangerous from a practical standpoint). I am only asking for Biblical and logical proof that they ARE contradictory.

The person who tries to do this faces a very significant problem: GOD is included in the equation! We are discussing a partly unrevealed relationship of metaphysical concepts which involves God’s management of His creation, the relationships of time and eternity, God and humanity (not to mention angels/demons and other entities we may not even know about), choice and freedom, responsibility and volition, etc.

My contention is that the best Biblical and logical sense we can make of the situation (taking all of the Biblical data and our own experiences into account) is to affirm that God mysteriously works (and remember, by “mysterious” I mean something He hasn’t explicitly revealed to us) in such a way that human freedom exists in harmony with divine pre-determination.

I also believe that one can make a much stronger Biblical argument for compatibilism than for incompatibilism. But that is part of the reason I am a compatibilist.

As an addendum, I share many of your concerns regarding the potential ill effects of an imbalanced Calvinism. Much of this can be characterized as hyper Calvinism (I sometimes refer to “high[per] Calvinism,” meaning anyone, whether “high” or “hyper” in his views, who over-emphasizes certain logical implications at the expense of other matters clearly revealed in Scripture). I am not saying all High Calvinists are hyper or imbalanced; but imbalanced Calvinists are almost always High or hyper in their theology.

This is part of the reason I have embraced Moderate Calvinism, and devoted myself to deterring and opposing any form of Calvinism which:

• denies or downplays human responsibility
• calls God the author or direct cause of evil
• uses God’s sovereignty as an excuse for sin
• hinders evangelism/missions on the basis of election or other theological considerations
• leads to apathy in service and devotion
• elevates human logic above the revealed will of God

To be honest, I would rather serve alongside a consecrated, moderate, and fair-minded Arminian who is growing in godliness than a cold high(per) Calvinist who is complacent and arrogant. 

In my view, Calvinism “done right” will actually result in the opposite effects, and to a greater extent than any non-Calvinist philosophy will. That is my conviction, and part of the reason I am a Moderate/Paradoxical Calvinist.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments and interactions.

Does God Ordain Everything that Occurs? Sure He Does!

Someone has recently posted a long list of quotations from various Calvinists (and one or two hypers) in order to "prove" that Calvinists believe God ordains all events, including evil ones. He also expresses his strong disapproval of this theology. The list of quotations, found here, is actually a great resource for Calvinists (assuming they can bear with the author's misleading comments, which are interspersed throughout).

Here is the response I posted:

Thank you for sharing this great collection of quotes and your thoughts on them. 

I can certainly understand not liking what you believe to be the unavoidable logical implications of Calvinistic theology. Fair enough. I hope you won’t mind my asking a few follow up questions. 

1. So, you deny that all events are ordained by God, correct? And your primary reason is that certain objectionable events have occurred, and you cannot conceive of a good God ordaining those events, correct? I want to be sure I am accurately understanding your position. 

2. Okay, assuming I have understood you correctly, what are the alternatives? 

• Does God ordain any events? Which ones?
• What are the primary differences between “ordained” and “non-ordained” events?
• Is God aware of “non-ordained” events before they occur? Or does He learn about them as they happen?
• Can anything outside of God (i.e., creation) exist without His initial creative action to “ordain” its existence? If not, how do we separate this initial “ordaining” action on God’s part from the creature’s subsequent actions, so as to say that God in no sense “caused” or “ordained” some of the creature’s actions? At what point do a creature’s actions begin to be “non-ordained”?
• What is the relationship between “ordained” and “non-ordained” events? Do some “ordained” events depend on “non-ordained” events (e.g., does the “ordained” event, forgiveness, depend on the “non-ordained” event, sin)? How does God “ordain” the good events without “ordaining” the evil ones that must occur in advance?
• Does God have the power and authority to prevent “non-ordained” events?
• If God foresees and allows an event, is He not in some sense “ordaining” its occurrence?
• Do “non-ordained” events happen in such a way that God cannot be said to maintain any control over them, i.e. to cause, allow, or prevent them?
• If these events cannot be caused, allowed, or prevented by God, what is His relationship to them? Does He have any authority or power over them?
• In what sense can any event occur outside of God’s ultimate oversight and authority? Does He maintain any sovereignty over these events, and in what sense? 

