Disqus - Latest Comments for THEOparadox

Re: Do Spiritual Gifts Matter Today?

THEOparadox — Wed, 10 Oct 2018 22:42:08 -0000

Thank you for the helpful reviews. I have found R.T. Kendall’s book, Holy Fire, to be useful on this topic from a contuationist viewpoint. It would be great to see reviews of that book as a contrasting popular-level treatment of the same subject.

I am glad that this is not a divisive issue within the EFCA and that room is made for varying views on non-essential doctrines, with greater emphasis on the centrality of the Gospel.

Re: Follow Up to My Blog Post about the Transgender Controversy

THEOparadox — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:09:46 -0000

Dr. Olson,

Another good article, you are on a roll! It seems so few are addressing this issue with this kind of clarity and at the same time avoiding "PC" pat answers.

I only have one quibble: as the father of both a teenage girl and a 12-year-old boy, I would take exception to naked females in my son's locker room just as much as I would to naked males in my daughter's locker room. This is because I go to great lengths to help my son avoid seeing such things. As men, we may not "mind" seeing naked females, however we really do not need the temptation of seeing those to whom we are not married.

I may be old-fashioned in this regard, however it seems logical and respectable to be so. I fear this perspective is greatly in the minority these days.

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Is There Any Solution to the Transgender Controversy?

THEOparadox — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:45:49 -0000

Dr. Olson,

Nice article here.

This issue raises a few questions in my mind:

Would it be accurate to say that the desire to function in a sociological gender that does not correspond to one's biological sex is a product of the fall, i.e. that it is in some way the result of sin's entry into the world? Even if only as something like a "sickness" rather than a distinct "sin"? (naturally, many would classify it as the latter, but that is not my question here).

Next, in order to adequately address this issue, do we need to start with definitions (preferably Biblically based definitions) of "male" and "female," both in terms of sociological gender and in terms of biological sex? In essence, do we need to outline a theology of biological sex (and gender) right at the start of the conversation?

Finally, if a person's self-identification (either in terms of gender or sex) does not match the definition corresponding to his or her biological sex at birth, should we treat this the same way we would treat any other case of mis-identification? e.g., "No, Johnny, that is not a dishwasher, it is a light socket. You should not try to wash the utensils with it." If Johnny mis-identifies anything other than his sex/gender (whether as a child or an adult), we will tend to remind him of the actual definition of the thing in order to alleviate his confusion. Is there anything wrong with treating biological sex the same way? Basically, pointing back to the objective definitions to help the person accurately identify the things they have gotten confused?

I am not expecting you or anyone else to offer definitive answers to these questions, although I think they are worth asking and answering. Based on some of the emotive comments offered in response to this very sensible article, I suppose some may consider my questions hateful and harmful "by definition."

Nevertheless, I cannot see how Bible-guided Christians engaging in this discussion can avoid the conclusion that transgenderism/transexualism is less than God's perfect design, boiling down to a basic mis-identification of one's own sex and/or gender. It would seem that gently correcting the mis-identification of anything is the most loving and gracious stance we can take, both in the interest of society and in the best interest of those individuals.

Of course, in the case of biological sex and/or gender, this would have to be done with great care and humility. We should never discount the need for sensitivity or the great agony experienced by those experiencing feelings of being somehow "mismatched" in this very challenging world. Yet it would seem that in some ways our culture has lost the desire for clarity in these matters, and instead revels in the lack of definitions. I would not doubt that some would even define my comments "hate speech." But I do not personally identify as a hater, nor as one who exhibits hate speech. In fact, if anyone ridiculed me I might feel crushed and unaccepted and depressed, since I do not identify myself as the thing they would make me out to be. (To be clear, I am being a little bit facetious in this last part).

