Calvinism self-refutation?

[Contarini]

I don’t think you can say that the Elect and Reprobate aren’t “kinds” of men. In fact, from a truly Calvinist standpoint, there are truly only 2 “kinds” of men-- the Elect and the Reprobate. Whether you’re a policeman or a prostitute, the only thing that truly matters is if you’re Elect or Reprobate.

Unfortunately 1 Tim 2:3-4 doesn’t even use the word “kind of men” there, and it’s inserted in because the original text contradicts Calvinism. So it’s hard to interpret a word that doesn’t even exist in the text.

What do you make of Aquinas’ argument, to which I linked?

I disagree with it. But I would not call it incoherent.

To say that the only thing that matters is whether you are elect or reprobate is not to say that these are “kinds” of men in the sense intended by Aquinas and the Calvinists. As you say, this is an interpretive paraphrase, and thus those who came up with it can define it as they wish. You can argue that their paraphrase is unfounded and erroneous (I would agree), but not that it’s self-refuting.

Early Reformed theologians did flirt to some extent with what would later be called (by some ultra-Calvinist “Primitive Baptists”) a “two-seed” doctrine. The primary maintainer of this doctrine, Martin Borrhaus (also known as “Cellarius”) was widely condemned by mainstream Protestants as unorthodox. But early authors such as Zwingli and Bucer do seem to come close to his position. Even in Calvin you find the claim that the elect show some “sparks” of piety before their regeneration.

But the mainstream Augustinian view, which is on the while affirmed by Calvinists, is that election and reprobation exist in the eternal will and council of God and are not qualities that inhere in a person.

Edwin

 

[ffg]

This is where I’ll go “full Calvinist” and paraphrase R.C. Sproul: It’s not that we’re drowning and God throws us a life preserver. It’s that we’re already long dead and God brings us back up from the depths and breathes entirely new life into us.

My last was long and covered a few different topics, so I didn’t want to expand on this too much at the time.

But, new day, new time.

I mentioned earlier, I see no difference in the Sproul teaching above, just verbiage differences.

However, playing along, Sproul or anyone who wants to believe that God’s living creation is dead or ‘dead’ until another point in time doesn’t realize the insult this is to God.

God’s breath of life came at creation for you and I. We have a soul starting at conception. Our soul isn’t created ‘when we get it’. It might be filled with joy, knowledge, or understanding through life, but it certainly isn’t new.

In the loving gift of time, creation has the ability to learn and understand truth, and prepare wisely for when the clock stops. Thus far it hasn’t been revealed to us that there is another clock after the lights go out.

This is our time to respond to God’s breath…

 

[MarcoPolo]

For me the argument hinges on whether or not God is powerful enough to make what He wants to have happen happen or not. Some people go to heaven and some people go to Hell so God is either incapable of doing what He wants to do or He does not want to see everyone in Heaven (or at least not in the sense that He is actively going to make that happen.)

I agree with the other poster who pointed out another option that what if what God wants to happen is for His creatures to freely utilize the gift of a free will He gave them in order to choose Him. Isn’t that another possibility that would not violate God being powerful “enough”?

 

[JillianRose]

You need to go to catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.html.

He does a lot of blogging and/or debates with Calvinist. He’s pretty awesome.

Jill

 

[ephesians2]

When I was a Protestant I would have considered myself a Calvinist-leaning Evangelical. I liked people like John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and James White a lot. I’ve listened to a number of debates from James White, but something I listened to again recently jumped out at me.

James White was defending the limited atonement, and he was challenged with 1 Tim 2:3-4, which contradicts limited atonement by stating that God desires all men to be saved. Under James White’s Calvinism this simply isn’t true. So Mr White reinterprets 1 Tim 2:3-4 to mean “all KINDS of men.”