I don’t expect you to answer all of these questions. My intent is simply to show that it is easier to object to Reformed theology’s answers than it is to propose a well thought out and Biblically grounded alternative. 

Thanks again, and have great weekend. 

Blessings,
Derek Ashton

Anyone who thinks deeply about these matters will quickly run into paradoxes. Is there a better solution than a Biblically faithful, Calvinistic compatibilism?

Trying Triablogue

Some readers may recall an unfortunate scuffle I had with some of the authors at Triablogue sometime back. Not worth going into in detail at this point.

I have read Triablogue occasionally in the aftermath of that incident, and have concluded that readers may find some value in some of the items posted there. Although it was not possible to achieve reconciliation (or at least some kind of manly agreement) with the site's primary author, it is probably wise to simply overlook any offense that may have existed. 

One of the key points of contention was my insistence that the author should stop labeling his posts about Moderate Calvinism with the misleading "Anti-Calvinism," and my suggestion that he should save that label for posts dealing with folks who are not fellow Calvinists and who actually oppose Calvinistic theology. At the time, this seemed kind of obvious and easy to correct. I have not seen the egregious labeling error repeated since that time, so I'll assume the author took my friendly advice to heart.

Thus, without giving an unreserved recommendation of the site, today I'll rescind my previous advice of generally avoiding it. As an example of something useful at Triablogue, you may enjoy this recent post by a "mystery" author who responds cogently (and gently) to an argument advanced by Roger Olson. Appropriately, it carries the label of "Anti-Calvinism."

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/05/helping-roger-olson-become-even-more.html

Is Grace Resistible? Sure it is!

The following quotation was found in a recent post on a popular Arminian blog. It is by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, and purports to put the whole controversy between Calvinists and Arminians into perspective by getting down to the root issue:

The representations of grace that the scriptures contain, are such as describe it capable of “being resisted,” (Acts 7:51) and “received in vain” (2 Cor 6:1), and that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it and refuse all cooperation with it (Heb 12:15, Matt 23:37, Luke 7:30).  While, on the contrary, this [Calvinist] Predestination affirms that grace is a certain irresistible force and operation.

************

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good.  To such an extent do I carry its influence that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, or do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation , without this preventing [i.e. preceding] and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.

From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free will.  For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’  That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not.  With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. (From Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God, ed. John Wagner, pp. 45, 69)

Resistance is Futile.

If I was an Arminian I would avoid presenting this quotation, for it only proves that Arminius did not understand the teachings of Calvinism on this subject. We do not teach, "Grace is Irresistible," and just leave the statement there as if it was an absolute fact in all cases. On the contrary, we teach that "Grace is Irresistible when it Works to Effect the Salvation of the Elect." We name this working of grace the Effectual Call because it consists in both the outward and inward call of the Gospel, which, working in combination, bring us out of our blind rebellion and into genuine faith. We call it "saving grace" simply because its effect is to save. Grace is extended and offered to the non-elect as well, but it does not result in salvation. Thus it is not called "saving grace" and it is not irresistible. The person effectively (and voluntarily) resists this grace that could have saved him, had he not resisted. Arminius thoroughly misreads the Calvinist's view.

Scripture is clear regarding the fact that grace is resisted by unbelievers:

Jonah 2:8 Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
Isaiah 26:10 If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the LORD.

Calvinists actually affirm, with these and other statements of Scripture, that grace is resisted continually by the non-elect--and by the elect themselves prior to their conversion. This is mankind's default mode under Adam. The obvious question is: what could ever be so powerful as to turn a person from this self-destructive course? Well . . . nothing but the irresistible saving grace of a Sovereign God!

It has been said that the real divide between Calvinists and Arminians lies in this question: Whose will is ultimately decisive in salvation: my will, or God's? Both wills are clearly involved; but which one is ultimately decisive? Those who say "God's will" are monergists of one sort or another; those Christians who say "my will" are synergists of some kind (and badly mistaken, I might add). Calvinists are among those who joyously declare, "God's will was ultimately decisive! He chose to save me when, otherwise, I would only have resisted Him forever." And they thank Him for turning their stubborn hearts, granting repentance, bestowing faith in Christ, and bringing them from death to life.

