Comments, page 4
Here's a new post for comments because the comments on the other ones are getting long. But you can leave them on any of the posts you want to. (Please see my rules for commenting on the "welcome" page before leaving your comment.) Thank you!
"Is God Only Concerned about His Glory and Being Famous?"
ReplyDeleteWait ... According to Aristotle/Augustine/ ...(etc).... /Calvin, God is absolutely perfect, needing nothing, never changing. He has ALL glory. So how are we supposed to *add* to His glory? Wouldn't that mean he is changing?
I'm so confused.
Hello, Geekocrat, Thanks for visiting!
DeleteYeah, I'm confused too. Calvinists talk like everything is always about God's glory, that He is always fully glorious all the time - and yet their theology seems to make His glory dependent on sin/sinners, as if He needed to create sin/sinners to punish in order to be able to show off His justice/wrath so that He could get praised for it, for more glory. So was He not glorious enough or complete enough in Himself before sin/sinners came along? Calvinism thinks it elevates God's glory, but I think it reduces it, making it dependent on and proportional to sin/sinners.
I don't think God necessarily created people for more glory, but for love. He always had all the glory before people were ever made, and He didn't NEED anything more than Himself/the Trinity. But I think He WANTED something He didn't have, a family of people whom He could love and who would love Him in return. He wanted a family to love, not sinners to punish for His glory. And I think that's why He created us. And it's a whole different focus than Calvinism has.
Calvinism takes a good thing and turns it into something ugly and negative, and in the end, it actually ends up hurting God's character and His glory and our relationship with Him.
Thanks for commenting. God bless!
Thanks for the reply. I completely agree with your explanation, but ...
DeleteNote that by saying "He WANTED" you violated one of the prime axioms of Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. That is, God is absolutely perfect and complete, needing nothing (eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, impassionate, etc). This portrays God as a static prime force, sort of like a cosmic graven image with no internal motivation to create humanity.
So you don't seem to be an Augustinian. I don't see that as a bad thing, BTW.
Some of those who hold the Aristotlean/Augustinian view also claim God existed in a state of "pure bliss" prior to creating the universe and humanity. I'm not sure how that squares with the picture of God as a cosmic graven image without passion, but they would probably say "it's a mystery, so shut up".
Hello again. I'll be honest here (and I'm saying this gently, respectfully, and sincerely): I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say or what position you're coming from or if you're being critical of what I've said (and so I'm not sure how to respond).
DeleteAnd I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the axioms, unless you're just trying to point out that Calvinists would use that argument against me - and yes, they probably would (but it wouldn't bother me to know I violated the axioms of various human philosophers - I'd rather violate man's word than God's Word).
Bu if that's what Calvinists would accuse me of, I don't see how the idea that God is perfect and needs nothing else precludes the idea of wanting something. Needing is different than wanting. And I don't think that "wanting" necessarily implies an imperfection or deficiency of some sort. Maybe there are Calvinists (or others) who see Him as a static force with no feelings or internal motivations, but I believe God is a relational being with real feelings and desires, and it is a factor in a lot of what He does.
And I hope my writing on my blog makes it very clear that I am most definitely not an Augustinian/Reformed Calvinist. I am very against Calvinism, and I consider Augustinian Calvinism a huge heresy.
And yes, I agree, it would be contradictory if Calvinists claim that God had feelings of pure bliss while also claiming that He is a static being with no passion. I don't know for sure if Calvinists claim He has no passions, but I do think that they think He is static, that He predestined everything back in the beginning and that nothing ever changes from that course. (And I wonder: If they do claim He has no passions, how could they also claim that He was full of wrath that He simply had to express, causing Him to create the non-elect so that He had someone to pour His wrath out on? "Wrath" and "no passions" can't go together.)
Thanks for reading and commenting. Have a great, blessed weekend.
I apologize for the confusion. I meant to come across as completely agreeing with you while being a little tongue-in-cheek.
DeleteThe problem stems from my education. You see, in college I majored in Sarcasm. and sometimes the academic training gets in the way of communicating accurately. So I'm sorry if I came across poorly.
Anyway, you do not sound Aristotlean/Augustinian at all. For which I'm thankful or you wouldn't sponsor this blog. It has been very helpful and thought provoking. And a great resource.
According to Paul, Greek philosophers considered Christian teaching to be foolishness. So When Augustine mixed Greek philosophy with Christian teaching, it created a poisonous stew. Combining it with the environment of government control/coercion of religion during the Reformation allowed Calvin to take the poison to entirely new levels (depths?). I suspect there's a really profound cross-disciplinary dissertation lurking in there.
