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.

The "Narrative" of Genesis 1-11

I've long been fascinated by the use of the term "narrative" in progressive theological circles.

Usually, the word is used in one of two contexts, either to bash more conservative theological perspectives as "too focused on literalism" or "missing the scope of the narrative".

What fascinates me about it is that most who make a big deal about the narrative of God's redemptive history are also those who insist that Genesis 1-11 has little or no basis in actual history.  Adam, the Garden of Eden and the creation account were written for pre-scientific cultures as a way of explaining that the Hebrew God was better than all the other gods, and the accounts have no bearing on the central focus of the New Testament on Christ inaugurating a New Kingdom.

Why is this fascinating?

Because what they have done is completely altered the narrative.  Those who insist we only focus on the narrative have altered its very meaning.

An analogy is in order.

OK - Never Trump, Never say Never

Not so long ago I indicated I was a "never-Trumper".   I thought then (and still think) the tactics of his campaign were unconscionable and destructive.  It went beyond political "hardball" and veered into ridicule and character assassination.   And I was not convinced his policy points, vague as they were, would be the best for the country compared to the other candidates.  I had no reason to trust that his presidency would lean conservative.

Today, I still wince at every tweet and wish he would stop the outbursts.   That does not mean I think he should be soft on those who have unfairly attacked him - only more articulate, specific and less personal. 

But when it comes right down to it, in spite of a congress stocked with Republicans who once again have betrayed their own campaign promises on immigration, tax reform and health care, Trump has quietly done a number of things that any conservative should be cheering.

The Problem of Unity - Part 4

So here is my attempt at an answer. Once we have categorized those things which the majority of Christians agree are true essentials and not denominational distinctives, I would propose something like this.

1. Focus on what has historical consensus. That is, lead with those things that are NOT controversial. Make the focal point the three ecumenical creeds and the canon of scripture. I trust most do attempt something of this sort.

2. Seek mediating positions on matters in dispute since the Reformation. This means nothing less than to acknowlege that not everything has been settled. Our denominational positions on this topic or that may have a lot of thougt behind them, but that does not give them universal status. There has to be dialogue on those items not etched into the fabric of history in the creeds. Rather than merely trumpeting a particular view as settled, listen to the other side and state your perspective with humilty.

3. Avoid topics that are of recent contoversy or of lesser importance. I rarely think much of dispensational views of end times prophecy any more. It may be fun but it is not of central importance.

But once again, this is not what I feel we tend to do most often, and this is why we fail to find unity. Instead we push particular denominational distinctives to the top of the list, we use those distinctives to separate ourselves from other groups and as a result the essentials fade into the background.

Postmodernism and Leftism

Over at American Thinker, Paul Austin Murphy has a piece called "Postmodernism is Leftism" that perfectly articulates things I've felt for a long time.  The thesis is that as socialism fell out of favor in the late 60s, philosophers committed to a leftist worldview constructed a new set of ideas, consciously or not, that kept socialist ideas alive.  

He builds his article on a book by Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault .   Hicks ties part of his thinking to a religious commitment to socialism.  “You feel that socialism is true; you want it to be true; upon socialism you have pinned all your dreams of a peaceful and prosperous future society and all your hopes for solving the ills of our current society.”
Whatever the motivation, Murphy writes "It can be said that skeptical epistemology, deconstruction, etc. are all means to achieve the political ends which can't be sustained by truth, evidence and argumentation."  

I've written here many times that the denial of objective truth cannot lead anywhere good.   I've objected to postmodern nonsense time and time again.   If there is no objective truth, and truth is a "mask to power", than all that is left is raw battle for power.  If an existing political and social order is to be replaced, it first has to be delegitimized and destroyed.   If that cannot be done by argumentation, then it is diabolically cunning to cut the roots away from the very concept of argumentation and truth.  

President Trump

I have to admit I am a bit shocked.

As one who would have wished for someone other than Trump to oppose the lawless and radical Alinskyite Hillary Clinton, I did not believe Trump had a chance.  What does it mean?

For starters it means that Hillary really was a worse candidate than Trump.   Her baldfaced lies about just about everything, her clear corruption in using the Clinton foundation as part of a massive pay-for-play scheme, her utter incompetence on foreign policy and her reckless disregard for both the law and national security with her email server fiasco clearly had an effect.

It also means that a good chunk of the American public are sick and tired of being told that only politically correct left wing ideals can qualify as "justice" or "compassion".   I have no doubt that the race baiting of the left upsets a lot more people than the charges of racism hurled at everyone to the right of Al Sharpton.

But it means as well that both parties have lost touch with a majority of Americans.  The reason Trump was the candidate was in part because significant numbers of voters on the right simply did not want another Bush, another establishment Republican or anybody at all who was part of the system.

While that can be a good thing, it can also be a dangerous one.   Fixing the corruption, cronyism, and inertia that is Washington is necessary - but no doubt some want to burn it down altogether.

We'll see what happens.   My hope is that with Republicans controlling both houses and the presidency, at least the Supreme Court will not become a tool of the left and that some of the illegal executive actions the current president has taken can be rolled back.  I hope that the guiding principles will be the restoration of the Constitution to its rightful place and not the principles of retaliation or mere populism.

