The difference between this blog Gospel Crumbs and my other blog Gospel Meals is that this one focuses on my musing and speculations, while the other focuses on resources from more seasoned, learned and reliable authors and sources.
Thursday, December 31, 2065
Thursday, October 10, 2024
TULIP Musings on Calvinism
(Last updated 2024/10/16)
Briefly, here are some recent thoughts I've had regarding the Five Points of Calvinism from my Calvinistic perspective. They continue my comments 12 years ago HERE.
Re: Total Depravity (TD).
I'm still convinced of Total Depravity. Even many (not all) historic Arminians acknowledge that their Arminian doctrine of Total Inability is virtually indistinguishable from, or is identical to, the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity. A Calvinist might respond and say, "How can that be? If they really believed that, then they would believe in unconditional election and irresistible grace." No, actually, that doesn't follow. In defense of Arminianism, as a Calvinist myself, the reason why Arminianism can (in principle) affirm the Calvinistic doctrine of TD (even if they call it by another phrase) is because of Arminian Prevenient Grace (PG) [AKA Enabling Grace]. PG doesn't leave men merely indifferent or neutral. It also draws and woos people to respond to God's grace. As Arminian theologian Roger Olson described it, "...it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion)." That's how Total Depravity is overcome in versions of Arminianism.
Re: Unconditional Election (UE).
I'm still convinced of Unconditional Election. I think this is the heart of all theological systems influenced by or follow (in some sense) Augustinianism, whether Thomism, Lutheranism, or the various versions of Calvinism. Lutheranism, with Calvinism also additionally affirms TD in conjunction with UE. Though, Augustinianism and Thomism don't quite rise to the level of affirming the Calvinistic fullness of Total Depravity despite affirming and being consistent with the doctrines and Canons of the Council of Orange II (AD 529).
Re: Limited Atonement (LA).
I was brought up in Roman Catholicism and to some extent Seventh Day Adventism. I got serious in my Christian life around 1988. I became convinced of Evangelicalism around 1995 and become a convinced Calvinist around the end of 1997 or beginning of 1998. From around 1999 to 2009 was the time when I was most convinced of Limited Atonement with a degree of confidence at around 85-90%. But I was never 100% convinced of LA. Not even after reading John Owen's tome "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" which is considered by Calvinists to be the greatest articulation and defense of LA. So much so, that many refer to it as Owenian Limited Atonement (OLA) when discussing the mainline Calvinistic understanding of atonement.
For the past few years I've no longer been dogmatic on LA. For me, it's one option among others. In OLA BOTH the Extent and Intent of the atonement are particular. While in most non-Calvinistic theologies the atonement is universal or general in both Extent and Intent. However, nowadays, I'm open to mediating positions. For example, the view that some 4 point Calvinists hold whereby the Extent is universal or general, while the Intent is particular. This compromise splits the difference and can account for the prooftexts used by both sides of the debate. Many Calvinists will argue that a denial of OLA breaks the harmony between the persons of the Trinity. They say that on Calvinism that affirms OLA there is agreement between the persons of the Trinity in that all those whom the Father elects to salvation are the same ones (and only the ones) Christ atones for and the same persons (and only those persons) whom the Holy Spirit effectually calls, regenerates, sanctifies and glorifies.
But that assumes that the only intent of God in the atonement is to saved the elect through Christ's death. An argument that some Calvinists [e.g. Elisha Coles] argue against Universal Atonement (UA) or General Atonement (GA) is that on views like Arminianism Christ dies for people whom God knows will not be saved, and therefore instead of supporting the claim by Arminian-like views that Universal Atonement magnifies the grace of God, instead it does the opposite. How? Because if God were really gracious, then Christ would not haved died for those who God knew wouldn't believe because now that Christ died for them they will be THAT MUCH MORE condemned because they rejected the UA/GA Christ made for them. I don't think this criticism really works against Arminian-like views because, logically speaking, on Arminian-like views, people could only reject the offer of salvation and God's grace only because such offers are based on Christ's atonement. Meaning, the atonement logically precedes any possible offer of salvation. So it makes no sense for Calvinists like Coles to say that it would have been more gracious for God not to have given Christ to die for those who God knew would not believe [ostensibly in order to lessen or minimize their culpability]. Because if Christ didn't die for them, then the no Gospel could be offered the non-elect. Though, this criticism has some purchase when it comes to those who never hear the Gospel message or who died before Christ was crucified.
