In hopes of giving the people what they want, my first post will hopefully meet your demands. Most if not all of you will find many elements of my writing to be “Classic” Nick; such as nickoms (most of you know what I’m talking about here but if you don’t I’ll point them out and define them when they pop up in my writing) thrown all about, and a plethora of references to Seinfeld, the greatest TV show I’ve ever seen, filling the gaps. Most importantly, somewhere among this clutter I hope to communicate truth, which is the name of my blog (the English transliteration of its Greek form if that helps).
Lastly, my desire is promote healthy and productive debate when we might come, or will surely come, to disagreement. In this inevitable occasion, I hope to remain courteous, respectful and tactful in my responses to your views. For certain tones and rhetoric have no place in academic debate as they often belittle and stifle one’s opponent.
Now that the pleasantries are over, let’s move onto my thought and question:
Let me ask you a question that I am most perplexed about. How can Arminians insist that salvation is a gift from God, based on grace alone through faith alone; and man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good; deny irresistible grace; again while claiming that salvation is all of grace and not at all based on any goodness or merit or even autonomous decision or choice of the person being saved; and deny that this system is not guilty of a form of semi-plegianism? This logically makes no sense to me. How can grace be resistible and at the same time deny any human ability or lack of human ability to save themselves, but claim through some will they possess the ability to either accept it or deny this grace freely (and thus imply logically that we are not totally dependent on God to save them)? Lastly, how is this not a form of semi-plegianism? In other words, claiming that man has some say or ability to save or not save themselves.
I know my Arminian brothers would like to claim that it is the very giving of grace upon humans that enable their will to respond positively or negatively, but are they in some way adding to the Evangelical notion that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone and not according to works or anything that we can do? At this moment I would like to draw your attention to Dr. Roger Olson's blog post http://rogereolson.com/2011/01/24/arminian-theology-is-evangelical-theology-long/. You will find there the Arminian statement above and followed by a theological treatment of how this is logically possible. Olson makes the comment by way of an illustration that our human excepting of salvation is much like a man, having a terminal illness, needs someone to pay for his life saving medical treatment. Someone writes him a check that will cover all expenses and all he must do is cash it (or deposit it and use it to pay for his treatment). As Olson claims the payment or the resource is there, but the individual must except the check, and therefore equates such a illustration and exercise with the gracious gift of God and then the human excepting or rejecting the offer.
Perhaps it is ignorance on my end but I still am not seeing how there is in some way a exercise of a human facility in addition to what God has done for them, or enabled them to do, if this gracious gift can be excepted or rejected. Basically what I’m saying is that it seems to me that one has added something to the notion that one is saved by grace through faith. I most surely agree with my Arminian brothers that our faith comes as a result of God presenting the offer before us, but how can one truly reject such a splendid offer?
This is the very objection I’m taking with Olson’s illustration, which begs the question of why. That is, why would the dead man ever reject such a live giving offer? Would you honestly reject the offer for someone to save your life by paying for any and all medical treatment necessary? I feel that one must answer yes to this question in order to be consistent, but this leads us into some form of despair in the sense that we would honestly say no to this delightful present.
It seems to me that Arminians believe in grace only after one does something to get it. In their efforts to reject monergism they adopt syngergism, and thus believe that the grace of God is only necessary but not sufficient. Humanity is the key in making God's act sufficient. Hence, I find this to be the human addition to the equation of salvation. Also, it seems to me that God and his action is not the one who distinguishes one person from another in salvation according to Arminians, but man and his response of yes or no. Why does one, under the same conditions of grace, respond positively while another responds negatively? Lastly, it seems to me that if this is true one has marginalized God, and made the end result of salvation rest upon human’s will to simply check yes or no.
Well I hope that this has been as excited for you to read as it was for me to think through and write for you. Do any of you have helpful feedback, comments (positive or negative), or suggestions?
So I think some of the difficulty here may be in terms of your method of approaching the issue. You're approaching this question from a very systematic perspective, laying out the different systems in a chart and analyzing them alongside one another. I find it more helpful to examine this question from a historical perspective. The Reformation was, in many respects, a reactionary movement away from particular emphasis in Medieval Catholic theology. Many of those issues centered around an admittedly semi-Pelagian concept of salvation. The reaction against this that we see in Luther and Calvin goes to the opposite end of the spectrum- man plays no role at all in salvation, its all God's grace. What I see Arminius and later Wesley as doing is making a cautious step back towards the center. Yes, salvation is entirely impossible apart from God's grace. But it is also true that we must cooperate with that grace if it is to be effective in moving and changing us. Both Arminius and Wesley have very high views of grace (think about Wesley's doctrine of Prevenient Grace, for instance), but they also want to bring back into the picture human agency. I don't think this is semi-Pelagian (and I think you have defined that term extremely broadly so that anything that isn't Calvinist is semi-Pelagian, which might be begging the question). Neither of these thinkers in any way wants to say that we can earn Salvation, that it can be accomplished on our own efforts. But they do want to say that we can choose to cooperate in Salvation or choose to resist, in essence echoing Moses in Deuteronomy- "choose life or choose death."
ReplyDeleteHey Nick. Good blog.
ReplyDeleteI approach this question exegetically. It is that approach that "dragged" me into the Augustinian-Calvinist camp (some twenty years ago), if one wishes to label me, and many do. Scriptures present man in a spiritually dead state and unable to please God. Dead men simply cannot respond positively to the gospel offer—they only respond negatively or in false faith. It is not that man does not have a will, as some have wrongly assumed.
I usually begin my discussions with Arminians, like Olson, with John 6:44 and beg, literally beg, for some exegetical response. This text says, "No man can come unto me unless the Father, who sent me, draws (lit., "drags") him and I will raise him in the last day."
There are a few things that Calvinists and Arminians agree on this verse: (1) That God's "drawing" must precede faith. (2) No one could "come" (= believe) unless this condition occurs. (3) That the raising of this "him" is to eternal life. Thus, to some extent, yes, Arminian and Calvinists both agree that grace (here noted in the "drawing") is necessary for faith to occur in Christ. But where the Calvinist and Arminian disagree on this verse is the following.