I will say with Trump there is hope for that.  With Hillary I truly believe the Republic the founders had envisioned would have been lost.   For that I am grateful, if cautious.

The Central Questions - Part 1

(This is a repost from a few years back.)

The central questions

In my 54 years on earth, I have had only two significant challenges to my faith.  It occurs to me that both of those challenges focused on the same basic questions, perhaps the central questions that all human beings have to ask.

This will sound a bit odd, but those two challenges were evolution and Calvinism. (More)

The Central Questions - Part 2

Evolution, built on a foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism asserts that what we experience now, including corruption, suffering and death, have been the norm from the beginning of life on the planet.   Death is not an enemy, but is instead part of the engine of progress toward higher life forms. It is necessary for the weak to die so that the strong can prosper.

In it's atheist form, there is no purpose at all to this pattern.  Life arose, but it could have failed to arise.   Creatures that survive are "better"  only in the sense that they were better equipped to survive.

In it's theistic form, God may have devised a universe that made life possible and may in some hidden sense be the energy behind the laws of nature, but the "survival of the fittest" reality is nevertheless the overarching fact of existence.   Death cannot be an enemy if it is a necessary component in the development of more complex life forms.

So why do we suffer?   Because suffering and pain are evolutionary developments that aid our survival, a notion that is brutal if there is no purpose in existence and perhaps far worse if this was "God's method of creation".

In either case the traditional "free will" explanation for the origin of evil and suffering cannot be maintained.   Evil and suffering are part of the fabric of reality from the beginning and by design.   

Don't Blame Never Trump

No doubt Trump supporters will want to blame the Never Trump crowd if Hillary gets elected.

No.  I have little doubt some Never Trumpers will quietly check the box next to his name with the other hand firmly over their noses.   Yes, Hillary is that bad.  But that may not be enough.

If Trump loses to the most vulnerable and disliked Democratic candidate in history, there are three places to lay the blame.

First is Trump himself.  

Naturalism - Not a Scientific Necessity

I have often written about the scourge of naturalism on this blog.   The usual knock on both Intelligent Design and Creationism in its various is that neither are true "science", because the scientific method is built on the foundation of methodological naturalism.  

Short form of the argument is that unless scientists continue looking for natural explanations for everything, they will resort to a "god of the gaps" argument, say "God did it" and science will grind to a halt.  

Count Me as Never Trump

There are many reasons to dislike Donald Trump as a candidate.  And as much as I would like to focus on his policies, whatever they really are, I have to take a moment to rehearse some of the more egregious personal attacks that in my mind reveal the utter lack of character necessary for the leader of this nation.

There is a reason I find this exercise necessary.   Politics has gotten ugly in the age of Alinsky.   His “Rules for Radicals” suggests as a legitimate strategy the practice of isolating individuals as figureheads and then demonizing them with lies and ridicule.  It forces them to waste time responding to charges that ultimately have no defense and distracts the rank and file from real issues.  It has been a tactic of the left for years and one I find utterly opposed to the practice of democracy. 

So to see Donald Trump and his minions using such ugly, immoral and unprincipled tactics and using them successfully means that the right side of the political spectrum has sunk to the same gutter as the thugs of the left.  What good is “winning” the Republican nomination if one utterly shreds any principles that once were a normative part of a civilized society built on self-government?  (More)

Is Trump a Fascist? Probably Not, but...

I have little doubt analogies linking politicians to villains of the past are generally unfair and unwise, not only for impugning the individual in the present, but also for minimizing and misrepresenting the evil of the past.   Lately, with the rise of Donald Trump to the front of the GOP Presidential race, comparisons to Hitler are popping up and more commonly the word “fascist” is used of both Trump and his supporters.

Full disclosure, I have no love for Trump as a potential President.   His campaign has been vulgar, insulting and crass.   He labels his opponents with insults and slurs to avoid discussion of issues and policies.   He demeans the process itself.   But more to the point, I have little confidence that whatever his current campaign positions are, he will follow through and not change his poistion if he is elected.   If I had to choose between Trump and either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, I would find it difficult to vote at all.

But is Trump a fascist as some of his opponents claim?  (More)

Daily Suffering: The Practical Difference Between Calvinism and Arminianism

There is no mystery in the universe as profound and troubling as the problem of evil.  Many who are atheists will cite this very problem as the primary reason for not believing in God.

On an intellectual level, an Arminian can live in a quiet truce with other Christians over this issue because on an intellectual level, both sides generally accept that much of the problem is indeed a mystery.  But on an emotional level, the question goes too deep.

On an emotional level, I fear the Calvinist and the Arminian are in completely different universes when it comes to dealing with pain, suffering and evil in the midst of human experience.  (More)

Shadow of Oz - Pay no Attention to That Scientist/Theologian Behind the Curtain

Wayne Rossiter followed an interesting path, from Christianity to Darwinism to a vocal atheism, to crisis and back to Christianity.   While he remains a practicing scientist, he found himself troubled by the path chosen by many Christian intellectuals in attempting to maintain a purely Darwinian view of origins while claiming to hold to Christian beliefs.   He begins the book with the troubling tale of a young college student who was so devastated by the destruction of his faith through Darwinism that he committed suicide.   While extreme, this brief story sets the stage for the discussion of the uneasy marriage of two contradictory worldviews.   (More)