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Sex, Money and Power: How We Confirm the Biblical-Christian Doctrine of “Original Sin”

THEOparadox — Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:46:42 -0000

Dr. Olson,

So true. A very good article here, though it is a sad commentary on the state of things in America today (and we might quibble over perceived ambivalence regarding the historical Adam). In any event, some of us voted for a certain candidate for no other reason than to STOP HILLARY (and the possibly even more frightening Tim Kaine). Others, unfortunately, trumpeted glowing support and even tried to "baptize" the candidate into Evangelicalism (pun unintended). Unfortunately, the majority of his spiritual/theological influences seem to be liberal (e.g. Norman Vincent Peale) or "word of faith" (e.g. Paula White) in their orientation, yet he nevertheless found unreserved backing from some "fundamentalist/conservative" quarters (e.g. Jerry Falwell, Jr.). Rather than actually "baptizing" him, Evangelicals simply became "trumpnotized." So, while some supported him for purely negative reasons (anti-Hillary), others supported him for imaginary and illegitimate positive reasons ("he's a real Christian, I just know it!"), and many others were probably somewhere in the middle. The scary part, as your article implies, is that today's Evangelicals no longer know the difference. So, now it's back to our SUVs, Netflix and smart phones for more worship of entertainment and luxury in this great heathen temple known as "modern America."

And as I write this strong indictment I realize that I, too, have been infected with the disease.

We all desperately need the Gospel.

May God in His amazing grace have mercy on us!

Blessings in Christ, from your devoted Calvinist brother,
Derek Ashton

Re: William Birch: The Dreaded Inconsistent Calvinist

THEOparadox — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:33:49 -0000

People who do not know each other falsely judge one another all the time, and there is nothing to stop it (save love). Not really knowing the other person just makes it that much more likely that the judgment will be incorrect.

You did not merely argue that my position is inconsistent. You argued that I am inconsistent and imputed various false motives to me (see above, your own words in black and white). Perhaps I am the one who should expect an apology, LOL, but that is not really my style.

Anyway, thanks for discussing the matter and reading my little rants. Rest well!

Re: William Birch: The Dreaded Inconsistent Calvinist

THEOparadox — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:14:06 -0000

Let's look at what you actually said:

"this person is threatened ... is upset with what he has read ... he is tragically, painfully, obviously a dreaded inconsistent Calvinist who is uncomfortable with not only the implications but also the overt explications of the consistency of his Calvinistic claims. ... his card-carrying status is threatened, as he has failed to fully and consistently embrace the theology he thinks he loves ... He has adopted an emotional attachment to "the doctrines ..." and is threatened when that experience is undermined, challenged, and exposed as weak, faulty, and perhaps false. Such is the experience of Derek ..."

"The same could be said of Derek ... or any other Calvinist who, on a weekly basis, [is] also guilty of 'constructing great feathery men of straw in their inane preoccupation with attacking Arminianism.'"

Really? I am guilty of this? Exactly where and when have I done this?

"Derek, desperate to recover his God from his own theology ..."

"No, Derek is not a consistent and historic Calvinist ..."

"But keep in mind that Calvinists like Derek ... are not interested in understanding and rightly representing Arminianism."

If I claimed without the slightest warrant that your motivation for commenting was that you were threatened, upset, uncomfortable, emotional, guilty of behavior you have not actually engaged in, desperate, and not interested in understanding or rightly representing the other viewpoint, would you not consider that to be an ad hominem argument?

To quote: "You obviously do not even know what ad hominem actually is."

By the way, every one of those claims you made about me is false. How could you possibly claim to know any of those things about me?

Rather than imputing motives to you, I will simply ask: what is it that motivates you to make such statements?

Re: William Birch: The Dreaded Inconsistent Calvinist

THEOparadox — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:54:23 -0000

Okay, sure. One further comment for now, just to continue your entertainment.

Your last comment simply continues the ad hominem argument. Well then, let's proceed further in that vein, since you are my unbiased judge and apparently concerned with my wellbeing. Please let me know some of the things I habitually say and do that lead you to your conclusions about me. What habits and characteristics, and personal weaknesses, would you have me pay attention to, so that I may grow and become more Christlike and godly? What character qualities would you suggest I work toward improving, so that we may move past these barriers and have a substantive discussion of the theology? Which parts of my devotional life seem to be most deficient? How can I improve my service to the body of Christ? Where are my needs and fears and self-protective tendencies most apparent, in your benevolent observation? Please let me know, since your care and concern are very evident.