Likewise James White believes in the Calvinist concept of predestination-- a person is predestined to salvation or damnation as part of God’s timeless infinite plan. That is, a person is predestined to salvation or damnation before they are even born. So before a person experiences being “born again,” while he was still a sinner, he was still one of the Elect, predestined to come to salvation. That is, the sinner was not reprobate and then BECAME Elect, rather, he was elect before he was even born, but simply experiences salvation at a certain point in his life.

So according to James White,

1. People who are Elect or Reprobate are either elected or reprobate before they are even born. (That is, one does not somehow start off Reprobate and then become Elect, but rather, the person is Elect before they are even born, and the salvation of Election is simply experienced when they are Born Again.)
2. Likewise, people that are Reprobate are predestined to damnation.
3. Again, James White believes that God desires “all kinds” of men be saved.
4. Clearly the Elect and Reprobate are both “kinds” of men.
5. Therefore, God desires that the Reprobate be saved.

This is obviously a contradiction in James White’s theology. The only way for him to get out of this is to 1) accept the Catholic position or 2) state that people start off Reprobate and then become Elect, which would deny other aspects of pre-destination or 3) state that the Elect and Reprobate are not “kinds of men.”

Having come across many Calvinists in my life and having had conversations with them, I have been asked this question-

“If God did not elect/choose certain people for Himself and leave the others to choose for themselves the outcome of Hell, then how would you explain passages of scripture where God asked Israel (His *chosen *nation) to annihilate the unbelieving enemy?”

If God is God over all mankind and has the power to do what He desires- which is for “all men to be saved”- then WHY did He command Israel to kill their enemies instead of convert them? Why did He, for example, tell Israel to destroy Jericho and kill women and children and destroy/burn everything, including animals and personal property? He did not even give the people of Jericho a chance to convert to change, to choose Him. Why did he tell Israel to stay away from the pagans who serve other gods, instead of having them “evangelize” to them? It sounds as if God was choosing who was allowed to follow Him and who was not. Any thoughts?

(Sorry, this has nothing to do with James White)

 

[ffg]

Having come across many Calvinists in my life and having had conversations with them, I have been asked this question-

“If God did not elect/choose certain people for Himself and leave the others to choose for themselves the outcome of Hell, then how would you explain passages of scripture where God asked Israel (His *chosen *nation) to annihilate the unbelieving enemy?”

If God is God over all mankind and has the power to do what He desires- which is for “all men to be saved”- then WHY did He command Israel to kill their enemies instead of convert them? Why did He, for example, tell Israel to destroy Jericho and kill women and children and destroy/burn everything, including animals and personal property? He did not even give the people of Jericho a chance to convert to change, to choose Him. Why did he tell Israel to stay away from the pagans who serve other gods, instead of having them “evangelize” to them? It sounds as if God was choosing who was allowed to follow Him and who was not. Any thoughts?

(Sorry, this has nothing to do with James White)

Thanks for posting. This seems like it could be very interesting.

Probably good to get the obvious out of the way. When we ask ‘Why’ obviously the best answer is from the person who did the action.

So essentially, in answering, it’s more of an analysis than a ‘this is why’ since we are not God.

At least I’m pretty sure I’m not. But I do like to analyze.

Secondly, then we have one of those situations where the answer ‘God works in mysterious ways’ is a logical one, though not so fun.

I think what you have here is a few things in play. All of the events you mention are in the OT I believe, so the dead are not in ‘Hell’ as in ‘Heaven and Hell’ since Heaven wasn’t an option yet for dead folks. ‘limbo’ is a differentiating term liked to be used to not confuse hell before Jesus to hell after Jesus.

In other words, of the ‘Final 4’ Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell. These folks didn’t have judgement yet. Why? The books for Judgement were not written yet, Jesus’ instruction (and other revealed truth, depending on timing in the OT) wasn’t revealed yet.

Another angle, is to take a step back, look at the instruction given in your post and understanding God is loving and creatures are in time, I’m not sure if it would be wholely accurate to say people didn’t have time to change. If God told ‘this’ group to do something to ‘that’ group, what may not be written because ‘that’ group ‘lost’ is how many times God might have told ‘that’ group to stop. I suppose we could consider ‘plagues’ as a message to change course.

