CalvinDude.com

I just got back from a week-long conference (well, just under a week-long). But I see that William Birch has responded to my previous post. He actually misunderstood it exactly the way I had foreseen he would :-D

Birch writes:

But inherent in Peter’s confession here are at least two significations: 1) there is an admission that Calvinism must be taught; i.e., Calvinism is not the result of a plain reading of the text; and 2) Calvinism has a tendency to breed Gnostic proclivities in its adherents.

First off, the Gnostic comment is not only false, but inflammatorily so. Birch knows that to accuse a Christian of “Gnostic proclivities” is a strong charge, and needs to be strongly demonstrated. Am I to conclude that when he reads Deuteronomy 29:29, he concludes Moses was a Gnostic?

But that well-poisoning he has committed is irrelevant. My comment in no way is an “admission that Calvinism must be taught” – at least, not any more so than any other theology (see Romans 10, specifically verse 17). Rather, as I stated, my point was a response to the ridiculous claim that members of SEA have made, and which Birch continues to repeat, that one naturally reads Arminianism in the Bible.

(By the way, it really does annoy me that Birch and company seem to think that Christians are magically enabled to understand Scripture instantly without putting forth any study into it, and completely ignoring the rich history of Christian thought throughout the ages. I in no way deny the perspicuity of Scripture here, but the reality is that the Bible is a book and it takes thought to understand the passages presented. No one should doubt that the Ethiopian eunuch was an intelligent man—for he was literate in a time when most people were not, and was also a court official—yet he said to Philip, “How can I understand [Isaiah] unless someone explains it to me?” Furthermore, teaching is a gift of the Spirit. Not all are able to rightly divide the Word of truth. That Scripture is clear enough for any who hears it to be saved does not mean that it is clear enough for everyone who hears it to be Billy Graham, R.C. Sproul, Billy Birch, or James White. But enough of this tangent.)

I fear that Birch is in a bit of a bubble here, as are (sadly) most of the people I’ve interacted with at SEA. Because they are in an Arminian bubble, they view the world through their Arminian lenses. It is natural that they would believe the Bible teaches Arminianism, since they believe that to be the case. Yet, I’ve talked to several people (including on this conference I just attended), and the fact of the matter is that the average Christian does not find Arminianism in the Bible. Instead, what he finds can be summed up this way (to paraphrase my roommate at this convention): “I don’t know what I believe. I read passages on predestination and I start going, well, yeah, it’s in there. Then I read, ‘Whosoever will’ and swing back the other way. I just don’t know which way to go half the time.”

If Birch’s claim is even accurate (BTW: he asked me for my numbers when I was relating my anecdotal evidence to him; but I was responding to his anecdote, and he needs to bring forth some numbers showing all these supposed new Christians who immediately spout Arminianism), it is because A) most Christians haven’t read anything other than what has been cherry-picked for them to read by their pastor; B) they lack the context to understand Scripture.

I think it truly telling that the less Biblical knowledge that the average Christian has, as can be demonstrated from any Pew Poll you’d like to look at comparing Christians today with Christians 100 years ago, the smaller the Reformed movement gets per capita. You never find ignorant Christians creating something like Reformed theology. You find them creating emergent churches that worship free will, they start to deny the existence and reality of hell, they begin to doubt sin is real, etc. Nowhere do ignorant Christians manufacture Reformation theology.

In any case, I will have more to say later, but for now it’s time to wind down from my trip.

Earlier this morning, I found out that Michael Sudduth has renounced Christianity in favor of Hinduism. Sudduth was a Reformed philosopher. I did not know him personally, nor have I interacted much with him—if I have, it would have only been through a comment or two on Triablogue. As such, I won’t say much about his renunciation in particular.

It does bring to mind other conversions, however. I have read comments from some of the Arminians at SEA who have said that any new convert to Christianity who reads the Bible will automatically find Arminianism. Arminianism can be read in Scripture, they say, while Calvinism must be taught. (I would counter by asking why it is that we trust those who are least experienced in Christ, who have followed Him for only a short time and who have not developed a long relationship with Him, would have some kind of inside knowledge about Him that those who have travelled the path of sanctification for many years would somehow lack. That is, why trust the immature Christian to show us the truth as opposed to the elders in the Lord?)

