Dispensationalism is a hot topic. It's view of the end times is extremely popular, and many great and sincere Christians affirm it. This is not an attack on them, their theology or salvation, but it is an explanation of why I reject the doctrine. The Left Behind series of book really put the (s)ensationalism into dispensationalism. (ba dum tsssss)
In fairness I won't judge the doctrine by a set of popular speculative fiction novels. I know several dispensationalists who think those books are silly.
Dispensationalism is add odds with the Protestant reformation.
One of the ideas behind the reformation was that of ad fontes, or "to the source"(literally "fountain"). A return to the teaching of the Bible and a disregarding of the doctrinal cruft that had grown over the Roman Catholic Church. The reformation predates Dispensationalism by some 200 years, yet it unwittingly provided the environment for Dispensationalism to grow.
Don't get me wrong here - Dispensationalism is an attempt to return to Biblical teaching. A genuine, sincere and well meaning attempt. Yet it fails.
Me and my Bible vs Ad Fontes
When we approach the Bible, we come with out baggage. Our culture. Our philosophy, and our preconceptions. We can't help it - we are caught in the system and thus we see everything through the lens of the system. We are bubbled in our modern western materialistic and individualistic society. Me and my Bible is never just me and my Bible. It is me, my Bible, my Philosophy, my cosmology, my worldview, my opinions. This is why Atheists(and Christians) often distort the Bible to say things other than it does.
A return to the Bible that does not account for our bubble, is bound to corrupt the text. Thomas Oden's famous saying was he wanted to add nothing new to Christianity, yet dispensationalism is new. And I think that is because dispensationalism doesn't account for the bubble.
So how do we account for the bubble?
The Shoulders of Giants
The only way to account for the Bubble is to become aware of it. We desperately need to realise, as John Walton states: "The Bible is written for but not to us." This matters.
The Bible was simply not written to our culture and philosophy, though it has immense value to our culture and philosophy. So, the question is, how do we separate the carrier from the signal? The carrier of the signal makes the signal transmission possible, but it itself is not the signal. In radio terms, we use a "demodulator" to perform this operation. We 'filter' the incoming signal through the demodulator, and we get the signal out the other side, carrier removed.
The writings of the Church fathers are of immense help here - if scripture is true, and unchanging, it follows it can never mean what it never meant, it should cause us to pause if, in the first 1800 years of the church, no Christian ever held our doctrine. This is the case with dispensationalism.
A genuine return ad fontes will not be at odds with consensus of the early church. Dispensationalism is.
Now there are a great many biblical arguments for and against dispensationalism, but I find it absent from the thought of the early church, the very people who were closest to the culture and context of the Bible did not see it as dispensationalism does.
Therefore, if I am to respect my Bible (i.e. take it seriously and have it mean what it means not what my culture wants it to mean, I cannot in good conscience be a dispensationalist.
This does not mean I think you're not Christian if you're dispensationalist, or that you're unbiblical or a bad person, just we disagree. In a future post, I may go into my eschatological conclusions, but suffice it to say, there is one thing we all agree on, Jesus is coming back.
As always, I reserve the right to not publish a comment, and comments should be respectful. I thank you kind readers for never having pushed me to the point where I had to remove or not publish any comment.
Friday, 28 July 2017
Friday, 7 July 2017
Why Knowledge is Just Knowledge.
Lets us do a thought experiment. Imagine, if you will you had a pretty sweet computer. Maybe one the size of a couple of solar systems - very powerful, lots of memory. Now, an important figure, say Donald Trump, was in a closed room last week. Imagine we used our computer to simulate everything in the room, down to the last quantum state. Our computer now "knows" everything about the room. Everything is certain.
Now, I don't like Donald Trump. So I log into a console and delete him from the simulated room.
Question time:
Does the real Donald Trump vanish from the room in the past? Why?
Remember, we're absolutely certain about the room, and everything in it. We know precisely and perfectly what will happen in that room for as long as we can run the simulation for.
Now, lets imagine God condescends to help us in our experiment. He comes down and reprograms the computer to show us a similar room, with say, Theresa May in it, this time in the future. I also decide to delete Theresa May. Does Theresa May vanish from the real room? If not why not?
The level of certainty we posses about an event is not causative, so in neither case will a world leader abruptly vanish from a locked room (ah, but for the way knowledge works, we could commit a crime even Sherlock Holmes could not solve!) Absolute certainty about an event does not make the event necessary, else we could manipulate an event by modifying our certainty about it. Knowledge and information are just that, knowledge and information. Nothing magical or mystical about it.
Now, there are two theories about how God's omnipotence and omniscience work. One suggests that God knows because he decrees (read causes), and the other says that God's knowledge is not causative - He knows all (how, but not what is somewhat mysterious) because he created and sustains the universe. God knows how I will sin tomorrow, not because He caused me to sin (James 1:13), but because I will sin. The source of his knowledge need not be a eternal decree, but can be the event itself.
The common argument by a determinist(or a compatibilist) who does not get the distinction between certainty and necessity is that Arminians face the same conundrum as they do - Arminians affirm God knows the future perfectly - thus, they think God's certainty about the future renders it necessary. This is an extraordinary claim. As our thought experiment above suggests, knowledge does not operate like this.
I anticipate the objection here - that God's knowledge is not like our (or for that matter our imaginary computer's) knowledge. This is true. But the leap from God's knowledge making all things certain for God, to God's knowledge rendering all things necessary has to be supported, and so far I have not heard a good scriptural(or logical, for that matter) reason for this. It does not come from scripture, it is a philosophical argument, and a rather bad one at that. The burden is on the one who claims that certainty and necessity are always the same thing to prove this. It is an extraordinary claim. And thus we would require some proof for it. Or at the very least some reasoning, normally it comes out as a pure unsupported assertion.
