Steve Hays' Tin Ear on Calvinism

[Turgonian]

I think GoBahnsen is soundly beaten by themuzicman in the debate on TULIP (although I still think the concept of corporate election is very impersonal and almost 'creepy' -- but those are just feelings), but on Page 2 he says the following about Irresistible Grace, which is what I meant to convey:

If we are dead in our sins, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion/resistance.

Often, I read my opponents saying: "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our free wills to resist that drawing." My answer is: except for God's irresistible grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be "unable to please God." So that, if a person stops his/her rebellion, it is God's initiating grace that must have made it happen. If a person remains too proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not yet been given such a willingness of heart.

[...]

Therefore (under the free will paradigm), those who are heaven bound, ARE so, because of a mix of grace and something better, morally, about these people. And I realize that my opponents don't use this kind of language, when describing their view, but it is how I see it. And from my own experience in debating the free will position, I find that they would rather say that they don't know why they chose Christ, while their neighbor failed to do so. They say it comes of a free will, but they don't know what's back of the free will, causing it to do the right thing, while others are not willing to choose Christ.

The TULIP answers... that God's grace is that which is back of the will, when it chooses Christ. Not in some mere general/universal influence that is trying to get all wills to submit to Christ. Because if that be the case, we're back to some people just being morally better people, but not because of grace. This is inescapable, in the free will paradigm...and this is especially why I think the doctrine of irresistible grace is the correct biblical doctrine, because it leaves the inescapable conclusion that those who come to the light, are those who's good works are wrought IN GOD. In other words, those in whom God's grace has been at work, causing them to differ from what they once were, darkness, even as the others. For it is He who began the good work (Phil 1:6).

Just to clarify. Well, let's see what muz has to say.

[jpholding]

No. I thought about this. The kind of humility I was talking about was the first thing to go out of the window when Adam and Eve sinned. They were still 'god-like' in other ways (their capacity of philosophical knowing, for instance), but they had ceased to be submissive.

I think I'd rather say not that they ceased to be submissive, but that is wasn't something that came easily. And so I don't know that it is always a gift of God, but that some aspect of it still remains in our image-nature.

[Frogwarrior]

Hmm... That raises the interesting question of what the image of God (as it pertains to us) is all about... I do remember reading "The Mormon Defenders" recently, so what you said there, JP, is still fresh in my mind.

[jpholding]

Hmm... That raises the interesting question of what the image of God (as it pertains to us) is all about... I do remember reading "The Mormon Defenders" recently, so what you said there, JP, is still fresh in my mind.

I'd say: Since it has to do with representation, it arguably includes whatever we'd need to enact God's will on earth. That would include rational faculties of which humility would be a component.

[Frogwarrior]

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense.

[Turgonian]

Yes, it makes sense. But the seemingly insoluble question remains: why do some people choose to submit to God, but others don't? Where is the difference? Are they better people?

I realize a similar question could be posed to the Calvinist: why does God, drawing irresistibly, save some and pass over (or actively damn) others? But then, the mystery lies in the hidden will of God, whereas in the Molinist and Arminian views, it seems to lie in the hidden will of man.

Difficult.

[jpholding]

Where is the difference? Are they better people?

It depends what you mean by "better". Ultimately the wildcard choice is simply one of God vs not-God; they were certainly better when it came to where they chose to be. But it's nothing inherent, I'd say.

I realize a similar question could be posed to the Calvinist: why does God, drawing irresistibly, save some and pass over (or actively damn) others? But then, the mystery lies in the hidden will of God, whereas in the Molinist and Arminian views, it seems to lie in the hidden will of man.

And I'll give you two guesses which better fits a patronage model.

[Turgonian]

Whistle all you like...but no patron of the ancient world ever sent his spirit as an empowering force into the client, whether prior or posterior to said client's acceptance of charis.

[jpholding]

Whistle all you like...but no patron of the ancient world ever sent his spirit as an empowering force into the client, whether prior or posterior to said client's acceptance of charis.

No, but the analogy would be that the patron went out and tried to convince people to join up with him. Patrons didn't recruit -- you sought the honor of being their client and petitioned them.

[Turgonian]

So, in short, the final answer to the 'why' must be sought in the hidden shadows of the will of man?

[jpholding]

So, in short, the final answer to the 'why' must be sought in the hidden shadows of the will of man?

For now. It wouldn't be the only human mystery of course.