Thank you for clarifying. I actually love some good sarcasm, and I can have fun trading it back and forth. It's unfortunate that writing doesn't include tone-of-voice, because it makes it hard to hear the intention behind what someone is saying. :)
DeleteThank you for your comments, and I fully agree with what you said here about the history of Greek philosophy and Calvinism and all that. I just wish more people in the church understood this - because I don't think Calvinism would have taken over as easily if they did. God bless, and thanks for visiting and for your kind comments!
This goes beyond Bad Logic. It shows Calvinism at its most devious disingenuousness. Apparently they are horrified by the thought of helpless infants dying in the inherited sin of Adam, and spending eternity in unspeakable torment just for the "glory" of the psychotic Calvi-god. So they fabricated a doctrine out of thin air without any scriptural precedent seemingly to assuage their consciences. Then they include most of the "heathen" in the broad brush application. In the process, they go into full Pelagian mode for infants, and off into outer space about the rest of the heathen.
ReplyDeleteThe following is from The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Loraine Boettner, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, (C) 1932, p 143ff. Boettner was apparently a highly respected theologian of the mid 20th century. He writes,
"Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgement on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's "tender mercies are over all His works," and depending on his mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.
"Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their solus, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills ... and if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in his providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of his unconditional salvation ... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy is saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway."
Hello again, Geekocrat, sorry it took so long to print your comment. We've been having internet issues here, so I haven't been online (and I might be off-line again soon as we get it fixed).
DeleteI agree that there's a lot of disingenuousness in Calvinism - probably because they feel they must hold to certain beliefs that repulse them and that seem to contradict the plain reading of Scripture in a lot of areas. It creates a cognitive dissonance, and I think it leads to them speaking on/having beliefs on multiple and contradictory levels. It takes a lot of work to try to make sense of nonsense.
I myself do believe that infants who die go to heaven (and I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian - and I don't think those are the only two possible positions to hold), but I believe that consistent Calvinists cannot claim that any baby goes to heaven because it would contradict their doctrines of inherited sin, total depravity, and unconditional election. And so their efforts to fit "babies go to heaven" into Calvinism just end up creating a bunch of contradictions. The more I learn about Calvinism, the messier and the worse it gets.
Thanks for reading and commenting. God bless!
You like occasional sarcasm? How about this?
ReplyDeleteI've figured out how Calvinism really works: Calvinists claim that Calvi-god (god) ordains (plans and controls) everything. Even down to individual molecules, according to Sproul. So when anyone speaks, they're speaking under the control of god. And since our thoughts are chemical processes in our brains, even our thoughts and reactions are controlled by god.
Now imagine that you are a church member who challenges the local "pastor" about what he teaches about god creating evil. This angers him. He accuses you of being a reprobate for not humbly accepting his teaching, and declares you're destined for hell.
So according to their theosophy: god challenges god about what god is teaching about god's sovereignty. God rebukes god, and proclaims that if god disbelieves god, then god isn't humbly accepting what god is teaching, therefore god is a reprobate.
Then god sneers "I'll show YOU who is sovereign", and sends you to eternal conscious torment for not believing him. And he gives himself a high-five to celebrate his "glory".
When you open the door, you see Calvi-god is really just a psychotic inmate in a mental asylum with severe Grandiose Delusional Disorder. He is playing with sock puppets, sending them to heaven and hell. And he's not allowed to play with sharp objects.
"Not allowed to play with sharp objects." Hahaha, too funny.
DeleteAnd yep, that sounds about right. :)
As you can see, I'm working my way through your posts a little bit at a time.
ReplyDeleteYour quote: "Peter Ditzel (Word of His Grace, Why election to salvation, and why reprobation to damnation? Part 1) claims that God didn't just 'allow' people to be damned, but that He determined it for good reasons. He says that God created the non-elect not because He wanted them saved but because (my paraphrase) the non-elect are needed to help make the world a better place for the elect to live in, which helps the elect develop and mature. And by seeing sin and understanding the wrath that God will pour out on the unrepentant non-elect, the elect can better appreciate God's goodness and love which He reserved for them."
To begin with, if Ditzel is really saying "develop and mature," that implies some degree of free will and self-awareness on humans' part. But since Calvigod directs every last particle of existence, then human experience is just a sock puppet show run by Calvigod as the puppeteer. So there can't be any "develop and mature" in their universe. Why doesn't Calvigod just create humans fully developed and mature in the first place? He's "god" after all; is that beyond his power? That is all he's going to get through his puppet show anyway. (Ok, I know, I know, don't expect Calvinists to be logical.)
