The suppression of reason, logic, common sense and morality in Calvinism

[civic]

Chapter 10 – The Calvinist Suppression of Logical Reasoning, Moral Intuition and Common Sense

In previous chapters I sought to demonstrate that the deliberations of reason are problematic for Calvinists and that the “fixes,” “work-arounds” and “explanations” they have devised to relieve the…

goodnewsapologetics.com

In a “Calvinism 101” podcast, Kevin DeYoung is interviewed by Matt Tully on “The Doctrines of Grace.”[30] DeYoung recalls his childhood experiences with Calvinism.

“I grew up in a Reformed church as a part of The Reformed Church in America… I do remember—when I was probably in elementary school—having a sermon series that my pastor did on TULIP… But I didn’t much understand what it was…

Later when I was in, I think, middle school I went to a public school and in a western civilization class there was a paragraph on Martin Luther and two sentences on John Calvin. And of course, it said about John Calvin that he believed in predestination—that God chose who would be saved—and I thought that sounded kind of barbaric. I guess I hadn’t picked up my pastor’s sermon series very well. It does say something about our human intuition and how we need to constantly be reminded and taught these things. We don’t come upon them naturally.”

Note DeYoung’s initial childhood response to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. He describes his reaction to learning “that God chose who would be saved” as “that sounds kind of barbaric.” I submit that this initial response should not be passed over lightly. It is the typical response of most people when they are first introduced to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination or unconditional election. I would also submit that such reactions are significant. They reveal the functional purpose of our logical reasoning and moral intuitions which is to give us guidance for discerning the truth or falsity of what we are being told or experiencing. I would also submit that these are still sufficiently reliable for that purpose. Therefore, such reactions reliably indicate to us that something is amiss in Calvinism.

Now, responses like DeYoung’s are a serious matter that Calvinists need to reckon with. How do they deal with these common logical and moral conclusions regarding their “doctrines of grace?” First, the Calvinist must cast doubt upon the reliability of our logical reasoning and moral intuitions as truth detectors. Second, they must redirect us from such reliance by attempting to convince us that their doctrines are Scriptural. And thirdly, they then recast those doctrines as gracious and good

This is what DeYoung is doing here. He also states,

“It does say something about our human intuition and how we need to constantly be reminded and taught these things.”

Here DeYoung is telling us that the Calvinist hermeneutic requires us to ignore our “human intuition.” I submit that DeYoung is teaching us that we need to be purposefully and intentionally reeducated out of our natural logical faculties and our moral intuitions to begin to embrace the Calvinist doctrines. We need to “constantly be reminded and taught these things.” Why? Because they go against our logical and moral senses! We need to “constantly be reminded and taught these things” despite their obvious logical and moral difficulties. These difficulties are indicators of bad interpretation. Therefore they must be ignored.

Packer below:

Packer offers several nuanced aspects of the Christian experience to support his claim that every Christian, because he prays, believes in Packer’s theistic determinism. Notice that in presenting these nuanced aspects of the Christian experience he avoids a full explanation of his Calvinist theology and soteriology while mischaracterizing the non-Calvinist position. Again, Packer’s contention is that in the practice of prayer the Christian is actually affirming Packer’s deterministic doctrines even though they may otherwise deny those doctrines. He calls this an “odd state of affairs.” He writes,

“What causes this odd state of affairs? The root cause is the same as in most cases of error in the Church – the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic.”[22]

In chapter 7 I have already explained the difference between reason and rationalism and the implications of each for biblical interpretation. If by “human logic” Packer is referring to the rationalism by which the supernatural and genuine biblical mystery is put out of court because they are made subject to the naturalistic worldview, I would agree with him. These would be the “rationalistic speculations” he mentions. But I also argued the legitimacy and necessity of engaging one’s mind and reason on the basis of the laws of logic in the interpretive task, which contrary to Packer, are the “demands of human logic.” I argued against the dismissal of “human logic” that I believe Packer advocates for here.

So what is Packer’s main contention here? It seems to me that all this amounts to is a cavalier dismissal of the one thing that if Packer was required to incorporate into his hermeneutic would be the death knell of his theology – logic. Here we have a very clear example of the rejection of logic in the Calvinist mindset and hermeneutic. Packer declares “a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic” to be one of the causes of “error in the Church.” Note that he describes “human logic” as projecting “supposed demands” upon us. The canons of reason or the laws of logic are not “demands” that Packer needs to take seriously when interpreting the Bible. He cannot take them seriously because his theology proves to violate these “demands of human logic.” So he merely declares them “supposed demands.” Packer doesn’t have to yield to logic’s demands because it is “human” logic, and “human logic” can always be characterized as faulty, undependable logic. The Calvinist dismisses logical and moral reasoning as is convenient for the preservation of their a priori traditional theistic determinism.