The direction of conversion is fairly one-sided when it comes to Calvinists and Arminians. I can think of countless individuals who have converted from Arminianism to become Calvinists—indeed, I am one such individual myself. However, I only personally know one (Billy Birch) and can only think of just a few others, such as Clark Pinnock, who have gone from Calvinism to Arminianism (and Pinnock doesn’t really fit, since he then continued on far to the left of Arminianism, embracing Open Theism). This is not to say that I don’t know of some former Calvinists; just that Calvinists do not tend to convert to Arminianism. Instead, the former Calvinists who I know (other than Birch) are now almost all atheists, with a liberal Metropolitan Church goer (having embraced homosexuality), two Roman Catholics (a married couple), and now, with Dr. Sudduth, a Hindu too.

Now, I’m sure that part of this is due to the circles I run in. I know more Calvinists to begin with, so I’m sure some such as Billy Birch would know of more former Calvinists who are now Arminian. Yet it still strikes me that even Arminians would acknowledge that there are far more former-Arminian Calvinists around than former-Calvinist Arminians. And this would seem, to me, an indication of the direction of sanctification in the lives of a believer toward the Reformed position as one matures in Christ.

In what may seem to be a bit paradoxical, I also think this shows the truth of the Reformed position in the fact that former Calvinists so often will renounce Christianity altogether. After all, consider the following passage:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Calvinism is Christianity. If I did not believe that, I would not be a Calvinist. This is not to say that Arminians are not Christians, however. Rather, I hold that Calvinism is simply a more consistent form of Christianity. If Arminians will grant me that (arguendo), consider this:

1. Calvinism is a more consistent form of Christianity.
2. Those who reject the more consistent form a Christianity have nowhere more consistent within Christianity to go toward.
3. Therefore, it is more likely that to reject the more consistent form of Christianity, one will reject Christianity as a whole.

This does seem, at least to me, to make sense. To abandon the more consistent form of Christianity results in the desire to abandon Christianity as a whole. One would not logically expect many to step back to a more inconsistent form of Christianity if they have trouble with Christian beliefs. And if you couple this with the belief that Christian sanctification will result in Christians becoming more consistent, we have two facts that seem to lead inexorably (or, dare I say, irresistibly) toward Calvinism.

1. More Arminians become Calvinists than vice versa, indicating the flow of sanctification.
2. More former Calvinists reject Christianity completely than convert to a different form of Christianity, indicating that Calvinism is the more consistent version of Christianity.

While the above is certainly not ironclad, relying on concepts that seem to be most plausible rather than formal logic, I think it ought to give food for thought to the Arminian. I would be quite interested in what the Arminian thinks of deconversions from Christianity.

You might be able to chalk this up to the category of “Stuff No One Else Thinks About” but I had an interesting thought regarding Scripture and the way that God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind. It’s something that may or may not have any practical implications to our theology, but there are a few certain things about revelation that could make one pause (depending on one’s starting paradigm).

For instance, have you ever wondered why it took God “so long” (in human terms) to fully reveal who Christ was? That is, it’s generally accepted among Evangelicals that the first promise of Christ is found in Genesis 3, where God promises Eve that she will bear a Seed who will crush the serpent’s head (it is also promised that this Seed would be struck on the heel). Yet while that promise was immediately given after the Fall, it took several thousand years before Christ actually appeared on Earth to fulfill that promise.

Or consider the fact that Scripture was revealed in piecemeal over those thousands of years. God gave oblique references to Christ in prophetic passages that are sometimes difficult to understand even as we look back upon them now, rather than giving straightforward statements about who Christ is and what the nature of salvation would be. Indeed, it’s almost like God was intentionally obfuscating His message before the appearance of Christ.