Feel free to provide yours below, if you have such.
Note, that nowhere here do we deny God's sovereignty, or power. Nothing happens without His knowledge, allowance or plan in it. What we do deny is that God is a causative agent in sin. God certainly is active in creation, causing good things.
As always, I retain the right to decide what comments are posted, and only discussion that is respectful and polite is allowed. Please try to apply the Principle of Charity here.
Now, I don't like Donald Trump. So I log into a console and delete him from the simulated room.
Question time:
Does the real Donald Trump vanish from the room in the past? Why?
Remember, we're absolutely certain about the room, and everything in it. We know precisely and perfectly what will happen in that room for as long as we can run the simulation for.
Now, lets imagine God condescends to help us in our experiment. He comes down and reprograms the computer to show us a similar room, with say, Theresa May in it, this time in the future. I also decide to delete Theresa May. Does Theresa May vanish from the real room? If not why not?
The level of certainty we posses about an event is not causative, so in neither case will a world leader abruptly vanish from a locked room (ah, but for the way knowledge works, we could commit a crime even Sherlock Holmes could not solve!) Absolute certainty about an event does not make the event necessary, else we could manipulate an event by modifying our certainty about it. Knowledge and information are just that, knowledge and information. Nothing magical or mystical about it.
Now, there are two theories about how God's omnipotence and omniscience work. One suggests that God knows because he decrees (read causes), and the other says that God's knowledge is not causative - He knows all (how, but not what is somewhat mysterious) because he created and sustains the universe. God knows how I will sin tomorrow, not because He caused me to sin (James 1:13), but because I will sin. The source of his knowledge need not be a eternal decree, but can be the event itself.
The common argument by a determinist(or a compatibilist) who does not get the distinction between certainty and necessity is that Arminians face the same conundrum as they do - Arminians affirm God knows the future perfectly - thus, they think God's certainty about the future renders it necessary. This is an extraordinary claim. As our thought experiment above suggests, knowledge does not operate like this.
I anticipate the objection here - that God's knowledge is not like our (or for that matter our imaginary computer's) knowledge. This is true. But the leap from God's knowledge making all things certain for God, to God's knowledge rendering all things necessary has to be supported, and so far I have not heard a good scriptural(or logical, for that matter) reason for this. It does not come from scripture, it is a philosophical argument, and a rather bad one at that. The burden is on the one who claims that certainty and necessity are always the same thing to prove this. It is an extraordinary claim. And thus we would require some proof for it. Or at the very least some reasoning, normally it comes out as a pure unsupported assertion.
Feel free to provide yours below, if you have such.
Note, that nowhere here do we deny God's sovereignty, or power. Nothing happens without His knowledge, allowance or plan in it. What we do deny is that God is a causative agent in sin. God certainly is active in creation, causing good things.
As always, I retain the right to decide what comments are posted, and only discussion that is respectful and polite is allowed. Please try to apply the Principle of Charity here.
Sunday, 5 March 2017
When We Disagree. Rule 1: Don't assign a position to me I don't hold.
I have been called both explicitly and implicitly by a number of people "Catholic" in various places, and it is getting annoying.. The weird thing is, it wasn't ever meant as a complement. I mean those dirty papist Catholics are no good right?
Well, actually, most(if not all Catholics I have met) are well groomed and quite clean.
The trouble is, not only is calling insulting to me, it is demeaning to actual Catholics. You see, I don't agree with them, and there is a vast difference between my position and theirs. So, to lump them in with me, or me in with them is unfair.
This being said, I don't believe I have a monopoly on truth. Consider a trivial example; who amoung you gentle readers affirms the trinity: I see you there Mr Calvinist, you there Mr Lutheran and even you there Mr Catholic. We all agree on that, hey, what d'ya know. Just because the Catholic in the corner over there has a position, doesn't mean it is always wrong. If that were so, on that logic, we'd have to deny the trinity, since Catholics affirm it.
Guilt by association is plain silly. If we're gonna go the route of 'demonizing' whole groups and everything they believe in, we forget that all truth is God's truth, regardless of source. How we discern truth is another story(by the standard of God's word interpreted in context), but a position held by someone we disagree with isn't automatically wrong, just because we disagree with them.
Realization of this simple fact should go long way to smoothing relations between Christians. Even them dirty papal scum... uh... the brainwashing. I blame the brainwashing, ok?
So, the first rule is, don't assign a position to someone that they won't own. If you want to think of me as Roman Catholic and refute me based on that, well, straw men burn easy, and you'll never change my mind, because you have never addressed my position. So you're basically just adding to and sowing division. Also you don't care enough about me to understand my position. I'll totally call you out on that, because that isn't Christian behavior by any biblical standard. If that upsets you there's not much I can do about that, but quit doing the devil's job for him, a'right?
Get that right and we're one step closer to either convincing one of us to change position, or agreeing to disagree like actual brothers in Christ, not the pagans in the marketplace screaming at each other over the price of chicken or the politics of the day.
(I'm not knocking Catholicism here, I just disagree with some of the positions they hold, but I can do so with respect. Raise your hand if you can too.)
Well, actually, most(if not all Catholics I have met) are well groomed and quite clean.
The trouble is, not only is calling insulting to me, it is demeaning to actual Catholics. You see, I don't agree with them, and there is a vast difference between my position and theirs. So, to lump them in with me, or me in with them is unfair.