I do not see how it is that “the demands of human logic” as applied to the discipline of interpretation must be antithetical to the existence of genuine “mystery” and letting “God be wiser that men.” And I do not see why it is necessary that logic, because it is “human,” need be faulty in its deliberations and deliverances. Packer would never come right out and suggest that we affirm an illogical interpretive methodology that leads to illogical doctrinal conclusions. But isn’t that precisely what he is doing here?

How can we recognize whether or not Packer’s doctrines are genuine, biblical “mystery?” How do we know when we have crossed the line in failing “to recognize the existence of mystery” and letting “God be wiser than men” and are embracing the “supposed demands of logic?” Why are the demands of human logic antithetical to genuine biblical mystery? Perhaps it is the “demands of logic” that are needed to distinguish between genuine biblical mystery and misinterpretation. Why can’t an interpretive methodology that incorporates logical and moral consistency affirm genuine mystery and God’s wisdom? Is it more “spiritual” to embrace theological contradictions and inconsistencies? How can Packer demonstrate to us that the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in his Calvinist doctrines are evidence that they reflect genuine biblical “mystery?” How can he show that his incoherent doctrines demonstrate that “God is wiser than men” and are not simply incoherent interpretations? Perhaps Packer has misinterpreted the text. And couldn’t the accusation of a “passion for systematic consistency” also be leveled against the Calvinist’s TULIP soteriology? Perhaps this system has taken on a life and “passion” of its own that cannot be questioned, even when it proves to generate incoherence, inconsistency and contradictions among other clear biblical doctrinal truths. @atpollard

Its a great article to read for those who have the time and are open to be challenged.

 

[civic]

continued:

Piper in seminary

Austin Fischer records another of John Piper’s struggles in Piper’s conversion to Calvinism. Piper states,

“So when I went to college and began to hear people give a framework to this [Calvinism], I revolted against the sovereignty of God…When I arrived a Fuller Seminary, I took a class on systematic theology with James Morgan…and another with Dan Fuller on hermeneutics. And coming from both sides – theology and exegesis – I was feeling myself absolutely cornered by all the evidences of God’s sovereignty in the Bible…I would put my face in my hands in my room, and I would just cry because my world was coming apart. I just couldn’t figure anything out…But at the end of James Morgan’s theology class, I wrote in a blue book: “Romans 9 is like a tiger going around devouring free-willers like me. And it did.”[33]

It’s interesting that DeYoung and Piper were never given alternative interpretations of the relevant passages like Romans 9 that do not lead to a definition of “sovereignty” as universal divine causal determinism nor the subsequent logical and moral incoherence, inconsistencies and contradictions such determinism creates with other teachings of Scripture. And this raises a related issue. That is, that Dan Fuller’s hermeneutic must have deemed the incoherence his interpretations generated as interpretively insignificant. It must have been the case that Dr. Fuller never considered the serious logical and moral incoherencies, inconsistencies and contradictions that his deterministic interpretation of God’s sovereignty created as interpretively significant. They had no bearing on determining the validity or invalidity of his exegesis. It is no wonder that Piper was experiencing such anxiety and “just couldn’t figure anything out.” Of course he couldn’t, and he never would be able to figure any of this out. He could not and still cannot (he has to flee to mystery and incomprehensibility) because the very logical and moral faculties and framework he needed to properly exegete Scripture and “figure things out” were being wrested from him. Indeed, they were being taken from him as the necessary first step to adopt the unmovable pillar of Calvinist theology which is God’s sovereignty defined as a universal divine causal determinism. I said above that Dan Fuller’s hermeneutic must have deemed the incoherence his interpretations generated as interpretively insignificant. Adopting this hermeneutic must have been a conscious decision because I take it that he must have known that there are sound exegetical treatments of Romans 9 that do not lead to the logical and moral cul-de-sac of unconditional election and theistic determinism. It was not necessary for Piper to suppress his logical and moral reasoning and go through this torment. Certainly Scripture properly interpreted didn’t require it. His world need not have come apart.

 

[civic]

Mac is confused and contradicts himself below:

R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Ligon Duncan and the Suppression of Reason​

During the “Tough Questions Christians Face: 2008 West Coast Conference” a woman asked John MacArthur the following question.

