This post is kind of just a vent. I’ve been over at a John MacArthur blog trying to engage folks there on Evangelical Calvinism, it hasn’t been working very well. I actually spent the time trying to elucidate the difference between a Scotist understanding 
of God and the Thomist understanding (which is tied into the Westminster framing of things); here is what I said:
Scotist Approach (the one I advocate)
1. I assume that creation has always been eschatologically oriented.
2. Which means that the “eternal Son” has was always going to be incarnated no matter what, the Fall just intensified His need to come — thus the point on eschatological purpose for creation above.
3. This means that the Incarnation was not contingent upon the Fall of man.
4. This further means that God had always and eternally in Christ freely determined to “become man” in order to achieve the eschatological purpose of creation.
5. This all means that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So that when we see Him in time, this is always who He has been and well be in eternity. And this is all based, again, on the eschatological purpose of creation.
Contrary to this, the traditional view holds that God is likewise non-contingent (doesn’t need us to be who He is) on His creation. But the way the Trad. view vouchsafes this ‘non-contingency/dependence’ is by positing a series of decrees (theologically appropriated) between God and man. Let me try to bullet-point this:
Thomist Approach
1. In this approach, the Fall of man is the reason the Son Incarnates.
2. But somehow we have to continue to maintain God’s non-dependence on creation.
3. This is where decrees or Aristotle’s causation is appealed to. The decrees allow for God to deal with man in a way that allows Him to remain untouched by His creation.
4. So with these decrees God has an apparent wedge between His life in eternity, and His creation in time.
5. The problem enters in when Jesus, God the Son, enters into time under the dictates set out by the decress (and Covenants, like works/grace in the typical Federal Calvinist framework). At this point He becomes man, not freely determined by the dictates of God’s life; but instead by a set of decrees that have been set out with the sole purpose of keeping God separate from His creation.
6. The problem is, is that Jesus is God, and now has become submissive to decrees that were set out to govern creation; but instead, when He becomes man in the Incarnation, these same decrees end up shaping who He is to be (i.e. how He is to act in time). This leaves this approach with the unattendended consequence of the very decrees that were to keep God separate (and immutable/impassible) from His creation as those that shape who He is in the Incarnation (if we hold to the homoousion, which we all do that Jesus is of the same substance of the Father and Holy Spirit) then this is really problematic. It means that God turns out to be contingent upon His creation, inspite of trying to avoid these very consquences (a catch 22).
7. A consequence of this understanding is that when we see Jesus we don’t really see who God is; we only see a God, in time, who is who He is as set out by His obedience to these decrees (i.e. to become man because of the Fall).
In the end, there is a disconnect between God’s so called ontological or immanent nature (in eternity) and His economic or evangelical nature (in time).
So the trad view disconnects this reality of God (his ontological/economic nature) by positing decrees/secondary causes as the way that 
God relates to and in time. In so doing who Jesus is in time (because of the decrees) isn’t who He really is in eternity (because He is only acting out the demands of the decrees which aren’t grounded immediately in God’s life but are only abstracted instruments that subsist in a way for God to interact with time w/o actually being contingent upon it).
The response to this is that my view somehow is Arminian, which I have no idea how that was the conclusion; or that it is just plain old wrong because the interlocuters there just can’t wrap their heads around it. I think some skepticism can be helpful, but to move on from that, and just assume a view is wrong simply because it makes the mind hurt to try and understand seems to be a very easy way out. And this is the kind of response I rountinely get from folks over at the Pyromaniacs blog. There are some good brothers and sisters over there — some a bit snipey — but I think what is lacking in that camp of thought is an ability or desire to think dogmatically (this camp doesn’t really seem to see the value of thinking theologically at all, unless of course when it comes to the hypostatic union or something — and then it stops right there).
Actually I think it’s kind of becoming a waste of time to try and convince people to think theologically, and to try and persuade people/Christians of its significance. Either they see it or they don’t (even though, whether or not they see it as significant, they engage in theological thought all the time — they should be committed to doing that in good ways instead of bad ways, whether a layman or not).
PS. I toke the graphics from the Pyros blog.
I cant believe these people think they have th monopoly on the tradition! While I haven’t ever really engaged in conversation over there I have watched in awe of the complete inability it seems to even be able to engage theologically with these issues. Its painful to watch sometimes. I cant believe they called you an Arminian! It just goes to show the theological and historical ignorance. My sympathies Bobby. Its frustrating.
Hey Scott,
Thanks. I don’t even know why I try. I guess I hold out hope that someone over there will begin to see the rich heritage the Lord has left us in the body of Christ, through the centuries. The frustrating thing to me is that there is this attitude that if they’ve never heard of something, theologically (because Mac has never mentioned it); then it must be abberrant or “liberal” or something. This gets my ire up a bit. Thanks for the sympathies π
Bobby Grow,
Stop toking graphics! That’s probably what got you into this mess. Now, if you were taking graphics, that would be different.
Now, on to more serious business.
Obviously, my tradition and yours are at loggerheads. Though the church which I pastor does not hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession (due to the insertion about all children dying in infancy being regenerated and the pope being the anti-Christ and a few other things. We did not want those issues being fellowship dividers) we are indebted to their understanding of God’s decrees and the idea of secondary causes. Are you saying that God’s decrees are part of creation in this view? And that’s why you are saying that this because problematic b/c God submits to His own decrees in the incarnation? This is nonsense to me. The decrees are the expression of God’s will, and as such, it is not problematic for Him to be “submitting” to something He willed in the first place.