This being said, I don't believe I have a monopoly on truth. Consider a trivial example; who amoung you gentle readers affirms the trinity: I see you there Mr Calvinist, you there Mr Lutheran and even you there Mr Catholic. We all agree on that, hey, what d'ya know. Just because the Catholic in the corner over there has a position, doesn't mean it is always wrong. If that were so, on that logic, we'd have to deny the trinity, since Catholics affirm it.
Guilt by association is plain silly. If we're gonna go the route of 'demonizing' whole groups and everything they believe in, we forget that all truth is God's truth, regardless of source. How we discern truth is another story(by the standard of God's word interpreted in context), but a position held by someone we disagree with isn't automatically wrong, just because we disagree with them.
Realization of this simple fact should go long way to smoothing relations between Christians. Even them dirty papal scum... uh... the brainwashing. I blame the brainwashing, ok?
So, the first rule is, don't assign a position to someone that they won't own. If you want to think of me as Roman Catholic and refute me based on that, well, straw men burn easy, and you'll never change my mind, because you have never addressed my position. So you're basically just adding to and sowing division. Also you don't care enough about me to understand my position. I'll totally call you out on that, because that isn't Christian behavior by any biblical standard. If that upsets you there's not much I can do about that, but quit doing the devil's job for him, a'right?
Get that right and we're one step closer to either convincing one of us to change position, or agreeing to disagree like actual brothers in Christ, not the pagans in the marketplace screaming at each other over the price of chicken or the politics of the day.
(I'm not knocking Catholicism here, I just disagree with some of the positions they hold, but I can do so with respect. Raise your hand if you can too.)
Thursday, 17 November 2016
Compatibilism Misrepresented.
The gentleman here has a perhaps not fully understood the Arminian objection to Calvinism, but there are two issues that are interesting in his essay. Others can refute his other arguments, but I want to examine these two (not necessarily to refute, just to examine).
DA Carson, whom I think of as one of the better Calvinists approaches it this way[1]. Compatibilism to him is simply saying that God's sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible.
This is a fascinating statement given that the author in the link above happily admits that "we also believe in determinism.". This comports well with the traditional definition of compatibilism; namely that determinism and free will are compatible.
Thus for thereforeGodExists, 'sovereignty' = 'determinism' and 'free will' keeps human responsibility intact. Now, we must make some distinctions;
Fatalism is the belief that everything that happens is forced to happen by 'fate' or the gods or perhaps God. It is irresistible.
Determinism is the idea that the current and future states of the universe are the result of only the prior states and the laws of nature. Thus our brother from 'thereforeGodexists' is not in fact a determinist as he claims. He is a theological determinist. Determinists are normally atheists who subscribe to naturalism. The positions are surprisingly close, but not equivalent.
Theological determinism(my definition, but I don't see that he'd object) is he idea that the current and future states of the universe are the result of only the prior states and the laws of nature and the input of God. While God sustains his creation, he is most definitely separate from it. God is not creation.
So far so good, right?
Well, so the author feels in the case of (theological)determinism and free will, 'We believe that these two concepts can be maintained fully and consistently.' Unlike Carson, et al, he doesn't delve much into the scripture to support his position, which is a pity, but never mind. Carson appeals to mystery, but thereforeGodexists doesn't show how this might be consistent, and I would be very interested to see his reasoning in a way that neither diminishes determinism nor man's responsibility.
What interests me most here is the presentation. Carson dances around 'determinism' in the quote. thereforeGodexists(Horrible handle, I keep accidentally typing, therefore God exits! ;) ) fully embraces that he believes in determinism. Carson also rejects the label 'fatalist', and rightly so. A Christian of whatever persuasion cannot be a fatalist.
The entire premise of the article is we must accept his assertion that determinism and sovereignty are one and the same.
What's interesting is the author of gotquestions here seems to try to deny both the label of fatalist and determinist, since his position fits neither his nor my definition of either. I would class that as theological determinism.
So, my argument is that there might be a class of Calvinist who is uncomfortable with the label 'determinist'. It seems to me the sort of label that even if one grudgingly accepts, should not be an easy or comfortable position to accept... Perhaps what worries me most is that 'thereforeGodexists' is alarmingly comfortable with the label, which is inaccurate anyway.
Let's look at the assertion that 'sovereignty' = 'determinism'.
If read you the original post with that assumption, then his argument might have some weight.
" is God sovereign over man’s wicked heart? Is he sovereign over sin? If the answer is no, then one must say that God is not sovereign over all things. Therefore, God is not sovereign."
translated becomes:
' does God determine man’s wicked heart? Does he determine sin? If the answer is no, then one must say that God does not determines all things. Therefore, God does not determines all things'
Well, that seems self evident. The Arminian understanding of sovereignty is much more mundane I'm afraid. We mean 'Supreme power or authority' and 'freedom from external control'. More dictionary definitions than anything. Basically, God has the right and power to govern the universe as he pleases. Nobody tells him what to do, or what conditions he may set, what laws he may make. Is he sovereign over sin? Sure, he limits or allows it as he pleases, but he does not determine it. With Orange we hold that, We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. See James 1:12-16.
Under the standard understanding of sovereignty, we are well within our rights to claim God is sovereign, since He is. If Calvinism wants to redefine the term, that's their lookout, we'll keep using language as it is commonly understood.