“Dr. MacArthur, you gave us two scriptures that popped out to me. The natural man cannot get to God in his unaided condition. And then in Acts, God now commands all men everywhere to repent. So, does that mean God would help everyone to repent since he commands it?[34]

MacArthur answers,

“The question you’re asking is why would God command all men everywhere to repent if they can’t unless he aids them. The answer to the question is, I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.”[35]

The questioner follows up with,

“So not everybody can be saved then?”[36]

At which point MacArthur interjects, saying,

“Everyone is held culpable and guilty for not repenting. Everyone is culpable for his own sin. Guilty before God for his own sin. Like the second Thessalonians passage, God will deal out, when Christ returns, retribution to those who know not God and believe not the gospel. This is the great ultimate question that you come to in the doctrines of grace – is personal moral responsibility and the sovereignty of God. How do those two things come together. Clearly they are taught in Scripture. Clearly they are both taught in Scripture. What you want to avoid is some middle ground that assaults both of those things. But that’s for God to fully resolve in his own mind. All men are sinners. All men are culpable. All men are guilty. All men are commanded to repent. All men are in disobedience and in violation of that command, yet at the same time they’re unable to respond apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God. That is what the Bible teaches. The resolution of that is, I think, clear to the mind of God, but difficult for us to understand.”[37]

True to the title of the conference MacArthur was faced with a tough question here. But it is only tough for him because of his deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty.

Note that he does not give a direct answer to the question except to say, “The answer to the question is, I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.” He states, “This is the great ultimate question that you come to in the doctrines of grace – is personal moral responsibility and the sovereignty of God.”

It is important to realize that we only come to this “great ultimate question” because of the determinism inherent in “the doctrines of grace,” which is a euphemism for the Calvinist soteriological doctrines (i.e., TULIP). It is the determinism inherent in “the doctrines of grace” that generates this “great ultimate question” which I submit should be more appropriately designated the “great ultimate contradiction.” Because MacArthur’s theistic determinism is taken for granted as biblical teaching, and he must also admit to the non-deterministic biblical teaching on man’s culpability for sin and the responsibility to repent in light of God’s command to do so, he therefore affirms that the reality of God’s interaction with human persons is both deterministic and non-deterministic. Therefore, he holds to a contradiction. But rather than face the fact that his position is inherently contradictory, he declares it a mystery and pleads ignorance. He states, “I don’t know why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is.”

I think MacArthur must ultimately know and believe that his position is contradictory, otherwise he would have provided a response that resolved the problem the questioner posed. For instance, why didn’t he explain compatibilism to the questioner if that really does address this contradiction in his position as many Calvinists claim? It is only when the Calvinist runs into a real rational or moral cul-de-sac that they have to bail themselves out with statements like “But that’s for God to fully resolve in his own mind” and “The resolution of that is, I think, clear to the mind of God, but difficult for us to understand.” But this ignores the fact that the laws of logic and non-contradiction are the very way the mind of God works. This is an attempt to pass off on God something that we can see is a real contradiction. It is not a mystery that lies somehow resolved within the mind of God but to us looks like a contradiction. That is to tell us that what we see to be a contradiction is not. But if God is the source our laws of logic and moral intuitions, especially if they are essential to his very nature, and therefore they are fundamental to our being as the biblical teaching on being made in the image of God would affirm, then God will have none of these results of poor interpretation of his Scripture foisted upon him and neither should we. Because God is beyond our comprehension in certain ways, he can’t be used as the excuse for the contradiction generated by the Calvinist’s deterministic definition of divine sovereignty. So all we are given is the flight to mystery and the question begging assertions that this is what the Bible teaches.

So what is “the way” that God “chose to do it” that MacArthur is referring to here? “The way” God “chose to do it” is apparently to have decided, “I have predetermined who will be saved and that this will involve that they repent and believe. And because they cannot repent and believe unless I effectively work repentance and belief in them, therefore I will effectively work repentance and belief only in those persons I have chosen to save (determinism). Yet, I also declare that all individuals have personal moral responsibility and I will also hold all persons responsible for their disobedience in refusing to repent and believe (non-determinism).[38] The non-elect cannot repent and believe because I will not work effectively in them (determinism), yet I also hold them responsible for not doing so (non-determinism). MacArthur’s position sets up an obvious contradiction. MacArthur affirms the non-determinism of culpability for sin and responsibility to repent and believe the gospel while also affirming that God determines all things, including in whom he will effectually work repentance and belief in “the gospel.”

It is as MacArthur says, “All men are commanded to repent” and “Everyone is held culpable and guilty for not repenting” and “God will deal out, when Christ returns, retribution to those who know not God and believe not the gospel” and yet “they’re unable to respond apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God.” The phrase “apart from the intervening sovereign grace of God” means “apart from being predestined to salvation.”