Why did I mention all that? Because as I said in the beginning of the last paragraph OLA "assumes that the only intent of God in the atonement is to saved the elect through Christ's death." But what if, even under Calvinism another intent of God in the atonement is to both magnify God's grace in offering potential salvation for all [including the non-elect] AND to increase the condemnation of those who reject the Gospel? My fellow Calvinists are fond of saying that part of the purpose of election is to manifest more (or all) of God's attributes. Not only God's attribute of mercy, but also God's sovereignty and God's holy wrath against sin. Well, then using that line of argument, even a Calvinist could therefore argue that Limited Atonement limits the manifestation of God's attribute of holy wrath in that it minimizes the culpability of those who reject the Gospel. In addition to that, LA could also limits the manifestation of God's grace in that it minimizes the graciousness of the offer of Christ's atonement.
There are plenty of resources from 4 point Calvinists who argue against Limited Atonement.
For example, this debate:
Debate: "Did Christ Die For The Sins of The Elect Alone?" Austin C. Brown vs. Jon Bowlin
https://www.youtube.com/live/rwkyf8YnZnc?si=yTrZEYbUUufkjaq3
This website:
Calvin and Calvinism
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/
Re: Irresistible/Invincible Grace (IG).
It seems clear to me that if Unconditional Election is true, then it has to be the case that God's grace toward the elect must be irresistible. Otherwise God couldn't guarantee the salvation of all the elect. However, I've come to realize that it doesn't follow from that that all of God's redemptive grace must be irresistible. In fact, we have Biblical passages that suggest that God's grace can be successfully rejected. For example:
Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT. As your fathers did, so do you.
Heb. 6: 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
2 Cor. 6:1 Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
Heb. 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Jude 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Therefore it seems me that in addition to God's irresistible grace, God has [or could have] a resistible grace either along side it [a kind of Calvinistic Prevenient Grace that can be resisted working in conjunction with Calvinistic Irresistible Grace] OR that is due to the same grace that is applied to the elect but at a lower intensity or degree to the non-elect such that it can be and will be resisted. Whereas for the elect, that same grace is intensified so as to guarantee a positive response.
One might again raise the objection that this proposed possibility of a Calvinistic resistible grace distinct from a Calvinistic irresistible grace breaks the harmony of the intentions and work of the persons of the Trinity. But I would again respond that maybe additional intentions of the persons of the Trinity might include the purposes of 1. magnifying the greatness of God's grace, 2. to provide a manifestation and exercise of grace that leaves the non-elect without excuse and 3. allowing all the more the manifestation of God's holy wrath against those who sin against greater light and grace.
My conclusion then is that God's grace toward the elect is either always or eventually irresistible, but that that tells us nothing about God's non-existent OR existent gracious overtures toward the non-elect. Maybe there are such overtures by the Holy Spirit toward the non-elect, but that in keeping with unconditional election, irresistible grace is never applied to the non-elect to the point of saving them in the end. Why do I say "to the end"? Because theoretically and logically, irresistible grace could be applied to the non-elect for their temporary salvation. Which leads me to the next point of Calvinism. The Perseverance of the Saints.
Re: The Perseverance of the Saints (PotS).
I've already written about my unique thoughts on this topic HERE. The following is should be added to that discussion (though it slightly rehashes some of what I've already said in that blogpost).
It doesn't follow from Unconditional Election that the Perseverance of the Saints is true. This is why even some theologies that affirm UE deny the Perseverance of the SAINTS but rather affirm the Perseverance of the ELECT (PotE). For example, the following affirm UE and PotE: Augustinianism, Thomism, Lutheranism.
What's the difference between the PotS and PotE? In the Perseverance of the SAINTS, the saints and the elect are the same exact coterminous group. There's a one to one correlation between all the individual saints and all the individual elect. Whereas in the Perseverance of the ELECT, the elect are a subset of the saints. That's because on that view not everyone who is in a gracious state is additionally given the gift(s) of perseverance. There can be temporary regenerate saints on this view. Saints whom God doesn't intent to give the gift of perseverance. Which seems problematic for reasons I've later give below.
We have to ask the question, "Are ONLY the elect regenerated and placed in a salvific state?" If not, then the regenerated non-elect will eventually fall away permanently who were regenerated by either a Prevenient Grace [which doesn't deny the existence of an "Irresistible Grace" in some sense, because most proponents of PotE deny the Calvinistic understanding of IG] or by Irresistible Grace itself. If the former, that poses an interesting situation. Because we would then have instances of people entering a regenerate state because they responded to a grace [via PG] that set the will free from bondage to sin and so afforded the opportunity for the persons to be saved temporarily. Their temporary salvific state was determinatively due to man's will rather than God's [contra John 1:13; Rom. 9:16; James 1:18; 2 Tim. 1:9; passim]. If they [these hypothetical non-elect] were regenerated by the latter, by Irresistible Grace, then we have an interesting situation here too. As will eventually be seen below.