Is the nature of this "drawing" effectual or ineffectual? And, this leads to the second question. Are all who are "drawn" to the Son raised in the last day? Now this is where the Arminian exegesis breaks down. First, the Greek word for "draw" is always effectual. A word study is all that is needed to validate this claim. This means that there are none "drawn" who do not "believe" in the Son. Second, the "him" drawn by the Father is the same "him" raised on the last day by Jesus. This supports the first point. There is no salvific leakage between the Father and the Son.
The Arminian has to hold different referents for the "him." If he says that the "him" is the same (as I would do), then it becomes clear that the "drawing" is indeed effectual, namely, all who are drawn to the Son by the Father actually "come" (believe) in the Son and are raised in the last day. There has been no Arminian exegesis that has attempted to justify differing referents for "him." I would like to see it if there is one.
Here is the issue then and ultimate difference between Arminians and Calvinists on this very passage (which I choose because it is to the point and representative of many passages). Exegetically, the "drawing" is not only a necessary condition (Arminians/Calvinists agree here) but also a sufficient condition for believing in Jesus. If everyone is given "prevenient grace" as Wesleyans in particular argue, and this passage represents that type of grace (in drawing), then everyone would be saved for "prevenient grace" would prove to be "efficient grace."
To be continued…
Now combine this with John 6:63 where Jesus says, "It is the Spirit that gives life; the human nature is of no help!" And, 6:64 indicates Jesus knew who would not believe and then accounts for that unbelief in 6:65, "Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come." And for those who propose "theological leakage," go back to John 6:37. "All that the Father gives me will come to me [believe], and the one who comes to me I will never cast out." This is grace. Calvinists affirm it and Arminians deny it.
ReplyDeleteThe Wesley idea of prevenient grace, moreover, is absent from the NT. Wesley did believe in total depravity. But he also insisted that the act of Christ undid that depravity for everyone. But I would like to know how that doctrine arises from the NT? Is there any evidence that total depravity is eradicated in the NT? And even if that were true, what in the end makes one man differ with respect to that prevenient grace?
So the reason I reject Arminianism is not due to following an extreme reaction (which did not occur and the linkage to Medieval theology is a theme repeated by N. T. Wright on several fronts) to Roman Catholicism but because Scriptures so soundly and clearly teach otherwise. The Roman Catholic church knows this and so emphasizes the authority of the church in "interpreting" the Scriptures.
In addition, when theologicans speak of salvation as all of grace (Spurgeon has a book by this title), they do not suggest that man has no role in salvation. Any understanding of the ordo salutis would verify this. The issue of "works," for example, did not divide the Protestants from the Roman Catholics. Both believed in the necessity of works for salvation. Where they differed is the role they assigned to man's works. Roman Catholics assigned both congruent and condign merit as necessary for salvation. This the Reformers rightly denied. The only meritorious work, according to Scripture, is that of Christ. Sola Christos. But the Reformers taught that although not meritorious, certain works were necessary for salvation.
Thus, although some approach this question from a systematic theological position, others from a historical point of view, still others from philosophical a priori, I approach it first and foremost from an exegetical perspective. If it does not mesh with the grammar of the NT within the context of the first century, then it is probably not true.
In Luther's Bondage of the Will, in commenting on Rom 8:5, he says (full passage):
ReplyDeleteBefore we hear the evangelist John, let me add a crowning testimony from Paul (and if this does not suffice, I am ready to marshal the whole of Paul against 'free-will' by means of a running commentary on all he wrote!). In Rom 8, dividing the human race into two, 'flesh' and 'spirit', as Christ does in John 3 (v.6), he says: 'They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the Spirit do mind the things of the Spirit' (v. 5). That Paul here calls all 'carnal' that are not 'spiritual' is plain, both from the opposition of 'spirit' and 'flesh' in the division itself, and from Paul's own next words: 'But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (v. 9). What is the meaning of: 'Ye are not in the flesh, if the Spirit is in you,' but those who have not the Spirit are of necessity in the flesh? And he that is not Christ's, whose else is he but Satan's? It stands good then, that those who lack the Spirit are in the flesh, and under Satan.
Now let us see what Paul thinks about endeavour and the power of 'free-will' in carnal men. 'They that are in the flesh cannot please God.' Again: 'The carnal mind is death.' Again: 'The carnal mind is enmity against God.' Once more: 'It is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be' (vv. 5-8). Let the guardian of 'free-will' answer the following question: How can endeavours towards good be made by that which is death, and displeases God, and is enmity against God, and disobeys God, and cannot obey him? Paul did not mean to say that the carnal mind is dead, and at enmity with God, but that it is death itself and enmity itself, which cannot possibly be subject to the law of God or please God; as he had said a little before ('For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did,' etc. (v. 3)).
I, too, know of Origen's fancy about the 'threefold affection', one called 'flesh', another 'soul', and the other 'spirit', the soul being in the middle between the other two, and able to turn either flesh-wards or spirit-wards. But these are just his own dreams; he retails them, but does not prove them. Paul here calls everything with the Spirit 'flesh', as I have shown. Therefore, the highest virtues of the best men are 'in the flesh'; that is, they are dead, and at enmity with God, not subject to God's law nor able to be so, and not pleasing God. Paul does not say merely that they are not subject, but that they cannot be subject. So also Christ says in Matt 7: 'An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit' (v. 18). And in Matt 12: 'How can ye, being evil, speak that which is good?' (v. 34). Here you see that not only do we speak evil, but we cannot speak good. And though He says elsewhere that we, though evil, know how to give good things to our children (cf. Matt 7:11), yet He denies that we do good, even by our giving of good things, because the good things which we give are God's creatures, and we, being evil, cannot give those good things in good fashion. He addresses this word to all men, even to His own disciples. So that this pair of statements by Paul, that 'the righteous lives by faith' (Rom 1:17), and that 'whatsoever is not of faith, is sin' (Rom 14:23), stand confirmed. The latter follows from the former; for if it is only by faith that we are justified, it is evident that they who are without faith are not yet justified; and those who are not justified are sinners; and sinners are evil trees, and can only sin and bear evil fruit. Wherefore, 'free-will' is nothing but the slave of sin, death and Satan, not doing anything, nor able to do or attempt anything, but evil! (End quote)
ReplyDeleteFrom reading Luthers works, I get the impression that he was doing exegesis. This is of course a response to Erasmus, but until Luther's exegesis is shown to be faulty on his belief about the will of man, throwing him, as well as Calvin, under the bus as reacting to certain semi-Pelagian beliefs, and reacting too far, I believe is wrong. I quoted this so that his exegesis could be dealt with. This isn't a position that Luther has come to because of an overreaction. It is the fruit of his exegesis, and the exegesis needs to be argued against if free-will is going to be affirmed.