They know it was not their will, but His mercy, that accomplished their salvation. They know because they remember how utterly lost they were when they themselves resisted that mercy.

Here is a song by Sovereign Grace Music that sums it all up very well:

Elect or Non?

Recently, a friend was struggling with assurance and the concept of divine election. He looked at me and said, "How do I know if I am one of the elect? How do I know I am not among the non-elect?"

I replied, "The answer to that question is simple. What do you want? Anyone can be lost if they want to be. The rest are elect."

It is a disarmingly straightforward truth: lost people are lost because they want to be lost. Saved people are saved because God has given them the will to know Him. Damnation is according to our own choice; salvation is according to His. 

Marveling at the Gospel (Re-Post)

The incomprehensible God united Himself incomprehensibly with humanity, 

to die under the incomprehensible suffering 

generated by His just and incomprehensible wrath, 

paying an incomprehensible price to redeem incomprehensibly sinful sinners

through His incomprehensible grace, 

rising again by His incomprehensible power, 

showing His incomprehensible love, 

displaying His incomprehensible wisdom, 

revealing His incomprehensible glory.

I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Ephesians 1:16-21

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 19 - ESV Study Bible on Acts 13:48

The ESV Study Bible's note on Acts 13:48 says it perfectly:

Throughout Acts, Luke affirms the sovereignty of God over all of life while at the same time affirming the significance of human activity, as evidenced by the remarkable human effort and sacrifice involved in proclaiming the gospel. Thus Luke, without contradiction, maintains a dual emphasis on divine election ("appointed") and on human response ("believed") ... The emphasis here in 13:48 is on the way in which divine sovereignty (appointment) results in the belief of the Gentiles, demonstrating that their belief was due to God's grace alone.

That's good stuff. THEOparadox approved!

Big Shoes, Small Minds (or "Sovereignty and Freedom in Perspective")

So ... I believe that God, who created the world and everything else that exists, exercises absolute, meticulous and exhaustive sovereignty over all events, including every thought, word and deed of mankind, through His definite predestination and continual providence. I also happen to believe that human beings make real, significant, voluntary and uncoerced choices for which they are morally responsible in a just economy.


This is not "hard" determinism or "soft" determinism, but FREE DETERMINISM.

Does this compatibilistic belief in FREE DETERMINISM strike you, upon reflection, as contradictory, irrational or illogical? Then I suggest you read the fifth word in the first sentence again. In case you have forgotten, we are speaking about GOD. My friend, have you come to to terms with the fact that the self-existent, eternal God created the world and everything else from exactly nothing? If you think it is impossible for Him to give His creatures genuine freedom without relinquishing His meticulous sovereignty, you may have never imagined a God big enough to wear His own shoes. You may be trying to fit Him into a small space that can't hold Him. That small space is the sum of what you consider logically conceivable. If God must fit into this space, then your mind's capacity, rather than His omnipotent ability, has become the measure of Truth. Yet Truth was there before your mind came into being; and Truth contains your mind within it, not the other way around.

While our minds can hold the knowledge of His greatness, they cannot hold His greatness. This is an important fact to remember when we feel we must tell God what He can and can't do. Indeed, you may not happen to believe that God employs FREE DETERMINISM in His administration of the universe. But if you don't think it is possible for Him to do so, it is possible that you may not actually believe in the Biblical God at all.

And if you go to the Bible with an open heart to find out how God actually administers His universe, you will find FREE DETERMINISM is the only real possibility.

St. Patrick's Confession (Video)

Here is a video featuring a professional reading of St. Patrick's "Confession," an autobiographical account written by the early Christian missionary and former slave who was used of God to win multitudes of converts in Ireland. This is well worth the 45 minutes. (I have no idea who the people in the photos are; perhaps they are related to the narrator).




Here is another video about St. Patrick. This one is quite a bit shorter, and also very well done (other than getting Patrick's birth date wrong by a few centuries!).



Obviously, there is much more to St. Patrick's Day than green beer . . .

Is Paradoxical Theology Irrational?