Another question we have to ask is, "Can the elect temporarily lose regeneration and/or justification?" Augustinians and Thomists, Molinists and Lutherans affirm they can. It's interesting that Lutherans do too despite affirming sola fide [i.e. justification through faith alone]. See Jordan Cooper's videos on YouTube where he defends this Lutheran view. Assuming that the elect can temporarily lose regeneration and/or justification, then they must eventually regain it again [maybe multiple times] under Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, Lutheranism et al.
What is my conclusion regarding the doctrine of the PotS? I'm open to PotE, but I strongly lean [90%] toward the Perseverance of the SAINTS because the Perseverance of the ELECT entails a denial of God's faithfulness, and the implication that God didn't really love those who were temporarily saved. And so seems to undermine the fullness of the genuine love of God. How so? It seems to make God an "Indian Giver." This is not meant to be an ethnic slur. My point is that it would involve God taking back what He gave, despite the statement in Rom. 11:29 that "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." It also denies God's faithfulness of the promise in Rom. 8:32 that "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" If God really loves all the regenerate, then in FULLNESS OF LOVE He will give all the regenerate the gift [or continuing gifts] of perseverance. How then can anyone truly regenerate person fall away? This is another reason to doubt baptismal regeneration. Because on that view the VAST MAJORITY of those baptismally regenerated don't persevere and arrive in heaven. Yet, the Bible refers to God's redemptive covenantal grace, mercy and love as everlasting such that God will never leave or forsake those blessed with them.
Isa. 54:8 In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you," says the LORD, your Redeemer.
Jer. 31:3 the LORD appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.
Besides, there are plenty of verses that suggest that justification and regeneration are irrevocable. And that God will make sure those in redemptive covenant with Him will persevere.
For example:
1 John 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, FOR GOD'S SEED ABIDES IN HIM, AND HE CANNOT KEEP ON SINNING BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN BORN OF GOD.
Jer. 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, THAT THEY MAY NOT TURN FROM ME.
Ezek. 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my Spirit within you, AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES and be careful to obey my rules.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Heb. 13:5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, "I WILL NEVER LEAVE YOU NOR FORSAKE YOU."
6 So we can confidently say, "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?"
Many more passages could be adduced as evidence. But that should suffice. Notice 1 John 3:9 clearly implies that regeneration is irrevocable and irreversible.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It? by William Lane Craig
Resources by William Lane Craig on the importance and usefulness of apologetics for Christians, their children and in order to clear the ground for evangelism. Craig argues that apologetics, while not absolutely necessary, is nevertheless very useful, even critical and vital for evangelism and the spiritual stability of Christian believers.
Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It? by William Lane Craig
(video link)
A written version of the lecture above:
Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?
In Intellectual Neutral by William Lane Craig
(video link)
William Lane Craig on Dealing with Doubt
(video link)
Links Dealing with the Inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit
Imagine a Christian living in Europe during the late Medieval period and not having apologetical material, nor even having a Bible or even being literate. Let's call him Abraham. His father was a Christian Crusader, his mother a Muslim who fell in love with his father in her homeland and followed him back to Europe. When it comes to the Bible and the Gospel all he has is the fragmentary stories he's heard from his local priest about God sending Jesus to earth to save sinners like himself. All around him there's tragedy, plagues, sickness and tyranny and his "friends" try to convince him (like Job's wife) to curse God, renounce Christianity and become an atheist like themselves. "Besides" they say, "there's no evidence that the world even ever began [i.e. a beginning to the universe]." Note that even Aquinas had difficulty arguing for a beginning of the universe armed as he was with Aristotelian philosophy. Since the expansion of the universe was not scientifically detected until the 20th century. Day after day his atheist friends bombard him with arguments for atheism; and in addition to that he wonders about the truth of Islam (the religion of his ancestors on his mother's side). What is a person like that to do? How can someone like that become or maintain being a Christian? That's why the doctrine of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is not only necessary apologetically, but in actuality. [This is also why the doctrine of election makes a lot of sense as well. But that's a topic for a different blog.]