You call this the “classic” view. What is the alternative view? What confession voices your view?
For clarity, I did not call you an Arminian. I said that I could understand them. You, I’m not understanding. It could be that I haven’t trained myself to think dogmatically. Or, it could be that your view is seemingly in the minority report because it lacks explanatory power. Or, it could be that I’m a theological rube. π I don’t know which it is yet. Perhaps you can help me.
I found the above post incredibly helpful in continuing to try and understand Evangelical Calvinism. So, thanks for ranting!
Brad,
No, it would actually be took graphics π .
Brad, yes the decrees are what shape creation, and thus is how God the “unmoved mover” moves in creatin w/o moving in creation. I brought up voluntarism at the Pyros, and this is exactly it, God’s will is primary to the exclusion of His being — i.e. His will is not necessarily representative of who He actually is in His being (nominalism speaks of this kind of “split” between God’s “two-wills” viz. “His absolute will in eternity” and His ordained will in time” they aren’t necessarily self-same). To say that you see God’s will directly representative of Him means that you are being inconsistent with your tradition, and how secondary causation works by definition. I would like to hear how you explain God and sin relative to the decree and the Fall, and how God could’ve caused the Fall w/o actually causing sin (that would be an excellent indicator of me of where you coming from on this). Also just read up on Thomism and causation, if you haven’t, you’ll see what I mean.
As far as the minority report, that may be the case ‘today’, but has not always been in history; in fact your view was in the minority in England in the 17th cent. and prior to Westminster — Just read Janice Knights: Rereading Orthodoxies in Massachussets, she identifies “The Spiritual Brethren” and “The Intellectual Fathers,” The Spiritual B. were a contemporaneous movement of Calvinists (who followed one will of God) in England to the Scottish version that was developing at the same time in Scotland (with a little nuance from eachother). Your tradition is part of “The Intellectual Fathers.” In England my tradition was majority and yours was miniority, when the Puritans came to America your tradition became the dominant voice over here. The point: majority/minority has nothing to do with its truthfulness or explanatory power; instead it has to do socio/cultural factors, and that’s it (so back to the drawing board).
Are far as confession, got you beat, we follow The Scots Confession, 1560 and see parts of the Heidleberg Catechism helpful (and those linked at my old EC blog, have to bring those over here).
As far as understanding where EC is coming from just read Thomas F. Torrances “Scottish Theology: From John Knox to Jonathan McLeod Campbell this will fill you in on just about everything. Also see these posts:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/14/the-cues-for-evangelical-calvinism/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/04/the-ten-points-of-evangelical-calvinism/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/23/the-primacy-of-gods-life-as-the-ground-of-salvation-and-the-scotist-thesis/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/30/ec-justification-reconciliation-and-redemption/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/08/13/the-gospel-evangelical-calvinist-style/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/08/19/christ-centered-election/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/06/a-teaser-on-election-and-atonement/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/07/i-game-on-introducing-evangelical-calvinist-predestination-and-election/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/10/carnal-and-spiritual-union/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/13/rationale-for-evangelical-calvinism/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/22/evangelical-calvinism-and-federal-calvinism-at-odds/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/21/evangelical-calvinism-a-non-starter/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/17/how-evangelical-calvinism-thinks-out-the-atonement/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/12/sola-grace-arminians-scholastic-calvinists-and-ragamuffins-beware/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/30/ec-justification-reconciliation-and-redemption/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/26/forensicism-versus-ontologism-in-the-atonement/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/21/evangelical-and-federal-calvinism-at-odds/
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/12/17/background-to-reformed-theology/
These posts should all serve as a helpful primer on where EC is coming from. This is why I said it is hard to provide context over at the Pyros, because even all of these posts are brief; but hopefully a little more insightful than my little comments over there.
Now go work on your dogmatics studies and get back to me π .
Ali,
I am happy to hear that you have found this helpful. I wish Brad did, but it takes time π to be persuaded to the truth π .
To say that you see Godβs will directly representative of Him means that you are being inconsistent with your tradition.
This is emphatically not true. I already told you I was a Baptist. Our inconsistency is our trademark. Ask any Presbyterian.
But seriously, you said:
Godβs will is primary to the exclusion of His being β i.e. His will is not necessarily representative of who He actually is in His being .
Whose being does God’s will represent if not His own? That, again, is nonsense to me. I know that people speak of “two-wills” in God to try and explain things such as the existence of sin, which displeases God, and His will that it still exist because…it exists. How is it that you are resolving this difficulty without making God responsible for sin? (Which is exactly what you asked me, btw.) Which link talks about that?
And, if you are tracking with Barth’s understanding of the atonement, how is it that you avoid the charge of universalism that is so often leveled at him as implicit in his system? (His protests to the contrary, he never denied it as a possibility.)
For your reading enjoyment, I will now explain how it is that God can ordain the Fall and yet have Adam still free to choose the good or the evil…
…
…
…
The devil tricked Eve.
Don’t get caught up in the word “ordained” too much. You think God knew that the Fall would occur, right?