Another way to think of this, imagine how messed up the world would be without God if the most loving thing he could do is instruct an outcome of ending people’s time on earth.

Looking forward to other’s thoughts.

Take care,

 

[Contarini]

I agree with the other poster who pointed out another option that what if what God wants to happen is for His creatures to freely utilize the gift of a free will He gave them in order to choose Him. Isn’t that another possibility that would not violate God being powerful “enough”?

The trickier question, philosophically, is about God’s knowledge. If God knows what will happen, as most Christians agree, then there are several difficult questions

1. Does this mere knowledge by itself violate free will? The strongest argument I know to that effect is by the evangelical “open theist” William Hasker. You can read it, together with an attempted refutation, here. The refutation, as you can see, argues that Hasker inappropriately makes God’s knowledge of what I will do logically prior to my choice to do it.

Two other factors play in here. The strongest response to arguments like Hasker’s is “middle knowledge.” But Hasker and other philosophers of various points of view have brought some pretty strong arguments against middle knowledge as well. The other complicating factor is God’s timelessness. Hasker doesn’t believe in that either, and in my view this is the real issue. But at any rate, all I’m saying here is that this is a very difficult question and it’s not enough simply to say “foreknowledge isn’t predestination”–one has to have some answer for the very difficult questions raised above.

1. What use is foreknowledge for issues of providence/predestination? In other words, if Hasker’s “omelet argument” is wrong, and God can know with certainty what I will do without taking away my “libertarian free will,” then it follows that God’s knowledge furnishes Him with no basis for providential action. God knows only what I will choose. God can’t possibly use that knowledge to cause me to act differently. (This, again, is a point made by Hasker–his clearest and most convincing point on this issue, in my opinion.) Middle knowledge would get us off this hook, of course, if middle knowledge is true . . .
2. Finally, the most theologically disturbing criticism of this position, made by Thomists within Catholicism and Calvinists within Protestantism, is that it makes us the causes of something in God. If God knows things because we do them, then it follows that we can in some sense change God. Hence, Thomists argue that God’s knowledge is causative. (They then have to explain how this doesn’t violate free will.)

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

The trickier question, philosophically, is about God’s knowledge. If God knows what will happen, as most Christians agree, then there are several difficult questions

1. Does this mere knowledge by itself violate free will? The strongest argument I know to that effect is by the evangelical “open theist” William Hasker. You can read it, together with an attempted refutation, here. The refutation, as you can see, argues that Hasker inappropriately makes God’s knowledge of what I will do logically prior to my choice to do it.

Two other factors play in here. The strongest response to arguments like Hasker’s is “middle knowledge.” But Hasker and other philosophers of various points of view have brought some pretty strong arguments against middle knowledge as well. The other complicating factor is God’s timelessness. Hasker doesn’t believe in that either, and in my view this is the real issue. But at any rate, all I’m saying here is that this is a very difficult question and it’s not enough simply to say “foreknowledge isn’t predestination”–one has to have some answer for the very difficult questions raised above.

1. What use is foreknowledge for issues of providence/predestination? In other words, if Hasker’s “omelet argument” is wrong, and God can know with certainty what I will do without taking away my “libertarian free will,” then it follows that God’s knowledge furnishes Him with no basis for providential action. God knows only what I will choose. God can’t possibly use that knowledge to cause me to act differently. (This, again, is a point made by Hasker–his clearest and most convincing point on this issue, in my opinion.) Middle knowledge would get us off this hook, of course, if middle knowledge is true . . .
2. Finally, the most theologically disturbing criticism of this position, made by Thomists within Catholicism and Calvinists within Protestantism, is that it makes us the causes of something in God. If God knows things because we do them, then it follows that we can in some sense change God. Hence, Thomists argue that God’s knowledge is causative. (They then have to explain how this doesn’t violate free will.)