Articles by William Lane Craig:
Counterfeit Claims of the Spirit’s Witness (Q & A #30)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/counterfeit-claims-of-the-spirits-witness
The Witness of the Holy Spirit (Q & A #68)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-witness-of-the-holy-spirit
The Witness of the Spirit as an Intrinsic Defeater-Defeater (Q & A #136)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-witness-of-the-spirit-as-an-intrinsic-defeater-defeater
Counterfeit Claims to the Witness of the Spirit (Q & A #167)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/counterfeit-claims-to-the-witness-of-the-spirit
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/counterfeit-claims-of-the-spirits-witness
The Witness of the Holy Spirit (Q & A #68)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-witness-of-the-holy-spirit
The Witness of the Spirit as an Intrinsic Defeater-Defeater (Q & A #136)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-witness-of-the-spirit-as-an-intrinsic-defeater-defeater
Counterfeit Claims to the Witness of the Spirit (Q & A #167)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/counterfeit-claims-to-the-witness-of-the-spirit
Belief in God As Properly Basic (Q & A #195)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/belief-in-god
Is Appeal to the Witness of the Holy Spirit Question-Begging? (Q & A #237)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-appeal-to-the-witness-of-the-holy-spirit-question-begging
Witness of the Holy Spirit and Defeasibility of Christian Belief (Q & A #244)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/witness-of-the-holy-spirit-and-defeasibility-of-christian-belief
Critique of Holy Spirit Epistemology (audio podcast 8/12/2013)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/critique-of-holy-spirit-epistemology
Answering Critics of the Inner Witness of the Spirit (audio podcast 8/17/2014)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/answering-critics-of-the-inner-witness-of-the-spirit#ixzz3AlzMEmGS
Emotions and Deciding Whether Christianity Is True
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/emotions-and-deciding-whether-christianity-is-true
Blind Faith?
Properly Understanding Properly Basic Beliefs
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/properly-understanding-properly-basic-beliefs
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/properly-understanding-properly-basic-beliefs
(video link)
(video link)
Is Craig a fideist? by Steve Hays
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-craig-fideist.html
The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit by James N. Anderson
The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit by James N. Anderson
See also my other blogs:
Resources for Dealing with Alleged Bible Contradictions, Discrepancies and Errors
Dealing with Christian Doubts
Detecting and Finding God
Evidence and Arguments Against Materialism and Naturalism
Answering Moral Objections to the Bible
Could God Command a Christian to Kill?
A Rational, Pragmatic and Prudential Argument for Believing in God
Book Reviews of Recent Atheist Authors
by Christian Apologists
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/09/book-reviews-of-recent-atheist-authors.html
Monday, August 19, 2013
If Jesus Was A Cult Leader...
A common charge by atheists is that Jesus was prototype cult leader. Here's how one atheist put it to me:
Jesus is the prototype cult leader. 1) He established himself as an ultimate authority. 2) He claimed to be divine. 3) He demanded control over the actions and thoughts of his followers. Control he promised to maintain beyond the limitations of his earthly life. 4) He promised his followers unfathomable rewards for their devotion. 5) He told his followers that everything he asked of them was out of love.
I plan to respond to each of these one by one. But as I do, I'm leaving aside the (admittedly important) issue of whether Jesus actually did or said the things attributed to Him in the Gospels. Since the above atheistic quote criticizes the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels irrespective of their historicity. Similarly, I'll be examining the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels.
First off, it doesn't logically follow that if false teachers, false Messiahs, and false claimants to deity are wrong in claiming such prerogatives, that it would also be wrong for the True Divine Teacher and Messiah to claim such prerogatives. In other words, if Jesus is who Christians claim He is, then it would follow that Jesus had the prerogative to do all 5 things.
Regarding #1:
In one sense He did. But at the same time He affirmed the authority of others. For example, Jesus affirmed the Scribes genuinely sat in Moses seat (Matt. 23:2). A cult leader wouldn't do that. Jesus also insisted John the Baptist baptize Him even though John himself thought it wasn't appropriate or necessary. Cult leaders don't naturally defer to others. They usually don't acknowledge the authority of others. They are often self-appointed and self-anointed or claim to be directly appointed by God without appeal to the testimony or authentication of others. Jesus submitted to John's Baptism and accepted John's designation of being the Lamb of God. Jesus also acknowledged the genuine authority of Pilate and said that he only had authority because it was given to Him from above (i.e. from God). Also, Jesus never contrasted His authority to that of Scripture. As the Son of God He could have "pulled rank" but He always claimed His authority was in keeping with the teaching and predictions of the Holy Scriptures. Some cult leaders will claim submission to some sacred Scripture, but others will deny any kind of authority over them (including a sacred text). Some leaders will claim to be in keeping with a text, but contradict it in actuality or in spirit. This wasn't the case with Jesus.