That is a lot of reading you have assigned for me. I am not going to be motivated to do that until it is clearly demonstrated to me that I have a problem in my “tradition.” Unfortunately, I am neither Westminster nor LBC compliant, so my tradition starts in 1833 in New Hampshire, and we were contented with vageries concerning the great mysteries that belong to God.
On Barth,
I don’t strictly follow him, instead I follow Scottish Theology on this: here’s a short read for you on this:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/10/carnal-and-spiritual-union/ (see the comments too)
Hey, I’m Baptist too.
You’re just not being consistent, Brad. If you’re going to allow mystery to exist, then you should follow a “system” and a doctrine of God that allows for that. If you’re going to say you follow Frank Turk’s approach to decrees then you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Which again is why I said what I said in the body of this post about MacArthurites.
As far as I can see, Brad, you don’t have a consistent “tradition,” so for me to try and demonstrate what you want me to before you’re going to be motivated is just too high of a threshold to meet.
I’m using the technical usage of “ordained” relative to the two-wills approach. This is what I find interesting about the MacArthur approach, it borrows what it wants from Federal Calvinists, who are consistent with the “tradition,” and then backs away from it when its convenient, like you’re doing right now. This is what makes talking with folks like you very frustrating, Brad (your approach is almost relativist).
If you’re contented with vageries concerning the great mysteries, then quit talking about decrees and election/predestination out of a system that is not so concerned . . . at least be consistent.
We don’t have alot more to talk about, unfortunately, Brad. If you want to check out some of those posts (see the first 3 and the one I link to here) then maybe you’ll have a better grasp of where we are coming from with EC. If not, again, not alot left to talk about.
peace.
Bobby Grow,
Perhaps you are right. I am with Owens, I suppose. I do not see how you can talk about a universal atonement and yet still have people going to hell for sins atoned for. A quaint appeal, perhaps, but still persuasive.
You said,
If youβre going to allow mystery to exist, then you should follow a βsystemβ and a doctrine of God that allows for that.
How’s this?
Let them remember that when they inquire into predestination they are penetrating the sacred precincts of divine wisdom. If anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfyin his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit. For it is not right for man unrestrainedly to search out things that the Lord has willed to be hind in himself, and to unfold from eternity itself the sublimest wisdom, which he would have us revere but not understand that through this also he should fill us with wonder. (Institutes, Book 3, chapt 11).
I am happy to see that Calvin appealed to secrets and mystery. He has been my mentor more than Frank.
James Boyce, another Babdist with whom you are probably familiar, said this of the decrees:
The decrees of God may be defined as that just, wise, and holy purpose or plan by which eternally, and within himself, he determines all things whatsoever that come to pass.
How is it that Boyce is guilty of the charge that the decree are somehow “outside” His being? Is Boyce being inconsistent too? This is why I said I’m not concerned with your charges. I don’t see that you have laid a glove on Boyce or Calvin with regards to decrees, and you haven’t pointed me to an alternative explanation. You have never responded to how Jesus’ being conformed to His own eternal will is somehow stifling him and confusing him with nature. Neither have you given me an explanation more pleasing than the decretal view. Admittedly, that is a long list you have there, but so far, I am not compelled to abandon what I’ve read from Boyce or Calvin.
I say your logic compels you to be a universalist. I say Torrance’s should as well. I have yet to see a satisfactory answer as to why it doesn’t. Sins, in your view, are universally atoned for. For what reason do men perish?
The article you quote says:
He was made man for us that he might die for us, and so there is a carnal union established between Christ and all of humanity. Our spiritual union with Christ refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit unites the believer with Christ so that the benefits of Christ may be ours. It is important that the carnal union and the spiritual union are not separate but rather, spiritual union is a sharing in the one and only union between God and humanity wrought out in Jesus Christ.
So you have all of men “carnally” connected to Christ. Meaning, I gather, that because the Word became flesh all men share a kinship with him in this regard. Yet, the only ones saved are the ones in “spiritual union” with him? As you say, The βspiritual unionβ is the subjective side that is only realized for those who respond to Godβs convicting work by the Holy Spirit. And why, exactly, do some respond and not others? It has nothing to do with an individual personal election to salvation in your view, correct? What makes the difference then? Is it in the man or God? How have you escaped the conundrum through this language? I cannot see it at all. I certainly do not see why this makes Boyce a Nestorian.
What am I missing? Is there a link to how the single will view explains the Fall?
People go to hell because they don’t realize subjectively what is objectively there’s in Christ. The fact that God has elected all in Christ, and then some don’t realize this election is as inexplicable as the “first fall” was, I don’t know. But I would say all those who receive Christ are indeed elect. So men perish for unbelief.
Yes, that’s why I have a picture of Calvin at the top of my blog. We, as EC, claim to be following the trajectory set by Calvin, more than those who claim to be “Orthodox” Calvinists today (i.e. Federal Calvinists, which as far as I can tell you aren’t one).
The logic of the Incarnation compels me to be a universalists in regards to carnal union, not spiritual. I/we don’t pretend to try to explain why the Fall happen (it just did, as an ‘accident’ so to speak — this is the language of Calvin as well).
I’ve read some of Boyce, used some of his commentaries; but he was a good old Federal Calvinist, have you read any of their history (like on William Perkins or Ames, et al)?