Finally, consider also the order in which God revealed facts to us. Most simply, you can think of just the fact that the Old Testament came before the New Testament—and that the last of the Old Testament was penned about a half millennium before the New. Think about what information was given then, and what was withheld, in comparison to the New Testament. And further consider which books of the Old Testament preceded the other books. It’s possible that Job was the first book of the Bible to actually be penned (some speculate that Moses wrote it before he wrote the Pentateuch), but surely the first five books preceded the rest of the historical books. And the events described in them show the progressive nature of God’s revelation.

So with all that in mind, the natural question is: why? Why did God choose to reveal Himself in this manner? It certainly is difficult to square this slow, plodding type of revelation with many current concepts of Who God is, especially with those concepts that say God seeks to save as many people as possible. After all, why is that God, if He sought to be known by as many people as possible that as many as could possibly believe would believe—why would He reveal Himself to such a small, insignificant group of people as the Israelites, and why only a little bit at a time over so many hundreds of years?

See, I do not believe that God does anything by accident. There must be a good reason for Him to do everything He does. And while these questions about the nature of how God revealed Himself by no means serve as nails in the coffin of Arminian beliefs, they certainly function as a stone in the Arminian shoe, keeping one from being comfortable accepting Arminian presuppositions in other places. It is relatively easy for me to come up with Reformed reasons for why God reveals Himself in this manner and in this fashion, yet I cannot think of Arminian reasons for it. Although I know at least a few Arminians read this blog, and they can feel free giving me their thoughts.

HT: Patrick Chan

A belief popular amongst some philosophers, especially in the Molinist camp, is the idea of Trans-World Depravity. Put very simplistically, TWD is the idea that if agents have libertarian freedom, then there is no possible world in which there will not be at least one free agent who chooses to sin. This is usually brought forth in theological arguments between Molinists and Calvinists, but is also used a great deal in Arminian theodicies.

I believe that the idea of Trans-World Depravity actually may work very well to help neutralize moral arguments Arminians use against Calvinism, when one couples the existence of TWD with the effects of Total Depravity and study the effects of what it means in terms of God foreordaining evil. Since these are all big subjects, I will take a few moments to unwrap what I am saying here.

(As a side note, I’ve been thinking about some of this for many years—specifically a variation of the concept of TWD—although I only recently was able to sit down and put through my first attempt at a cohesive concept when responding to William Birch on his blog. Sadly, the comments were closed before I could get very deep into it, which is why I’m writing this blog post now.)

First, let’s look a bit more into at least one concept of TWD. I propose, for the sake of argument, that it is impossible for a free agent, who has libertarian free will, to continue in that state indefinitely. For a brief explanation of what that is the case, let us suppose the usual concepts of freedom of the will involved. An agent is presented with a choice to either sin or not sin. And let us presume that the moral agent is upright and righteous, but yet still retains a non-zero chance of choosing evil for all the classical reasons non-Calvinists give (e.g., “It’s not true freedom unless there’s some risk that the agent chooses what you do not wish him to choose”, which is a paraphrase of an argument I read from C.S. Lewis in the notes of an old Study Bible).

So we have a free agent with a non-zero chance of choosing to do evil. Now, this non-zero chance can be very, very low. Let us say that it’s extremely low. Suppose only one chance in a billion. However, the kicker is this: the moral agent is not making just one choice.

Consider the Garden of Eden. Adam was told not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was a standing order. That means that Adam had to continually follow it. If there was ever a time when Adam broke that command, then he would be a sinner. So this means that each time he’s presented with a choice, he has a one-in-a-billion chance that he will sin, according to how it’s been set up. The longer Adam is in Eden, the more likely it becomes that Adam will actually sin, to the point that given a long enough timeline it becomes a guarantee that Adam will sin.

Even with odds such as one in a billion, since Adam would not die and since the command would presumably never be revoked, then the mere existence of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil guarantees man will fall into sin, even on Molinist/Arminian grounds.