[ukchristian28]

I have been reading though this thread with some interest. I am a Calvinist (moderately so) and I am trying to come to grips with what J.P has said on this subject. I certainly don't think I am in a position to offer anything close to a full and detailed response and I wouldn't dream of trying to offer one until I know a lot more. I am also open to changing or modifying my position on this subject. I think it was Dizzle who wisely stated that she was not married to either view and I agree with that attitude.

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. I hope my ramblings below are not too stupid. Hays and White didn't seem to do a very good job and I don't want to be placed in the same category.

These questions are directed at J.P but I would be interested hear what others have to say.

Well here's goes:

Earlier in this thread J.P responded to a point by Steve Hays regarding the hardening of Pharoah's heart. Hays makes the point that if the hardening could be resisted and it was possible for Pharaoh to relent and let the Israelites go, then the plagues would be interrupted and not achieve their intended effect. To this J.P said:

Sorry, but I'm still waiting for an explanation of the problem. What these amount to is that they had to be uninterrupted because if they hadn't been, they'd have been interrupted. The mental block Tinky Winky has is the usual Calvinist one in which he declares that God's "purpose" was Calvinistic, and that Pharaoh never could have repented, and so that's why there could have been no interruption of the plagues. Of course it never occurs to Tinky Winky that if Pharaoh had repented and let Israel go, all that would mean is that God would have accomplished His purpose for Israel in another way. Tinky Winky's view of history and outcomes has all the depth of a teflon pan, and about as much sticktuitiveness.

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:

a. Blood - against the god Nilus, the sacred river god.
b. Frogs- against Hekt, the goddess of reproduction.
c. Gnats - against Seb, the god of the earth.
d.Flies (beetles) - against Khephera, the sacred scarab.
e. Murrain on the Egyptian cattle - against Apis and Hathor, the sacred bull and cow.
f. Boils on man and beast - against Typhon, the evil-eye god
g. Hail, against Shu, the god of the atmosphere.
h. Locusts - against Serapis, the protector from locusts.
i. Darkness - against Ra, the sun god.
j. Death of the first-born man and beast - against ptah, the god of life.

(Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament p.56).

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. Sure, God could have accomplished His ultimate purpose for Israel (freeing them from bondage and leading them to the promised land) in another way had Pharaoh relented, but that is not what Hays meant. He meant the purpose of showing Yahweh to be the one true god and the gods of Egypt to be false. That could logically only be achieved if the King of Egypt remained stubborn in his refusal to let the Israelites go and so God hardened (strengthened) his heart to ensure that he would not relent.

Now a few other issues:

One of the biggest problems I see with any form of synergism (be it found in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or evangelical Arminianism) was touched upon above by Turgonian. It is the question of why some people choose to believe while some don't? Why did J.P Holding become/remain a Christian while Jimbo and Doubting John did not? What made the difference? Is the difference to be found within God or within the sinner? Since Arminians believe that God is trying to save everyone equally, the difference cannot be in Him, otherwise everyone would be saved. 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). An old Calvinist friend of mine (Martyn) puts it well I believe:

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/quatsch7/p2c.htm

"The common belief... is that people get saved because they ALLOW God to save them. The flip-side is that people are LOST because they REFUSE to let God save them. But, why do some ALLOW God to save them? [John 3:20; 1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, John 6:44 and many other verses prove that men never just allow God to save them]. It must be because they make a wise decision; it must be because they are more perceptive to spiritual truth; it must be because they are less stubborn, less self-righteous, less proud; less rebellious, in short, because they are BETTER. That is the ONLY logical conclusion which can be reached if we start from the [false] premise that God wants to save everybody, He has made salvation available and possible for everybody, and everybody has an equal chance. BUT, that makes man ultimately his own saviour. The very idea is repugnant."

Calvinists often argue that the Arminian position ultimately makes God a failure. I have to say that this is a point I have often made when speaking to people of this persuasion. According to J.P's theology God tries and tries and tries and tries to persuade people to enter into His client-patron relationship, yet He doesn't manage to do it because apparently He is too inadaquate. 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. He just wasn't persuasive or attractive enough so not everyone chooses Him. Such a weak and ineffective God would surely not be worthy of worship would He J.P?

[Rational Gaze]

Try reading Four Views of Divine Providence. Very good look at contemporary views on the divine foreknowledge and all that. I am personally persuaded by Molinism myself. Calvinism, to me, paints a picture of God that I find jarringly unbiblical.

[ukchristian28]

Try reading Four Views of Divine Providence. Very good look at contemporary views on the divine foreknowledge and all that. I am personally persuaded by Molinism myself. Calvinism, to me, paints a picture of God that I find jarringly unbiblical.