Ditzel claims Calvigod will torment people for Eternity just to remind the elect that he can be viciously vengeful as well as good and kind in a Calvinistic sort of way. Maybe Ditzel thinks this is Calvigod's tactic to control his sock puppets. But that kind of logic just makes Calvigod look weak, somewhat like a schoolyard bully. He could have, after all, had mercy on the unrepentant, converted them, and brought them to a blissful eternity with him. This would have prevented untold infinite suffering. But apparently inflicting eternal torment is part of Calvigod's DNA.
However, there is a deeper issue here: Ditzel's sophistry, a symptom of spiritual narcissism. He seems to be staking out a philosophical position he hopes will be a kind of trademark for him. This is very much like the competition between Greek philosophers from whom the Christian church inherited a lot of logical trash through Augustine. This kind of pronouncement is also a way for the elect to feel humbly smug about their supposedly intellectual and spiritual superiority. It is much like Pharisees and lawyers in Jesus' time who dissected the law in minute detail to justify themselves and their stuffy self righteousness.
Just spitballin' here: what if Calvigod has a *hidden* will that he hints at in Matt 7:21-23? If Calvigod's hidden desire for justice and punishment contradicts his revealed will about desiring to save everyone (1 Tim 2:4), can't he also have a hidden will that overrides his revelation about good trees producing good fruit? Couldn't he reprobate some of the best and brightest of Calvinism (maybe even Calvin himself) to hell just to demonstrate his sovereignty? Wouldn't it burnish his glory by showing that even the most elegant sophistry of the most "elite" Calvinists was just self-righteous trash in Calvigod's opinion?
I would pay serious money to hear someone ask one of the Calvinist giants if they ever worried that they might really be reprobate beneath their sanctimoniously smug veneer? I would love to hear what they think they would say to Calvigod as howling demons of hell dragged them to eternal flames.
You hit the nail on the head with a lot of your insights. Calvinists cling to Calvinist theology while often talking like non-Calvinists, like free-willers. Most of what they say contradicts their Calvinism on some level or implies true human free-will. That's partly why debating them is so frustrating - because they talk on different levels, in contradictory ways, but don't see it as contradiction.
DeleteAnd I agree that Calvinists are very much like the Pharisees. Calvinism seems to be built on spiritual narcissism, the idea that they are the spiritual giants who hold the keys of all truth and that we must come to them to get it. [Yet oddly, they claim that it's a truth they can't really understand because it's a "mystery." And so I wonder: Why in the world would we get our spiritual advice from those who claim we can't understand truth anyway!?!)]
And I, too, have asked a question like "If Calvi-god is regularly deceptive and says one thing but means another, then why couldn't he also SAY that the elect are saved when, in reality, he gave them a false feeling of salvation, for his pleasure and glory? How can the elect trust a god like that?"
I think the Calvinist god is very much like a playground bully playing with sock puppets. Calvinism thinks it upholds God's glory, but I think it ruins it and makes a mockery of Him.
I had a friend ask me why I take such a strong stance against Calvinism, why it's worth leaving our church over, and I said it comes down to God's character. Calvinists will say that non-Calvinists just want our free-will, that we're all about our choice... but I think it's all about God's character and trustworthiness.
We Christians have staked our souls on God and His Word, trusting that He means what He says and says what He means and that He is trustworthy. But Calvinism ruins His word, His trustworthiness (not to mention that Calvinism's god is unjust and cruel). And if we don't have a trustworthy God, we've got no solid basis for our faith, no reason to believe that Jesus is who He said He is and that God will save us like He said He would if we believe in Him. If we don't have a trustworthy God whose truth can be known, then we've got nothing!
This is why Calvinism is worth fighting and leaving our church over. I cannot be part of a church that spreads such a destructive. dishonoring view of God.
Heather, Thanks for your kind words and insightful comments. I especially appreciate your viewpoint because it is a "boots on the ground" view of what happens to a congregation under an extreme Calvinist.
ReplyDeleteThe past couple of weeks I've been going over the series "Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism" at https://atheologyintension.com/. It was a fascinating debate for a few iterations, then it became tedious. Derek, the Calvinist apologist, seemed to be mired in the muck of "mysterious" theology, and the debate degenerated into each side repeating its points using different language each time.
I wanted to add a different perspective to the debate. So I wrote up an analysis of the philosophical (not theological!) basis of Calvinism (and TBH, much of Catholicism and Protestantism). As a Lutheran, it has been eye-opening and alarming to see how much pagan Greek philosophy has infected our theology.