Let us now couple that with the effects of Total Depravity. As Classical Arminians, such as William Birch, are quick to point out, Arminians also believe in Total Depravity of the same kind that Calvinists do. Once Adam sinned, all men are born depraved as a result of Original Sin. However, Arminians usually posit some form of prevenient grace, whereas Calvinists speak of common grace. The idea is that God’s grace must be granted toward the sinner—even to sinners who do not turn to Christ—in order to keep the sinner from being as evil as he or she would have been without that grace.

So let us stick with this concept of depravity—as I said, one that both Arminians and Calvinists can agree on since we’re not talking about how one becomes saved. The result is this: we are depraved and corrupted in all our ways, but God’s grace keeps us from being as evil as we otherwise would be. God’s grace serves as a buffer to keep us more righteous than we otherwise would be, even for the non-believer.

Under this view, what is hardening (such as when God hardens Pharaoh’s heart)? It is the removal of that grace, such that the depravity shows all the more obviously. Again, Arminians and Calvinists will agree that God did not make Pharaoh sin when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Rather, Pharaoh did not deserve the grace of God and God chose to remove that grace, and the result was that Pharaoh’s true evil nature was unrestrained and ran rampant. The same thing can be seen in passages such as Romans 1, where Paul writes that God gives over sinful men to the lusts of their flesh. That is, He removes the restraining grace and allows them to fall deeper into sin.

Now, if both of these concepts are true—if it is the case that it is impossible for a moral agent who has a non-zero chance of sinning in any given choice meaning the necessity of Trans-World Depravity; and if the penalty for sin is that one’s offspring are born depraved such that they need the grace of God to be less evil than they would have been—then at this point, there is no longer any basis to say that God is committing evil when He foreordains sin in the world.

Consider the following example. Let us stipulate an arbitrary scale, that 100 is the maximum amount of evil that any given person could do. Let us further suppose that, given depravity, we would all be sinners at 100 Evil on the scale. That would be absolutely ruinous—in fact, that is where sinners end up in hell when God removes all His grace completely from them.

Now given the depths of evil that 100 would be, it’s quite likely that the absolute worst person on Earth was really only something like a 10 on the Evil scale, but let’s make it a bit more drastic. Let’s put Hitler at 75 on the scale. Finally, let us stipulate that God foreordained that Hitler would be a 75 on the Evil scale.

What are the ramifications of that? Arminians are quick to say that Calvinism has God forcing Hitler to commit sin to be at that 75. But that is to ignore the reality of depravity. God is not forcing Hitler up to 75 Evil; He is forcing Hitler DOWN to 75 Evil from 100 Evil. In other words, God is actively ensuring that His will be done, yes, but He is doing so in a way that is preventing more evil from occurring. In other words, by God foreordaining that Hitler would be a 75 Evil, He is keeping Hitler from being a 100 Evil. Yet, because most of us are higher on the scale, and because we assume that where we’re at is the status quo, it is easy for us to say that God is forcing Hitler to be more evil than Hitler would have been. The reality is the opposite. God is forcing us to be less evil than we would have been, and He is not forcing Hitler as much.

TWD and Depravity combine to take away any reasonable argument that Arminians have that the Calvinist God is forcing anyone to do evil, even when God foreordains sin. Because we would be maximally evil if we could be, and because it is necessary that morally free agents will sin, then any act we do less than 100 Evil has been tempered by undeserved grace.

To consider an analogy, look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is a necessary feature of physics. In closed systems, entropy will necessarily increase. I maintain that it is not only possible, but certain that this type of thing is true of righteousness too. That is, without God actively and constantly exerting His own power to grant grace, any agent will necessarily fall. Therefore, just as it is impossible for God to make a square circle, I maintain that it is impossible for God to make any moral being who could stand righteously on his or her own power. Therefore, God could allow Adam to make any decision within Adam’s power, and the determined result would still be sin, and this would be no more unrighteous for God than it is for God to now withhold grace and harden sinners, as we know He does in Scripture.

Some Arminians I know have put forth the proposition that love, in order to be genuine, must be free. This linking of freedom and love immediately opens up two different conundrums. On the one hand, if love is free then it cannot be immoral not to love. Secondly, if love is free, one cannot be commanded to love.