Thank you (Alex) for your historical comments and and pointing out your approach to such an issue. I am a poor biblical and systematic theologian, even on my best day, and a much worse historian, so your comments and insights are greatly needed and appreciated on my end. I think that you have rightly pointed out my broad usage of the term “semi-pelagianism.” The ambiguity of its usage was intentional and I guess purposely question begging (and for that I am sorry). However, my question still reminds as to how an Arminian is to solve such an objection; namely how does Arminianism not marginalize the work of God's gracious act and gift to humanity? The issue for me is not rejecting human involvement, but the sense in which an Arminian understanding of salvation rests upon this human involvement, action, work, or choose which they freely exercise, and therefore they have the ability to freely say yes or no. Moreover, how can such a sweet, potentially life saving offer be freely rejected and one not end up with emotion despair for the effectiveness of the saving work and power of God? Is God's work simply not that saving nor powerful? Is that okay to claim? Am I missing the Arminian point or Arminians not clearly understanding my objection?
ReplyDeleteAgain, the issue is not that human action or involved is marginalized, but that one’s exercising of their own will seems to be the final component to the equation of salvation. Thus, if pushed up against a corner, this part of Arminian thinking seems to emphasize the work of man and to some degree marginalize the work of God. To quickly elaborate on this point: Why do some say yes and others no to the same grace or enabling given to all for response? This seems not to be the work of God but the work of man…right?
Also, I guess I too have marginalized someone within my system, namely man, but I feel that it would be better to do so than the opposite, namely marginalizing God. Is salvation the work of man, the work of God or both according to Scripture? It seems that Eph. 2 marginalizes man’s efforts…right?
Am I justified in my thinking (anyone please)? Or is such a statement somehow or someway avoidable? In other words, is there a way to equally involve both wills (human and divine), thus working together to accomplish the task of salvation?
I feel that Arminians are on the right track in attempting to harmonize both wills, but it seems that they have fallen short in the area that I’ve spoken to. Are you (Alex) unsatisfied with a compatiblistic response to such a query? In other words, this question is rhetorical in nature for I know that you are, and I would greatly enjoy hearing your opinion on the matter as you have recently published quite the thought provoking article related to this very issue. However you labeled it determinism and thus wonder if you have missed the point of the compatiblistic understanding of freedom and the relationship between the divine and human wills; or perhaps you were simply addressing and rightfully critiquing determinism as it exist as fatalism and not address compatiblism head on, which is fine just wondering.
Lastly, I would also like to thank Hartley for pointing out the common areas in which my Arminian brothers and I agree either historically, theologically, and exegetically. I hope that it is from these points of agreement that we can work through our disagreements.
We will get to compatibalism another day. Suffice it to say I don't think it works philosophically, it doesn't actually harmonize determinism and free-will like it claims. But that's a little off topic for this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI think you are heading in the right direction when you say that Arminians are trying to harmonize both wills. I don't think either Arminius or Wesley want to marginalize God or his grace, but they are not satisfied with the marginalization of man either. Finding the middle ground is tricky systematically and exegetically, I will be the first to admit. I don't really claim to have any sort of systematic or detailed presentation of this, but I'll outline some general considerations.
First, I think this question, exegetically, is largely a question of starting points. For Calvin and Luther, the starting point is Paul. For Arminius and Wesley, the starting point is more rooted in the narrative and poetic material (especially for Wesley). Actually, I think for Arminius we could argue that the starting point is more Romans 6 than Romans 3, and thus he wants to emphasize human participation on their own free will in God's redemptive work. The consequence of that is that humans can also freely choose to not participate, to resist grace. I don't think Arminius intends to put the emphasis on that consequence. Its logically there, but that's not the real point to be made and to make that the real point is a polemical straw-man.
For Wesley, I think we can make the starting point the covenant narratives. Prevenient grace brings us to the mountain, as it were, where the covenant is being presented and ratified, and in that sense it is irresistable. But we all have a responsibility to keep up our place in the covenant and the consequence of that is that we can freely choose to break the covenant. Again, this is not so much the point as the logical consequence of our free participation, a logical consequence that warrants our being warned against falling away (see the prophets and then read Wesley), but again its not the main point.
Now the real heart of your question seems to be about motivation: why do we need free-will in the picture to begin with? Why would we want to emphasize this free-participation in such a way that it might entail the logical consequent that we can reject God or abandon the faith? Why open up the possibility that some might reject God at all?
ReplyDeleteThat, it turns out, is a much more complicated question that we could write volumes about... So very quickly to give a few of my reasons for opening up the possibility:
1) Philosophically, determinism seems extremely problematic to me, as you saw in the article I just published on determinism and skepticism.
2) The most natural reading of the overwhelming majority of the Biblical text (which are narrative or poetic) seems to assume free-will on the part of its listeners. I see no good reason why I should reinterpret all of these things in light of a few statements made by Paul to which there exist alternative interpretations.
3) In terms of historical theology, free-will was an extremely important doctrine to early Christians for distinguishing themselves against the fatalistic philosophy of the Greco-Roman world (a philosophy that was used to justify all kinds of social ills). Likewise, I think the idea that people are personally responsible for their actions because they are free is a powerful tool in challenging evil in our own day.