MacArthur is definitely affirming both determinism and non-determinism otherwise there would be no problem here. MacArthur asserts that “Clearly they are both taught in Scripture.” But this begs the question. Is it true that “Clearly they are both taught in Scripture?” Why is it “clear” that a deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty is taught in Scripture when it runs roughshod over so much of what is taught in Scripture on human culpability, responsibility and contingency? What does this insistence that “both are taught in Scripture” demonstrate? It demonstrates that rational and moral coherence are hermeneutically insignificant to MacArthur. Despite the contradictory nature of his position, he finds in this no reason to doubt the accuracy of his interpretations. For MacArthur rational and moral incoherence and contradiction play no role as a check upon his exegesis of the text. This being the case, it seems that there is nothing that could ever cast doubt upon MacArthur’s soteriology or theology. Therefore he can and must continue to merely assert “This is what the Bible teaches.”

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Maybe God doesn't know how to resolve the conflict between determinism and non-determinism in a way that humans can understand. Perhaps you could do a better job at creation and writing the Bible. Perhaps He can hire you as a consultant.

 

[civic]

Maybe God doesn't know how to resolve the conflict between determinism and non-determinism in a way that humans can understand. Perhaps you could do a better job at creation and writing the Bible. Perhaps He can hire you as a consultant.

I don't believe in the calvinists understanding of sovereignty, predestination, foreknowledge, tulip and Gods innate attributes( His unchanging moral character ) just to name a few.

 

[civic]

RC Sproul below :

Calvinist R. C. Sproul states about the word “responsibility.”

“I’d like to add to that, that the very term responsibility carries within it the idea of the ability to respond. And it’s a normal thing to draw the inference that if God commands somebody to do something the implication is they must have the ability to do it without some kind of supernatural intervention.” [39]

Precisely. Sproul affirms what any person who is reasoning normally would conclude about what the Bible testifies to regarding human responsibility. Sproul admits that it is reasonable to think that the term “responsibility” means just that – “the ability to respond.” But Sproul must ignore this normal inference “that if God commands somebody to do something the implication is that they must have the ability to do it without some kind of supernatural intervention.” Now, the Calvinist’s deterministic definition of divine sovereignty must hold sway and therefore this normal inference must be disregarded. The logic must be ignored. Any kind of “ability to do” that has not been predetermined and therefore caused by God to occur is anathema. Human response to God’s command cannot be a free response but must be determined and caused by God.

Note also that Sproul understates his Calvinist doctrine of the divine decree when he talks of “some kind of supernatural intervention.” It is incorrect for Sproul to talk of God intervening when he has predetermined “whatsoever comes to pass.” God does not “intervene” in a world in which he has predetermined and causes all things to occur as they do. God is the sole actor in the world according to his predetermined plan and therefore it make no sense to speak of him “intervening” in his own activity.

And here again we see the suppression of reason. Sproul goes on to say,

“I might add that that’s exactly the logic that was used by the arch-heretic Pelagius…”[40]

So Sproul considers the logic that he himself expressed above about the nature of responsibility to be heretical. Although he admits that it is “a normal thing to draw the inference that if God commands somebody to do something the implication is they must have the ability to do it without some kind of supernatural intervention” he ultimately denies the legitimacy of this normal inference. It is important to note that Sproul goes on to use Pelagius’ misinterpretation and misapplication of Matthew 5:48 to conclude the following,

“You’ve got to be very, very careful of a rush to judgment and concluding that because God holds you responsible for something that therefore you can do it.”[41]

Sproul would not only have us not rush to judgment, but also forfeit our judgment, for it is our judgment that shows up Sproul’s theology as incoherent. The Calvinist requires that we suppress the logical reasoning that tells us that “the very term responsibility carries within it the idea of the ability to respond.” We are required to suppress the logic and reasoning that tells us that “it’s a normal thing to draw the inference that if God commands somebody to do something the implication is they must have the ability to do it without some kind of supernatural intervention.” He would have us conclude that this kind of “logic” leads to heretical conclusions. But perhaps the application of this kind of logic to his “doctrines of grace” leads us to conclude there is something very wrong in Sproul’s doctrines. Perhaps logical reflection and moral intuition are the Calvinists worst enemy and must be avoided at all costs. And intellectually the cost is very, very high.

The Calvinist’s position is contradictory. They know this is the case, but as we see, rather than face the problem and amend it, they find ways to alter our thinking to accept it. The bottom line is that they will not affirm that the contradiction in their theology is hermeneutically significant for determining the invalidity of their exegesis. They must assert that “clearly they are both taught in Scripture” and “that is what the Bible teaches.” But is that really the case?