Let’s see how that is the case.

Hypothesis:
1. It is not immoral for God to not love all.
2. If love is free, it cannot be commanded.

Definitions:
1. A moral good is doing what ought to be done.
2. A moral evil is doing what ought not to be done.
3. An amoral action is an action that is neither a moral good nor a moral evil.
4. An immoral action is equivalent to a moral evil.
5. Perfectly good beings always do a moral good action.
6. Perfectly good beings never do an immoral action.
7. Perfectly good beings have freedom to either do or not do an amoral action.
8. A free action is something that one is not compelled to do.
9. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action.
10. Commands ought to be done.

Starting Premises:
1. God is a perfectly good being.
2. Love is a free action.
3. All actions are one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral.

Argument:
1. God is a perfectly good being (Premise 1).
2. A perfectly good being always does a moral good action (Definition 5).
3. Therefore, God always does a moral good action.

4. God is a perfectly good being (P1).
5. A perfectly good being never does an immoral action. (D6).
6. Therefore, God never does an immoral action.

7. God is a perfectly good being (P1).
8. A perfectly good being has freedom to either do or not do an amoral action (D7).
9. Therefore, God has freedom to either do or not do an amoral action.

10. Love is a free action (P2).
11. A free action is something that one is not compelled to do (D8).
12. Therefore, love is an action that one is not compelled to do.

13. A moral good is doing what ought to be done (D1).
14. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action (D9).
15. Therefore, one is morally compelled to do a morally good action.

16. A moral evil is doing what ought not to be done (D2).
17. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action (D9).
18. Therefore, one is morally compelled not to do a moral evil (i.e. immoral (D4)) action.

19. An amoral action is an action that is neither a moral good nor a moral evil (D3).
20. There is no “Ought” in amoral actions (Extrapolated from D3).
21. Therefore, one is not morally compelled either way regarding amoral actions.

22. One is not morally compelled either way regarding amoral actions (21).
23. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
24. Therefore, amoral actions are free actions.

25. One is morally compelled to do a morally good action (15).
26. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
27. Therefore, morally good actions are not free actions.

28. One is morally compelled not to do a moral evil (18).
29. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
30. Therefore, immoral actions are not free actions.

31. All actions are one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral (P3).
32. Love is an action (from P2).
33. Love is one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral.

34. Love is a free action (P2)
35. Morally good actions are not free actions (27).
36. Therefore, love is not a morally good action.

37. Love is a free action (P2)
38. Immoral actions are not free actions (30).
39. Therefore, love is not an immoral action.

40. Love must be either moral, immoral, or amoral in its action (restating of 33).
41. Love is not a morally good action (36).
42. Love is not an immoral action (39).
43. Therefore, love is an amoral action.

44. God has freedom to either do or not do an amoral action (9)
45. Love is an amoral action (43).
46. Therefore, God has freedom to either love or not love.

Let us add a supposition now.

Supposition 1: God does not love all.

47. God does not love all (S1).
48. All actions are one, and only one, of the following: moral, immoral, or amoral (P3).
49. Love is an amoral action (43).
50. Therefore, it is not immoral for God to not love all.

PROVEN: Hypothesis 1—It is not immoral for God to not love all.

More simply now:

51. Commands ought to be done (D10).
52. “Ought” means one is morally compelled regarding the action (D9).
53. Therefore, commands are morally compelling.

54. A free action is something one is not compelled to do (D8).
55. Commands are morally compelling (53).
56. Therefore, commands are not free.

57. Love is a free action (P2).
58. Commands are not free (56).
59. Therefore, love cannot be commanded.

PROVEN: Hypothesis 2—If love is free, it cannot be commanded.

The implications from this will be in a future post.

I have recently been brushing up on my Koine Greek, and part of the process I use in addition to learning vocabulary words by rote is to read an interlinear New Testament. I think this is useful as it gives real world examples of how Koine writers structured their sentences.