Oh wait ... you don't know me at all. In that case, have you just made it all up? Besides imputing motives and imagining personal traits which may or may not apply, what edification or godly encouragement will you offer to a brother in Christ? What good might I receive here at the fountain of Arminianism's superior wisdom? Since you have placed so much emphasis on a poor and misguided little Calvinist brother, what edification is there in your heart for me?

In other words, do Arminians practice Philippians 2, and John 13, and Colossians 3, and Ephesians 4, and 1 John 4, and Galatians 6? Is there any refreshment to extend to a fellow struggling saint, or just mockery?

PS - I happen to be personally acquainted with SloBro, and know for a fact he is not a troll, and also has good reason to use a pseudonym. Pseudonyms are not my style, but I respect a brother who is willing to engage and point us toward the Word. That is a credit to any soul, and evidence of God's grace. Would that I were so restrained and thoughtful . . .

Would that I might more readily pray, "Lord, flood that one [with whom I disagree] with need-filling mercies!"

At the end of the day, our theological conflicts are just very great tests of sanctification.

Re: William Birch: The Dreaded Inconsistent Calvinist

THEOparadox — Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:14:52 -0000

I clearly hit a nerve here, as evidenced by the rabid response (and your rather telling comments in a less public space -- go ahead, delete this comment just to make a point, if you like). Nevertheless, piling up more straw does nothing to prove your point, and the undeniable ad hominem tone (my name repeated a dozen or so times in a few paragraphs, LOL) only lets me know that my comments regarding your prior post were spot on. You act as though only hyper-Calvinists are "consistent," which is a very worn and overplayed canard. Got anything more original to share?

Over the years I have interacted with Roger Olson, Leighton Flowers, Randal Rauser and many other lesser known critics of Calvinism. I have listened carefully to countless hours of debate featuring Arminians, Pelagians, Open Theists, and other non-Calvinists. In all of this, it has been rare to find anything as ungracious or unreasonable as this post, and your various comments here and eslewhere (generally, this behavior has been more characteristic of hyper-Calvinists and Clarkians, and that guy who runs Arminian Perspectives, I can't remember his name just now). Does the S.E.A. not hold its representatives to any standard of irenic discourse or scholarship? After all, S.E.A. President Brian Abasciano seems to me the very epitome of gracious and well-reasoned disagreement. A guy with whom one might a enjoy a cup of coffee and a few rounds of vigorous and respectful point-counterpoint.

I'll just sit back now and let this thing smolder in its own ashes. This has been an entertaining exchange, but unfortunately not productive in content or charitable in tone, in my view.

PS - thanks for sharing my previous comment that was mysteriously invisible. Truly, the "hidden things" belong to the LORD our God . . .

Re: William Birch: The Dreaded Inconsistent Calvinist

THEOparadox — Mon, 06 Jun 2016 20:19:03 -0000

I am honored to be the subject of today's inane anti-Calvinist ad hominem discussion. A great compliment, to be sure.

Re: William Birch: Calvinism and the Knowledge of God

THEOparadox — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 22:53:05 -0000

No, sorry, the consistent witness of historic Calvinism says you cannot throw culpability for evil back on God. Either acknowledge what Calvinism actually teaches or abandon your straw man.

Re: William Birch: Calvinism and the Knowledge of God

THEOparadox — Sun, 05 Jun 2016 15:47:46 -0000

This old straw man has been raised and burned repeatedly. Joseph answered it several millennia back: fallen man meant the event for evil, God meant it for good. They are culpable, He is pure. Was Joseph wrong?

Re: William Birch: Calvinism and the Knowledge of God

THEOparadox — Sat, 04 Jun 2016 22:20:52 -0000

It is too bad there is no appeal to Scripture in this article. With respect, the basis of appeal seems to be man-made and sentimental notions of what is "good," along with some related philosophical extrapolations and the ubiquitous example of some heinous evil to rouse the readers' emotions. As a result, a single Biblical text might be capable of diffusing the entire argument. Here is a candidate:

Genesis 50:20 “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

To set the record straight, Calvinists do not believe that God "concocted evil acts." Rather, Calvinists affirm with Joseph that God ordained that fallen humans should themselves be allowed to concoct acts which they "meant for evil," and which He Himself "meant for good" according to the Biblical text (and that He, by a sovereign, transcendent and incomprehensible wisdom, succeeded in achieving good through them). Is this a "mystery" in some sense? Certainly, and the Biblical authors wisely leave it that way, just as we should.

