Some have commented that the most absurd thing about monergism and/or Calvinism is that God would predestine something like the Holocaust. I disagree. They seem to offer a pretty straightforward answer to that one. Something along the lines about needing to display all His attributes including wrath for all eternity, or maybe that in a beautiful picture depicting nature there are still ugly shades of brown or I’ve even heard that a surgeon needs to cut people in order to cure them. Take your pick they’ve got a five minute solution for that one. I think the most absurd thing God has done if it true is to first, predestine that He would reveal Calvinism as reality and secondly, predestine Arminians or Open Theist for that matter. Think about it. If Calvinism is true for some reason God has predestined me to write this on my blog right now, with the assumption that I’m doing it with my own will. Why would He be doing this? And why would He have just predestined me to ask that and why….and you get the picture. It is just absurd. If it is true He should have just kept it a secret. At least than experience would match reality. There would be some sort of existential fit to my experience.
I understand Paul Helm when he says that I choose according to my greatest desire, but come on, who really thinks that there is no possible way they could be doing other than what they are right this instant. Every decision I face is a decision precisely because I can choose to do other than what I actually do end up doing.
O.K. enough about libertarian freedom though.
On a different note. Let me tell you about how much I like UBC. People we spend the most time with Dugans(UBC). One of the biggest highlights of my week, ANKC(UBC). My favorite lunch days, Monday and Friday because I eat with Shea, Poala, John and sometimes Alberto (UBC). I see more friend on Sunday morning than I do on Saturday night. Why? (UBC) Most of my internet time and thus a good majority of my day…blogs and discussion boards both pertaining to (UBC). I also have made this observation. My church is the only place I can wear my beer shirt. Seminary wouldn’t do anything about it because they can’t, but people would be offended. And I’m prohibited from wearing it on Baylor’s campus as an employee. UBC is the one place I can be fully me. I can use my kind of humor, be honest about what I like to drink, swear occasionally, and have conversations that do more for my faith than my masters degree does.
Now for my disclaimer. If you happen to a Calvinist and stumble upon this post…please don’t comment unless you are from UBC. Even if your thinking to yourself, “yeah, but I have something to say that will totally prove him wrong,” or “yeah, but you didn’t say that correctly, actually…” that’s nice, but post on your own blog and put a link to mine so people can see what your responding to. It’s not that I don’t respect you or think I don’t have anything learn from you…it’s just that I lived with Jonathan Edwards my junior year and John Piper my senior year so I know enough to know your comment won’t blow me out of the water. And if you’re still really pissed, just remember, according to you, I wrote exactly what I was going to write from before the foundations of the earth. Maybe this is your chance to refrain. Maybe God’s predestined this moment to develop some patience in you.
My second disclaimer. I realize at this point I might be sounding a bit elitist with the whole UBC thing. Well pray for me then damn it! And quit judging me, Mr. Plank in your own eye.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
ok. question. any chance there are things you don't like about UBC? or want to change about UBC? jw. (and I can ask that cause I go to UBC right? :)
Carney...lunches on Mondays and Fridays and even today Wednesday...are definitely one of my favorite parts of the week!
I got a kick out of your blog...Love it!!!!!
AND UBC ROCKS!
Lauren,
1. none of the musicians are any good.
2. the community pastor is a litter bug and too politically conservative.
3. the church is a bit to the right theologically for my taste.
4. I think our annual budget is self indulgent and way too big!
5. I don't like all the old people that attend not to mention I think our church is overly diversified age wise
6. but the thing I hate the most is that the Sunday school teachers never know what they are talking about
o.k. on a more serious note. No church is perfect. I'll take a day to think about it and get back to you
hehehe. fair enough :) I'll be holding my breath in anticipation... well, maybe. :) jk. ten un buen dia y ten gozo!!
Yep. Way too many friggin' ole' people - they should make everyone fill out an application for entrance - AND, what's up with the sunday school teachers NEVER knowing anything....and NEVER answering one damn burning question? geesh!!!! It's like, "uh, well, uh, that's a good question and uh, well, uh, anybody...anybody...Buehler....Ferris Buehler...uh, well, uh..........
Hey man,
First let me say that I don't know you and you don't know me. I don't know what you really know about philosophy and theology or what you don't. But I will say that if you could destroy the philosophical underpinnings of Calvinism (a system, mind you, that has been in place since Augustine) in just two paragraphs then why would anyone want to hold to such. And I don't mean stupid guys like me -- I mean real thinkers like Cornelius VanTil and Greg Bahnsen, and Jonathan Edwards, and BB Warfield, and yes, even Paul Helm?
I think 2 things are important that you have seemed to miss.