Sproul states, “…it’s a normal thing to draw the inference that if God commands somebody to do something the implication is that they must have the ability to do it.” Correct. So the questioner, reasoning normally, cannot reconcile the Calvinist deterministic definition of “the sovereignty of God,” which in practical terms just is “the intervening sovereign grace of God,” with the command of that same God for all men everywhere to repent. The need for “the intervening sovereign grace of God,” that is, an “effectual call” or “irresistible grace,” based upon the doctrine of predestination or unconditional election, requires ignoring this normal reasoning process and the plain meaning of the term “responsibility.” The two concepts become incompatible. They contradict each other. And the Calvinist wants you to accept that contradiction as what the Bible teaches and therefore he must suppress your God-given reasoning ability that betrays the problem as a real contradiction in the first place.

In the end they ask the questioner “Did that help,” to which she responds “Almost.” The questioner should stand her intellectual ground here and not be duped into thinking that her reasoning is somehow flawed. Rather what she sees very clearly is the contradiction inherent in “the doctrines of grace.” And she got her answers. “…I don’t why he chose to do it that way but that is the way it is” and “…that’s exactly the logic that was used by the arch-heretic Pelagius” and “You’ve got to be very, very careful of a rush to judgment and concluding that because God holds you responsible for something that therefore you can do it.” I submit to you that this is nothing but the suppression of reason. Moreover, on this Calvinist “logic,” it certainly sounds like we are off the hook for our sins.

 

[Biblelesson]

By Calvinist Correct understanding of biblical principles we are certainly not off the hook for our sins.

Every person in the world is by nature a slave of sin. The world, by nature, is held in sin’s grip. What a shock to our complacency—that everything of us by nature belongs to sin. Our silences belong to sin, our omissions belong to sin, our talents belong to sin, our actions belong to sin. Every facet of our personalities belongs to sin; it owns us and dominates us. We are its servants.
Total depravity is active in us. It is not simply the absence of righteousness, but the presence of corruption. Our depravity is enormously creative and inventive, ever devising new ways of violating God’s will

 

[Bubba]

Chapter 10 – The Calvinist Suppression of Logical Reasoning, Moral Intuition and Common Sense

In previous chapters I sought to demonstrate that the deliberations of reason are problematic for Calvinists and that the “fixes,” “work-arounds” and “explanations” they have devised to relieve the…

goodnewsapologetics.com

In a “Calvinism 101” podcast, Kevin DeYoung is interviewed by Matt Tully on “The Doctrines of Grace.”[30] DeYoung recalls his childhood experiences with Calvinism.

“I grew up in a Reformed church as a part of The Reformed Church in America… I do remember—when I was probably in elementary school—having a sermon series that my pastor did on TULIP… But I didn’t much understand what it was…

Later when I was in, I think, middle school I went to a public school and in a western civilization class there was a paragraph on Martin Luther and two sentences on John Calvin. And of course, it said about John Calvin that he believed in predestination—that God chose who would be saved—and I thought that sounded kind of barbaric. I guess I hadn’t picked up my pastor’s sermon series very well. It does say something about our human intuition and how we need to constantly be reminded and taught these things. We don’t come upon them naturally.”

Note DeYoung’s initial childhood response to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. He describes his reaction to learning “that God chose who would be saved” as “that sounds kind of barbaric.” I submit that this initial response should not be passed over lightly. It is the typical response of most people when they are first introduced to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination or unconditional election. I would also submit that such reactions are significant. They reveal the functional purpose of our logical reasoning and moral intuitions which is to give us guidance for discerning the truth or falsity of what we are being told or experiencing. I would also submit that these are still sufficiently reliable for that purpose. Therefore, such reactions reliably indicate to us that something is amiss in Calvinism.

Now, responses like DeYoung’s are a serious matter that Calvinists need to reckon with. How do they deal with these common logical and moral conclusions regarding their “doctrines of grace?” First, the Calvinist must cast doubt upon the reliability of our logical reasoning and moral intuitions as truth detectors. Second, they must redirect us from such reliance by attempting to convince us that their doctrines are Scriptural. And thirdly, they then recast those doctrines as gracious and good

This is what DeYoung is doing here. He also states,

“It does say something about our human intuition and how we need to constantly be reminded and taught these things.”

Here DeYoung is telling us that the Calvinist hermeneutic requires us to ignore our “human intuition.” I submit that DeYoung is teaching us that we need to be purposefully and intentionally reeducated out of our natural logical faculties and our moral intuitions to begin to embrace the Calvinist doctrines. We need to “constantly be reminded and taught these things.” Why? Because they go against our logical and moral senses! We need to “constantly be reminded and taught these things” despite their obvious logical and moral difficulties. These difficulties are indicators of bad interpretation. Therefore they must be ignored.