Today, I read through John 12, and an interesting fact struck me about verse 32. Arminians often point to John 12:32 to counter Calvinistic claims from John 6:44. That passage states the no one comes to Christ unless drawn by the Father. John 12:32 records Christ’s words where He states that when He is lifted up (a reference to His death by crucifixion) He will draw all men to Himself. Arminians argue on this basis that while it is true that no one can come to the Father without being drawn, all will be drawn.

The first interesting point, which is not an essential point but is still worth noting, is that nowhere does John 12:32 say that Christ will draw all men. In fact, the Greek word is simply “all” with no noun attached. Literally, the passage reads: “And I, if I am lifted up from the Earth, I will draw all to myself.” This leads some interpreters to conclude that it’s better to translate the passage as “I will draw all things to myself” rather than “all men.”

But the second point is far more profound and relevant. Often Calvinists respond to an Arminian quoting John 12 by pointing out that the context of John 12 is irrelevant to the context of John 6. Nowhere is that more plain than by this simple point: John 6:44 begins (literal translation): “No one is able to come to me unless the Father having sent me should draw him.” Therefore, the one doing the drawing in John 6 is the Father. Yet Jesus, in John 12:32, states that Jesus is the one who is doing the drawing: “I will draw all to myself.” These are clearly two different instances of drawings, regardless of who (or what) is being drawn.

I’ve been reading some works on translations and language by Moisés Silva. He mentioned that his native tongue is Spanish, and a quick Google search shows me he was born in Cuba. What is interesting is that while English is not his native language, he writes so well in English that it makes me turn a bit green with envy!

Plus he’s got good theology to boot, seeing as how he’s OPC (it’s what PCA Presbyterians would be if we stopped drinking alcohol and joined the Only Perfect Church…).

In any case, I definitely recommend him. He’s scholarly, but easy to read and great with language all around!

In the comments of my original post on Heaven’s Gate, Charles Sebold asked which documentary I had seen. I intended to respond earlier, but since I didn’t get around to it, I figured a new post might be better since others are probably interested too. You can actually watch the video on YouTube right now. The first segment is located here.

“If you program a computer to spit out the phrase, ‘I love you’ whenever you execute the program, you know that that is not genuine love. In the same way, if God ‘programs’ someone to love Him, that’s not genuine love either.”

The above statement is a paraphrase of an analogy I’ve heard multiple times from various Arminians over the years. The assumption the illustration makes is that the reason we say that a computer program outputting “I love you” is not genuine love is because love must come from somewhere other than a program. That is, the assumption being made by the Arminian is that the reason

print "I love you";

is not love is because the program is not free, but is rather determined.

But that’s NOT the reason that we think programming

print "I love you";

is not a demonstration of love. We think it’s not a demonstration of love because the statement “I love you” being output to the screen is not an indication of emotion at all. The program that outputs “I love you” to the screen has no emotional content whatsoever, but rather it is simply echoing back what is put into it.

In other words, it would be like saying, “A reflection in the mirror does not have genuine love because it is not free, but can only reflect what’s in front of it.” No, the reason the reflection does not have genuine love is because all it is, is the reflection of light off another object. It has no will, no brain, no emotions, no soul, nothing.

So what happens if we change the original illustration a bit? “If you could program a computer to have genuine emotions–assuming, of course, that emotions can be created from a materialistic view–then the computer, having that emotion programmed into it, writes, ‘I love you’, is that genuine love?” Phrased in that manner, we see that the question is meaningless. There are only a few limited options available. The Arminian can claim that under the theory that we can actually program emotions in an inanimate object, then programming the emotion is not a genuine emotion because it’s not free–but such is to beg the question about whether genuineness is related to freedom in the first place (i.e., the question is therefore based on a fallacy). The Arminian can also accept that under the theory that we can actually program emotions, the computer experiences genuine emotions and therefore his argument is self-refuting. Or, the Arminian can claim that we can never program a computer to experience emotions in the first place, in which case he admits that his original question is comparing apples to oranges.