4) Pastorally, the doctrine of free-will extremely important. It provides an extremely helpful explanation for the existence of evil. But it also makes calls to stumbling Christians to change their ways actually mean something. I think this was a good bit of Wesley's motivation and its been helpful to me as well.
Alex, perhaps you could exegete John 6, and square this away with your beliefs on the will. And Nick, perhaps you could interpret Deut 30:19, and square this away with yours. Just a suggestion which would add more substance, rather than perhaps arguing from a distance. What saith the Scriptures? ;)
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteThis is fantastic stuff here. It was most delightful to observe how clearly you outlined your views and stated the main points of interest, which I will focus on for future talks.
Keeping with your main points, let me first begin with your statement concerning starting points. I wonder how wrong both sides (as you have labeled them and identified them as the Luther-Calvin side and the Arminius-Wesley side) are when it comes to their starting point. In other words, wouldn’t it be ideal to begin with a Canonical-Theological starting point? I know that one must begin and end someway, but shouldn’t we make all the effort to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and understand salvific history as it unfolded (and still does with many respects to this very day)? Therefore, won’t our exegesis be guided by Scripture, all the while knowing, using, and applying historical matters to further and assist our full understanding of the written Word? Please note that I am not wishing nor claiming that either side has never done what I’m claiming we should do, but isn’t this the place we must begin?
Quickly, I would like to apologize for jumping around like this, but I guess this is just an example of how my mind is processing this material.
Now I would like to address one particular issue of your exegesis as I will quote you briefly: “The most natural reading of the overwhelming majority of the Biblical text (which are narrative or poetic) seems to assume free-will on the part of its listeners. I see no good reason why I should reinterpret all of these things in light of a few statements made by Paul to which there exist alternative interpretations.” Here I wonder how wrong your understanding of our texts is. Namely, is your driving force for finding meaning among all the Biblical texts guided by quantity rather than quality? In other words, are you lead to determine meaning as a result of quantity and thus marginalize others. First of all, please do not misinterpret me, as I am not claiming that you have a low view of Scripture (for you should know that I don’t think that of you at all, and neither do I wish to come close to saying such a horrible thing about you), but are not all Biblical writings of the same quality? If so, then what leads to emphasize these more than those? It seems your hermeneutic on this issue is directed by to the quantity of such Biblical texts, and thus seems to marginalize the intrinsic, qualitative worth of our special revelation. Another quick note here, yes there is instrumental worth of Scripture, but only because of its intrinsic worth. The other problem I see with your statement is also related to quantity: How much is enough? In other words, how much majority does one need to satisfy the truthfulness of any Biblical teaching? Therefore, I find your approach to be quite the slippery slop.
Now for your philosophical reasoning I would truly love and honestly beg you for more of your thoughts here. I can easily say that I am not gifted and this area, as you most surely are, so any sort of brief treatment you can provide would be most appreciated and helpful in furthering our discussion. I agree that we would be getting off topic a little; however, keep in mind that the issue of wills is all too crucial in this debate. Also, I must say that your article was quite mind numbing and thank you for all the work you put into producing and completing such a project. I feel congratulations are in order here!
ReplyDeleteHistorically speaking, I can do little as well, so I will leave that for another day or another person all together to respond. I will say this though (as I always have something to say…right?), that there are many historical figures who would have felt and believed very strongly in God’s sovereignty and thus gone on to combat other philosophies and the problem of evil accordingly. Namely, my point here is that advocates of free-will, within the long history of the church (even within the time of the early church), were not the only team playing in town.
Lastly, much like the historical issue there is much to be said in regards to the practical issue of God’s sovereignty; however, much like my treatment of the historical matters, which surround such a topic, I must leave my comments (or lack of comments) to simply what I’ve already stated. Sorry man, but perhaps another time and for sure another blog in the near future.
What are your thoughts as to what I have said? As Dallas has just posted, would you be up for both of us doing exegesis on one particular controversial or highly debated text? If so, you pick and I’ll follow your lead. What say you my friend? I believe this could be quite the learning and entertaining venture!
I have surely enjoyed our lovely conversation on this matter and I hope all of my comments meet you well. Also, my main concern is that what I’ve said will contribute to our furthering a healthy and productive dialogue.
Be Blessed,
Nick
After looking over my posts I forgot to address your claim Alex that I have created a straw man objection against Arminian’s potential marginalization of God’s work with salvation. Again my question is not primarily concerned with the intentions of Arminius (while your comments were extremely helpful), but how do Arminians resolve such a logical objection when they hold to a particular understanding of free-will and thus how it might contradict their understanding of the sovereign work of God? In other words, I am failing to see how my objection is a straw man, if the reason is simply that Arminius never intended such a claim or potential problem or concern. As you said, the logical connection between their relationship and consequences of such understandings are there, and therefore I am insisting on your philosophical-theological-anthropological treatment to my understanding or perhaps misunderstanding. Let’s have it ol’ boy! Hahaha!
ReplyDeleteAlright, I'm giving the short version of this since when I tried to post a longer version a couple days ago it got deleted in the process and I was too depressed at that to look at it again till now...
ReplyDeleteBut essentially I wanted to respond to the point about quantitative arguments. I think that's exactly right, that we shouldn't count texts, we need to weigh texts. So to try and restate my argument in a less quantitative sounding way: First, I don't think there is any passage that clearly lays out a Biblical view of "free will," I think this is an issue that we have to make inferences from as we read through the text, asking what the underlying view that informs the text is. In examining the Old Testament narratives, I think the precedence is for the belief that we have free will. This is why stories like God hardening Pharaoh's heart stand out so much- they go against the grain of what the narrative assumes is normal. I also think that the narrative assumes that this free-will impacts our relationship with God. God may have unilaterally established the covenant, but the people have to choose to maintain it. The prophets seem to assume that the people have not so chosen, but that they can change and choose to return to God. On a whole, the OT narratives seem to have a very hard time fitting with the Calvinist idea of Perseverance of the Saints, I would argue Wesley does a much better job capturing the spirit of the OT. Which goes to set up a precedence that I think carries over into the NT: the gospel narratives seem to function with this same assumption in the background (and hence Jesus issues lots of warnings against disobedience and falling away). The same can be said of many of the Epistles- James and Hebrews and Revelation stand out as great examples.