The Nestorian charge arises when we say that Christ assumed a particular humanity in His incarnation; a ‘special/elect’ humanity. There was no such humanity to assume, unless of course He somehow sanctified humanity (apart from the Incarnation and cross) prior to the assumption of humanity. I say this is Nestorian because it says that the humanity he assumed was separate from the real humanity that was available for him to actually assume in the Incarnation (i.e. sinful humanity). So in this sense it is Nestorian like because he would have a split in the human natures that he apparently assumed (i.e. elect/reprobate) . . . which is just not tenable.
The single-will doesn’t need to explain the cause of the Fall. The double will explains the Fall because it is compelled to given its commitment to logico/causalism (the Ramist logic that it follows).
And this is really the bottom line, Brad. Scholastic Calvinism is compelled to answer everything according to the causalism that it is committed to. So it must answer what caused the Fall (in order to maintian its perception of ‘sovereignty’) — as you’ve noted Calvin wasn’t so committed — he was no Federal Calvinist. And this is a thesis of this blog as well, there is discontinuity between Calvin and the Calvinists. What I see you doing is at points conflating the Calvinists with Calvin, and then just appealing to Calvin as you have here.
My question to you is what humanity did Christ assume in His Incarnation? An elect humanity (and then I would have to ask on what basis are they elect), or did He assume a fallen humanity (per II Cor 5:21)? This will determine which side you fall, more Classic-like, which you claim; or more EC like which I would love to see you begin to claim.
Bobby Grow,
I’m heading out for the day. I’ll ponder a few things, brush up with some stuff in the Institutes and formulate something for tomorrow.
Peace.
Brad,
Great. You know if you’re going to appeal directly to Calvin, we’re going to end up being in more agreement than disagreement. I think Calvin’s great! Especially his thoughts on the union mystica (mystical union), which is a touchstone of what we are calling Evangelical Calvinism (TF Torrance, Myk Habets, Myself, and others).
Glad that we’re able to go back and forth like this, Brad. Apparently I’ve disgusted many of the folks over at the Pyros.
Hi Bobby!
They really do have some awesome graphics over there!
Almost thou pursuadest me to calleth myself (grudgingly) a Calvin-ist. I say grudgingly, because all I have ever known (that I knew I knew) of Calvinism, was predestination.
I like that TFT relies on the fathers as well. The more I learn of the former gnostic Augustine of Hippo, the less I like the baggage he brought with him. It was not all bad, as Ron Frost cites him in the prequel to his post you posted (or cited) the other day (which I reeally appreciate! His September 21 2008 post and comments are looking reeeallly helpful to me in the saga of my struggles).
Look at Incarnation on the virgin birth, p. 90 contrary to it’s use as substantiation of personal election, that John 1:12,13 but to as many as received Him …gave He the right to become children of God. Who were born not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God: He says “‘who were born’ – singular or plural? [If] ‘who was born’…the reference is to Jesus.” Torrance cites several ancient sources, including Tertillian who blamed a sect who did not like the virgin birth for changing the phrase to the plural.
I believe that my faith agrees with the apostles, who agreed with Christ.
It is reassuring to know that some major points of doctrine were written about by the early fathers and confirm our theology.
You don’t hear much about them where I come from.
P.S. Yes Bobby God is Good! Praise the Lord that your treatment is going as well as it is. Thank you Lord that you answer prayer.
Just a small interlocution: how could “the dunce” be any less traditional than “the dumb ox”?
Folks who consider what you’re saying as somehow innovative just don’t get the history, man.
It is difficult to know where to begin with all the worms we have wriggling around from the open can of election/predestination. I’ll start with what comes to mind first, but not necessarily order of importance. (At least as far as I can see).
#1: The Claim that “Federalists” Believe that God’s Decrees are Seperate From His “Being”
I cannot figure out how this charge holds any water in comparison with the Boyce quote who is a Federalist. He explicitly says that these decrees come from “within Himself.” Meaning that they are not contrary to, but are actually an expression of His “Being.” If this is the case, I do not see where a “Classic Calvinist” is guilty of what you are charging him of. Or that his theology neccesitates the charge you level.
#2: You said: People go to hell because they donβt realize subjectively what is objectively thereβs [sic] in Christ.
I cannot make any sense of this statement. Unless there is a profundity here that escapes me, it appears ridiculous. How does it make any sense to “objectively” own something and yet not own it at the same time? Knowledge about an objective fact does not change an objective fact. If salvation is objectively mine, then I am saved. Period. Regardless of what I feel about it. Since you believe that we are saved through faith, do you think faith is subjective? Or is faith an objective reality?
Second problem I see with this is your view of salvation seems precarious. That is, if indeed we must acquire the objective reality via subject means, how may we ever be certain we are indeed saved? It is not enough to emphasize that salvation is an objective reality! Why? Because in your view this objective reality is acquired by a subjective means which, by nature, is fallible. The philosophical definition I found of subjective is as follows: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. That is, your mind is the place of knowing, I suppose, that you have an objective atonement. So now we must trust our minds? Isn’t that the very thing you argue against doing to give people a sense of security in Christ?
#3: History can be of great help, as you keep noting. So I do not see how you have escaped that “Intellectual Calvinist” Owen’s logice of the atonement. Are you willing to say that unbelief is not to be considered sin? If it is, why isn’t it atoned for with the rest of a man’s sin? Again, what is the nature of faith? Is it objective or subjective? What is the subjective part of salvation in your view?