Let's look at the often brought up passage in Genesis that supposedly supports compatibilism: Genesis 50:20. There are a couple of things to note here;
- This is a specific incident, nowhere that I have been found are we told to generalize that this is how God operates on every little detail. Every example I have been shown is specific to God's historic plan of history to bring about Christ and therefore salvation, so even if we grant determinism here, it is insufficient proof for the whole of history and creation.
- The brothers actually intended to kill Joseph, see Gen 37:18. God providentially provided another option in the form of the Ishmaelites, and perhaps a prompting on Judah's heart. Their intent was different then to what actually happened.
- The interpretation of compatibilism comes therefore not from the text but from the reader's other theological commitments.
Please note that I am not here refuting those other commitments, just rejecting that the text on it's own is sufficient to support them for all cases, no matter how we interpret it.
Rejecting determinism does not mean God is not in control, or guesses at the future. The alternatives are often provided as a false dilemma - either totally deterministic, or totally powerless.
Arminianism actually selects neither. God is totally in control, but in his sovereignty circumscribes limits on our freedom. Not to force one choice, but to restrain the evil we intend (as with Joseph's brothers) or to protect us. That does not mean we can't choose what we do within those limits, neither does it make us free to choose God without his intervention to overcome depravity.
Do we understand his compatibilism? Yes, actually and if you are a Calvinist who wishes to remain orthodox, you must subscribe to it, no matter how contradictory it sounds. If you slip into the coherency of hard determinism, make no mistake, the universal church condemns you as a heretic.
Can we claim God is sovereign? Yes, we can, and nobody has shown otherwise. What we can't do is claim God determines everything. Since everything includes sin, we're actually quite happy with that.
As always comments should be respectful.
[1] "Christians are not fatalists. The central line of Christian tradition neither sacrifices the utter sovereignty of God nor God’s Love and God’s Sovereignty reduces the responsibility of his image-bearers. In the realm of philosophical theology, this position is sometimes called compatibilism. It simply means that God’s unconditioned sovereignty and the responsibility of human beings are mutually compatible.
It does not claim to show you how they are compatible. It claims only that we can get far enough in the evidence and the arguments to show how they are not necessarily incompatible, and that it is therefore entirely reasonable to think they are compatible if there is good evidence for them" DA Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of Love pg 51,52
DA Carson, whom I think of as one of the better Calvinists approaches it this way[1]. Compatibilism to him is simply saying that God's sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible.
This is a fascinating statement given that the author in the link above happily admits that "we also believe in determinism.". This comports well with the traditional definition of compatibilism; namely that determinism and free will are compatible.
Thus for thereforeGodExists, 'sovereignty' = 'determinism' and 'free will' keeps human responsibility intact. Now, we must make some distinctions;
Fatalism is the belief that everything that happens is forced to happen by 'fate' or the gods or perhaps God. It is irresistible.
Determinism is the idea that the current and future states of the universe are the result of only the prior states and the laws of nature. Thus our brother from 'thereforeGodexists' is not in fact a determinist as he claims. He is a theological determinist. Determinists are normally atheists who subscribe to naturalism. The positions are surprisingly close, but not equivalent.
Theological determinism(my definition, but I don't see that he'd object) is he idea that the current and future states of the universe are the result of only the prior states and the laws of nature and the input of God. While God sustains his creation, he is most definitely separate from it. God is not creation.
So far so good, right?
Well, so the author feels in the case of (theological)determinism and free will, 'We believe that these two concepts can be maintained fully and consistently.' Unlike Carson, et al, he doesn't delve much into the scripture to support his position, which is a pity, but never mind. Carson appeals to mystery, but thereforeGodexists doesn't show how this might be consistent, and I would be very interested to see his reasoning in a way that neither diminishes determinism nor man's responsibility.
What interests me most here is the presentation. Carson dances around 'determinism' in the quote. thereforeGodexists(Horrible handle, I keep accidentally typing, therefore God exits! ;) ) fully embraces that he believes in determinism. Carson also rejects the label 'fatalist', and rightly so. A Christian of whatever persuasion cannot be a fatalist.
The entire premise of the article is we must accept his assertion that determinism and sovereignty are one and the same.
What's interesting is the author of gotquestions here seems to try to deny both the label of fatalist and determinist, since his position fits neither his nor my definition of either. I would class that as theological determinism.
So, my argument is that there might be a class of Calvinist who is uncomfortable with the label 'determinist'. It seems to me the sort of label that even if one grudgingly accepts, should not be an easy or comfortable position to accept... Perhaps what worries me most is that 'thereforeGodexists' is alarmingly comfortable with the label, which is inaccurate anyway.
Let's look at the assertion that 'sovereignty' = 'determinism'.
If read you the original post with that assumption, then his argument might have some weight.
" is God sovereign over man’s wicked heart? Is he sovereign over sin? If the answer is no, then one must say that God is not sovereign over all things. Therefore, God is not sovereign."
translated becomes:
' does God determine man’s wicked heart? Does he determine sin? If the answer is no, then one must say that God does not determines all things. Therefore, God does not determines all things'
Well, that seems self evident. The Arminian understanding of sovereignty is much more mundane I'm afraid. We mean 'Supreme power or authority' and 'freedom from external control'. More dictionary definitions than anything. Basically, God has the right and power to govern the universe as he pleases. Nobody tells him what to do, or what conditions he may set, what laws he may make. Is he sovereign over sin? Sure, he limits or allows it as he pleases, but he does not determine it. With Orange we hold that, We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. See James 1:12-16.
Under the standard understanding of sovereignty, we are well within our rights to claim God is sovereign, since He is. If Calvinism wants to redefine the term, that's their lookout, we'll keep using language as it is commonly understood.
