Francis Schaeffer and Divine Determinism

The three individuals who have had the most effect on me through the years would undoubtedly be C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer and Thomas Oden.  Lewis definitively believed human beings have genuine free will, Oden was a Methodist and thus was in the Arminian camp.  Francis Schaeffer was a Presbyterian, and presumably a Calvinist, though I have noted that in all his writings I never once detected any hint of the divine determinism common in the brand of Calvinism that has so much influence today.  

I stumbled across this post from May of 2016 by Douglas Douma, a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church and author of he Presbyterian Philosopher – The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark.  

Douma finds evidence that Schaeffer was uncomfortable with the implications of 5-point Calvinism:  

"Nowhere in Schaeffer’s writings does he give a positive appraisal of the Calvinist views of election, predestination, or divine determinism. In fact, it seems he avoided the topics entirely."

Is Objectivity Merely a Cultural Invention?

How does one reason with someone who does not believe in reason?

Rationality is facing some hard times these days.  Postmodern thought has relegated truth to subjective cultural bias and not surprisingly, we now are told objectivity itself is a racist construct of the white European culture.   

One sophomore level course will have students “explore how systematic logics that position ‘the West’ and ‘whiteness’ as the ideal manifest through such social constructions as objectivity, meritocracy, and race.”

At Redstate, an essay titled "Towards a truer multicultural science education: how whiteness impacts science education" is quoted in reference to the destruction of objectivity.

While “the [science] culture attempts to be unbiased through peer reviewing and consistent methods and methodologies,” this interpretation “falsely makes us believe that science is an objective enterprise and transcends culture. 

“For many scientists, we are convinced that objectivity prevents an oppressive culture because discoveries are independent of identity... Consequently, we unknowingly spread whiteness ideology.

Thoughts on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

I doubt this is a new idea, but I don't think I've seen it expressed in this way.

What does it mean that Adam and Eve should not eat from a tree that is described as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil?" 

I think it simply refers to the way we understand what is evil and what is good experientially.  In short, if God created a world in which actions have consequences, then the way we understand evil is through the consequences. 

A Thought About Coffee and Determinism

I am quite sure there is "nothing new under the sun" and no really new or original ideas, but a thought came to me regarding determinism that I  have not heard expressed by others.   

Naturalistic determinism would have us believe that every effect has a prior cause and that everything that occurs is the result of a prior cause, including our thoughts and actions.   Taken to its logical conclusion, we don't have free will.  When we act we are only acting in a way that we were predetermined to act by a multitude of prior causes.  

Here's the problem that I see.

Further Thoughts on Romans 9 and Predestination

Predestination is generally an in-house debate Christians have amongst themselves and as such should not be a major discussion beyond the church doors.  But for me there is always a larger issue.   If Christianity is seen as a worldview, a "way of seeing" then the implications of a theistic determinism extend well beyond theological squabbles.   It cuts to the very heart of who we are as human beings and the meaning of the events of history.  It cuts to the very character of God.

I have long argued that one of the key proof texts for Calvinists who believe that God is sovereign in meticulously planning every event, Romans 9, is a misunderstanding of that passage based on failing to fully appreciate the context.  And one of the key proof texts for divine determinism actually proves the opposite point when connected to its Old Testament roots.

The primary question of the book of Romans, particularly chapters 9-11, is whether God is breaking a promise to Israel in granting grace to the Gentiles.   Why should anyone object to grace?  He states it is "not a matter of man's willing or running" - it is not of the law.  

In this context of mercy Paul does mention Pharaoh and a "hardening" of his heart.    Specifically in vs 18, Paul notes "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires"  (NASB)

Context matters.  The idea of "Hardening" should be considered in light of Romans 1, where in reference to the entire race, Paul says God "gave them over" to depraved mind, a consequence of not acknowledging God.  It should also take into account Romans 11 where the blindness of the Jews serves a purpose in reaching the gentiles but the state of national Israel's unbelief is not irreversible.

But the key passage is next in v19-25:

I Think, Therefore ...

At Discovery Institute, Michael Egnor takes note of the inherent self contradictions in materialism in the article Descarte's Blunder.  We are all aware of Descarte's famous "I think therefore I am" phrase.  The idea being one has to exist to think.  Egnor flips the script, or more accurately, points it back a step.  

"Notice that we cannot conclude that we exist unless we can conclude. That is, we must first know the principle of non-contradiction — that being is not non-being — before we can conclude that “I think therefore I am.”

The idea that "A" cannot be "non-A" is a necessary axiom for any knowledge.   If we can't distinguish between this and that, we simply can't think.

More of the Same

Over at Jesus Creed, the evangelizing for Darwinian Christianity continues.   This time a reprint, calling on quotations from respected Physicist and Anglican Priest John Polkinghorne.  While the article attempts to show a way to reconcile the worlds of science and faith, it demonstrates a few ways in which the TE crowd still just doesn't understand why other theists refuse to go where they are leading.

Blogger RJS comments:

Competition occurs when science is taken as competent and sufficient to answer metaphysical questions … or when theology is taken as required to answer mechanistic questions about the nature of the universe, from supernovas, to the diversity of life, to the progression of seasons and development of storms, to the reason why the Mississippi flows from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico rather than vice versa."

TE has often misunderstood the very heart of the theological viewpoints that stand in opposition to Theistic Evolution.  Who really argues that theology answers "mechanistic" questions about the universe?   Who argues that the Bible directly addresses the question of the direction of the Mississippi river?  While some may ask the question "how might a narrative relate to the physical universe" and speculate on the implications,  there is no real suggestion that the Bible itself speaks as a science book.  The primary issue is not that the bible answers "mechanistic" questions, but whether it is true when it touches on historical ones.

If the  events in the New Testament or the Old Testament including early chapters of Genesis did not happen, that changes the Biblical narrative itself, and thus changes the meaning of the text, changes the theology.  That is the central question, and TE tends to put that question in a box and hide it safely away.