A recent visitor to this blog mistook our advocacy of paradoxes for an endorsement of irrationality. He is not alone; I have found this is often the initial response to any mention of theological paradox. The commonness of this response is perhaps a reflection of the inroads made by humanistic rationalism during the 20th century, and the influence it still holds over the minds of "deep thinkers." Nowadays, the prevailing philosophy held (perhaps unconsciously) by the average person in America has swung way over toward irrationalism. Our aim is to embrace neither of these extremes, and instead to hold up the Biblical balance of rationality without rationalism, and acceptance of paradox without irrationalism. 

Logic is a reliable tool, or framework, for interpreting knowledge, yet it is not in itself a "source" of knowledge. Like all tools, it has its usefulness and limits. Where would one be if one had only logic, but no other knowledge of any kind? Think about this for a moment! To even state the laws of logic, one has to start with something a priori. Just as nothing can be properly deduced apart from logic, nothing can be known in the first place apart from presupposition.

This reminds me of the old joke about the brilliant atheist whom God challenged to create life out of nothing. The atheist said, "Sure, no problem," and then reached down to pick up a handful of dirt. A thundering voice immediately said, "Hey, no cheating! Go make your own dirt!" If you think about it, this is actually two or three jokes in one.

When we realize that logic is a tool for working with the raw materials of knowledge that God has graciously provided, we find ourselves free from the need to reconcile everything with everything before we will believe anything. We still attempt to reconcile as much as possible. We don't even consider giving up on the practice of logical thinking. But at the same time, we don't elevate our proposed solutions to an authoritative level, and we don't refuse to believe the facts of divine revelation just because we fail to reconcile them. We don't make our ability to understand a matter the measure of its truthfulness. We start with Truth and then seek understanding.

My response to the commenter was as follows:

I certainly don't want to give the impression that irrationality is entailed in the type of theological paradox I embrace. Rather, my belief in paradox is built on the solid foundation of Scripture as the Word of God, and flows logically from my presuppositions, as illustrated in the following premises and conclusions: 

P1 The Bible is the highest and surest source of knowledge: inerrant, infallible, and authoritative.
P2 The Bible clearly (that is, perspicuously) teaches certain distinct doctrines which, when compared side by side, appear to human minds to be logically incoherent.
P3 The Bible does not explain in detail how all of these doctrines interrelate.
P4 The Bible does not imply that any of these doctrines actually contradict one another (and strongly implies the opposite).
P5 The Bible teaches that man has mental limitations due to creaturehood, depravity and incomplete information.
P6 The Bible teaches that God possesses perfect and exhaustive knowledge of all things, and no possibility of self-deception.
P7 Even with perfect logic, the reliability of one's logical conclusions is proportional to the amount of correct information one possesses (i.e., partial information easily leads to false conclusions). 

C1 (Based on P1, P2, P3, P4) All doctrines taught by the Bible are entirely true, compatible and non-contradictory, without regard to any human being's ability to explain their interrelations.
C2 (Based on P5, P6, P7) The Bible reflects the perfect logical conclusions of a perfectly logical God, even if no human being can explain the logic used to reach those conclusions. 

As you might guess, I am no formal logician or philosopher. Still, I think my crude attempt holds water.

In short, I would not say my theological system is based in any sense upon irrationalism. For further discussion of this topic, I recommend James Anderson's excellent quote found in the sidebar of this blog:

"By advocating paradox I don't want to give the impression that I'm giving a carte blanche to not think philosophically, to not think deeply, about these doctrines. Quite the opposite. . . . My position is that with each of these doctrines we reflect on them as hard as we can, we penetrate them as best we can based on the Scriptural data that we do have, but we also recognize that there are going to be limits, and that those limits are actually a positive thing and not a reflection of some inherent problem in the doctrines or in the process of theological reflection. . . . I think we can make progress, we can make considerable progress, in understanding these doctrines and resolving some of the . . . initial difficulties that we have with them, but at the same time recognizing that we're always only going to get so far and when we bump up against the limits of our capacity to formulate them in certain ways or to resolve certain difficulties in them, we shouldn't be too concerned about that. We certainly shouldn't say, 'Okay, we need to admit that Christians are ultimately irrationalists.' No. We don't need to say that at all. . . . It's a Biblically constrained rationality. It's a middle way between rationalism, of which I think [Gordon H.] Clark was a representative, and irrationalism, of which, to take an example I think the Neo-Orthodox - Karl Barth - would be an example, where you're saying that there are actual contradictions in there. So I think it's navigating a Biblical middle way between these two extremes: having too high a view of the human intellect, and perhaps too low a view of the intellect, of our ability to know the things of God."

