The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Conference Elective "Responding to the New [E] Universalism"

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#41

Hi Gene

Indeed I am familiar with the notion of compatibilism in the sense used here. And I say it is a desperate fudge, incoherent nonsense magicked up by Calvinists to try and explain the logical absurdity of God unchangeably preordaining us to do things which we ‘freely’ choose to do.

Now I accept that there is no such thing as ‘truly’ or ‘completely’ free will. We are all of us subject to causative factors either partially of totally outside of our conscious control – genetics, upbringing, environment, life experiences etc. (Indeed, it is because I accept this fact that I think we shouldn’t be too quick to condemn people who end up making a mess of their lives, committing terrible crimes or whatever. For how do we know what traumatic experiences, what corrupt genetic inheritance they may be subject to?)

I also accept that if our wills are in fact ‘free’ in any meaningful sense, then of course we may well often choose to act the way God actually wants us to act in a given situation. So I accept compatibilism in this limited sense. But to say that we therefore ‘freely’ choose to do everything that we do, thereby incurring moral responsibility for the consequences of our actions (which for the reprobate include damnation), despite the fact that every single one of those things – good, bad or indifferent – was preordained before we were born, well, it’s just meaningless gibberish.

Under Calvinism, if God unchangeably ordains something, that thing happens, come what may. We cannot not do it. Hence we cannot be held morally responsible for it, no matter how reprehensible, how wicked that thing is. Now you might argue that we would have chosen to do that thing anyway, even if it had not been preordained by God - your compatibilist argument, basically. But in that case I would respond that this is the direct result of the unconscious causative factors influencing our will - factors which God can easily orchestrate in such a way as to manipulate us into a psychological state so that we do in fact ‘freely’ (ha ha) choose to act badly. So again, how can we be held accountable for acting the way we do?

And hence, despite the theological chicanery of the Westminster Confession, the moral responsibility for our actions falls on God. Under Calvinism, God is indeed the author of evil. But it gets worse. Not only is God the author of every evil act – every murder, every rape, every abuse – he then blames us, his innocent children, for carrying out his evil ordinations! So the God of Calvinism is not just a monster, the cosmic sadist who makes Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa, but a dishonest sadist to boot!

The bottom line is that it is simply impossible to construct a plausible theodicy under Calvinism. Even a strongly Arminian theodicy has its problems, but it at least makes sense both morally and logically.

Gene, you say:

I ask you a simple question. Why? Why should I be held accountable for not doing something when I could not possibly have done otherwise? And indeed, in the light of the Calvinist fiction of total depravity, why should I be held accountable simply for acting according to my own God-given nature?

I have more to say about Romans 9, but I would be interested to hear you response to the above in the meantime.

All the best

Johnny

#42

In ordinary secular philosophy compatibalism is arrives at thus -

‘Freedom’ means an ability to make choices, and any belief in our accountability for making bad choices presupposes a belief in our ability to have chosen otherwise. A ‘compatibilist’ is a philosopher who has weighed the arguments and has decided we do not have freedom in any ultimate sense – we are all part of a chain of causation over which we have little or no control. We would have to have been there at the creation of the universe, fine tuning the conditions of the big bang to be free in any ultimate sense. However, compatibilists then go on to think about whether the notion of freedom can have any coherent meaning at all. They decide it does have an ordinary and useful meaning. When we say we are ‘free’ we mean that there are no outside agents compelling us to act in a way that we do not want to – for example we are not free if someone is holding a gun to our heads. So we can be free in the sense of not being compelled externally, even if our ‘inner’ choices are actually determined by causative factors – society, genetics, environment etc…

Is this similar to the Calvinist meaning of compatibilism – although their argument is obviously a supernatural one rather than a natural one? Many secular philosophers would claim that the naturalisitc argument is sleight of hand acheived by redeinfition (when our eyes are averted).

#43

Some dark thoughts -

Too much philosophy sends my head spinning I must admit. Freewill and determinism are huge and knotty themes – and in the end they are paradoxical and part of mystery. I’m sure that God does want us to love Him with our minds also. And as sons and daughters of God made in the image of God it is right that we should try to question and seek understanding on issues of paradox and mystery.

Of course there are passages in the Bible that speak of the vanity of human knowledge – there are also plenty of passages that speak of the validity of the pursuit of the wisdom that seeks of discern the connections and purposes in all that exists. It’s easy to hold these two ideas in a paradoxical tension – while it is right for us to seek knowledge we should never be so arrogant to think we have grasped the absolute truth. Likewise there are passages in scripture that talk of human depravity and accursedness and others that speak of human dignity and God’s good pleasure in us –again we can hold these two insights in humble creative tension.

Determinism and freewill is another paradox we can think on fruitfully. However, to admit a space for paradox in view of the limitations in our understanding is not, in my view, the same as embracing contradiction. ‘My ways are not thy ways’ says Yahweh the Lord – and yes God is always beyond our grasp. However, it is a step too far to contemplate God willing evil and wickedness, and destruction in my view – however logical this might seem in some systems.