Packer below:

Packer offers several nuanced aspects of the Christian experience to support his claim that every Christian, because he prays, believes in Packer’s theistic determinism. Notice that in presenting these nuanced aspects of the Christian experience he avoids a full explanation of his Calvinist theology and soteriology while mischaracterizing the non-Calvinist position. Again, Packer’s contention is that in the practice of prayer the Christian is actually affirming Packer’s deterministic doctrines even though they may otherwise deny those doctrines. He calls this an “odd state of affairs.” He writes,

“What causes this odd state of affairs? The root cause is the same as in most cases of error in the Church – the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic.”[22]

In chapter 7 I have already explained the difference between reason and rationalism and the implications of each for biblical interpretation. If by “human logic” Packer is referring to the rationalism by which the supernatural and genuine biblical mystery is put out of court because they are made subject to the naturalistic worldview, I would agree with him. These would be the “rationalistic speculations” he mentions. But I also argued the legitimacy and necessity of engaging one’s mind and reason on the basis of the laws of logic in the interpretive task, which contrary to Packer, are the “demands of human logic.” I argued against the dismissal of “human logic” that I believe Packer advocates for here.

So what is Packer’s main contention here? It seems to me that all this amounts to is a cavalier dismissal of the one thing that if Packer was required to incorporate into his hermeneutic would be the death knell of his theology – logic. Here we have a very clear example of the rejection of logic in the Calvinist mindset and hermeneutic. Packer declares “a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic” to be one of the causes of “error in the Church.” Note that he describes “human logic” as projecting “supposed demands” upon us. The canons of reason or the laws of logic are not “demands” that Packer needs to take seriously when interpreting the Bible. He cannot take them seriously because his theology proves to violate these “demands of human logic.” So he merely declares them “supposed demands.” Packer doesn’t have to yield to logic’s demands because it is “human” logic, and “human logic” can always be characterized as faulty, undependable logic. The Calvinist dismisses logical and moral reasoning as is convenient for the preservation of their a priori traditional theistic determinism.

I do not see how it is that “the demands of human logic” as applied to the discipline of interpretation must be antithetical to the existence of genuine “mystery” and letting “God be wiser that men.” And I do not see why it is necessary that logic, because it is “human,” need be faulty in its deliberations and deliverances. Packer would never come right out and suggest that we affirm an illogical interpretive methodology that leads to illogical doctrinal conclusions. But isn’t that precisely what he is doing here?

How can we recognize whether or not Packer’s doctrines are genuine, biblical “mystery?” How do we know when we have crossed the line in failing “to recognize the existence of mystery” and letting “God be wiser than men” and are embracing the “supposed demands of logic?” Why are the demands of human logic antithetical to genuine biblical mystery? Perhaps it is the “demands of logic” that are needed to distinguish between genuine biblical mystery and misinterpretation. Why can’t an interpretive methodology that incorporates logical and moral consistency affirm genuine mystery and God’s wisdom? Is it more “spiritual” to embrace theological contradictions and inconsistencies? How can Packer demonstrate to us that the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in his Calvinist doctrines are evidence that they reflect genuine biblical “mystery?” How can he show that his incoherent doctrines demonstrate that “God is wiser than men” and are not simply incoherent interpretations? Perhaps Packer has misinterpreted the text. And couldn’t the accusation of a “passion for systematic consistency” also be leveled against the Calvinist’s TULIP soteriology? Perhaps this system has taken on a life and “passion” of its own that cannot be questioned, even when it proves to generate incoherence, inconsistency and contradictions among other clear biblical doctrinal truths.

Its a great article to read for those who have the time and are open to be challenged.

Looks interesting I'll have to take a look at the link to the website.

 

[civic]

By Calvinist Correct understanding of biblical principles we are certainly not off the hook for our sins.

Every person in the world is by nature a slave of sin. The world, by nature, is held in sin’s grip. What a shock to our complacency—that everything of us by nature belongs to sin. Our silences belong to sin, our omissions belong to sin, our talents belong to sin, our actions belong to sin. Every facet of our personalities belongs to sin; it owns us and dominates us. We are its servants.
Total depravity is active in us. It is not simply the absence of righteousness, but the presence of corruption. Our depravity is enormously creative and inventive, ever devising new ways of violating God’s will

yet god determined your every sin, everything that comes to pass was determined by God before creation.

 

[civic]

Looks interesting I'll have to take a look at the link to the website.

Its a really good read for those who like to be challenged and learn.