That quote gives us essentially the same idea, but from a "real" philosopher!

An Arminian Deleted My Comments

UPDATES: I received a kind note from the individual referenced in this post, and decided to redact portions of this text as a result. He certainly has the right to manage his own blog as he sees fit, and sincerely believes his decisions are justified. I believe his chosen path is both unwise and unhelpful (I don't think all of my conduct has been spotless, either). At this time, I am extending a personal and public apology to Ben (aka "KangarooDort") for the harshness of some comments in this post (as originally published) and for the generally harsh tone I exhibited in writing it. I have removed selected portions, added a few additional comments, and retained only what seems most important. 

_____________________________________________________________

This post is going to be a little bit out of the norm. [REDACTED]

[I am going to re-post here a comment that was mostly blocked by the blog administrator at this post:]

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/sneaky-calvinism-calvinism-on-the-sly-in-action/

[It seems to me that] this individual has decided to set himself up as the judge and jury in a matter he knows [next to] nothing about. He has demanded that people explain themselves to his satisfaction and make themselves accountable to his scrutiny, [REDACTED].  Beginning with the [REDACTED] sentiments he attempted to leave at a post on this blog, he has [REDACTED] refused to accept the possibility that his pre-conceived perceptions might be misguided. When I responded [REDACTED] with the actual truth I learned from firsthand investigation, he decided to "edit out" most of my comment. [REDACTED]


I am now posting my full comments below in protest against the [REDACTED] approach taken by this [REDACTED] blogger. [REDACTED] This individual has been solemnly warned that he will have to answer to God for maligning a godly pastor.

[REDACTED]

Below is the comment I wrote, which [REDACTED] "KangarooDort" [REDACTED] decided to almost entirely censor. (Note that "Now Dimly" is the name of [another] commenter, to whom I addressed my opening lines).

Now Dimly, 

You bring up some interesting points that are worthy of discussion, and I thank you for your thoughtful questions. However, Ben has laid down the following mandate: 

"If you want to carefully explain what Blaine meant by his words and how exactly we have so badly misunderstood and misinterpreted what he said, you are welcome to comment further. If all you have to offer are more assertions that we are just supposed to accept because you say so, then please do not bother commenting further on this thread." 

So, it appears we are at an impasse unless I am willing to comply with Ben's demand for explanatory testimony. Dr. Wayman, on the other hand, says any further attempt to "defend" Blaine's actions only makes him look guilty. So in these hands we Calvinists are ________ if we do, and ________ if we don't. You can fill in the blanks with your favorite euphemism. 

All: 

This situation well illustrates the fact that the internet is indeed a kangaroo court and not the place to be airing disputes of this kind (unless sufficient charity and lack of hostility are present).
Someday, when the whole story is known (which will be in eternity, I suppose), some will be ashamed of their conduct in this matter. I do not happen to believe Blaine will be among them. Others may believe what they will. 

I have tried to make a few substantive points, as follows: 

1. Blaine has been misinterpreted and badly judged (no one else has to believe this, though I happen to know it is true)
2. Given the fact that someone has looked into the matter and drawn this conclusion, others ought to be charitable in their response to something they know very little about.
3. Blaine may or may not want to comment/defend/explain, but no one here has the right to subpoena him, condemn him, or call him to resign if he doesn't choose to do that.
4. Deciding not to respond to questions people ask you on the internet is no admission of guilt.
5. The Assemblies of God leaves plenty of room for Blaine's teachings and actions, though the teaching may be outside the mainstream for that denomination. By and large, A/G men are mature and well able to handle some disagreement on minor points. Blaine's pastoral and personal associates are well aware of his theological leanings and know that he actually did nothing "sneaky," "sly," deceitful, harmful, or even slightly worthy of concern. If anyone in Blaine's life has a right to demand explanation, by now they probably have, and have been more than satisfied by the full story. 