So all that to say that the precedence of scripture is an assumption of free will. The question is why a particular set of passages in Paul's epistles should be given the weight to overturn that precedence? Especially since alternative readings which are much more in line with the precedence exist.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI am so sorry that you’re longer treatment was deleted, as I would have greatly enjoyed reading it. I now understand your point of weighing texts and thank you for clarifying that for me. Also, it seems your most recent comment speaks to issues of hermeneutics, and lets see if it stands up to specific text references.
First of all, I would like to remind everyone of my objection to the relationship between Arminian freedom and God’s sovereignty as it relates to one’s salvation. Keep in mind that it seems at the moment of choice, the Arminian understanding of free-will claims that one is able to say yes or no to the divine work of sending his Son to redeem, and restore humanity to him. If that’s true, then has not Arminianism marginalized the efforts and work of God in salvation? Does Scripture ever teach that salvation is the work of man? What is your interpretation of Eph 2? There it seems quite clear that we are saved by God and that man’s work is marginalized not God. Therefore, as I will soon provide proof, I’m afraid, Alex, that my question or objection still stands.
Now you have begun to answer this question on a Biblical ground; namely stating that scripture teaches the Arminian understanding of freedom which I’ve expressed earlier. However, I have found no texts listed in your response that supports such a claim, and only broad statements about certain genres of texts that support your understanding. By you making claims that many biblical texts clearly teach and support Arminain freedom (or libertarianism) is, as I believe and will try to prove, an assertion of your hermeneutic which is guilty of question begging. Because, a Calvinist is going to say that there is freedom clearly taught in Scripture, but why much it be a libertarian understanding being expressed there?
First, let’s mention some texts that might very well support your understanding of freedom and thus see if your hermeneutic holds up. Now, sense you have not referred to any specific texts (other than the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, which I would of course say amen to!) I am left with the task of thinking which texts you might be alluding to. Therefore, please correct me if any of the texts or Biblical stories I’ll mention were not in your thinking.
Perhaps, you would like to appeal to texts that rightly speak of contingencies and the notion that something could have been otherwise, if something else would have happened. Now, I don’t know if you would hold to Molinism, but I feel that certain contingent statements would still be helpful for your case if you could prove the truthfulness of such contingent claims. In other words, what could have happened would hold the same amount of truth as to what actually happen. Quickly, to remind all of the importance of such matters, I’ll bring this into our overall discussion: If its true that one could have done otherwise, then the objection I raised earlier concerning salvation ultimately resting on the work of man (and marginalizing the work of God) does not really hold any weight (logically speaking) since it’s already true.
However, the term “could” here is notoriously ambiguous. And I think you come across as exploiting this ambiguity to argue for human libertarian freedom among large numbers of biblical texts. As I stated earlier, no Calvinist is going to say that Scripture doesn’t teach that if one were to do this, then this would or could have been the outcome. For example, when Samuel informed Saul that God had rejected him as king, he told him that it could have been otherwise. But neither this nor any other example goes to show that Scripture supports libertarian freedom. All that seems to follow from the Samuel/Saul account is that if Saul had acted differently, he would have remained king. But it does not at all follow that Saul could have acted differently! For you to insist that that is the case and thus supports your claim is question begging against a compatibilist notion of human freedom. Another biblical text that could support your understanding is God’s statements about destroying Israel and starting over with Moses. Yes the contingency is true and it describes a real possibility, but what kind of possibility? I would contend that these possibilities are simply logical possibilities. In other words, it is possible that God “could” have destroyed Israel and started over with Moses. But this possibility says nothing about whether Moses had libertarian freedom to act otherwise or even that God could have done otherwise given his plans and intentions.
ReplyDeleteThere are many other texts that speak to the notion of truthfulness of counterfactuals that would support your libertarian understanding of freedom. For example (to quote Dr. Cowan), “If David had remained in Keilah, then Saul would have besieged the city. The implicit assumption here, of course, is that Saul has libertarian free¬dom. That assumption is what makes this counterfactual a counterfactual of freedom. Nevertheless, even though (as the biblical story goes) David did not remain in Keilah and Saul did not besiege the city, God has known from all eternity, even before David and Saul existed—even before creation it¬self—that if David had stayed in Keilah, Saul would most certainly have besieged the city.”
The stories of contingency and counterfactuals are limitless I feel as well as the assumptions, presuppositions, and/or questions begging. I would like you to respond next with some specific stories you have in mind which best support you view biblical. I hope this has been helpful, and I thank you for your thoughtful comments. It is kind of you to spend some of your time (as limited as it is) writing on my blog.
Be Blessed my friend,
Nick
Here, for any interested, is a link to my critique of compatibalism. This is a philosophical critique, not an exegetical one, but I'm about to defend that methodology a little bit:
ReplyDeletehttp://alexmarshall.blogspot.com/2011/02/critique-of-compatibalism.html
So to delve into the hermeneutic discussion we have now raised... One foundational principle of hermeneutics is that we all approach a text with our own presuppositions and biases, and I think that applies to both readers and authors- authorial "intention" might very well mean the glimpses of the author's own philosophical and theological perspectives that we get through their work. Which plays into another foundational principle, which is that when we interpret a text we need to do that in the way that makes the most sense out of everything that the text presents. Part of that involves understanding the genre and the historical background of the text. With all these in mind, we can approach the Biblical corpus, which is varied in its genre and its historical situation and its authorship and so creates all kinds of hermeneutical challenges.
So with these in mind I want to make a couple of general points and then I will talk about a couple of specific texts:
First, there is no passage that lays out a Biblical view of free-will. We are inferring everything we get from the Bible about that issue, any conclusions we reach are "reading between the lines" so to speak.
Second, narrative works by showing rather than telling. Biblical narratives frequently show characters deliberating over and making decisions. What can we infer from this? My inference is that this implies the author's belief in the free-will of the character. Perhaps that is overly laden by my presuppositions, but I think its a much more natural reading than trying to reinterpret the story in light of compatibalism, a philosophical concept that didn't actually exist until it was invented by David Hume...