Regarding #2:
It is true that at times Jesus implicitly or explicitly claimed to be God. But notice that Jesus didn't openly claim it from the start. He didn't even do that with regard to His lesser claim of being the Messiah. All things being equal, a human claiming to be God would understandably be considered blasphemous by Jews, but it wasn't blasphemous to claim to be the Messiah. So, it wasn't for the purpose of saving His hide that He didn't always openly claim deity, since He did the same thing concerning His messiahship. Which is strange for a cult leader to do. For the most part, He let His works do the proclaiming (Matt. 11:2-6; John 5:36; 10:25; 38; 14:11). Though, there were times when He did explicitly claim to be Messiah and God.
Regarding #3:
It claims, "He demanded control over the actions and thoughts of his followers." If Jesus really was God's Messiah (in fact God in the flesh and the 2nd person of the Trinity) then such demands and allegiance was right, proper and to be expected. This isn't the place to discuss ethical theories. I and others have done that elsewhere, and I may provide links to such discussions some time in the future. Suffice it to say that I hold to Divine Command Essentialism whereby virtues flow from God's nature, while our duties to God flow from God's commands to His creatures. Commands which reflect and are grounded in His nature. It avoids the problem of arbitrariness found in Divine Voluntarism or common versions of Divine Command Theory. It also avoids the problems that Divine Essentialism has when applied to certain Biblical ethical commands (especially Old Testament). For example, the dietary laws and God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac are problematic in common version of Divine Essentialism. Divine Command Essentialism (my view) solves the problem of whether God is sub lego (under law) or ex lex (outside of law). God is a law unto Himself because He is the very standard and paragon of virtue and goodness. Thus, this position solves the Euthyphro Dilemma posed by Socrates in Plato's Dialogues. The 3rd charge continues by saying, "...Control he promised to maintain beyond the limitations of his earthly life." Well, if Jesus was God, then He does possess that control. The fact that miracles have continued to happen in the name of Jesus down through Church history suggests that Jesus is exercising that power. See for example the following links:
The following is a link that leads you to Craig Keener's interview about his book on miracles. Both Keener and Michael Licona (the interviewer) share their experiences of supernatural healings in their own lives, in the lives of others, throughout church history and throughout the globe at the present time. The Link also includes a collection of blogs at Triablogue that discussed miracles in light of Keener's book. Here's the LINK.
The following is a link to A.J. Gordon's book The Ministry of Healing: Miracles of Cure in All Ages
The following is a link to Thomas Boys' book The Suppressed Evidence: Or, Proofs of the Miraculous Faith and Experience of the Church of Christ In All Ages
Leaving #4 for last, let's deal with #5. The claim is, "He told his followers that everything he asked of them was out of love." What would we expect from God but what Jesus actually said? Jesus taught that the greatest commandment was first to Love God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength. Then secondly, to love one's neighbor as oneself. He also claimed that all the other commandments of God hung on these two commandments. Who could complain about such teachings and moral system? What better ethical "theory"? Really, only (or mostly) atheists would argue against it. Atheists, deists (or other sub-theistic supernaturalists) who don't like the idea of God having a right to give commands. Often they will claim that it isn't right or fair. But that begs the question of which moral theory is actually true or best. Christian philosophers have shown repeatedly that the Christian system is far superior to all other popular alternatives. Unless and until non-Christians can provide a coherent and justified alternative moral theory that does just as good or better than Christianity's, then they cannot consistently judge or evaluate Jesus' morality.
Maybe the charge is that Jesus falsely claimed that His commands were given out of His love for them. Well, if Jesus was a fraud, then that charge would stick. But it begs the question as to whether He was a fraud or not. If Jesus really was who He claimed to be, then He really did give His commands out of love and the world. This charge, like all the 5 charges begin with some attributes of frauds, con artists and cult leaders and then uses those attributes to judge and evaluate Jesus' ministry. But that's like using the behavior of a child molester to judge loving parents. Both child molestesr and loving parents may both provide the child candy, food, toys, entertainment et cetera. Just because there are similarities in behavior doesn't mean that the intentions of both are the same. Rather, the child molester will do those seemingly kind and loving things for ulterior motives. Including the motive of mimicking the behavior of good parents in order to deceive the children into placing their trust in them. This 5th charge is like using counterfeit money to judge genuine legal tender as counterfeit. OF COURSE, there will be similarities between the counterfeit and "the real McCoy." But you judge the counterfeit by the genuine article not the other way around!