Ben said: "I mean really, if he communicated that poorly about things on Derek’s blog, should he really be in the business of communicating God’s word and challenging theological concepts to HS students?" 

I suppose the person who has never miscommunicated in a blog comment can cast the first stone. By your standards, I shouldn't be preaching or teaching, either, as I have often communicated poorly in the combox. Would you be this hard on a fellow Arminian? 

So now, since I have likely stepped over the line of Ben's mandate, and because I respect his rights as a blog administrator, and because I doubt there is much profit in continued wrangling over this, I will join Blaine in his judicious silence and, saying nothing more, let this be my final comment here. 

Blessings to all men of peace. 

Derek

As an addendum, here are comments I left at another blog post covering the same topic:

As the erstwhile "defender" of the dreaded "sneaky Calvinist," I find it rather unbecoming for the Arminian apologist to set himself up as judge and jury in this grand kangaroo court called "the internet," particularly when he has been reassured that he misinterpreted the account.
I would like to be a "fly on the wall" when he calls that District Superintendent, who, if he is like every other A/G Superintendent I have ever met, will be a mature, humble and godly man who is all too aware of the trouble and divisiveness that can be caused when people jump to conclusions and remove attention from the simple preaching and teaching of the Bible because they would rather engage in attack politics. He won't be shocked to find out that there is a minister in his district who, while agreeing with every major tenet of the denomination's theology, might have a quibble or two with their lead theologians over what are considered "minor points." I have personally known A/G pastors with all sorts of interesting theological stances and disagreements on minor issues. It was no secret, and it did not hinder fellowship. And to think that this might actually enter into those pastors' teaching when supported by the passage they happen to be studying ... well, who would be surprised! I am certain that a District Superintendent has better things to do than chase down Internet misinterpretations of a godly shepherd's methodology in interpreting Scripture that addresses sincerely held minor disagreements. Especially when that pastor sums up his teaching on the subject with a humble admission that the whole matter is surrounded in mystery. Not exactly a militant approach!

Given my A/G background, I enjoy fellowship with some fine Arminian brothers. They are tough in debate, let me tell you. But they don't waste time griping about things as inconsequential as all this, or making mountains out of molehills. I learned much about the difference between "real life" Arminians and certain Internet Arminians as a result of this exchange. The two are strangely dissimilar, despite the labels and general theological agreement. 

In my experience, most A/G pastors are "real life" Arminians who aren't going to be freaked out in any way by this. (More here: http://www.contemporarycalvinist.com/2013/03/this-week-in-calvinism-march-1-2013.html)

[REDACTED] I sincerely hope this individual will [turn from] the [REDACTED] approach he has chosen in this matter. Friends, let us love one another, and let us speak the truth in love.

[And be willing to change our approach if warranted.]

Arminian Election: An Unbiblical Paradox?

Lately I have had a lot of interesting discussion with Arminians. The following came to mind while considering some of their arguments:

Arminians have classically advanced the idea that election is based on God's foreknowledge of our future choices. Let's assume for a moment that this view is true. Under this scenario, God elected a person not because God chose of His own free will to save them, but because He foresaw that they would choose to be saved.

How, then, did God treat those He knew would believe for a time and then apostatize? Would such people be considered elect or non-elect? Were they termporarily elect during the time they were "saved"? If God elected a person from eternity based on the person's foreseen faith, did He un-elect them from eternity based on their foreseen apostasy? Are such people considered to be both elect and non-elect?

Perhaps Arminians would call this a paradox, or relegate it to the "mystery" of foreknowledge. But I wonder where the Biblical basis for such a supposed paradox could be derived?

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 18 - C. Michael Patton

Michael Patton recently posted an article entitled, "The Irrationality of Calvinism." It contains excellent, THEOparadox-approved commentary on theology in general and "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" in particular. His words echo my own reasons for rejecting Arminianism and becoming a Calvinist. At least one Arminian has responded to Mr. Patton's article (see here and here), and has ironically proven the point by entirely missing the point (the unhidden angst may have clouded the ability to understand).