Third, letters are situational and usually very highly rhetorical. Thus, they need to be treated as oral presentations, which are by nature not "precise" in an academic sense, and not as academic/systematic treatise on anything.
Now to raise a few passages that I think illustrate very clearly this inference that humans have free-will in making their decisions:
ReplyDeleteRight off the bat we have the narrative of Genesis 2-4. Man and woman in the garden- they have to make a choice about eating the fruit. They make the wrong choice. Then their son has to make a choice about killing his brother. He makes the wrong choice. In both cases, it is presented as an actual choice. God warns them in both stories to not make the wrong choice. There is no prediction that they are going to make the wrong choice despite the warnings. You can maybe catch the foreshadow in the Cain narrative, but the garden narrative seems to be set up so that we are completely surprised by Adam's decision to eat the fruit.
Then we get Noah's choice to obey. Not labored over as much by the text, but it is still pointed out as the reason he is considered righteous when everyone else gets smote by the flood. Then there is Abram choosing to follow God and to even offer his son as a sacrifice. Again, deliberation not as important to the stories, but the situations are still presented as a choice, particularly the sacrifice of Isaac narrative. Joseph's brothers do quite a bit of deliberation over what to do with Joseph before selling him into slavery. Joseph seems to go through quite a bit of internal deliberation as he decides what to do with his brothers. Have we left Genesis yet?
Ok, crossing over to Exodus, one character who is certainly portrayed as doing a lot of deliberating and making a lot of choices is Moses. Then we get his famous challenge to the Israelites in Deuteronomy: Choose life of death. They apparently can choose, thinks Moses.
We could go on and on with this. The prophets definitely believe in choice. Why else would they be pleading with Israel to return to God?
We can move to the New Testament: Jesus expects his followers to choose to follow him, to deny themselves and take up their cross. He warns them to not disobey his commandments and to not deny him. Revelation portrays a world where people are making the choice to reject God despite punishment being poured out on them. Anywhere we see an exhortation, there is the assumption that there is a choice to be made.
Now, you can make the claim that all of these passages can be read in light of Compatibalism. I know that's the move you would like to make. But here is an issue I have with that. Compatibalism is a very complex philosophical idea. Its not common knowledge- you don't hear people on the street talking about compatibalism. Its a philosophical concept that is discussed by academics. Literature of the sort we have in the Bible, while maybe written down by the elite, was in all likelihood intended to be read and passed on to everyone. Nowhere in scripture does the complex idea of compatibalism get any treatment (mainly because it hadn't been invented yet, but that's another story). So when we decide what inference to make from these stories, I don't think compatibalism is really a legitimate option on the table. Instead, I'm much more inclined to say that the most natural reading is the assumption that people are free.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your quick reply, and for you taking us to some delightful texts and revealing your lovely interpretation of them. Also, I will get to your blog post on Compatibalism very soon (so I’m sorry for not having read it first before responding back so please forgive me and trust me that I will read it).
Yes, your final paragraph saw right to the point I would make in response to all the texts you previously cited; namely, all of your texts again beg the question in that none of them explicitly say that we have freedom as it’s understood within a libertarian philosophy of freedom. The ambiguity of all the texts you have appealed to I feel sheds little light on the matter, therefore, lets try to best understand them in relation to text which are contain much less ambiguity and are highly straight forward: Paul in Eph 1, 2; or the later part of Rom 8 and all of Rom 9 and 11; even the statements Jesus makes in Jn 6 (as Hartley has quite splendidly cited); or Peter’s statement concerning Jesus’ death on the cross in Acts 2; or the hardening of Pharaohs heart (as you rightfully mentioned earlier); or the proclamation from God that he used the human intentions of Jacob’s bothers of his own will. For the last one sound pretty Compatibalistic to me, and also aligns quite nicely with the reformed doctrine of concurrence (but that’s another topic for another debate). Therefore, as I’ve noted, Compatibalistic notions are not just limited to NT thinking.
My last statement in above, leads me into my next thought. Just because a philosophical idea, or theological system, or scientific or geological fact had not yet been developed, does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Specifically here, perhaps the Compatibalistic notions of freedom are not spelled out in the wording and system of logically reasoning that we ascribe to it to this very day, but neither is our theological and philosophical understanding of the trinity. However, the foundations for such beliefs are found in our canon and thus we can make very logically valid and sound remarks based upon them.
Moreover, to touch on the issue of human intention and understanding: Moses probably believed or had no belief concerning the shape of the world (whether it was round or flat), but it does not prove in any way that the earth is not round. This point is quite simply but I think still provides some noteworthy proof from my point. Therefore, I don’t find it so burdensome (and perhaps that’s wrong of me) your thoughts concerning a biblical human author have such a complex philosophical notion of freedom. Yes your attention to detail on this matter is extremely noteworthy, but I ultimately afraid that your point here lacks attention to the intention of the divine author and progressive revelation. I’ve recently written a paper on the relationship between the two authors of Scripture, so if you’re interested I could send it your way. Know that it in no way is exhaustive on all the related issues but it seeks to harmonize the two on one particular level of doing exegesis.
Lastly, my hermeneutical point is that the texts both of us would mention or appeal to do not speak as clearly as we would wish them to. For us to claim that they deductively do say so, begs the question and thus is highly illogical to claim. As you stated in an earlier post, “The most natural reading of the overwhelming majority of the Biblical text (which are narrative or poetic) seems to assume free-will on the part of its listeners. I see no good reason why I should reinterpret all of these things in light of a few statements made by Paul to which there exist alternative interpretations.” Therefore, it seems to me that you believe that there is an alternative understanding and I’m saying that those statements of Paul are express and understood with much less ambiguity (if any at all). For as you said, narratives show you their theology and epistles tell you their theology. This statement of correct hermeneutical method provides plenty of proof for my point in that Paul’s statement are natural much easer to understand than narrative accounts.