Let's look at the often brought up passage in Genesis that supposedly supports compatibilism: Genesis 50:20. There are a couple of things to note here;
- This is a specific incident, nowhere that I have been found are we told to generalize that this is how God operates on every little detail. Every example I have been shown is specific to God's historic plan of history to bring about Christ and therefore salvation, so even if we grant determinism here, it is insufficient proof for the whole of history and creation.
- The brothers actually intended to kill Joseph, see Gen 37:18. God providentially provided another option in the form of the Ishmaelites, and perhaps a prompting on Judah's heart. Their intent was different then to what actually happened.
- The interpretation of compatibilism comes therefore not from the text but from the reader's other theological commitments.
Please note that I am not here refuting those other commitments, just rejecting that the text on it's own is sufficient to support them for all cases, no matter how we interpret it.
Rejecting determinism does not mean God is not in control, or guesses at the future. The alternatives are often provided as a false dilemma - either totally deterministic, or totally powerless.
Arminianism actually selects neither. God is totally in control, but in his sovereignty circumscribes limits on our freedom. Not to force one choice, but to restrain the evil we intend (as with Joseph's brothers) or to protect us. That does not mean we can't choose what we do within those limits, neither does it make us free to choose God without his intervention to overcome depravity.
Do we understand his compatibilism? Yes, actually and if you are a Calvinist who wishes to remain orthodox, you must subscribe to it, no matter how contradictory it sounds. If you slip into the coherency of hard determinism, make no mistake, the universal church condemns you as a heretic.
Can we claim God is sovereign? Yes, we can, and nobody has shown otherwise. What we can't do is claim God determines everything. Since everything includes sin, we're actually quite happy with that.
As always comments should be respectful.
[1] "Christians are not fatalists. The central line of Christian tradition neither sacrifices the utter sovereignty of God nor God’s Love and God’s Sovereignty reduces the responsibility of his image-bearers. In the realm of philosophical theology, this position is sometimes called compatibilism. It simply means that God’s unconditioned sovereignty and the responsibility of human beings are mutually compatible.
It does not claim to show you how they are compatible. It claims only that we can get far enough in the evidence and the arguments to show how they are not necessarily incompatible, and that it is therefore entirely reasonable to think they are compatible if there is good evidence for them" DA Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of Love pg 51,52
Saturday, 29 October 2016
Freedom and Determinism and Little Fuzzy.
Within Christianity, there are two general views on the nature of freedom, namely libertarian freedom and compatibilistic freedom.
Let's define a few terms:
Determinism: the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. [1] In a theological sense, I am going to extend this definition as follows: the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature and the input of God, entail every truth about the future. Without that extra bit, it would be deism or naturalism.
Compatibilistic free will: The idea that free will is logically consistent with determinism - i.e. it is compatible with determinism.
Libertarian free will: The idea that an agent could genuinely have done other than what it did.
So, if determinism is true, the past state of the universe, plus the rules governing the universe and whatever God in his sovereignty decides to do results in everything that happens, including whatever choice a person makes. Everything does mean everything.
Many more skilled logicians than me have pointed out how compatiblism cannot show that freedom and determinism are compatible since they must necessarily redefine freedom to do so. Something is compatible with determinism, but it is not freedom as the majority of people understand it, but this isn't my point.
A Little Furry Creature Visits Jack.
Stop now and read about it in the link above. I'm a quick reader so I can read it in about 3-4 hours.
*****SPOILERS BELOW *****
Jack is the futuristic equivalent of a gold prospector on distant world. A company owns the planet and is using it to make money and ship goods back to earth. Their charter(rights to the world) depends on the fact that there is no intelligent life on the planet. Jack finds a little furry creature there who seems intelligent, and the company man, seeing his profits about to vanish comes to investigate. The company man kills one of the life forms, and Jack kills the company man's bodyguard in defense of his new friend.
Naturally this results in a dramatic trial. If the creature is sapient (i.e. thinking) then it follows that Jack is in the clear, the company's charter is invalid and the company man committed murder. If not it follows Jack committed murder and the company is in the clear. It's a good book, and well worth a read.
They sit around and argue how to define the terms for a while. A rule of thumb used was that a sapient being should be able to 'talk and make fire'. The fuzzy's it turned out could talk (just not in human audible range, so nobody knew). That definition is a bit lacking though. The book isn't up-to-date with the latest research and perpetuates the 10%/90% conscious and unconscious myth, but something struck me:
Two quotes;
"The sapient mind not only thinks consciously by habit, but it thinks in connected sequence. It associates one thing with another. It reasons logically, and forms conclusions, and uses those conclusions as premises from which to arrive at further conclusions. It groups associations together, and generalizes. Here we pass completely beyond any comparison with nonsapience. This is not merely more consciousness, or more thinking; it is thinking of a radically different kind. The nonsapient mind deals exclusively with crude sensory material. The sapient mind translates sense impressions into ideas, and then forms ideas of ideas, in ascending orders of abstraction, almost without limit."
and
"[..]above all, they can imagine, not only a new implement, but a new way of life. We see this in the first human contact with the race which, I submit, should be designated as Fuzzy sapiens. Little Fuzzy found a strange and wonderful place in the forest, a place unlike anything he had ever seen, in which lived a powerful being. He imagined himself living in this place, enjoying the friendship and protection of this mysterious being. So he slipped inside, made friends with Jack Holloway and lived with him. And then he imagined his family sharing this precious comfort and companionship with him, and he went and found them and brought them back with him. Like so many other sapient beings, Little Fuzzy had a beautiful dream; like a fortunate few, he made it real."