For me this goes against the whole evidence of the Incarnation, whatever a selection of proof texts spun into abstract deductive syllogisms may suggest. So I have to say that in my view the God of love and goodness does not will or create evil. Evil has to be a tragedy that God allows – seemingly connected with the mystery of freedom - but not something that God wills, although God wills to bring good out of evil.

Indeed I’m not sure we can ask the questions about God willing or creating evil in the abstract. It’s a question that can only be properly asked in a situation where evil is triumphant. I well remember the passage in Ellie Wiessels’ ‘Night’ where three Jewish prisoners are hanged in front of their peers for trying to escape from the concentration camp. One of the prisoners is only a boy – a young boy. At night when they are eating their miserable soup one prisoner asks ‘where was God today?’ Another replies ‘God died on the gallows’ (and this could have one, row both of two meanings).

Regarding Pharaoh – whatever the hardening means in Exodus, in Romans Paul talks of God handing us over to our wrath. So some would argue that the hardening here is God respecting Pharaoh’s freedom and handing him over to the hardness of his heart, but still trying to bring good out of the evil this hardening facilitates siding with the oppressed.

#44

Jonny,
sorry to take so long to respond. Yes I sympathize with your consensus on Calvinism’s determinism. Unfortunately, I like most, cannot resolve the matter. My only point was to say that Calvinism, even with it’s hard determinism, does incorporate the means regarding all events. So when they say people’s choices are determined by God, they thus do not relieve a person from the actual even or necessity to live out that event. So if God destined me to talk to you, I should and will live out that action.

What Calvinists aren’t consistent on is that when people do bad, it’s all their fault and God gets no blame. But when people do good, God gets the credit and people don’t. TOTALLY inconsistent.

Tom Talbott has made this point clear in 5 views on election. I doubt it matters thought, because Calvinists don’t care if they’re consistent. They only care about what they think the text says and if it contradicts their very own intuition, then out with their intuition.

#45

Sobornost,
sorry to take so long as well getting back to you. I don’t quite follow you on the incarnation but I’ll leave that to you to elaborate if you so wish.

As for the Pharoah. I think it’s undeniable that Paul is not referring to the Pharaoh being given over to his hardness as if God wished it would have been otherwise. God makes it perfectly clear to Moses that he will harden the Phaoraoh’s heart so that he WILL NOT let Israel go, which is exactly to disobey his very own request. In other words, it seems clear to me the Pharoah would have obeyed God had God not have hardened his heart and God wanted him to disobey so that his power might be displayed to the whole world.

So I don’t buy the Arminian persuasion on this text. I realize it’s necessary for them to see it that way because they’ll charge me, as they do Calvinists, of making God unjust.

But I don’t believe it was unjust because his point was to harden the Pharaoh that he too might receive mercy, which is what I believe the text declares.

Aug

#46

I’ve spent a lot of time looking at that bit about Pharaoh. It seems to me to be a thing that is against righteousness and fair relationship for God to harden Pharaoh’s heart toward disobedience. But I came across something a while back (alas I can’t remember where – probably in Hope Beyond Hell, but maybe somewhere else – that makes a lot of sense to me.

The word choice here (in the original language of course) makes “harden” something more akin to the hardening of muscles. It could have been “strengthen” as well as “harden,” and looking at the definitions, that seems feasible to me. What if Pharaoh was a coward? He would have backed off, but God strengthened his heart so that he would have the courage to do what was truly in his heart to do.

My dogs are much more obedient when they’re wearing their shock collars. I don’t have to shock them (hardly ever), so don’t feel too bad for them. I usually only use the hot button if they’re in danger and I have no other way to stop them, for example, chasing after some big black bull wandering by outside the fence. But they still know what I COULD do, and so they obey me. If they DON’T have the collars on, they become naughty and insolent:

Do you think my dogs are really good obedient dogs with this attitude? :laughing: Hardly. They’re just afraid. Underneath, the naughtiness is still there – just covered up by fear. When I read this commentary on Pharaoh, it clicked with me. Yes, that does sound more like something Father would do. He would strengthen Pharaoh’s heart so that he would have the courage to do what he REALLY wanted, within himself, to do. Because in the end, it is all about the heart, isn’t it? It’s no good pretending to be something you’re not. That’s just hypocrisy, and it doesn’t please God to know that we obey Him out of fear and not out of love.

#47

Hi Aug –

(I’ll leave you o respond to Cindy’s intriguing suggestion). Now – I’m not really much cop at abstract philosophy and metaphysical theology – it’s not my forte (but check out the ‘Does God Cause Evil’ thread where shaper minds than mine are having an excellent if sometimes heated debate about these issues). But I’ll try and sketch some sort of answer for you, and clarify some points .