This photo is shamelessly "borrowed" from Mr. Patton's post.

Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Patton's insightful article:

I am a child of Western thought. Therefore, I like to figure things out. If possible, I like to figure it all out. This causes problems between me and God sometimes, and I need to deal with it better. Sometimes I only really follow or engage with God when I get it. When things make sense to me, my intellectual anxiety is eased and my will can engage. Who? What? Where? How? and especially Why? Theological gurus call this “cataphatic” theology. Cataphatic theology emphasises God’s revelation and our understanding of it. Taken to an extreme, we can find ourselves in the arrogantly awkward position of, as A. W. Tozer put it, “trying to look God eye to eye.” When we have to understand everything, we attempt to trade our finitude for infinitude. And this should scare us to death. We need a healthy dose of “apophatic” theology. This emphasizes mystery. Our Eastern brothers and sisters normally get this better than we do. They are content without publishing a new theology book every year. They don’t normally write papers explaining the mysteries of the world, have societies discussing the nuances of our faith, or argue about too much. Taken to an extreme, this can lead to an unexamined faith, where people know what they believe but they have no idea why. And God did go through a lot of trouble to explain quite a bit of himself to us. While there are secret things that belong to the Lord (apophatic), the things revealed belong to us (cataphatic). We need balance. We need a cool yet passionate head about us. We need to hold some theological ropes very tightly, but we need to loosen our grip on others. There is quite a bit that we can know about God, but there are so many things that we don’t get and we will never get.

---------------------------------------------------------- 

I often hear people talk about Calvinism as a closed box system that forces everything to fall in line, even when we have to sacrifice biblical integrity to do so. I often hear the accusation that Calvinism is a system that makes rationality its primary goal. And this is often true. Sometimes Calvinists do attempt to fit things into a system and engage in questionable, logic-driven hermeneutics to do so. 

However, I think we need take a step back and see that while the shoe fits when it comes to some particular issues in Calvinism, these accusations are far from forming the bedrock of the primary issues in Calvinism.

----------------------------------------------------------

... the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s election to make it fit. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. This creates a problem. It creates great tension. For the Calvinist, this tension cannot, and should not, be solved. So how does the Calvinist live with this? How does the Calvinist answer the Why? questions? “Why does God choose some and not others? Why does he still find fault?” What is the Calvinist answer to the How? question? ”How can there be true freedom when God is sovereignly in charge of election?” We have no answer. We get off our stool and punt to apophatic theology. The tension is left intact. We place our hand over our mouth here and say, “Though we have no answers to why God did not choose people he truly loves, we will trust him without judgement.” We will redefine neither divine election nor human freedom to make them fit a more rational or logical system. While there is nothing wrong with using one’s reason to understand truth, there are problems when reason takes priority over revelation. If the Bible teaches both human freedom and sovereign election, we leave the two intact. If the Bible teaches that God loves everyone more than we can imagine and that God desires all to be saved, yet he does not elect some, we trust God’s word and live with unanswered questions. These two issues, human freedom and sovereign election, are not contradictory when put together, but they are a mystery.

 ---------------------------------------------------------- 

There is no need to solve all tensions, especially when the solution comes at the expense of one’s interpretive integrity. There are many tensions in Scripture. There are many things that, while not formally irrational, just don’t make sense. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and creation out of nothing all fit this category. All of these are beyond our ability to comprehend. ... The issue of human freedom and unconditional election is in the same apophatic domain. We can’t make sense out of them and once we do, we have entered into error. There are many things God reveals that confuse us and baffle our thinking. They seem irrational. Yet we find God saying, “Chill. Just trust me. I’ve got this under control. While I have revealed a lot and I know you have a lot of questions, this is a test of trust. I love everyone but I did not elect everyone. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Will you trust me or will you redefine things?”

God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction. We may not know how to reconcile these two issues, but that does not mean God does not know how. Their co-existence does not take away from their collective truthfulness.

I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of understanding and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to abide for the sake of Biblical fidelity.

As I said before, I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human understanding. I think it is a good illustration of how West meets East. Revelation meets mystery. Cataphatic theology meets apophatic theology. While Calvinism is not formally irrational, it is emotionally irrational. I get that. But I think we need to take both pills.