I'd like to run it by you for your insights first before I post on Matt's site. If you have time, I would be grateful for any corrections, analysis, opinions, etc that you might have.
I had to divide it into several parts because it was too long for a single comment.
Thanks,
Nick
Hello, Nick, I'd be happy to review your comments and share whatever help I can (and I'm honored you'd ask me), but I'm not sure how much help I'll be. But I'll try. :)
DeleteI am posting your comments now, but I won't be able to review it all right away. I'll read and add notes over the next few days.
(I'm not sure how many parts you sent, but all I got right now is this one and the next two.)
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI read through your series Debating Calvinistic Compatibilism. At first it was energizing, then after a few back-and-forth volleys it began to get tedious. Each side seemed to repeat the same arguments each time using different words. Yes, you did seem to get a bit testy at times, but I could sympathize with that after a while. Derek, bless his heart, was mired in the intellectual manure of Calvinistic indoctrination so all he could argue was that their teachings were beyond "fallible human logic". Of course, he did not explain what was fallible about your logic. He often couldn't state the Calvinist position coherently or consistently, and even blamed you for using their exact words to illustrate your points.
You concluded with perhaps the best summary of Hypercalvinism I've ever heard: "...Calvinism would have us believe that God’s holy mind conceived of every one of our sins and determinatively decreed all the vile, sordid evils of this world–for his glory. In such a world God becomes morally indistinguishable from Satan."
VERY well said!
This is the mindset extreme Calvinism fosters. It presents itself as the true light of the gospel but reeks of satanic contempt for humanity. Their theosophy allows them to say things like
"The moment when you take your first step through the gates of hell, the only thing you will hear is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding and praising God because God has rid the earth of you. That's how not good you are." - Paul Washer, protege of John MacArthur, on Facebook
"We always say the cliche, 'God hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.' That's nonsense! The Bible speaks of him abhorring us, and that we're loathsome in His sight, and He can't stand to even look at us!" - R. C. Sproul
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to go further back in the logic chain and look at Calvinism through the lens of some of the axioms underlying the Aristotelian/Augustinian basis of Calvinistic theosophy. (Please pardon my occasional sarcasm.)
Axioms of the nature of God
1. eternal and self-existing
2. omnipotent
3. perfect (Aristotelian pure act, perfect form, without potential to be anything greater or higher)
4. immutable (inheriting from the axiom of perfection, not just not needing to change, but incapable of change)
5. omniscient (inheriting from perfect, knowing everything that can be known from eternity to eternity, and joined at the hip with immutability)
6. impassible (God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of others)
According to highly educated, credentialed, elite, deeply spiritual, Calvinistic scholars, God planned for ("ordained") Satan to rebel. Then he went on to cause all human sin and suffering even though magically (mysteriously and paradoxically) not being responsible for causing sin.
Regarding these two comments, I don't think I'll really have any corrections or even many comments about them because you are much more studied in philosophy than I am. And so it's not really in my wheelhouse. I think you have a better handle on it than I ever could. So I'll only be able to share a few random thoughts (and probably unrelated to the point of your letter).
DeleteRegarding the Washer quote, it amazes me that Calvinists say God's creation will praise Him when sinners die - but the Bible says that God Himself takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that angels rejoice whenever a sinner repents. And so I wonder who Calvinists are imitating when they sing out praises when sinners die and go to hell? Because it sure doesn't sound like God.
I'm not sure which verses Sproul is quoting, but whenever I see the Bible talking about God hating wicked people, it's about people who chose to be wicked, to harden themselves in sin. I never read something like that about the general state of humanity, as if God simply hates all people in general for no particular reason.
About the axioms, I don't know where these all stem from, and so I can't comment on them in relation to philosophy. And I won't get into my views on them because my opinion on these doesn't matter for the purpose of your comment to Matt.
And regarding the Calvinist idea that God causes all sin and suffering: In my opinion, Calvinism does indeed teach that God causes all sin, but Calvinists do everything they can to hide/cover the word "cause," because they know it would make God responsible for sin and evil. So they come up with all kinds of other words or "two types of causes," etc., to try to trick themselves and us into thinking they're not saying God causes sin... when they really are saying that. And this creates all kinds of errors and contradictions, which leads to them writing more and more nonsense to cover their tracks. And round and round they go. In fact, I think that's why their Calvinist theology books are so long. It's all about trying to deny that they teach God causes sin, when that's exactly what they teach.
