Steve Hays' Tin Ear on Calvinism

[jpholding]

However I would like to ask J.P some questions if he has time to answer them. I also want to point out an instance in his exchange with Steve Hays where he seems to me to have missed the point Hays was making.

Yech. I don't have time to go back and see if I did or not, so I'll just approach this fresh.

I respectfully suggest that J.P missed the point which Hays was trying to make. The point of the plagues was to show the superiority of Yahweh over the false gods of Egypt. Every single plague was directed at one of these false gods and when they failed to prevent them they were shown to be powerless against the true God of Israel

I've seen some dispute over the accuracy of the claim that the plagues were directed to specific Egyptian gods, but I'm not particular about it, and at least some are stronger than others.

That said, I would note that the argument seems to imply that God would not have had some other way to show His superiority other than the plagues. But if this is the argument, it doesn't wash. A repentant Pharaoh would also have shown this, especially given the Pharaoh's status as a demigod: Egypt's most visible pantheon member would have submitted to what would have been regarded as a shameful concession/humiliation. Beyond that, following a repentance, God could easily show His superiority to the other gods of Egypt in other ways -- eg, make the frogs all congregate downstream in one spot and commit mass suicide by jumping into a dry pit (just a dash of humor there, but the point is the same -- there would be more than one way to skin an Egyptian deity).

If Pharaoh had relented and let the people go, then some of the plagues would not have occured. As Hays pointed out they "needed to continue uninterrupted in an ascending crescendo of intensity to their climatic denoucement in order to achieve their intended purpose." The purpose being to defeat all of those false gods.

Granting this, the purpose in question was selected, as I see it, precisely because of the broader need to make an example of Egypt. Among other things, the judgment there likely frightened most of the Canaanites into leaving and made the Conquest an easier affair that it would have been otherwise. What I am saying here, though, is that it is a mistake to generalize from this particular example of Pharaoh to that of all persons at all times, which is what I found SOME Calvinist commentators doing. Someone like Thunderf00t, for example, isn't in any sort of position where his channel will be cast down with plagues (maybe plagues of static, poor sound quality, etc?) so that we can more easily invade the promised land of ProfMTH's channel, or drive out ReligionFreeDeist.

It difference therefore must be found in the sinner, which of course leaves room for boasting. The gospel however is said not to leave any room for boasting (Ephesians 2:8-9).

My response to that is, no one in their right mind would boast of having simply made a correct choice when the answer was quite obvious. Naturally one may foolishly "boast" of such things as one may "boast" of having added two and two properly, but can such a boast be taken seriously as what Paul had in mind?

I also see no way this makes man his own saviour. In terms of honor, in such a situation man would receive none for simply having chosen the right side. God alone would receive honor in such a situation, as the generous patron. A client received no honor for simply signing up, save that they would accrue honor by way of association with the one who had it already; but that comes not of their choice, but of their patron's nature.

J.P has argued that in that day and culture this would only reflect upon the sinner who refused to accept, but surely it would logically reflect upon God as well. Think about it.

Nope. Not one bit. That's what the social science scholarship says, and I can find no evidence to the contrary. No one would have thought of God as weak or ineffective because someone refused to sign up -- every bit of shame and scorn would go on the one who refused the generous offer.

[jpholding]

salvation. Does this give us ground for boasting? I don't think so. I remember reading somewhere (I think it may even have been JP) that if you enter a race, but only win because you use rocket skates, it is true that you contributed to your winning, but it is also true that your boasting would look a little ridiculous.

Yeah that sounds like me.

[ukchristian28]

Thank you answering those J.P. I shall give further consideration to the issues you have raised. It occurs to me that I ought to get hold of some of these sources you are using and study them for myself. I'll see about ordering them at the library (somehow I think I am going to have to send away for them). The question I am asking myself at the moment is whether Reformed theology and the social science data you have brought up can mix.

Just one other question if I may. Do you think Calvinism is a harmful view? If so, why?

Thanks again.

[jpholding]

I'll see about ordering them at the library (somehow I think I am going to have to send away for them). The question I am asking myself at the moment is whether Reformed theology and the social science data you have brought up can mix.

I asked David deSilva what he thought, but after he said it was an interesting question, he never wrote back. The Context Group people would probably not know enough about Calvinism to say.

Just one other question if I may. Do you think Calvinism is a harmful view? If so, why?

Only in very extreme forms, such as the type that might say we shouldn't even bother sending missionaries to places like China or India because the elect will be saved regardless of what we do. Other than that, I don't see any potential harm in it.

[Kenny]

But on the general comment about the origin of salvation and the grounds for boasting: I do find this to be the strongest consideration in favour of a Calvinist soteriology. It's perhaps the only thing that prevents me from being unflinching in my Molinism.

You can have both if you want.

[nightbringer]

You can have both if you want.

I've read that thread before and found the idea plausible. I guess I didn't see the motivation for adopting it (relative to this particular issue) since it still seemed like salvation was dependant upon human free decision, but I think I missed the point about God's choice to justify us being logically prior to sanctification. So yeah, maybe we can have both.

[Kenny]

I've read that thread before and found the idea plausible. I guess I didn't see the motivation for adopting it (relative to this particular issue) since it still seemed like salvation was dependant upon human free decision, but I think I missed the point about God's choice to justify us being logically prior to sanctification. So yeah, maybe we can have both.

Yep. That’s a key component of the model. As I pointed out in post 20 on that thread, the model is also consistent with the claim that the elect don’t (and never did and never will) have a choice about whether they will be fully sanctified (rather than merely having a choice about certain elements concerning how they will).

I don’t know whether the model is true or not. But I think that one thing that models like it do is illustrate that logical space may contain many more possibilities when it comes to this subject than it might initially appear to us to contain. This should make us cautious about how confident we are in some of the inferences we make when doing our systematic theology.