#3: Imputation
You said: There was no such humanity to assume, unless of course He somehow sanctified humanity (apart from the Incarnation and cross) prior to the assumption of humanity.
What are you talking about? Jesus is the second Adam, correct? What is the significance of the virgin birth? Are you saying that “flesh” is inherently sinful? That Jesus’ flesh was sinful? You seem to be going in a gnostic direction here, and are certainly out of line with how Calvin understood Jesus’ taking on “sinful flesh.” I quote:
For though the flesh of Christ was polluted by no stains, yet i seemed apparently to be sinful, inasmuch as it sustained the punishment due to our sins, and doubtless death exercised all its power over it as though it was subject to itself. (Calvin’s Commentary of Romans 8:3).
And Calvin says this of the incarnation:
For we make Christ free of all stain not just because he was begotten of his mother without copulation with man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit that the generation might be pure and undefiled as would have been true before Adam’s fall. (Institutes Book 2 Chapter 13, Section 4).
Here I take Calvin as saying that Christ was “sanctified” at conception to appear “pure and undefiled” as a man, just as Adam was before the fall. I’m not certain if that makes me a Federalist, a Nestorian, or what. I certainly do not see how it forces my view of election one way or the other.
#4: You said:
And this is really the bottom line, Brad. Scholastic Calvinism is compelled to answer everything according to the causalism that it is committed to. So it must answer what caused the Fall (in order to maintian its perception of βsovereigntyβ).
Has to answer? Or feels that it can answer? I have to say that, even if the appeal to secondary causes is a fancy way of saying, “I don’t really know”, it seems to me to be a better way of saying I don’t know than the way you say it. You pretend to say that your view excuses you from speculation, and imply that the Federalist view “forces” them to explain all mystery. That is disingenuous. If you admit that your own system is left with “I don’t know” or “I don’t have to know,” then you have a system that cannot do anything but say, “Well, I may not know, but I know that you cannot be correct because my system says you are wrong.” Well, how can you say that if you do not know?
I appreciate this conversation. It has helped me to think over some things again. So thanks.
God bless,
Brad
Hi Bobby, Hi Brad!
Irritated, because I just typed 90% of the following post, accidently hit the control button with another key, and gone! So I will attempt a re-do.
Brad
I appreciate that you came over to Bobby’s to try to understand his theology. Trust me, there is much that I am struggling to comprehend as well.
I like your questions, and eagerly anticipate Bobby’s response.
I come at this from the perspective of a Bible Church, what Bobby calls “biblicist”, and generally free-grace, free will.
On the question of freedom of the will, Bobby says I am adressing the wrong question, because it is man-centered, not God centered. I get that. Likewise he says that federal calvinism is wrong because it is decree centered.
My interest in this debate has a few centers:
1. Calvinists must defend sovereignty of God by arguing that God determined which humans would be saved by grace, and which would not. The extreme calvinist position is that everything that happens, thought, or felt was determined by God in advance, or else He is not sovereign (1st cause).
I must defend the sovereignty and creativity of God by arguing that the crown of His creation is not 100 billion finely tuned watches ticking after His own image, but rather, mankind created in His image, each sentient individual created with the ability to make volitional decisions. The jewel in that crown is the incarnated Jesus the Christ, who by His incarnation and sacrifice, restored to Adam (adam’s progeny) the ability to accept or reject God.
2. The Calvinists must defend the immutability of God by arguing that He decided in eternity past which of his equally guilty sentient beings would be sent to eternal punishment in unimaginable pain, and which would be saved by grace to unimaginable bliss.
I argue for the case of mystery (Sovereign God will survive unchanged) in favor of the unimpeachable Justice of God:
God eternally knowing that all men are guilty before God are all equally liable to hell-fire and damnation, would not condemn some to eternal punishment, while saving others to eternal reward, without any other justification than “the potter’s clay”. Note: Has it ever occurred to a calvinist that the analogy breaks down with the fact that you can fire clay a million times, at 1000 degrees, create claymation eyes for it, stick a burning fork in it’s eyes, and it never, ever expresses pain, and probably never feels any pain at all?
So what is God’s criterion for accepting some, and rejecting the rest? Does He play at dice? That would give the dice sovereignty. Maybe it’s the downtrodden? No, that would exclude most American Presbytereans. You argue that that is the mystery. I argue that my mystery leaves imminently capable God able to defend His own immutability and sovereignty, while your mystery consigns the majority of humanity to eternal loss, without the same justice (or clemancy) afforded the eternally saved.
God’s justice would better remain intact if He condemned us all, every one.
3. This has to do with my human (God given)
empathy (1930’s German pogroms would do well as a substitute for the old south in this illustration):
How do most calvinists feel about the Jim Crow south? They probably despise the racism and nepotism. If they were thrust into a 1950’s American south court room where an all white jury would condemn a teenage boy to hang for something he probably never did, most would probably turn pallid with horror.
How then do you compartmentalize The Way The Truth and The Life, God is Love, God is Just, with the idea that He created all men judicially equally, that they are all judicially guilty under God, they all are equally sentient. And yet one will get unmerited favor and the other will be beat eternally like a slave caught touching the massas daughter?