To the compatibilist, the illusion of free will comes from the reaction of our brains to external input. We are crude machines, mechanistic and, as defined above, non-sapient. Our imaginations that produce works of fiction like Little Fuzzy are merely the reaction of our beings to external stimuli. In a lot of senses, determinism and naturalism are but a hair's breadth apart. All we have to do to reduce theological determinism to naturalism is to remove God, and I have met quite a few theological determinists who took that easy step.
To the incompatiblist, this is not so, we are agents, limited agents to be sure, but we can imagine. We are creative, having been made in the image of the creative God. Our reasoning and logic is not all there is to our being. When faced with a problem, we don't have to merely weigh up two equally bad options (as the Americans are trying to do now) and try and pick the least bad, we can imagine our way around them. We can search for alternatives.
I will include this bit for the sake of those who think libertarian freedom means you can do anything:
It does not. You are still limited by your capacity to do things. In terms of the fall, your capacity to please God is broken beyond your ability to repair. Suggesting freedom means their are no limits makes as much sense as suggesting that because I can flap my arms quite fast I will take off and fly. There are limits, and freedom always describes a boundary.
For me personally, I think that our ability to ask "What if?" completely refutes compatibilism. Perhaps not, I could be mistaken - I haven't really formed a formal argument here.
As always, comments should be respectful and if you want notifications, please tick the "Notify me" box.
[1] See paragraph 1.3 from this article.
Let's define a few terms:
Determinism: the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. [1] In a theological sense, I am going to extend this definition as follows: the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature and the input of God, entail every truth about the future. Without that extra bit, it would be deism or naturalism.
Compatibilistic free will: The idea that free will is logically consistent with determinism - i.e. it is compatible with determinism.
Libertarian free will: The idea that an agent could genuinely have done other than what it did.
So, if determinism is true, the past state of the universe, plus the rules governing the universe and whatever God in his sovereignty decides to do results in everything that happens, including whatever choice a person makes. Everything does mean everything.
Many more skilled logicians than me have pointed out how compatiblism cannot show that freedom and determinism are compatible since they must necessarily redefine freedom to do so. Something is compatible with determinism, but it is not freedom as the majority of people understand it, but this isn't my point.
A Little Furry Creature Visits Jack.
Stop now and read about it in the link above. I'm a quick reader so I can read it in about 3-4 hours.
*****SPOILERS BELOW *****
Jack is the futuristic equivalent of a gold prospector on distant world. A company owns the planet and is using it to make money and ship goods back to earth. Their charter(rights to the world) depends on the fact that there is no intelligent life on the planet. Jack finds a little furry creature there who seems intelligent, and the company man, seeing his profits about to vanish comes to investigate. The company man kills one of the life forms, and Jack kills the company man's bodyguard in defense of his new friend.
Naturally this results in a dramatic trial. If the creature is sapient (i.e. thinking) then it follows that Jack is in the clear, the company's charter is invalid and the company man committed murder. If not it follows Jack committed murder and the company is in the clear. It's a good book, and well worth a read.
They sit around and argue how to define the terms for a while. A rule of thumb used was that a sapient being should be able to 'talk and make fire'. The fuzzy's it turned out could talk (just not in human audible range, so nobody knew). That definition is a bit lacking though. The book isn't up-to-date with the latest research and perpetuates the 10%/90% conscious and unconscious myth, but something struck me:
Two quotes;
"The sapient mind not only thinks consciously by habit, but it thinks in connected sequence. It associates one thing with another. It reasons logically, and forms conclusions, and uses those conclusions as premises from which to arrive at further conclusions. It groups associations together, and generalizes. Here we pass completely beyond any comparison with nonsapience. This is not merely more consciousness, or more thinking; it is thinking of a radically different kind. The nonsapient mind deals exclusively with crude sensory material. The sapient mind translates sense impressions into ideas, and then forms ideas of ideas, in ascending orders of abstraction, almost without limit."
and
"[..]above all, they can imagine, not only a new implement, but a new way of life. We see this in the first human contact with the race which, I submit, should be designated as Fuzzy sapiens. Little Fuzzy found a strange and wonderful place in the forest, a place unlike anything he had ever seen, in which lived a powerful being. He imagined himself living in this place, enjoying the friendship and protection of this mysterious being. So he slipped inside, made friends with Jack Holloway and lived with him. And then he imagined his family sharing this precious comfort and companionship with him, and he went and found them and brought them back with him. Like so many other sapient beings, Little Fuzzy had a beautiful dream; like a fortunate few, he made it real."
To the compatibilist, the illusion of free will comes from the reaction of our brains to external input. We are crude machines, mechanistic and, as defined above, non-sapient. Our imaginations that produce works of fiction like Little Fuzzy are merely the reaction of our beings to external stimuli. In a lot of senses, determinism and naturalism are but a hair's breadth apart. All we have to do to reduce theological determinism to naturalism is to remove God, and I have met quite a few theological determinists who took that easy step.
To the incompatiblist, this is not so, we are agents, limited agents to be sure, but we can imagine. We are creative, having been made in the image of the creative God. Our reasoning and logic is not all there is to our being. When faced with a problem, we don't have to merely weigh up two equally bad options (as the Americans are trying to do now) and try and pick the least bad, we can imagine our way around them. We can search for alternatives.