Re: Why Hyper-Calvinism Is Consistent Calvinism

THEOparadox — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:38:21 -0000

Dr. Olson,

It Seems to me that the whole dilemma is solved for all of us non-hyper Calvinists if we simply affirm the following:

Our omniscient and omnipotent God is capable of sincerely desiring the salvation of people He nonetheless chooses not to save, and He is capable of outwardly calling them in a well-meaning way, without being thereby obligated to extend an inward and effectual call.

Although I would not claim to be a man of "great faith," I am pretty sure God is capable of this, and I gladly join Him in passionately calling all people to repent and trust in Christ. Most Calvinists I know are equally unflinching in this commitment, and assume the same thing: God can do things that we can't understand and wouldn't be capable of doing. There is no cognitive dissonance or contradiction in this, just an application of God's attribute of omnipotence in view of His omniscience, providence and perfect love.

If you, as an Arminian, knew for certain that a particular person would never repent, would you spend any time pleading with him to come to Christ, or instead invest your time and effort in someone else who might believe? On those terms, I think it is safe to say the omniscient God spends His time and effort in ways no human being would if they had the same knowledge.

In other words, we cannot limit the possibilities of His sincerity based on what we would (or could) do if we were "in His Shoes."

We might even say He is "the Barefoot God" because no one can even find His shoes, let alone get into them. :)

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Memories of Stanley J. Grenz with Special Attention to Criticisms of His Theology (and Some Hitherto Unrevealed Facts)

THEOparadox — Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:46:20 -0000

Dr. Olson,

I take your last comment as a high compliment. We need more of "Whitefield and Wesley" in Evangelicalism, and less of "Roadrunner vs. Coyote." It is always a pleasure to thoughtfully (and respectfully) discuss these topics with you.

In Christ,
Derek

Re: Memories of Stanley J. Grenz with Special Attention to Criticisms of His Theology (and Some Hitherto Unrevealed Facts)

THEOparadox — Sun, 14 Dec 2014 18:32:29 -0000

Dr. Olson,

Thank you for your reply. I go back to my previous question: can anyone prove that my statements are contradictory or illogical? I am not saying that Adam and Eve did have freedom and did not have freedom, at the same time and in the same way. I am simply saying that God is able to grant His creatures real volitional freedom while maintaining absolute sovereignty over them, in the Calvinistic/Reformed sense that He plans their courses to align with His purposes. How those propositions relate to one another might be a "problem" for human minds--something mysterious, difficult to grasp, and seemingly incompatible to some of us--but are they truly "contradictory" in the sense of "impossible even for God"? I would say absolutely not, and emphatically. Bringing the God of the Bible into the equation means expanding the definition of "possibility" beyond what we can conceive, to encompass anything that is:
A) Not directly contradictory by definition (i.e., "X equals non-X"); and
B) Not in contradiction with His Word (i.e., the Bible)

Hence, compatibilism (in some form, not necessarily the Edwardsian variety).

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Can a Single Act Be Both Determined and Free?

THEOparadox — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:21:00 -0000

Dr. Olson,

Fair enough. We both see implications in one another's view that we cannot accept, even though the other view denies that the respective problematic implications are actually valid. In your conversation, with Dr. Horton, I noticed this same pattern, with the issues of "divine ordination" and "divine permission" proving quite difficult to grasp/define/explain. I honestly think we are just too deep into speculation on some of these matters to be able to say anything truly definitive. Of course, it's still interesting to have the conversation, and I always appreciate your gracious interactions.

On the post about Stanley Grenz, I have added some related comments about the fall in response to your questions for me there.