They teach you in debate classes to learn the other side and be prepared to defend both. Most calvinists online do not understand the other side of the argument, they just dismiss it.

I use to correct calvinists all the time about misrepresenting Arminians when I would quote James Arminius. This was when I was a staunch calvinist. I knew the other side well and what they believed and why.

 

[Biblelesson]

yet god determined your every sin, everything that comes to pass was determined by God before creation.

Only if you leave compatibilism out of the Equation.
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass.

In Him we also were made [God’s] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will. Ephesians 1:11

 

[civic]

Only if you leave compatibilism out of the Equation.
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass.

In Him we also were made [God’s] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will. Ephesians 1:11

see here

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/calvinism-fictional-characters.1497/page-5#post-66881

Below is a clip from an article written by a respectable Calvinist attempting to answer this all too common objection:

Some would see the Calvinist as holding to what is sometimes called “Theistic Fatalism.” Obviously, much different than pure “fate” type fatalism, this view would acknowledge God as the cause of all things, which is certainly true, but would then lead to a false conclusion of inactivity. And this really is ultimately what separates a Theological Calvinist from a Theistic Fatalist: the conclusion we draw based on God’s sovereignty and ordination. Fatalism leads to inactivity, while Calvinism leads to the opposite…

The Calvinist’s belief in God’s sovereign power does not lead to inactivity, but rather activity on a grand scale. And part of the reason for this is that a Calvinist believes that God not only ordains the end; but also the means. Fatalism, however is largely unconcerned with the means, holding to more of a “let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die” sort of philosophy. This is much different from the result of a Calvinistic philosophy of God’s ordaining work. The Calvinist teaches that while God ordains the “end” of salvation for His elect; He also ordains the “means” of their salvation through belief in the gospel. Pure, Biblical Calvinism would lead to a vibrant form of evangelism; as I think you clearly see displayed in the New Testament by the Apostles. So the “end” and the “means” are both ordained by God. -Shane Kastler <link> (emphasis added)

It’s interesting to me that when a Calvinist seeks to defend against the charge of being a “Theistic Fatalist” he often argues “God not only ordains the end; but also the means” as if that is a point the Theistic Fatalist would in anyway deny.

That argument does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism, but in fact affirms it. For what is Theistic Fatalism if not God’s determination of not only the ends but every single desire, thought and action (i.e. “means”) that bring about those ends?

What do the Calvinists think this qualification is accomplishing in their effort to distinguish themselves from the Theistic Fatalist? The belief that God unchangeably causes every meticulous detail of both the ends and their given means is at the very heart of Theistic Fatalism.

Are there Theistic Fatalists out there arguing, “God doesn’t determine the means,” while the Calvinists are going around correcting them saying, “No, no, no God does control the means too?” Of course not. Both systems of thought clearly affirm God’s cause of all things, including the ends and their respective means.

So, what is the author seeking to accomplish by pointing out a common belief that Calvinists share with Theistic Fatalists?

It appears to me the only real difference between a Theistic Fatalist and a Compatibilistic Calvinist is that the latter refuses to accept the practical implications of their own claims in order to remain consistent with the clear teaching of the Bible.

In both Theistic Fatalism and Calvinism, if God sovereignly decrees for me to go witness to my neighbor He will give me the effectual desire to go witness to my neighbor. If my neighbor is one of His elect and God has unchangeably elected for me to be the means by which my neighbor comes to Christ, then logically I would have to believe that God will give me the effectual desire and the opportunity to carry out His preordain plan (i.e. “God ordained the means”). If that effectual desire never comes then why couldn’t I rightly conclude it ultimately was not God’s pre-ordained plan for me to be the means through which my neighbor would come to Christ?


So the next time a Calvinist argues that “God ordains the ends as well as the means” just remember this does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism but actually confirms it. In fact, their system logically affirms that the believer’s inactive disobedience is as much according to God’s ordained plan as is another believer’s active obedience. So, if and when a Calvinist becomes “hyper” or “anti-evangelistic” in his behavior, he does so by God’s decree. And, so too, if a Calvinist becomes highly evangelistic in his behavior he does so equally by God’s decree (i.e. “God ordains the means”). A consistent Calvinistic scholar cannot get around this logical fact no matter how much theological rhetoric they use to placate their opponents. The best they can do is say, “Just don’t think of of it that way,” which in essence means, “Act like what we believe isn’t true.”https://soteriology101.com/2015/12/12/is-calvinism-theistic-fatalism/

And to that I say, “AMEN!”
hope this helps !!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

continued:

Piper in seminary

Austin Fischer records another of John Piper’s struggles in Piper’s conversion to Calvinism. Piper states,