ReplyDeleteI greatly look forward to your resonse. How would you interpret some of the alternative understanding of freedom found in Paul and other Biblical authors?
Nick
I'm about to go out of town for a few days, so this may be the last post before radio silence kicks in. But just a couple of thoughts to leave you with.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think we have a fundamental difference in terms of our understanding of progressive revelation. It seems that your understanding of progressive revelation involves the "later" texts superseding the "older" texts- Paul's authority seems to be greater than that of Moses in your hermeneutic. My understanding of progressive revelation is that the "newer" texts are building on the "older" texts. I think Paul is a great example of this- look at how much he quotes or alludes to the Old Testament (and other earlier literature, for whatever that's worth). Given Paul's seeming dependence on the Old Testament, I am going to have a hard time accepting an interpretation of Paul that goes entirely against the grain of the Old Testament. That also means, in my mind, that we have to read in the canonical order. To understand what Paul is doing with the OT, we need to first understand the OT. Which leads me to ultimately reject the claim that narrative or poetry are somehow less clear than Paul is. I find Paul pretty incredibly confusing sometimes. I find Isaiah beautifully clear. Different genres communicate differently. Its not an accident that Paul's propositional/logical writing is only a tiny portion of the Biblical corpus. For most people in most of history, story and poetry are the genres that are most meaningful and most communicative, not propositional/logical statements.
Second, I want to reiterate the point that Paul is not systematic, he is situational. Also, his writings were intended to be read aloud, so I think we should evaluate them more along the lines of a sermon than an academic paper (and despite the current tendency of seminary educated evangelical pastors to want to give sermons that are also academic papers, for most of history sermons have been much more prone to rhetorical flair- think Martin Luther King, not Piper). That consideration is going to make me say that we need to be very careful about making sweeping theological or philosophical statements based on comments Paul makes (especially statements made mid-argument as he is working up toward a conclusion that dealt with a specific situation in a specific Church).
So with those considerations lets talk about some of Paul's statements. The first question I think we need to ask is "what is Paul's primary concern? what is the big picture, the main point, that Paul is trying to communicate in his entire ministry?" Then we can narrow that down a little- "what is the main point Paul is trying to communicate in this particular letter?" Then we can ask "how is Paul structuring his argument for that main point in this letter?" Then we can finally narrow down to the question of how a particular passage fits into the structure of his argument.
ReplyDeleteThe big concern of Paul's ministry, I think, is the question of how Gentiles fit into the Jewish movement started by Christ. I think this is the consuming drive of Paul's ministry- justifying the place of Gentiles in the Christian community. Before you scream something about NT Wright, let me say I'm not making any statements about the law right now. I'm just looking for a general overarching concern of Paul's ministry. So in Acts we see Paul presented as the Apostle to the Gentiles. In Romans, however we deal with the justification passages its undeniable that Paul deals a lot with the Gentile issue. Same with Galatians and Ephesians, and to a slightly lesser extent Philippians, and Colossians. The pastoral epistles are much more personal in nature and Corinthians is kinda an outlier because Paul is dealing with possibly the most dis-functional Church of the ancient world... But in general, the trend of Paul's ministry is that he is very focused on the Gentile question.
So now lets look at Romans and Ephesians. I think the overarching concern of Romans is the Gentile question, and I think Paul makes his argument by arguing that all humanity is in a similar state of peril and then arguing that Christ is the common savior, the New Adam, who has established a New Covenant with all humanity, including the Gentiles. Into this context we can place Romans 8-11. I think undoubtedly these passages are dealing with the Gentile issue. Chapter 8 ends with a particular stirring bit of rhetoric that then leads into a more sobering picture of the situation: the Gentiles are turning in mass to Christ, but Israel has by in large rejected her messiah. Paul's lament is full of echoes of the prophetic witness in the OT- references to the concept of the remnant of faithful Israel, quasi-allegorical allusions to the story of Abraham and Sarah (they become full blown allegory in Galatians), etc. This situation is summarized pretty nicely in 9:30-10:4, which again clearly identifies the issue here as being about Gentile inclusion. Chapter 10 elaborates on this. Chapter 11 then echoes the prophets again and predicts a future return of Israel to God and combines this with a prophetic warning to the Gentiles not to fall away. I may have missed something, but I don't see anything in this that precludes free will. I actually think this is an especially difficult passage for a Calvinist to deal with: Paul's talk of election here has its root in the election of Israel in the OT. But Paul is lamenting here the fact that Israel has forsaken its election and is thus being cut off from the tree while the Gentiles are grafted in! That's not exactly a picture of Perseverance of the Saints or Irresistible Grace...
Admittedly I'm not as familiar with Ephesians. But I think the main point here is that Paul is urging Christian unity. Speaking to a largely Gentile audience, he urges them to stand together in Christ with their Jewish and Gentile brethren. Chapter two fits into that argument by demanding a dose of humility- you were all sinners in need of Christ's grace, don't let anyone break that bond of solidarity. I think the point here is that none of them deserved redemption. That does not, I don't think, preclude free cooperation with God in this redemptive activity. It doesn't really give any indication of an irresistible grace. As a call to humility, Paul is simply saying "remember, you were dead apart from Christ, and its only because of Christ you are alive. So don't get any ideas about boasting." Basically, I think making a technical argument from this passage on the question of free-will would be pushing the text a lot farther than it really wants to go.
ReplyDeleteOne final thought on the issue of compatibalism and its historical origins (which maybe will turn into yet another blog post on this issue...). Compatibalism is a product of the Enlightenment. In the Greco-Roman philosophy of the early Christian period we see a pretty strict determinism (particularly among the Stoics and the Epicureans) that is used to justify all kinds of social ills- the rich can oppress the poor, enslave the conquered, etc because this is how fate would have it. One of the primary claims early Christian thinkers outside the NT make is that this is false, that people have free-will and thus we can change the evil circumstances of our world and whats more we are responsible for the evil we do or participate in. As Western culture becomes more and more Christianized this idea of freedom making us responsible for what we do becomes more and more embedded in our cultural thinking. So when the Enlightenment happens and science suddenly takes the drivers seat and starts telling people that everything that happens, including their own actions, are determined by natural laws philosophers who see some value in ethics have a problem- how do we maintain ethical responsibility if the claims of science are true? The proposed solution was compatibalism.