As if it is my decision – it is not; I absolutely reject the idea that another is not afforded the same opportunity as I had to believe in Jesus. Certainly, I in absolutely no way merit the grace given me.
But if I were in the old south and shared a courtroom with another (lets say “pick pocket), and I got my wrist slapped, and he got prison, I would as I am now (I hope), slink out of the courtroom, ashamed of the unequal justice, or better, fight for equal clemency for the other defendent.
What say you?
Your Brother
Hey Duane,
Friday is a “tie up loose ends” day for me, so I’m rather frantic usually. (Thank the Lord I have things to do!)
I will say that there are answers to the questions you put forth. But let me just touch on something about “mystery” for a minute.
I am unaware of a position that doesn’t, at some point, have to appeal to mystery. For example, you appeal once to mystery in this comment. You say:
“I argue for the case of mystery (Sovereign God will survive unchanged) in favor of the unimpeachable Justice of God.” That’s fine. I have no problem with appeals to mystery, honestly. I take mystery to mean “hard to explain” or “unexplanable” or, “I know my position seems to logically indicate ‘X’, but I don’t believe ‘X’, don’t believe ‘X’ is necessarily implies, but it only seems to be. I just can’t adequately explain why yet.”
So, you have pointed out what you presently confess to believe is a mystery. Particular Redemptionists, or “Limited Atonement” guys simply say that why God chose one over another is a mystery. Why? Because they/we must say that God’s choice cannot be based on foreseen merit in the creature because, well, there is no merit to be seen. Besides, that would ultimately base salvation in a merit and not in grace. Grace would be deserved in that case.
In particular, I would challenge this statement very strongly. You say:
“I absolutely reject the idea that another is not afforded the same opportunity as I had to believe in Jesus.”
That smacks of the sinful creature deserving the same grace that you have received. If another sinful persons deserves the “chance/opportuinity” that was afforded you, it is not grace but something owed. So no, God does not owe everyone two arms, two legs, two eyes, or equal grace.
WHy would you reject the idea that God has shown more favor to you than another? Is this not abundantly observable? Because God has shown grace to you, a sinner, that He has withheld from another, does that make Him unjust?
Chris,
Yes, interesting isn’t that.
Hi Brad!
Yes, in my infinitessimal mind, that would make God unjust.
Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.
God would be an abomination to Himself.
So, Brad what is your response to the analogy of other forms of injustice:
anywhere 2 are equally guilty under the law, but only one is severly punished. Is that o.k?
Duane
Brad,
What’s a bit frustrating is that I spent all that time finding all those links for you, and you said you’re not motivated to read them . . . when they address everything you’ve brought up here.
First of all, I don’t really feel like reinventing the wheel right now (esp. when I’ve already dealt with your questions in all of those linked posts above, and in the attendant comments); but I’ll try to briefly, and anecdoctaly respond to you (you don’t really seem to get what Federal Calvinism is all about, quoting one thing from Boyce ain’t going to cut it) — so that’s my response to your #1 — this is a well known charge against Federal Calvinists (forget Boyce read Richard Muller).
#2. The reason you don’t get this point is because you’re starting with man instead of thinking out of the Incarnation (and Jesus as THE man – archetypal). Think of it like this, Jesus is the trailblazer (the first man, Adam was even created in “His image” see Col 1); you know what, just read this: http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/faith-of-christ-for-us/
That’s what I believe, if you can’t accept this or see the validity of this; then I’m sorry, you need to think through the implications of the Incarnation then.
On your #4 read this: http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/a-fallen-christ/
Like I said, I’m not going to reinvent the wheel. When you say that . . . βsanctifiedβ at conception to appear βpure and undefiledβ as a man . . .. The appear lang. actually makes you sound docetic.
On #4. All I can say is that you don’t know the history — if that makes me sound condescending, sorry, but you don’t, because if you did you wouldn’t be saying half the things that you are here, Brad — Actually this goes back to the body of my post here and the “competing” doctrines of God (which you aren’t getting — I’ll take part of the blame, but again you just haven’t spent the time to parse this stuff out, apparently, like I’ve said if you don’t understand some distinctions between Thomist and Scotist frameworks then most of what I’m trying to get acrossed to you is going to be lost on you, which it is). In short, the Thomist doctrine of God is shaped by a necessitarianism that requires that we talk in logico/causal terms that “moves” us back to God as the “unmoved mover.” There is no dynamism or relationality (only forced glosses on this) in this concept of God, because His “oneness” vs. His “threeness” is emphasized. Contrarily a Scotist doctrine of God starts with God as love which presupposes His trinitarian and relational nature. This allows for the dynamism that I am speaking about, so that we don’t have to have mathematical certainty in order to maintain His “sovereignty” and essence as Thomism does. Instead God’s sovereignty is shaped by His love of Himself within the intratrinitarian and dynamic make-up of His being.
Thus far I don’t see that you have “system,” I see you trying to borrow, inconsistently, from Federal Calvinism — w/o really understanding what is involved in Federal Calvinism. This is the major flaw with MacARthurite style theology, even Federal Calvinists would say this. First off, you can’t be consistently 5 point and Calvinist and dispensational (it just does not and cannot work methodologically — given the framework of the covenants within Covenant theology, and the continuity therein vs. the discontinuity within Dispensational theology).