However, to say God "planned" any kind of action implies that he first existed in a state in which a plan did not exist. He then determined he wanted to change something, went through a process of evaluating options, decided on a course of action, and began executing the plan. This assertion contradicts axiom 4; it claims that God changed - his state went from not having a plan to a state of having a plan. It also contradicts axiom 5 by implying that God did not have complete knowledge of his plan before he decided he needed one. I don't think Calvinists can even say God "decides" anything; his every action is predestined by his very nature, according to them.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this important? The only way for the God of Aristotle/Augustine to logically satisfy their axioms is for the plan to be part of his intrinsic existence from eternity. Ergo, the plan is also immutable and eternal, not created by God's volition. Thus in this theosophy, God *IS* indistinguishable from Satan. God and Satan are just the light and dark sides of "the force" which have existed from eternity.
Further, since the plan is immutable, God's knowledge of how the plan will work out is also immutable (set in stone from eternity, something like a cosmic graven image). As a result, our human response to it must also be immutably established from eternity or else God doesn't have immutable omniscience.
Therefore humans cannot have "free will", given these axioms. [NOTE: these Axioms are inherited from pagan philosophy, not the Hebrew bible - Old and New Testaments - as it existed in Augustine's time. This alone should give us pause about accepting the axioms uncritically. Paul said the Greeks considered the gospel to be foolishness. Maybe we would have been better off by not trying to reconcile the gospel with pagan philosophies.]
AND, in an ironic twist of fate, God himself has no free will. Because he is immutable and his knowledge of his own existence is infinite and immutable, God himself cannot change. He cannot exert his will to do anything that is not baked into his existence. So God's power is limited by his immutability and omniscience.
In fact, God's actions are so restricted by immutability and omniscience that without doing violence to semantics, I don't see how true Aristotelian/Augustinian Calvinists can even assert God "wants" anything. He cannot decide anything contrary to his immutable existence, so "wanting" would indicate he is not satisfied in his own perfect, immutable skin (so to speak).
And as far as impassibility goes, *of course* he is not affected by anything his created beings do. His reactions are set in stone, predestined, if you will. In Aristotelian/Augustinian theosophy God is not even affected by anything *he* does. He cannot be angry at our sins or pleased when he executes his "plan". Humanly speaking, it would seem that he should be pleased at our sins since it is all part of the immutable plan *for his pleasure and glory*. And he certainly can't abhor us because we are what he made us to be, since it gives him *pleasure and glory*. But being pleased with or being abhorred at us would seem to violate impassibility; such language sounds a bit like Calvinists are anthropomorphizing. [And making God sound like a volatile, petulant, narcissistic, Greek God.]
So Calvinists claim God created evil to give himself glory? He's God; he's perfect, which, in a logical world, should mean his Glory is perfect and immutable. Why does he need to create evil and suffering just to get more pleasure and glory? It's all so confusing.
Oh, wait ... "It's a mystery." Yeah, that's the ticket.
You've given far more thought to these things than I have, and a lot of your points make sense - such as about how the Calvinist God is indistinguishable from Satan, and how "wanting" and "making plans" would be impossible if God was as static and frozen from the very beginning as Calvinists think He is.
DeleteYou offer a lot of good/interesting points, and I really don't have anything to add. The only thing I myself would pick up on is your last point about Calvi-god creating/needing evil to get more glory for himself.
To me, if he needed sin/sinners so that he could have more glory, it means that he was somehow lacking in glory before sinners came along and that his glory is proportional to/dependent on sin and sinners. And that's a twisted view of God.
Not to mention that, in Calvinism, God is equally glorified by both sin and good, by both belief and rejection of Him. In Calvinism, God causes everything for His glory and pleasure, meaning that - in His eyes - there is no intrinsic difference between sin or obedience, evil or good. It's all the same to Him. And so how should Calvinists view these things too, if they are trying to be like their god? Why should it matter to them if people are saved or damned, or if we do evil or good, as long as Calvi-god gets glory for it and pleasure from it? (Calvinists think his glory is his top/only priority, not love or relationship or anything like that.) It's no wonder they would praise God for sinners going to hell.
And personally, I think it's an insecure god who needs to go around fabricating glory for himself, as if he wasn't confident in who he is. Strange. And it's a cruel god who does it at the expense of others, especially when he could get glory a multitude of other ways.
I can't remember who said it (maybe Leighton Flowers), but I like this:
The Calvinist god sacrifices others for himself, but the God of the Bible sacrificed Himself for others. Two very different Gods.
I hope and pray your comment to Matt goes well. God bless!