Now, its certainly true that ideas can exist before they are clearly articulated. I think the Trinity is an excellent example of that. But I don't think there was any concept in the ANE of compatibalism, nor even a perceived need for such an idea. Further, the complexity of such an idea would make me think that if Paul is really employing a compatibalist view of freedom he would need to explain that. It just wouldn't be understood by his audience. So I think its a very tall order to read the text with that theory in the background.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts were noteworthy remarks and cause of much deliberation on my part. Thank you for taking us to some Pauline texts and giving your thoughts concerning the bigger picture, or why Paul is writing in the first place. You’re right that his letters are situational; however, I still don’t think that leads us to say that we cannot garner systematic teaching from them (as I know you would probably say the same thing). Also, I totally agree with you that the key to the NT is the OT (always have and hope that I always will); however, the point of me bringing up question begging concerning the texts you originally mentioned was to show that they are not as clear as both of us would like them to be. Therefore, that led me to some Pauline texts or other OT ones (see my previous comments for a couple of them) that seemed much more straight forward as to how one understands human will in accordance with God’s sovereign ordaining work.
That last statement rightfully causes me to make a quick note of concern for clarification. My hermeneutic is a Canonical-Theological approach, and I’ll list its components below:
I. Theological Exegesis
I. Understanding each text in its original context
II. Theological Interpretation
I. Understanding each text in its full canonical setting
i. Because we have two authors of our texts
ii. The divine author has given us the breathe of the canon so we can best know his intentions
III. Theological Formation
I. Understanding the past/present/future of the Canon as a coherent Theological framework
i. An approach that takes us from the beginning of creation to its end
IV. Theological Vision
I. We now have a new set of glasses that own us to judge our own intentions, the treasures our heart yearns for, ect. In other words, we have now possess a new perspective that changes, reshapes, or corrects our world view.
Moreover:
I. Three Horizons of Biblical Interpretation
a. Textual Horizon- meaning of a particular text
b. Epochal- place of text in a time period
c. Canonical- meaning of all texts conbined
Any text one could think of would serve as a great illustration and for time purposes I must leave it at that. However, I would like to have anyone’s thoughts on the method of interpretation I’ve just given. Also, this statement of method in no way says these about my method, “It seems that your understanding of progressive revelation involves the "later" texts superseding the "older" texts- Paul's authority seems to be greater than that of Moses in your hermeneutic.” However, it (progressive revelation) does make issues of Canonical-Theological interpretations clearer; such as the mystery of the inclusion of Gentiles. This speaks to issues of continuity and discontinuity. Therefore, here’s another list to help people understand my thoughts. Also, notice that such a method does not say that the later texts are of greater authority than the older texts; however, what I think you’ll find is an expression of the true and real tension that exists when formulating a method.
ReplyDeleteII. Continuity and Discontinuity
i. Across the canon, what continuous and discontinuous from the OT into the NT?
ii. The before and after questions:
1. How does Adam and Jesus compare?
a. In what way is Jesus the second Adam? How are they similar and how are they different?
b. They are both representatives. They stand for their people and their actions have great consequences.
2. How are the promises of Abraham fulfilled?
a. In what sense do the promises given to Abraham (Abrahamic Covenant) find its fulfillment in Jesus (New Covenant)?
b. The canon will regulate how we understand fulfillment.
3. What’s the relationship btw the Law of Moses and the Law of Love?
a. Why has one been put aside and why will one continue?
4. What’s the relationship btw the covenants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David?
a. This of course assumes that there is a covenant with Adam, but I’m of the persuasion of if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. However, this is of course another topic of a later debate.
5. How do prophets, priests and kings relate to the NT?
Also, I too share your feelings in regard to how confusing Paul (esp. Peter at times) can be. Therefore, notice that my earlier remakes were about certain passages of the apostles Paul and Peter, the evangelist John, and the historian Luke make that seem clearer than others (not every passage from certain authors). Yes different genres communicate differently, amen to that!
ReplyDeleteAlso, your comments concerning the philosophical development of Compatibalism are thought provoking and I have no good reason to say that they are not true; however, such truthfulness only speaks to the development of the philosophical notion and not its foundational roots in Scripture. Here I think my point concerning our current Trinitarian model is helpful. Yes, Paul and other biblical authors did not have such a robust philosophical understanding of the Trinity as we do today (as a result of historical developments), but it in no way means that the foundational philosophical grounds for such robust thinking is no where to be found in the canon. Therefore, I think the same is true of a Compatibalistic notion of freedom. You mentioned that Paul would have to have developed it more fuller for you to believe that such is true; however, he would not have to develop it more fuller if he simply was not concerned with in at the time being (based upon the situational condition of his letters to begin with, which you have already granted we earlier). There are many occasions when we the interpreter are left to wander what Paul truly meant by making simply statements, therefore, why cannot this be a legitimate possibility.
Lastly, your thoughts concerning the purposes of many of Paul’s writings are noteworthy. I am not going to say that Paul is not concerned with Gentile matters, nor say that Paul is not concerned with Church (universal and local) unity. However, there are significant words, phrases and stories that you have not addressed. What does Paul mean by saying that God loved one and not the other? What is the meaning of foreknew or predestined in Rom 8 or predestined in Eph 1? And to bring this matter full circle, how are you to reconcile your notion of freedom with such statements found in Eph 2 where the work, ability or free-libertarian-will of man is certainly marginalized? It seems that if you were to hold to it, then you would be marginalizing the work of God for salvation, and I don’t think that the later text allows for it.
Since you (Alex) are going out of town and I am must be getting back to some school assignments, this conversation could very well be put on hold for a few days; however, I still encourage comments by anyone who has an opinion on the matter. This final statement reminds me of a debate I recently attended where Bart Ehrman was asked a very Christian question, and to which he relied, “I have no opinion on the matter.”
Be Blessed,
Nick