I just think you need to do a little more reading, Brad. Steven Ozment has a great intro to Reformation theology in his book “Age of Reform.” You should read that, and then we could talk some more. Until then, I don’t think our conversation is going to turn out to be that intelligible. I’ve spent alot of time posting on this stuff, which if you would’ve read those links I provided above, you wouldn’t have framed your comment here in the way that you did; because I’ve dealt with just about everything you’ve posted here previously.
Anyway, peace, Brad, thanks for the engagement.
Brad:
“That smacks of the sinful creature deserving the same grace that you have received.”
No, we merit absolutely no favor no, not any from God, ever, ever, ever, ever, forever never ever.
God’s nature simply rejects injustice. Period.
A people whose whole theology is rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle et. al. can not see the failure of logic that a God created 2 races of sentient beings, inter-related (father, son, brother, sister) but one race was hated condemned before it’s creation, the other loved redeemed, even though both races issue from Adam- the original sinner. That this God is Love and Justice, defies God given logic.
What I do not understand is where is the God given empathy and sense of justice for the reformed. To me, the wonder is that pogroms are not more widely accepted by them as they were in 1930’s Germany, and not that the English easily accepted the caste system in colonial India.
If sovereign God decreed it, then que sera sera. That follows the logic.
Duane
Duane
Brad and Duane,
Just reposted one of those links that I provided for you Brad, it deals directly with the way that I think through predestination and election. You’ll note that “decree” is still at play, but is directly related to the life of God.
If you want to refer to Boyce, I would suggest you see how his broader theological framework informs his ideas on the decrees (who knows maybe he wasn’t consistently Federal, although I know he was).
Anyway, see what you think.
Duane,
I’ll leave it to Bobby Grow to help you along. It will suffice to say that my appeals are not to Aristotle but to Scripture. Especially germane is Romans 9.
Bobby Grow,
I do not feel that it is my lack of historical knowledge that is hampering me, it is the nonsense to which you continue to appeal. You haven’t answered a single objection I’ve raised satisfactorily in any of the articles I have read yet. In fact, they have only raised more troubles. Apparently, your sources are less persuasive than you hoped. So I’m afraid that we are at an impasse. With that, I will bid you adieu. If it pleases you, you can put me in with the MacArthurite knuckle-draggers.
Brad,
It most certainly is your lack of understanding what’s going on in Federal Theology that is hampering you.
You’ve never dealt with anything I’ve said, except to offer skeptical anecdotal responses evince an attitude that you’re right and I’m wrong off the gun. I guess you’ve taken two days to try and understand some of this, so that’s more commendable than most MacArthurites. The problem with the MacArthurite approach is that it is so cock-sure about being “right” and speaking the “truth” that when confronted with something else (that might be true), they recoil and pick up this attitude of “us” vs “them” w/o an ability to hear anything (that’s why the Pyros and crew get along so well). I’ll be doing further critiques of the MacArthur approach, I think the next one will be on how inconsistent of a picture MacARthurtism paints in re. to its Calvinism and Dispensationalism (a big interpretive hole).
I’m glad you came over, Brad, but in the end you really only evinced what I would expect from a guy who really enjoys the MacArthur style . . . that’s too bad (we had one of those kind of guys come into our church and split it, he was a “great guy”).
Brad,
Honestly, I have studied all of Romans and chapter 9 over and over, and can not see what you see as overwhelming evidence of God’s decree. “Jacob have I loved and Esau have I HATED”: good then that PROVES when Jesus says “if any one comes to me and does not HATE his father and his mother, his wife and his children and his own life, he can not be my disciple.” Than by logical extention we should hope for all enlisted in the quote (father, mother etc) be consigned to hell as you suppose Esau is consigned to hell.
“Pharoah for this reason have I RAISED YOU UP…” This could not be interpretted that Pharoah was a hardened (in God’s foreknowledge, never to repent)sinner bound for hell, in the royal line that God raised up to manifest His Glory to Israel. That interpretation would not support the Augustinian line.
As far as the potter’s clay is concerned, if we are talking one guy getting a vocation like mine in a dingy factory “hating” his life, and another gets the vocation of his dreams, filling a school of claymation figures with his particular theology, I’m all for it. If one ne’er to repent sinner gets to guard gulag internees until the judgement, while the other gets to be the premier, then so be it. But if the analogy given is to justify sentient humans as subjects of everlasting punishment, without any ability to satisfy the judge, (by default, not rejecting His gift) I don’t see that in scripture.
I sadly, sadly, admit that to me, it seems that you have a defective conscience with no sense of justice, and if your parents and philosophy taught you that Jews were subject to God’s wrath and it was your duty to stove in the heads of Jews, your teachers could show you a verse to substantiate it, and you might comply.
No philosophy could make me believe that the Romans claymation analogy says what you say it says. What’s more, knowing scripture just a little, and therefore knowing the character, the Being of God, knowing GOD, there is no scripture or collection of scriptures that could prove to me the claymation analogy. I would never have believed in such a being. My Savior is not like that.
The end of chapter 9 does not close the context, but it does end the thought with Israel, (incidentally the topic of the chapter, not election!) who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness failed,[because they were not elect? NO!] because they did not pursue it by faith” Why can’t you appropriate ALL that you read? “As it is written,…’whoever BELIEVES in Him will not be put to shame'”
Why is faith such a heavy matter to Paul, belief such a heavy matter to Jesus and Paul and John? To calvinists it is an afterthought, LITERALLY. Why don’t Jesus and Paul listen to the calvinists?