Lastly, Regarding #4:
The claim is, "He promised his followers unfathomable rewards for their devotion." This is true. But if Jesus really did perform the miracles claimed in the Bible, then those who saw it would be warranted to conclude that Jesus probably is who He claimed to be and really is the Messiah sent by God. So, only on the presumption that Jesus never performed a miracle would such a charge have some weight. Of course, there's the possibility of demonically empowered miracles. However, the charge of Jesus being a cult leader is usually made with the assumption of materialism, naturalism and atheism. It would take us off topic to deal with the issue of the possibility of Jesus being demonically empowered. Though that's not to say that as a Christian I deny that some cult leaders are demonically empowered. I believe some are. Nor is this the place to argue for Christ's true messiahship and divinity.
Also, Jesus gave prospective disciples fair warning that following Him would be difficult and may require their physical death. Also, that even if they didn't physically die, they had to daily die to themselves and their natural sinful desires. Such devotion and obedience to love God and others as oneself is not only good, but would be too difficult a calling for people to hastily accept or to continue to attempt to fulfill. The standards of Jesus are so high, that if anyone seriously tried to fulfill them, they would either have to depend on God for the grace to keep on trying, or they would be hypocrites and false converts anyway. Anyone who thinks being a Christian is easy doesn't know what God requires. Or doesn't really attempt to obey. In fact, at any time, disciples were free to give up and apostatize. Jesus didn't hold a tight rein on His disciples. He required them to be self-disciplined and to receive grace from God to live out the Christian life. Unlike cult leaders, Jesus didn't have a program to personally kept them in check. There was no strong hierarchy of leaders to whom everyone had someone above him to keep him accountable. In fact, He repeatedly allowed His followers to leave His group without Him protesting or hindering them. He also repeatedly discouraged people from too quickly deciding to be His disciple. He admonished them to first "count the cost" of being His disciple (Luke 14:28-33).
Here's a list of questions we have to ask ourselves if we want to seriously consider the claim that Jesus was a cult leader. Admittedly, some of the following things attributed to Jesus might be done by some cult leaders. But not all cult leaders will do them. Nor will any of them do all of them. Reading all of the things listed below attributed to Jesus should have a cumulative effect in one's mind that one will have to not only seriously doubt that Jesus was a cult leader; but also doubt He's a fictional or mythical character as some atheists and agnostics claim. Reading the following list of questions may even lead one to concluded that Jesus really existed and is who the Bible claims He is.
QUESTIONS TO ASK IF JESUS WAS A CULT LEADER....
- Why did Jesus say, "Why do you call me good, Only God is good"? A cult leader would be the first to say that he himself was good. It wouldn't make sense if Jesus were a fraud and/or a cult leader. From a Christian perspective, I have to point out that on other occasions Jesus did say or imply He was without sin and was God. But why would He ever ask someone why he called Him good, as if to deny His goodness? By the way, Christians believe this WAS in fact a veiled reference to His own goodness and deity.
Christ said to a certain ruler: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark x, 17, 18.) Christ did not deny that he himself was "good," nor did he deny that he himself was God; but the ruler had not acknowledged him to be God, and our Lord's question to the ruler was based upon that fact. It was as much as to say, As you do not confess me to be God, why call me good? Our Lord said: "There is none good but one, that is, God." It would follow from this that whoever is perfectly good must be God; but our Lord is perfectly, infinitely good, hence must be God........The dilemma, as regards the Socinians, has been well put (see Stier II, 283, note), either, 'There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God;' or, 'There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.' " (Alford, in loco)-Richard N. Davies book The Doctrine of the Trinity page 18-19
Yet we know that the Gospel writers and the other writers of the New Testament affirm Jesus' goodness.
- Why did Jesus warn potential disciples of the difficulties that would ensue from following Him? That's a poor way for a cult leader to gather followers.
- Why didn't Jesus do His very best to seek out disciples? On the contrary, Jesus sometimes did the opposite. For example, He limited His ministry to "the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (i.e. only the Jews). [cf. Matt. 10:6; 15:24]
- Why did Jesus often do things and say things in a way so as not attract attention? Cult leaders usually want all the attention they can get.
- Why did Jesus often tell the people He healed or exorcised to keep the miracle a secret?