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Memories of Stanley J. Grenz with Special Attention to Criticisms of His Theology (and Some Hitherto Unrevealed Facts)

THEOparadox — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:56:31 -0000

Dr. Olson,

That is not my view at all. I would definitely not say their choice to disobey was "only free in the sense that they did what they wanted to do even though they could not really have done otherwise." It was free in the sense that they had multiple options before them, were intrinsically capable of moving forward with any of those options, and chose the option that they wanted (who can say exactly why?). God certainly "willed" them to do this in some sense, even if only by permission and foreknowledge (I think even classical Arminianism would agree with that - as God's "consequent will" at least). We Calvinists would add that this happened according to His ultimate plan (by mysterious decree). As a side note, my personal view of God's "ordained permission of evil" is somewhat similar to the Arminian view of "foreseen faith." For me, something like that might be applied correctly to evil, but not to good. However, God did not "will" their disobedience in the sense of participating in it, forcing them into it, or delighting in it. The resulting condemnation is conditioned on man's ongoing rebellion, which, while inherited, is also in some way continuously re-selected from among all other options by man's own choice - except in those cases where God graciously turns the heart to Himself. In this glorious work of regeneration and conversion, He both participates and delights, granting to wretched man a new moral ability by which man escapes the snare of his own self-condemnation. This, along with His perfectly just judgment against all evil, is how God is "good" in a sense knowable to us. VERY GOOD, and incredibly merciful, I would say.

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Can a Single Act Be Both Determined and Free?

THEOparadox — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 20:27:40 -0000

Dr. Olson,

We brought the word "programmed" into the conversation from Mackenzie's (or MackMan's) question on the other post. I accepted it there as a euphemism for "decreed." I do think that a creature can be decreed (or foreordained, etc.) to act in a certain way and also act freely when making that choice. As free creatures, looking forward in time, we see our options and choose as we will. Looking back, we may recognize that there was a plan and realize that we acted according to it without realizing at the time we were following a plan. We can try to game the system and say, "I am going to act according to the plan," but we end up choosing what we want to choose anyway, and also following the plan, because we can't separate them. God's eternal plan and my free choices--two seemingly impossible realities--somehow intertwine into a single strand. This is how I see these things.

I believe our moral ability is limited--but it is self-limited, i.e., limited by our own desire, will and choice. We are in cages of our own making. While this distinction understandably seems meaningless for some, I likewise find the sharp distinction between divine foreknowledge and divine purpose in Arminian theology unconvincing. God created the world knowing all of the outcomes and all of the minute details of all of the evil and sin that would occur. Did He have no purpose at all in allowing these things? Surely He was not helpless in the face of all of this foreseen evil.

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Memories of Stanley J. Grenz with Special Attention to Criticisms of His Theology (and Some Hitherto Unrevealed Facts)

THEOparadox — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 20:14:34 -0000

Dr. Olson,

In my view, the disobedience of Adam and Eve was included in God's eternal purpose and permitted termporally in order to set the stage for the magnificent display of His grace. We once discussed this issue in another thread on your blog. Although on this ground we can say that God's eternal purpose "designed, etc." the fall, we must also say that human "free will" (more free than ours today) also (and perhaps equally) "designed, etc." that same fall (although we couldn't design the remedy). While the fall may have occurred by God's secret and mysterious decree, it also occurred by man's open and free choice.

I have to play both sides of this coin because it is the only way I can make any sense of the text. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart presents a similar case. According to Moses, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh did too. It's admittedly a bit of a paradox. :)

Blessings,
Derek

Re: Memories of Stanley J. Grenz with Special Attention to Criticisms of His Theology (and Some Hitherto Unrevealed Facts)

THEOparadox — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 19:37:58 -0000

Thank you, Dr. Olson. I have posted a reply on the new post today. This is good and thought-provoking discussion, as always.

Re: Can a Single Act Be Both Determined and Free?

THEOparadox — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 19:16:33 -0000

Dr. Olson,

Thank you for giving attention to this important issue, which seems to be a key point of disagreement between Calvinistic and Arminian/non-Calvinistic thought.

Like most other Calvinists, I would point to multiple "fine distinctions" in order to sustain the appeal to compatibilism.

I would begin by defining compatibilism a little differently, as the basic belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. The theory that "freedom" is being free to do as one chooses despite having no ability to do otherwise is just one form of compatibilism among many interesting options. Personally, I do not prefer that approach, and only oppose "Libertarian Free Will" or "power of contrary choice" to the extent that they, by definition, rule out compatibilism (in the broad sense). I agree with your contention that "free will" is mysterious, that it is "situated" within a context of limitations, that it is fully realized only by Christian conversion, and I believe that it is much more "genuine" than most of today's Calvinists will admit. Augustine was not afraid to use the term, and even Calvin hinted at a broader freedom of choice. There was a stream of historic Reformed thought along this line (Jeongmo Yoo has an interesting book on this topic).