“So when I went to college and began to hear people give a framework to this [Calvinism], I revolted against the sovereignty of God…When I arrived a Fuller Seminary, I took a class on systematic theology with James Morgan…and another with Dan Fuller on hermeneutics. And coming from both sides – theology and exegesis – I was feeling myself absolutely cornered by all the evidences of God’s sovereignty in the Bible…I would put my face in my hands in my room, and I would just cry because my world was coming apart. I just couldn’t figure anything out…But at the end of James Morgan’s theology class, I wrote in a blue book: “Romans 9 is like a tiger going around devouring free-willers like me. And it did.”[33]

It’s interesting that DeYoung and Piper were never given alternative interpretations of the relevant passages like Romans 9 that do not lead to a definition of “sovereignty” as universal divine causal determinism nor the subsequent logical and moral incoherence, inconsistencies and contradictions such determinism creates with other teachings of Scripture. And this raises a related issue. That is, that Dan Fuller’s hermeneutic must have deemed the incoherence his interpretations generated as interpretively insignificant. It must have been the case that Dr. Fuller never considered the serious logical and moral incoherencies, inconsistencies and contradictions that his deterministic interpretation of God’s sovereignty created as interpretively significant. They had no bearing on determining the validity or invalidity of his exegesis. It is no wonder that Piper was experiencing such anxiety and “just couldn’t figure anything out.” Of course he couldn’t, and he never would be able to figure any of this out. He could not and still cannot (he has to flee to mystery and incomprehensibility) because the very logical and moral faculties and framework he needed to properly exegete Scripture and “figure things out” were being wrested from him. Indeed, they were being taken from him as the necessary first step to adopt the unmovable pillar of Calvinist theology which is God’s sovereignty defined as a universal divine causal determinism. I said above that Dan Fuller’s hermeneutic must have deemed the incoherence his interpretations generated as interpretively insignificant. Adopting this hermeneutic must have been a conscious decision because I take it that he must have known that there are sound exegetical treatments of Romans 9 that do not lead to the logical and moral cul-de-sac of unconditional election and theistic determinism. It was not necessary for Piper to suppress his logical and moral reasoning and go through this torment. Certainly Scripture properly interpreted didn’t require it. His world need not have come apart.

Piper is extraordinarily inept. He couldn't deal with his own conscience until he "seared it" himself.

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Men must "feel" after God. Most do not like that process......

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Conviction is troubles the senses.... He did not want to deal with it so he now denies any sense of feeling in his doctrine.

One of the first arguments that are often made by the Calvinist is that man is too "emotional" to accept Calvinism. Calvinism insists that you abandon your God given natural sense of God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Only if you leave compatibilism out of the Equation.
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass.

In Him we also were made [God’s] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will. Ephesians 1:11

Compatibilism is a compromise. There many compromises everywhere.

Determinism is a "misnomer" relative to how most people treat the subject. Like some have said recently, Calvinism ultimately treats the subject as fatalism. "What will be.... will be". The very cornerstone of how Calvinism treats "Sovereignty".

Such teaching is a "HUGE" relief of responsibility in Calvinism. "What ever will be, will be".....

 

[civic]

Compatibilism is a compromise. There many compromises everywhere.

Determinism is a "misnomer" relative to how most people treat the subject. Like some have said recently, Calvinism ultimately treats the subject as fatalism. "What will be.... will be". The very cornerstone of how Calvinism treats "Sovereignty".

Such teaching is a "HUGE" relief of responsibility in Calvinism. "What ever will be, will be".....

Exactly

 

[Presby02]

I don't believe in the calvinists understanding of sovereignty, predestination, foreknowledge, tulip and Gods innate attributes( His unchanging moral character ) just to name a few.

So, that's you. That makes you right?

 

[Presby02]

Compatibilism is a compromise. There many compromises everywhere.

Determinism is a "misnomer" relative to how most people treat the subject. Like some have said recently, Calvinism ultimately treats the subject as fatalism. "What will be.... will be". The very cornerstone of how Calvinism treats "Sovereignty".

Such teaching is a "HUGE" relief of responsibility in Calvinism. "What ever will be, will be".....

Whatever God had determined will be.

SOLA DEO GLORIA!!

 

[civic]

So, that's you. That makes you right?

I know I’m right regarding Gods eternal and unchanging character.

 

[Presby02]

I know I’m right regarding Gods eternal and unchanging character.

Perhaps

 

[civic]

Whatever God had determined will be.

SOLA DEO GLORIA!!

Yet God changes His mind in many places and was helpless to save those He reached out to and pleaded with them to come.