- Why did Jesus often make statements that He knew would offend people and result in people turning away and stop following Him? For example, in John chapter 6 His statements about eating His flesh and drinking His blood resulting in many people abandoning Him. In the text it's clear that while He was giving His teaching people were becoming offended, complained and were quarreling among themselves. He was clearly using a figure of speech. However, He didn't take the time to correct their misunderstanding. In fact, He explained their misunderstanding and inability to understand by appealing to predestination and the need for God to open people's eyes (John 6:37-39; 43-45; 63-66). Doing so would itself additionally repel some people as predestination still does today.
- Why did Jesus allow disciples to freely come and go? Almost as if He didn't care if they continued following Him. There are many examples of this in the Gospels. Again, see John chapter 6.
- Why didn't Jesus keep a tight rein on His disciples? Nor did He insist that they go everywhere He went.
- Why did Jesus often go away into a secluded place like a mountain to pray alone or with a few of His disciples during times when He was being sought by the crowd? In one instance they were about to make Him their king (John 6:15).
- Why did Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell everything and give it to the poor? If Jesus was cult leader, He would most likely have told him to give HIM (i.e. Jesus) the money. Or at least a portion of it.
- Why would Jesus often leave areas where He was still warmly welcomed? Irrespective of His reception in any particular area He would promptly leave to continue His itinerant (i.e. traveling) preaching and healing ministry. That's not how one would act if one's goal was to garner as many followers as possible. [Mark 1:38-39; Luke 4:43 cf. John 9:4-5]
- Why did Jesus remain an itinerant preacher roaming from place to place? Capernaum may have been His "headquarters" of sorts, but He wasn't always there. He didn't eventually settle down in one location. He didn't attempt to build a private Kingdom like some modern tycoons or televangelists.
- Why didn't Jesus start a community or town like other Messianic claimants? Think of Muhammad, Jim Jones, David Koresh.
- Why did Jesus hang around those considered extreme sinners to preach to them when He knew that the religious leaders would look down on Him for it and renounce Him as a false teacher and a sinner Himself? That's how He got the reputation of being a "friend of publicans and sinners" and a drunkard (Luke 7:34).
- Why did Jesus intentionally provoke the leaders of the religious communities by doing things to make them angry? Like healing the sick on the Sabbath (which He did multiple times). Allowing His disciples to eat with unwashed hands. Allowing disciples to pick grains of corn on the Sabbath. This is a way to make religious and political enemies, not friends. It's true that some cult leaders and groups thrive on opposing the establishment. Others groups like Catholicism, Mormonism, Scientology try to rub shoulders with the cultural elite. Not so with Jesus. Jesus 1. didn't align Himself with the established groups. Yet 2. He also opposed them while 3. at the same time affirming and acknowledging their genuine authority as religious groups [Matt. 23:2-3] along with the authority of the government [Matt. 22:21; John 19:11]. That's not the likely behavior of a cult leader.Jesus didn't AGGRESSIVELY wage war against the religious and/or political system from within or without by physical and/or rhetorical means. Jesus attempted to reformed and correct the religious establishments without denouncing and delegitimizing them en toto (i.e. in every way and sense).
- Why did Jesus acknowledge the authority and leadership position of other religious figures? For example, that the Scribes genuinely sat in "Moses Seat." He affirmed the authority of the Sanhedrin and to some degree the authority of the Pharisees, Saducees and scribes. Cultists usually don't like to affirm the legitimacy of outside spiritual authority. Rather than deny their authority altogether, He denounced their hypocrisy.
- Why did Jesus approve of people who were not in His group but who were casting out demons in His name, rather than telling them they should stop because they weren't part of His clique? Rather than commending them, He should have been denouncing and delegitimizing them if He were a cult leader. See Mark 9:38-39; Luke 9:49-50
- Why would Jesus warn people that following Him might entail losing their physical lives? In fact, He positively required them to daily die to themselves and take up their cross. Cult leaders sometimes require this, but not all of them do because they know that it's difficult to get people to be willing martyrs and to choose things contrary to self-interest and pleasure.
- Why did Jesus secretly go to Jerusalem when it was time for the feast and crowds were gathering?
2 Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand.3 So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world."5 For not even his brothers believed in him.6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil.8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.- John 7:2-9
- Why did Jesus often hide or veil His claim to be the Messiah? Many messianic claimants both before and after Jesus' time weren't hesitant or shy to proclaim they were the Messiah.
- Why did Jesus often veil His claim to deity using studied ambiguity? Admittedly, Jesus did sometimes explicitly claim His messiahship and/or deity, but usually it was merely implicit.