Next, I would appeal to a distinction between "natural ability" and "moral ability" in saying that we are naturally capable of choosing other than we do, even if not morally capable (thus, in some sense we have the power of contrary choice). I have the natural ability to give away my possessions or to steal, but I might only have the moral ability to do one of them in a given set of circumstances. I don't have the natural or moral ability to choose to jump to the moon (although I do have the ability to attempt to jump to the moon). Moral ability is limited, not necessarily by God's decree, but by our own will (or moral character). In essence, ironically, the very will to choose is what limits the range of choices!

Finally, I would appeal to a distinction within God's secret decree between the foreordination of good and the foreordination of evil. Good arises always with God's direct action and involvement, by grace, and not from the creature alone. Evil arises only with God's inaction, from the creature's own moral nature, as God permits the creature to act on its own independent will. In other words, He ordains to allow evil to occur apart from His own direct action, by permission only (yet with complete foreknowledge and a design to permit--and then remedy--all of the evil that occurs). Thus, nothing happens because it is merely pre-determined. Good happens by God's predestination, providence and promise, while evil happens by His permitted purpose (with both good and evil being thus pre-determined in some sense, and worked into His overarching plan). As you know, the origin of the first evil remains mysterious on these grounds; however, we would categorically deny any possibility or implication that evil arose from God Himself (perish the thought).

This is, of course, a very abbreviated form of a more complex argument (actually an entire philosophical construct) that is employed by Augustinian thinkers to explain how God could foreordain (or decree, pre-determine/pre-program, etc.) all things without ever touching, committing, positively willing or becoming culpable for moral evil. There are plenty of Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Augustinians, who can expound these topics much better than I.

As a concluding note, I want to make it clear that I am not attempting to refute what you have written or formally debate the issue (doubtless you would outmaneuver me!). We are laying out two very different and incompatible philosophical approaches that are employed to make our theologies tenable in our own minds. As a part of my ongoing education and understanding of the Arminian viewpoint, I very much appreciate your time and care in stating your position clearly, and in treating the other position charitably. Great stuff!

Blessings in Christ,
Derek

Re: The Ultimate Horror Story: Reflections on Stephen King’s New Novel Revival (Spoiler Alert)

THEOparadox — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 08:44:17 -0000

Dr. Olson,

That is a fair point, and of course this is part of the reason there are Calvinists and Arminians (and others), and part of the reason this debate rages on within the pale of orthodoxy.

With that said, Isaiah 44:28 could be presented as a strong case for pre-determination regarding Cyrus.

“It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd!
And he will perform all My desire.’
And he declares of Jerusalem, ‘She will be built,’
And of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’”

To the question, "Did Cyrus act freely of his own will or were his actions pre-determined?" I would say "Yes, both." based on what would seem (to me) to be the most natural exegesis of this passage.

Of course, I will have to check Adam Clarke's commentary for a second opinion! :)

Blessings,
Derek

Re: The Ultimate Horror Story: Reflections on Stephen King’s New Novel Revival (Spoiler Alert)

THEOparadox — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:48:55 -0000

Mackenzie,

I apologize for the delay in responding.

Can you show me where have I used the "It's a paradox" defense? I do not recall doing so. My argument has been that we believe other doctrines that some would consider "intrinsically impossible," or illogical, and yet we don't employ Lewis's maxim in those cases.

Your comment about "Pregnant Virgin" is telling. 2,000 years ago the greatest minds on earth would have considered this to be "intrinsically impossible" and contradictory--yet, today, you and I agree that it is "fairly easy" to explain and "not even close to a paradox" (which in your verbiage seems to mean "intrinsically impossible"). What if we had another 2,000 years AND a mind like God's to grapple with the issue of freedom? Would we still think freedom and meticulous Providence are "intrinsically impossible," or would we similarly grow past our current state of ignorance?