Edwin

Is “middle knowledge” the idea that God is extra-temporal and the tapestry of time is unfolded and laid before him as a singular timeless event?

 

[Contarini]

Is “middle knowledge” the idea that God is extra-temporal and the tapestry of time is unfolded and laid before him as a singular timeless event?

No–that’s usually just referred to as “timeless knowledge.”

Middle knowledge is the view that God knows not only what happens (I use present tense because I’m assuming “timeless knowledge”) but also what would happen under specific counter-factual circumstances. It was first explicitly formulated by the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina in 1588. Biblically, the classic prooftext is 1 Samuel 23:12 (in which God tells David that if he stays in the city of Keilah and Saul attacks, the people of the city will betray him to Saul), but there are several other passages that say the same kind of thing. I don’t think middle knowledge is necessary to explain these passages (the Thomist position, which is the major alternative in classic Catholic thought, would explain them in terms of God’s knowledge being causative, but even the “simple foreknowledge” and the more clearly unorthodox “open theist” positions can deal with them in terms of God’s knowledge of the heart, I think), and I think there are some serious philosophical difficulties with middle knowledge. It’s not clear that there is anything there for God to know–technically, this is called the “grounding” problem. Ironically, given that Molina came up with this idea in order to refute what he saw as the determinism of the “Thomist” position, it’s arguably an overly deterministic position. It seems to imply that a person will inevitably do X if placed in circumstances Y–that this “would do” is a fixed reality that God can know. However, it’s a very popular view not only among Catholics but among philosophically-minded Arminian Protestants (and Arminians now make up the vast majority of Protestants). One of the major contemporary Protestant proponents is William Lane Craig.

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

No–that’s usually just referred to as “timeless knowledge.”

Middle knowledge is the view that God knows not only what happens (I use present tense because I’m assuming “timeless knowledge”) but also what would happen under specific counter-factual circumstances. It was first explicitly formulated by the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina in 1588. Biblically, the classic prooftext is 1 Samuel 23:12 (in which God tells David that if he stays in the city of Keilah and Saul attacks, the people of the city will betray him to Saul), but there are several other passages that say the same kind of thing. I don’t think middle knowledge is necessary to explain these passages (the Thomist position, which is the major alternative in classic Catholic thought, would explain them in terms of God’s knowledge being causative, but even the “simple foreknowledge” and the more clearly unorthodox “open theist” positions can deal with them in terms of God’s knowledge of the heart, I think), and I think there are some serious philosophical difficulties with middle knowledge. It’s not clear that there is anything there for God to know–technically, this is called the “grounding” problem. Ironically, given that Molina came up with this idea in order to refute what he saw as the determinism of the “Thomist” position, it’s arguably an overly deterministic position. It seems to imply that a person will inevitably do X if placed in circumstances Y–that this “would do” is a fixed reality that God can know. However, it’s a very popular view not only among Catholics but among philosophically-minded Arminian Protestants (and Arminians now make up the vast majority of Protestants). One of the major contemporary Protestant proponents is William Lane Craig.

Edwin

So why wouldn’t timeless knowledge solve all the above problems you mentioned with middle knowledge.

 

[Contarini]

So why wouldn’t timeless knowledge solve all the above problems you mentioned with middle knowledge.

Because timeless knowledge still only knows what exists–what, from our perspective, has existed or does now exist or will exist. Things that will never happen but could have happened do not come under timeless knowledge. From the perspective of timeless knowledge, things in the past and future are real. But things that never will happen are not real.

The main objection to timeless knowledge is that it takes away free will, but as I said above I think that’s complicated and may result from the critics of timeless knowledge (like Hasker) applying to it categories that don’t legitimately apply. My fundamental problem with the “open theists” like Hasker is that they think of God too anthropomorphically and don’t have any patience for mystery and paradox. But there certainly are mysteries and paradoxes and difficulties to timeless knowledge.