I will include this bit for the sake of those who think libertarian freedom means you can do anything:
It does not. You are still limited by your capacity to do things. In terms of the fall, your capacity to please God is broken beyond your ability to repair. Suggesting freedom means their are no limits makes as much sense as suggesting that because I can flap my arms quite fast I will take off and fly. There are limits, and freedom always describes a boundary.
For me personally, I think that our ability to ask "What if?" completely refutes compatibilism. Perhaps not, I could be mistaken - I haven't really formed a formal argument here.
As always, comments should be respectful and if you want notifications, please tick the "Notify me" box.
[1] See paragraph 1.3 from this article.
Wednesday, 26 October 2016
Why Arminians are so upset with Calvinists.
Some observations:
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminians think God is not sovereign. That isn't true.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism is the "theology of free will". This is also untrue.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism makes God weak and not in control. This is untrue.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism is Pelegianism. This is wildly untrue.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism is a Philosophy with no scriptural backing. Also untrue.
A lot of Calvinists really don't take the time to understand.
(I could probably support the above with links and references, but these are just my observations having interacted on a number of forums)
Calvinists went to people like Finney and Spurgeon to understand Arminianism, and what they found horrified them. There are forms of so called Arminianism that embrace the above. Sadly missing from the list are people like Wesley, Arminias, Whedon, Wattson, Pope, Witherington to reference just a few in passing(Find some more here). They could also read Roger Olson's excellent book here. He has done such a great job that I don't really need to say much more here, except to link to it.
Faced with the attacks from the likes of James White and company, Arminians tend to rightly get upset. We are misrepresented, and the offense is grave.
This leads to a problem. Not all Calvinists are bad guys. In fact, in my experience, most are Christians, and more often than not the theological commitment is more of a social than deeply examined view. They simply wish to belong to the group. There is some pride, history and identity in calling themselves "reformed". (Technically Arminianism is reformed too, but I tend to reject the label, due to the unpleasant association with fatalism.) Many Calvinists would not for example agree that God is the author of evil, or that double predestination is true. Many appeal to mystery. I might see that as inconsistent, but I certainly see that as far preferable to embracing that God ordains some to evil which was rightly declared heresy in 529AD. Coherence is not a test of orthodoxy.
The issue is that in identifying with the group "Calvinists", they often unwittingly identify in the mind of the Arminian with the loud group. This is a hindrance to fellowship.
The struggle for the Arminian in a loudly Calvinistic world is to stop prejudging every Calvinist by the standard of the loud, obnoxious or misinformed ones. The struggle is to continue to see them as brothers and sisters.
What is the solution? I am not sure, but this wave of so called 'new Calvinism' appears to be wildly unChrist-like. As for me, I shall continue to try by all means to see my Calvinist brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters in Christ. Will you try and do the same for your Calvinist/Arminian brothers and sisters?
As always, comments should be respectful and thoughtful. Click 'notify me' if you want to see any replies(I generally do reply).
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminians think God is not sovereign. That isn't true.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism is the "theology of free will". This is also untrue.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism makes God weak and not in control. This is untrue.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism is Pelegianism. This is wildly untrue.
A lot of Calvinists think that Arminianism is a Philosophy with no scriptural backing. Also untrue.
A lot of Calvinists really don't take the time to understand.
(I could probably support the above with links and references, but these are just my observations having interacted on a number of forums)
Calvinists went to people like Finney and Spurgeon to understand Arminianism, and what they found horrified them. There are forms of so called Arminianism that embrace the above. Sadly missing from the list are people like Wesley, Arminias, Whedon, Wattson, Pope, Witherington to reference just a few in passing(Find some more here). They could also read Roger Olson's excellent book here. He has done such a great job that I don't really need to say much more here, except to link to it.
Faced with the attacks from the likes of James White and company, Arminians tend to rightly get upset. We are misrepresented, and the offense is grave.
This leads to a problem. Not all Calvinists are bad guys. In fact, in my experience, most are Christians, and more often than not the theological commitment is more of a social than deeply examined view. They simply wish to belong to the group. There is some pride, history and identity in calling themselves "reformed". (Technically Arminianism is reformed too, but I tend to reject the label, due to the unpleasant association with fatalism.) Many Calvinists would not for example agree that God is the author of evil, or that double predestination is true. Many appeal to mystery. I might see that as inconsistent, but I certainly see that as far preferable to embracing that God ordains some to evil which was rightly declared heresy in 529AD. Coherence is not a test of orthodoxy.
The issue is that in identifying with the group "Calvinists", they often unwittingly identify in the mind of the Arminian with the loud group. This is a hindrance to fellowship.
The struggle for the Arminian in a loudly Calvinistic world is to stop prejudging every Calvinist by the standard of the loud, obnoxious or misinformed ones. The struggle is to continue to see them as brothers and sisters.
What is the solution? I am not sure, but this wave of so called 'new Calvinism' appears to be wildly unChrist-like. As for me, I shall continue to try by all means to see my Calvinist brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters in Christ. Will you try and do the same for your Calvinist/Arminian brothers and sisters?
As always, comments should be respectful and thoughtful. Click 'notify me' if you want to see any replies(I generally do reply).
Thursday, 13 October 2016
Wrath and Love
Certain sections of Christianity seem to have a strange fascination with God's fury and wrath. A fascination that I don't quite understand. This is, by the way not aimed at anyone in particular, just stems from observations I have made over several years.
It was pointed out to me that I appeared to be going against the doctrine of divine simplicity in my post on primary and secondary attributes of God post. I don't really think it makes a difference to my argument, however, I think there is more to be said here.