Remember that when the Church Fathers worked through the implications of the Trinity and Incarnation, they arrived at descriptions of these doctrines that aligned with the Bible rather than strict logical explanations. The people who claimed those doctrines were logically impossible, and chose one side over the other, turned out to be heretics (unitarians, polytheists, arians, docetists, etc.). Orthodox Christians accepted both sides of the coin, and I still do not see how the following three propositions are not "logically impossible" from a human standpoint:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.
3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct from one another.

At the very least, there is a deep mystery here. Why wouldn't we accept deep mystery when it comes to human freedom and divine Providence?

Finally, in your response I did not see any Biblical evidence or argument that genuine freedom and meticulous Providence are mutually exclusive. To demonstrate that they are not mutually exclusive, I would offer a short list including Judas, Joseph's brothers, Pharaoh, Cyrus, and those who crucified Christ, for starters. Each of these is said to have acted in a pre-determined fashion, yet according to their own choice and freedom. Even if we say these are special cases, we are left with the conclusion that freedom and pre-determination are not mutually exclusive in nature. It would seem that "reason and the Scriptures" lead us inexorably to this conclusion.

Thanks again for the interesting discussion.

Blessings,
Derek

Re: The Ultimate Horror Story: Reflections on Stephen King’s New Novel Revival (Spoiler Alert)

THEOparadox — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:41:46 -0000

Mackenzie,

Thank you for your reply and that insightful comment from the great C.S. Lewis. Two points in response, just as food for thought:

1. Can it be demonstrated that pre-programming and genuine freedom are truly mutually exclusive? I am just not convinced of this based on any argumentation I have seen up to this point (I would enjoy seeing two great philosophers debate this issue in detail). Note that I have not said anything like, "God DOES and DOES NOT pre-program everything that occurs" or "He DOES and DOES NOT grant us real freedom." I have only suggested that He pre-programs by decree and also grants real freedom. I would point to Scripture as evidence that both can coexist in harmony. Can you show evidence from Scripture that they are intrinsically contradictory?

2. Who decides what is intrinsically impossible? Could the Lewis quote be used as an argument against a pregnant virgin, a single exclusive Divine being existing as three co-equal Persons, a real human person having both divine and human natures, or a man raising himself from the dead? If those things are possible for God, why isn't it possible for him to achieve what I have suggested?

As I said, just food for thought.

Blessings and Happy Thanksgiving,
Derek

Re: The Ultimate Horror Story: Reflections on Stephen King’s New Novel Revival (Spoiler Alert)

THEOparadox — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:23:13 -0000

Mackman,

Thank you for your thoughtful questions. To answer as succinctly and directly as possible, I do not believe that a human pre-programmer of robots such as you describe above would ever have the power to endow mechanized machines (or anything else) with real freedom. So I agree with you on this point regarding man's inability to achieve such ends. On the other hand, I am firmly committed to the belief that the One omnipotent, transcendent, all-wise, holy and glorious God IS capable of fully pre-programming (i.e. decreeing) all events within His creation AND granting to some of His creatures a genuine, real and actual freedom (to be exercised within natural and circumstantial limitations) which is neither diminished by the action of His meticulous Providence, nor has any capacity to infringe upon it; and that the Bible, by a pervasive and intertwined theme, reveals this to be the way He truly rules over all things, in absolute benevolence, remaining ever morally separated from evil, just in His judgments, holy in His very Being, and compassionate in His very heart. Although the concept of such an omnipotent wisdom (one capable of holding divine Providence and creaturely freedom in harmony) is difficult for the human mind to contain or comprehend, it reveals Him as more amazing than we can conceive.

In short, the freedom God gives to His creatures is real freedom rather than the imaginary kind described in your robot illustration. While Calvinists (in general) hold positively to meticulous Providence, they do not (generally) intend that as a denial of man's basic God-given freedom. The more nuanced Calvinists do not view sovereignty and freedom as two ends of a rope set over a pulley, such that the lengthening of one side would necessarily result in a shortening of the other. Rather, these are two different strands twined within the one rope, so that no matter how ferociously mankind rages against his Creator he cannot prevent the fulfillment His will, whether by a display of mercy or justice. God's sovereign pre-programming and man's genuine freedom are not mutually exclusive; they overlap and coexist, working together to achieve His holy ends.

I hope this helps.

Blessings,
Derek