1. Predestination is not fatalism. You have made God predestining all things into fatalism. Simply because God directs all things doesn't mean He doesn't use our wills to accomplish that. Remmeber that He is functioning from a complete knowledge of our hearts and minds. He doesn't have to guess what will happen when we get a day off or when we meet a beautiful women while we are single. And the universe is such that God is never surprised.
One thing that the open theists got right was that they understood the grounding principle, which is that if God knows the future perfectly, then what He knows cannot be changed. So either God fatalistically causes all things to happen (like how you see predestination), He brings all things to happen perfectly as He desire like the Calvinist believes, or He really doesn't know what is going to happen like the Open Theist says. There seems to be very little middle ground.
2. No one came to Calvinism through philosophy. No one said, "you know, there must be predestination because I really don't feel I have a choice." No, people are pursuaded by the Bible, by texts like John 6 that make very little sense any other way. They are pursuaded by an understanding of their own depravity, knowing that they would never have chosen God otherwise, and when they see this God of grace telling us that He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world and He works everything out according to the counsel of His will, it becomes evident that there is nothing inside of us that would draw us to Christ -- it must only be the Spirit of God bringing about the decrees of God. Then we know that we can never brag or boast that we chose Christ, but rather we boast in Him and what He has done.
Keep reading Helm though, and maybe some John Piper (I heard that musician guy over at UBC, what's his name, the one with the crazy hair, Crower* or something, anyway, he likes him a lot -- so maybe give him a shot).
Soli Deo Gloria,
D.R.
*note, bad joke here, I really do know his name
Dan the Man,
Well my first question is, did you read the disclaimer? Nonetheless you seem like an o.k. guy. As much as I'm tempted just to not respond, I've decided I owe it to you to give a few thoughts.
First,
VanTil- I think his Presuppositional approach to evangelism is naive
Bahnsen- I don't know anything about
Edwards- Certainly brilliant and as past posts show I think the world of his trinity model, though I disagree with much else of what he says
Warfield- theologically astute, again I disagree
Helm- Probably the figure I have most respect for on the Calvinist side of things. One of the few who actually engages Arminians from a truly philosophical perspective.
Second,
True a system that has been around since Aug-Dawg, but not before. No one I have ever read has tried to argue that, freedom talked about by the church fathers, is compatible freedom. Though I do not consider this a good argument for or against something.
Third,
I just re-read my post and I guess I don't really see the attempt to destroy the "philosophical underpinnings of a system" that has been around since Augustine. Yes, I made use of some sarcasm that presupposes the existential perception of libertarian freedom, but I don't think I have attempted what you suggest.
Fourth,
Well, again I don't remember saying that Predestination equals fatalism. I do think Helm's answer of God "rendering circumstances certain through secondary causes" is a semantic trick that means God causes all things. I know that you guys like to be real particular about the way you word this one, so I'm sure you'll point out exactly how it needs to be understood.
Fifth,
"Remember that He is functioning from a complete knowledge of our hearts and minds." Well I'm not sure what is meant here. I'm guessing that subscribe to exhaustive definite foreknowledge, no check that statement, I know that is what you do mean. Well, here I'll just say I disagree. In following Boyd, I think the Bible has a motif of future determinism and a motif of future openness. I think God has perfect present knowledge, and knowledge of the future based on perfectly solidified character choices, what natural circumstances has rendered certain and by what He, Himself has decided what He will do in the future. I don't think the reformed tradition takes seriously the problem presented by the passages in the subjunctive mood nor God's counterfactual language. And if you respond to this, please avoid the anthropomorphism discussion. I’ve read Beyond the Bound, God's Lesser Glory etc. If you have something new to add then great.
Sixth,
Grounding Objection...
true we do agree.
What is the explanatory difference between "causes all things to happen" and "He brings all things to happen perfectly as He desire"
Technical correction on your definition of Open Theist.
False statement.
God does not know the future
True statement.
Given the definition of omniscience "God knows all that can be known"
God knows all that can be known. So in so far as the future exists, i.e. been ontologically solidified by a causal force, then it is known by God. Open Theism makes a statement about the future not about God's knowledge.
Seventh,
I agree that Calvin and others didn't come by Calvinism for the reasons in my post.
You argue that they came by it through the Bible. I couldn't whole-heartedly agree more. I just think that they have a poor hermeneutic, and don't offer sufficient answers in response to some of the objections.
Soteriologically speaking, and this seems to be where the major concern of predestination comes in right, I don't see a big difference between Arminius and Calvin. It's just that Arminius thought that the whole irresistible grace thing was a cog in the wheel. I'm not real sure I see limited atonement in the Bible, and I've been to Piper's TULIP conference.