I shall think about getting that. I have heard of it, but haven't read it. I love those counter-point books.

[nightbringer]

These questions are directed at J.P but I would be interested hear what others have to say.

Yo!

Well here's goes:

Earlier in this thread J.P responded to a point by Steve Hays regarding the hardening of Pharoah's heart.

I don't really see how the issue of Pharaoh's hardening of heart is directly relevant to the issue of whether Calvinism is true or not. An Arminian/Molinist is not committed to the claim that every human action has been, or will be, free from God's direct control. One could think that there are some instances, given certain conditions, in which God can justifiably "over-ride" or remove a person's libertarian free will. Indeed, some synergists suggest that human libertarian free will shall be removed in the eternal age (explaining why none of the saved ever sin). Typically these instances are thought to only be justifiable because they are a response to previous choices made by an agent that truly were free, (but perhaps other conditions are conceivable too). So even if the Pharaoh account is read as the Calvinist typically insists, there is no problem for an Arminian/Molinist there. Of course, this changes if Romans 9 is read as pertaining to God's control over the salvation of persons rather than God's control over some acts of history (and if this control is read monergistically). So I think the real matter is how to understand the Romans passage. But perhaps that's already been discussed in this thread.

One of the biggest problems I see with any form of synergism (be it found in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or evangelical Arminianism) was touched upon above by Turgonian. It is the question of why some people choose to believe while some don't? Why did J.P Holding become/remain a Christian while Jimbo and Doubting John did not? What made the difference? Is the difference to be found within God or within the sinner? Since Arminians believe that God is trying to save everyone equally, the difference cannot be in Him, otherwise everyone would be saved. 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). An old Calvinist friend of mine (Martyn) puts it well I believe:

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/quatsch7/p2c.htm

"The common belief... is that people get saved because they ALLOW God to save them. The flip-side is that people are LOST because they REFUSE to let God save them. But, why do some ALLOW God to save them? [John 3:20; 1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, John 6:44 and many other verses prove that men never just allow God to save them]. It must be because they make a wise decision; it must be because they are more perceptive to spiritual truth; it must be because they are less stubborn, less self-righteous, less proud; less rebellious, in short, because they are BETTER. That is the ONLY logical conclusion which can be reached if we start from the [false] premise that God wants to save everybody, He has made salvation available and possible for everybody, and everybody has an equal chance. BUT, that makes man ultimately his own saviour. The very idea is repugnant."

I'm not going to go through the Bible verses referenced unless you want to pick a couple and go through them in detail. 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. However there are some things to say in response. Firstly, one does not have to deny that an action of God is necessary for a person's choosing salvation, only that it isn't sufficient. So I do not think that man can save himself. I agree that the Holy Spirit's illumination is required. But I do maintain that a human must freely (in a non-compatibilist sense) choose Christ as a response to that illumination. So yes, I think humans have a very real role in their 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. It is not impressive that you only won because of rocket skates. Similarly it is not impressive that you had some ability to choose Christ, given that you still required the Spirit's illumination, and that your own righteousness is still not enough to satisfy God.

Calvinists often argue that the Arminian position ultimately makes God a failure. I have to say that this is a point I have often made when speaking to people of this persuasion. According to J.P's theology God tries and tries and tries and tries to persuade people to enter into His client-patron relationship, yet He doesn't manage to do it because apparently He is too inadaquate. 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. He just wasn't persuasive or attractive enough so not everyone chooses Him. Such a weak and ineffective God would surely not be worthy of worship would He J.P?

I really don't find anything persuasive at all about Calvinist objections to the "weakness" of an Arminian/Molinist understanding of God. Let us grant that God is reasonably said to "fail" and thus demonstrate incompetence if he does not succeed in some goal that he sets himself. Well then, what if God's goal is "securing the salvation of whoever freely desires it"? This is noticeably different to the goal of "securing the salvation of everyone". I agree that God fails at the latter goal, but then I don't think the latter is God's goal and I don't know any proponent of A/M who thinks that unqualified statement is his goal either. Of course I think God would like everyone to be saved, but I don't think his goal actually is to save everyone regardless of their free decision.

It might be objected that God still demonstrates weakness if he can't make everyone freely choose salvation, even though he wants everyone to do that. But this is silly, if human agents have libertarian free will, then it is logically impossible for God to make them choose salvation without removing that free will. If this is a demonstration of God's weakness then so is God's inability to create a square circle.