Edwin

 

[MarcoPolo]

Because timeless knowledge still only knows what exists–what, from our perspective, has existed or does now exist or will exist. Things that will never happen but could have happened do not come under timeless knowledge. From the perspective of timeless knowledge, things in the past and future are real. But things that never will happen are not real.

The main objection to timeless knowledge is that it takes away free will, but as I said above I think that’s complicated and may result from the critics of timeless knowledge (like Hasker) applying to it categories that don’t legitimately apply. My fundamental problem with the “open theists” like Hasker is that they think of God too anthropomorphically and don’t have any patience for mystery and paradox. But there certainly are mysteries and paradoxes and difficulties to timeless knowledge.

Edwin

I think I follow, but when you throw in names of various theologians as a description of certain arguments, my understanding is incomplete, because I’m really not familiar with their arguments. I am close to completing my master’s in theology now, but I have never gotten too deep into academician’s language or name references.

I don’t see a problem with timeless knowledge or any divine knowledge of God’s necessarily. I also don’t see a problem anyone’s free will violating any knowledge of God’s. And I don’t see it being a problem if we cannot explain the “mechanics” of how this might be so, because we are trying to explain a divine mystery for which we have no precedent in the terrestrial arena. If we simply say God has total sovereignty and we have free wills and neither violates the other, then that is our doctrine. If that is a mystery, then it’s a mystery. Right? We go by what is revealed.

 

[ephesians2]

Quoted from ffg’s post- (I need to learn how to multi-quote)

Secondly, then we have one of those situations where the answer ‘God works in mysterious ways’ is a logical one, though not so fun.

But very rational.

I think what you have here is a few things in play. All of the events you mention are in the OT I believe, so the dead are not in ‘Hell’ as in ‘Heaven and Hell’ since Heaven wasn’t an option yet for dead folks. ‘limbo’ is a differentiating term liked to be used to not confuse hell before Jesus to hell after Jesus.

What are your thoughts on Cain and those God destroyed in the flood and stories of the like?

In other words, of the ‘Final 4’ Death, Judgement, Heaven, Hell. These folks didn’t have judgement yet. Why? The books for Judgement were not written yet, Jesus’ instruction (and other revealed truth, depending on timing in the OT) wasn’t revealed yet.

There was a system of sacrifice put in place after the Fall. Was it just for an offering of Thanksgiving and Worship? Thoughts?

Another angle, is to take a step back, look at the instruction given in your post and understanding God is loving and creatures are in time, I’m not sure if it would be wholely accurate to say people didn’t have time to change. If God told ‘this’ group to do something to ‘that’ group, what may not be written because ‘that’ group ‘lost’ is how many times God might have told ‘that’ group to stop. I suppose we could consider ‘plagues’ as a message to change course.

God was also Holy and Just and many times practiced swift judgments and annihilation whether it was on the pagan countries or even those of His own people.

Another way to think of this, imagine how messed up the world would be without God if the most loving thing he could do is instruct an outcome of ending people’s time on earth.

I believe God does do this. Otherwise people would live forever (Sorry, I’m not sure I understood your statement ).

 

[ffg]

Quoted from ffg’s post- (I need to learn how to multi-quote)

I believe God does do this. Otherwise people would live forever (Sorry, I’m not sure I understood your statement ).

Thanks for the response, I cut it down here to save space.

I think “not seeing the forest through the trees” works here.

We could walk through every instance where perception is an exception to a rule and try and hack away at the foundation of the rule through those percieved exceptions.

Or we could understand the scope, nature and source of the rule.

For instance, if we can understand we are sinners, we should be able to conclude that we don’t want God to work justly with us because that would conclude in certain eternal death.

We need mercy to live (with God) forever because of our nature as sinners.

In order to be granted mercy, we must show we can do so - ‘forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us’.

If we don’t show that we are merciful to others, God will surely be just. It will not be pretty.