The whole, "from every nation" answer is a bit shaky in my opinion.
Eighth,
I will keep reading Helm. Probably not Piper though. I lost a lot of respect for him during the four years I lived in Minneapolis, due to the way he treated some people that he debated and thus disagreed with. Even if Arminianism/Open theism is wrong, I think there is a way to disagree with people that reflects Christ's love.
have a good one and good luck finding a ministry position that will fit you. You seem like a guy who cares and in my opinion that will count for more than all our theology.
I'm witya Blair- What just happened? yabbidyabbidyabbidyibbiddyibbidyabbidy.....
Is this a good time to ask him if I'm going to hell for cussin'?
First, let me apologize for not reading your entire post. I already know at least one person who goes to your church and I have heard enough from reading her blog that I didn't care to finish reading yours. But I almost didn't post anyway, but since you are a seminary student at Truett, I figured I would (knowing that you probably only hear one side there).
I am not going to respond to everything you said (suffice to say I disagree with much of it and have to fight my desire to respond) mainly because I think your tendency towards open theism is enough for me to discount much of what you said, not because I don't respect you (which I do), but because I don't respect a system that I feel is so absolutely unBiblical. And yes, I've read Boyd, I've read Sanders, and I've read Pinnock. And all of them start not with the Bible, but with philosophy and a desire to maintain their libertarian free will and then they go to the Bible, still avoiding much of the plain wording despite their over-literalization of other passages. I will stick to the Bible and since it is likely that you reject the historical-grammatical hermeutic in favor of a post-modern one, then I don't imagine we are going to be able to discuss much.
But thanks for responding and I am glad to hear that you are so happy with your church. May God sanctify you there as you help others to be sanctified for His glory.
Dan the man,
"But I almost didn't post anyway, but since you are a seminary student at Truett, I figured I would (knowing that you probably only hear one side there)"
Is that what your chums Patterson and Mohler tell the rest of the good crew in the good ole' SBC. I suppose I would to well to attend a God-honoring seminary like one of the big six. Maybe like southern in Louisville. Well if I wanted my academic credentials to mean something only there, then I might.
Truth be told, as someone who grew up outside of the south and thus Baptist life I am humored by how seriously the SBC takes itself. I often here people refer to Truett as liberal. Liberal, are you kidding me! Next to what...Southwestern...not even. Compare us to something U. Chi. and we are fundies. It's all relative. For a good discussion on the use of fundamentalism see Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian belief.
Truett's approach to theology is that it offers students all the material and opinions of histories great thinkers and lets them make decisions for themselves. I can't speak for the big six because I don't attend them. I think this is the healthiest environment for producing critical thinking students, but I could be wrong.
"And all of them start not with the Bible, but with philosophy and a desire to maintain their libertarian free will and then they go to the Bible, still avoiding much of the plain wording despite their over-literalization of other passages."
Hmm...do you think your presuppositions color your critique? I admit that the same question could be asked of myself.
I guess this is where I disagree and I wish Calvinists would concede the following point. I admit that people like Edwards, Calvin genuinely seek to theology based on scriptures alone. Do you really think that open theists don’t? Who wakes in the morning and says, "Though I'm an evangelical, I think I'll try and develop a systematic theology that consults the Bible thirdly."
"I will stick to the Bible and since it is likely that you reject the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in favor of a post-modern one, then I don't imagine we are going to be able to discuss much."
I like to think of my hermeneutic as Christological. However, between the two options you listed I would lean towards the post-modern one.
Thanks for wishing my church well. It is evident that you have given the issues a great deal of thought. So thank you.
Carney
"I heard that musician guy over at UBC, what's his name, the one with the crazy hair, Crower* or something, anyway, he likes him a lot -- so maybe give him a shot."
I'd be careful in reading too much into Crowder's involvement with the Passion movement. Desiring to create an authentic worship experience for college students does not equal an endorsement of John Piper's theology.
Carney, this is Hyde. I had a question for you, have you ever wondered why most of the preachers who are also calvinist, or calvinist for that matter seem to come across as some what cocky. if i were a calvinist i would probably be as well, cause then i'd be 100% correct. i am working on a short story about a guy who believes in predestination but also believes he is not of the elect. anyway back to my quesiton, why are preachers who are calvinist i.e. Piper, Giglio, etc. seem to be very sure of themselves and almost a little egostical?
Hey Jonathan.
I know the question was for Josh, but I'd like to just say that Calvinists do not have a monopoly on beeing arrogant and egotistical. I've seen just as many arrogant Arminians and Open Theists as Calvinists.
(By the way, I'm not a Calvinist, so please don't think I'm defending them altogether.)
point well noted and taken
Post a Comment