“How many times would I have gathered you as a hen does her chicks, BUT YOU WOULD NOT!” there. Who said that? Is Jesus semi-pelagian? Than I am too. No apologies. If that makes me Arminian, then to God be the Glory!
Peace
Ok, I have two questions.
1) Doesn’t the incarnation make the Son submissive to other things which are not “who he is” in eternity past, such as growth, eating, tiredness, etc? Why is that submission okay, but submission to other laws governing creation not?
Are you saying that the Son submitting to human form is the direct translation of God-ese into humanese, but the Son submitting to human form because of situational decrees re. the Fall is merely the response of God translated into humanese, not God freely himself?
2) I have agreed that the Son would have come to earth in human form regardless of the Fall, but what about the cross? Is it contingent on the Fall, or is the Fall contingent on the revelation of the cross? In other words can you not say the same thing about the cross as the incarnation because it is so central to who we see God to be in the cross?
1) No because the Incarnation has always been who Christ has been in eternity (or oriented to in His image as the Son of God). I.e. He has always been Deus Incarnandus, the ‘God to be incarnate’.
I would just say that the decrees become a ‘god behind the back of Jesus’ who determines how He should act (we end up with a principle of godness that is separate from the Father, Son, and Spirit). Eating and such wouldn’t really parallel the problem that the ‘god of the decrees’ poses. Since eating and growing for a truly human Jesus is consonant with who He has been as the “God-man” for all eternity (something He freely chose to submit to). The decrees tell Him how He should act, and thus determine His nature in that scenario.
2) Yes. This is why someone like TF Torrance ties Incarnation and Atonement together (they are intimately related realities). I would say the Fall only intensified the revelation of God’s wisdom and life on the cross. The Incarnation and Cross-work becomes the centrum wherein God’s eschatological purpose for creation is made manifest through the great reversal that Jesus accomplished through His work (and continued work). So the cross, in the drama of salvation, becomes the stage wherein God’s life of love and humility are most exemplified for the world to see; and thus becomes the starting point wherein knowledge of Him can truly be realized for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear by the Spirit — so that as the world sees it as foolish, we see it as God’s wisdom, God’s life in action! I would simply say that God’s life shaped the cross, or that His life has always been cruciform; not vice versa, to answer your question in short.
That’s interesting that you don’t see the cross and the Fall as necessarily related. If his life has always been cruciform (and I agree that it is), then the Fall could be said to be a necessary outworking of that in Creation (as opposed to the Fall determining the incarnation and cross).
In terms of the Trinity, then, you must consider the Son’s “Son-ness” to necessarily include “incarnate-ness” (considering neither the Father or the Spirit are “the God to be incarnate”). This, then, must be an extension of the Son being “the angel of the Lord”, the “image of the invisible God”, the glory of the Father, God “on display”.
Ali said:
then the Fall could be said to be a necessary outworking of that in Creation (as opposed to the Fall determining the incarnation and cross).
I thought that’s what I said in my last clause. In fact as I reread what I wrote I don’t see how you’ve concluded that I said the Fall and the cross have nothing to do with eachother; I said the cross, in God’s profundity answers the Fall perfectly in His sovereign and loving wisdom.
As far as the Trinity, we must think through their threeness and oneness at the same time (distinct but inseparably and perichoretically related).
Oh, sorry, I didn’t pick that up. When I read:
I would say the Fall only intensified the revelation of Godβs wisdom and life on the cross
I read it like this:
I would say the Fall only intensified the revelation of Godβs wisdom-and-life-on-the-cross
instead of:
I would say the Fall only intensified the revelation of Godβs wisdom-and-life on the cross.
Re. the Trinity, thinking it through their threeness and oneness at the same time is great, but what I’m pointing out is that the incarnation is a distinctive of the Son, and therefore I see no reason not to think about the attributes of the Son within the perichoretic relationships without having to mention them all the time! I am trying to keep these comments short, after all! π
I would not want to separte the Son’s attributes from the Father’s or the Spirit; which is the point of the homoousion. I wouldn’t tie the incarn. to an attribute, but to a person. In other words, if we tie attribute to Incarn. then we only support the Thomist notion of God wherein the persons subsist from this “Godness” or a “God behind the back of Jesus,” for example.
I would have thought that when I said, “attributes of the Son” it was clear that I was not talking about attributes that properly belong to the Divine i.e. properly belonging to all members of the Trinity, but rather functions that are carried out by each person of the Trinity. To quote Scott at Fides Quaerens Intellectum:
God the Father reveals himself (objectively) in his incarnate Son in the power of his Spirit (subjectively) to the believer.
And the incarnation is merely an extension of the Son’s revelatory function within the Godhead. It did not begin with the incarnation – God has always revealed himself through the Son – but it was always going to lead to the incarnation.
That being what I meant, I’m not sure how that would create a “God behind the back of Jesus”.
Thanks for clarifying, Ali.
It wasn’t clear, but is now.
If that’s what you meant, then we don’t end up with a God behind the back of Jesus. That’s what my point was though on separating attributes from persons in the God-head, this is what happens in the Thomistic approach . . . so I’m glad you clarified.