- C. Michael Patton (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/the-irrationality-of-calvinism/
)

In a later comment, Mr. Patton adds this:

Reason is always required. But reason does not cancel out mystery. We strive for the cataphatic until we sweat blood. Then, when no solution makes good sense of revelation, we allow mystery to come in and do it apophatic job. Again, think Trinity and you will see what I mean. Can you rationally understand the Trinity? If you can, you have just entered heresy. I think that there are five great mysteries in the Scripture that we cannot resolve:

1. Creation ex nihilo
2. Hypostatic Union
3. Dual nature of Scripture
4. Trinity
5. Human Freedom/Responsibility and Divine sovereignty (unconditional election included)

Divine Decrees, Election and Hell: A Moderate Calvinist Viewpoint

In the last post, I referenced a then ongoing discussion I was having with Roger Olson. As this pleasant discussion continued, we turned to the topic of hell. The reality of eternal punishment tends to provoke deep thought. The text below is excerpted from my response to Dr. Olson, and represents my best attempt to briefly explain my Calvinistic view of the topic. This is one person's attempt to theorize about how the Biblical data can fit together within a Calvinist framework, and of course a lot of additional clarifications would be needed for this to be a fully satisfying effort. My proposal follows some other Calvinist thinkers and carefully distances from others. The primary aim here is to understand how it is possible for a Reformed approach to extol God's total goodness while affirming His total control over all things. Some of my high Calvinist friends (you know who you are!) will undoubtedly find this view too "soft." I have to admit that I still have a lot of questions about my own view and am still puzzled by much of this at the end of the day. These matters are lofty, and much too wonderful for me.

In my brand of Calvinism (which is admittedly not “high, federal Calvinism”, but historic/moderate), although we unabashedly affirm that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, we do not view good and evil as decreed symmetrically. In other words, while God ultimately intends to allow evil to occur, and to use it for His good purposes, He is also strictly separated from evil in significant ways, as follows:

• He does not commit evil Himself (actually, He can not); However, He is directly involved in good whenever it occurs (He can do good only)

• He never acts as the direct or proximate cause of evil; However, He is always and only the direct or proximate cause of good

• He only intends evil in a passive way; However, He actively intends good

• note: these distinctions also serve as an explanation of why we do not rejoice in the evil that we view as divinely ordained

To illustrate, we say that election is solely a “positive” decree. It is God’s decision, from eternity, to do good (savingly) to certain hopeless sinners. God does not “positively” decide to condemn the others; He decides to allow many (or perhaps most) sinners to voluntarily condemn themselves. Thus reprobation is nothing more than the absence of election. 

Further, although God does not choose to ordain the salvation of all sinners, He positively decrees to give life, breath, food, water, possessions, and many other kindnesses to all people in spite of their rebellion against Him. This is Common Grace. Although God “hates” sinners for their wickedness (Ps. 11:5), He “loves” them as His creatures (Ps. 145:8-9, 13, 17). 

Similarly, our theology views hell as neither a mere concession to evil, nor as a mere utility for revealing God’s glory. It is viewed as a deeply tragic yet glorious conquest of evil by justice. Hell is unspeakably tragic in that a portion of those made in God’s image break fellowship with Him forever. Yet it is glorious in that all unrepented evil is justly and eternally condemned. 

Although God ultimately “decreed” the outcome, those condemned were condemned by their own will, and voluntarily. Having unregenerated hearts, they preferred their own condemnation to God’s holy presence; they preferred the caustic sting of justice to the mercy sincerely offered; they called out for the rocks to fall on them to escape from the presence of a Little Lamb. 

Thus, hell’s condemnation is viewed as passively ordained (one might even say as a “concession” to the creature’s will); however, hell as an enactment of divine justice is viewed as positively ordained, and as good triumphing over evil. This approach represents an extension of the same compatibilistic reasoning we apply to the story of Joseph, the appointment of wicked Cyrus as God’s servant, and the death of Christ on the Cross. In each case, God ordained evil and intended good simultaneously. The evil was done voluntarily by the creature; the good was done purposefully by God.