The Bible tells us (quite plainly, and incontrovertibly) that God is identified as a father. Not in the biological sense, but in the social sense in which he provides "father-hood". Fatherhood stems from God, it is not a mere analogy of "how God is like", it is in fact a reflection of how God is - He made it after all.
This, I think is helpful in understanding why God does not need to be wrathful in order to be God, but at the same time wrath is a necessary consequence of God exposed to evil. We are told that the enemy comes to "steal, kill and destroy". I am not a father, but I am pretty sure that any loving father out there would be angry, wrathful, or even furious if someone came to steal, kill or destroy their child. Yet, this is exactly what we as humans have done to Jesus. This is what we have done to Jesus' followers. There is indeed blood on our hands.
I propose the following 'equation' to examine the magnitude of the wrath.
Wrath(W) = (Depth of love for the subject who has been wronged) * (how much wrong was done).
Now, this is a mathematical analogy, it's not perfect, and don't think too hard on it, but it does illustrate the broader picture. If I do not love the people dying by ISIS, even though the wrong done is massive, I have no real anger about this. Additionally if a brother borrows my pen and forgets to return it, though I love my brother dearly, the wrong is too small to incur wrath. Perhaps mild annoyance at best.
Our failure to love, our love growing cold (Matt 24:12) is what causes us not to evangelize, to care for the widow and the orphan, and to do what God commanded. We simply don't care enough any more, so it takes a major wrong close to home to move us at all.
When we consider God, however, His Love infinite, and the wrong done was terrible, it should come as no surprise that God is, to put it mildly very very angry. Even in the Garden, Adam and Eve wrong God. They fail to trust Him, when he gives good instruction. They don't believe Him. They disobey.
The lesson to draw from this is a deeper understanding of the scripture Psalms 145:8 "The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love." He withholds his righteous wrath. No human could do that.
It is not that making love central to our understanding of God reduces his other qualities, or turns him into a gentle old man sitting on a throne, it is that it displays in sharp relief exactly how God truly is, and that includes terrible wrath. It could not be otherwise. God's Love is not a passive 'feel good' emotion, it is white hot and consuming.
The push-back against the centrality of the Love of God is mistaken. It is only through the understanding that God is Love that we can truly understand the rest. This is, naturally, not the whole picture. There is more to God than just Love, but this is why we need to distinguish how God is primarily from how God is in the presence of secondary factors. God could not be wrathful if He did not love, and a right understanding of love demonstrates that God is indeed wrathful.
One final note - God's anger does not derive from surprise, God knows the future, He knew what would happen. Apparently there is something He considers worth it all.
As always, comments should be respectful. If you want to see replies, be sure and 'tick' the 'notify me' box.
It was pointed out to me that I appeared to be going against the doctrine of divine simplicity in my post on primary and secondary attributes of God post. I don't really think it makes a difference to my argument, however, I think there is more to be said here.
The Bible tells us (quite plainly, and incontrovertibly) that God is identified as a father. Not in the biological sense, but in the social sense in which he provides "father-hood". Fatherhood stems from God, it is not a mere analogy of "how God is like", it is in fact a reflection of how God is - He made it after all.
This, I think is helpful in understanding why God does not need to be wrathful in order to be God, but at the same time wrath is a necessary consequence of God exposed to evil. We are told that the enemy comes to "steal, kill and destroy". I am not a father, but I am pretty sure that any loving father out there would be angry, wrathful, or even furious if someone came to steal, kill or destroy their child. Yet, this is exactly what we as humans have done to Jesus. This is what we have done to Jesus' followers. There is indeed blood on our hands.
I propose the following 'equation' to examine the magnitude of the wrath.
Wrath(W) = (Depth of love for the subject who has been wronged) * (how much wrong was done).
Now, this is a mathematical analogy, it's not perfect, and don't think too hard on it, but it does illustrate the broader picture. If I do not love the people dying by ISIS, even though the wrong done is massive, I have no real anger about this. Additionally if a brother borrows my pen and forgets to return it, though I love my brother dearly, the wrong is too small to incur wrath. Perhaps mild annoyance at best.
Our failure to love, our love growing cold (Matt 24:12) is what causes us not to evangelize, to care for the widow and the orphan, and to do what God commanded. We simply don't care enough any more, so it takes a major wrong close to home to move us at all.
When we consider God, however, His Love infinite, and the wrong done was terrible, it should come as no surprise that God is, to put it mildly very very angry. Even in the Garden, Adam and Eve wrong God. They fail to trust Him, when he gives good instruction. They don't believe Him. They disobey.
The lesson to draw from this is a deeper understanding of the scripture Psalms 145:8 "The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love." He withholds his righteous wrath. No human could do that.
It is not that making love central to our understanding of God reduces his other qualities, or turns him into a gentle old man sitting on a throne, it is that it displays in sharp relief exactly how God truly is, and that includes terrible wrath. It could not be otherwise. God's Love is not a passive 'feel good' emotion, it is white hot and consuming.
The push-back against the centrality of the Love of God is mistaken. It is only through the understanding that God is Love that we can truly understand the rest. This is, naturally, not the whole picture. There is more to God than just Love, but this is why we need to distinguish how God is primarily from how God is in the presence of secondary factors. God could not be wrathful if He did not love, and a right understanding of love demonstrates that God is indeed wrathful.
One final note - God's anger does not derive from surprise, God knows the future, He knew what would happen. Apparently there is something He considers worth it all.
As always, comments should be respectful. If you want to see replies, be sure and 'tick' the 'notify me' box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)