I think you are right about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in terms of Paul’s midrash on this story in Romans. I’m not so sure that it is true of the original story in Exodus however. There is no indication of a fully developed belief in the world to come in the early books of the Hebrew Bible – justice is about the retributions and vindications that happen now in history - so the hardening of hearts that Yahweh meets out here must have a different context. I believe there is progressive revelation in the Bible. So in the early books Yahweh is perceived as not yet fully universal. He is the God of Israel the most powerful God and simply responsible for all that happens – the idea that God loves all people, seeks the good of all peoples seems to me to only fully emerge in the great prophets. So I read the hardening texts in the books of Moses and in Joshua simply as demonstrations of the almighty power of Israel’s Lord of Hosts – the results of these hardenings are providential for Israel but result in destructions and disaster to the peoples who oppose them – all done without any wider purposes of merciful providence. Later, as Yahweh is understood more in terms of universal love and universal moral principles Satan, originally depicted as a servant of Yahweh, breaks away and becomes the hardener of hearts, contrary to God’s will.

I guess Paul is looking back on the Exodus story in the light of the risen Christ and the experience of having his own heart hardened toward the Christians - which paradoxically lead to his conversion. It seems to me that the whole language of first being hardened and then being shown mercy in Paul is not about deductive logic – it’s more a statement of faith that God in his mercy is somehow in control and will bring all things to good.

Regarding the logic of soteriology – I reckon we can only do our best and I’ve no issues with you – or with Tom Talbott. I completely agree that universalism is the only satisfying soteriology, and that it is the best way of irnong out the faults in both the logic of Calvinism and the logic of Armenianism .

Regarding my point about the Incarnation – well I guess that’s more to do with theodicy (the issue of the problem of pain and suffering) rather than with soteriology (the issue of the nature and scope of salvation). Richard Beck in one of his posts states that it is theodicy rather than soteriology that is the crucial issues for universalists. I agree. I think it is laudable to think through the dialectics of soteriolgy – but when we come to theodicy the perspective shifts. If you or I were to stand in Auschwitz or some other place of appalling suffering the abstractions of soteriolgy would not give us an answer to the seeming silence of God (and I note that in the Hebrew Testament chutzpah style lamentation - calling on God boldly in times of suffering - is the keynote to theodicy rather than abstract argument). IN the end the only answer that makes sense to me as a Christian to the questions of theodicy – and its paradoxical rather than purely logical - is that because of the Incarnation, because God emptied Himself and shared in or brokenness and sufferings – we have a God we can trust despite all of the evidence to contrary. That’s all I was driving at.
Al the very best

Dick :slight_smile:

#48

Dick,
Loved your last comment(s). Agreed. Regarding the Pharaoh, I’m only pointing to the obvious that no matter what type of spin it always comes out the same. The problem isn’t whether it was God or the Pharaoh doing the hardening, the difficulty is that God want’s him to do something else than what he calls him to do. So to answer Cindy’s response: No. It doesn’t quite work with the Calvinists. We could say God gave him courage which is a view I favor but that’s not the difficulty. Again, God is giving him courage to disobey his command and preventing him from obeying - that is a home-run for the Calvinist. But it’s my opinion they should pay attention to the subtext of the story about a man who disobeys God, gets punishment and becomes obedient - sound familiar? After all Egyptians cry out “Go else we shall all die” which is saying - if you God we shall all live.

As for the rest of your comments, beautifully said and I agree. I’m not a hard determinist. My only point to Johnny was to say that it is unfruitful to question a Calvinist why they should pray. Calvinist’s do, within their own philosophy, intergrate the means into the determinism. So the accusation of “well if it’s all settled they why bother” doesn’t quite cut it.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and Blessing and joy to you brother.

Aug

#49

Bless you too Aug - :smiley:

#50

Hi Gene

No need to apologise. I guess I’ll just have to accept that I cannot understand Calvinism :smiley: .

Thanks for your thoughtful and gracious replies to my intemperate rants about Calvinism. The reason I get so hot under the collar when the C word is mentioned is because I believe it to be a terrible and unbiblical slur on God’s character (that He chooses not to love some people, and indeed sends them off to eternal punishment). I have also heard and read extensive testimony from Calvinists about how that doctrine has terrorised and damaged them (I’ve never heard a Universalist say that :smiley: ), and from agnostics saying that if God is as Calvinists say he is then they want nothing to do with Him. (For which I can’t blame them, for neither do I.) Now, if Calvinism is true, this isn’t a problem, because those folk are doubtless reprobate anyway, in which case doomed from all eternity. But if Calvinism *isn’t *true; if God is actually an Arminian - well, Calvinism has a lot to answer for. (Of course, as an EU, I believe this isn’t *ultimately *a problem, but it does make a big difference to people’s lives here and now.)

May I ask, do you classify yourself as a Calvinist, a Universalist, a Calvinist Universalist, or something else? If I had to put a label on myself, I would say I am a hopeful dogmatic Arminian Universalist - hopeful because I hope God exists, dogmatic because if He does, I’m convinced He will save us all, and Arminian because I believe He will do so in a way that preserves the measure of free will He has granted us.

All the best

Johnny

#51

Johnny, I think you understand it, I’m just commenting that the best way to disprove it is to present it in ways that Calvinists accept. That’s all.