- Why didn't Jesus brazenly and openly claim to be God like other cult leaders? Some might say that it was to protect Himself so that He wasn't stoned for blasphemy. The problem with this answer is that Jesus would often implicitly claim to be God knowing that it would cause some to want to stone Him. And on a few occasions it almost did. Moreover, Jesus seemed to have orchestrated His own eventual and timed death.
- Why tell Peter, James and John to keep the vision of Jesus' transfiguration to themselves for the meantime? Like His performing of miracles, this experience was a good opportunity to make more disciples. Admittedly, people would have to believe on the basis of the three Apostles' mere testimony, but no doubt SOME people would become convinced. Even if it was a complete lie. Why not allow Peter, James and John to testify of their claimed supernatural experience?
- Why didn't Jesus write His own book or books to promote Himself like Hitler did with his book Mein Kampf ? Joseph Smith most likely wrote the Book of Mormon himself as a fraud. Muhammad wrote portions of the Qur'an bit by bit allegedly by inspiration. He may have been inspired by demons on occasion. It's also a known fact that when Muhammad first received his visions, he at first thought he was demon possessed. Nevertheless, it's likely that there were times when he wrote lines in the Qur'an in order to manipulate people to do things that would be for his personal benefit. If Jesus were a cult leader, writing a book would have been a very useful tool to gather disciples, to manipulate and control them in their thinking and behavior in order to do His bidding.
- Why did Jesus choose the Apostles that He did when He was preaching a gospel of love and ethical behavior? Peter, Andrew, James and John were 1st century equivalents of "blue collar" working fishermen. Peter was rash and quick tempered. Not thoughtful and tactful. Matthew was a despised Tax Collector. Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas were trouble makers and disreputable. Many biographers of the Apostles suggest that these last three Apostles may have all been strong dissenters of the Roman government. Maybe even revolutionaries (like Simon in all liklihood since he's called a "Zealot").
Why didn't Jesus choose people who were from the upper class or "white collar" workers to be His disciples? Clearly, He attracted some followers from those groups. Both before and after the events described in the first chapter of Acts. In the book of Acts, some of the Jewish leaders apparently became Christians.
- Why didn't Jesus raise up an army or mob to fight the Romans?
- Why did Jesus only allow 12 Apostles and around 70 other people to be His close disciples when there were multitudes who thronged Him in His healing campaigns? Repeatedly the Gospels say He knew what was in people's hearts and that because of that He didn't entrust Himself to them. See John 2:24-25 cf. Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8.
- Why didn't Jesus surround Himself with a harem of women? Cult leaders often surround themselves with women like Muhammad did. There's one instance when Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation from Allah commanding him to marry his adopted son's divorcee. Something so convenient since he previously desired her. Muhammad had over 10 wives, yet Jesus never married.
- Why did Jesus discourage divorce and uphold traditional marriage? By doing so, He would prevent the possibility of attracting people into His group who wanted unlimited divorces as a form of legal wife swapping. That could have potentially attracted rich men who could afford to have multiple wives and sons and who could also line Jesus' pockets. Also, by upholding the sanctity of monogamous marriage, it prevented Him from having a harem like Muhammad. By discouraging divorce He was limiting the possibility of His marrying a divorced woman or adding her to His harem. Jesus' ethical standard was high. He didn't promote adultery, polygamy, fornication, or polyamorous relationships as some cults and cult leaders do (think Mormonism, Islam etc.).
- Why did Jesus allow Himself to be baptized by an odd preacher who lived in the wilderness wore camel's hair and ate locusts and wild honey? A preacher looked down upon by the religious establishment. If one is going to be a strange leader, one might as well begin as a strange/odd leader by oneself. Of course, it's possible to start up a religious movement with good intentions at the beginning and then later to decline morally and become a fraud. But neither Jesus' beginning, ending or intervening ministry show any signs or hints of corruption.
- Why did Jesus willingly get water baptized by John the Baptist (contrary to John's own protestation)? Cult leaders usually don't like to imply that their authority is derived or must be authenticated. Or that they were anointed, or appointed, or "ordained" by someone else. If they do claim it is derived, they will usually claim it was directly from God. That way they don't have to be accountable to anyone. Also, it would be difficult to dispute such a claim. Conveniently, no one saw Joseph Smith do the things he claimed (e.g. being visited by the angel Moroni). Also, it affords them the luxury of not having to show others who approved of them or authenticates their message and authority. Of course other cult leaders on the other hand have directly claimed to be God themselves.
- Why didn't Jesus always and consistently acknowledge that His authority came from God? On one occasion when He was officially asked point blank where His authority came from and He didn't directly say it was from God. Instead He asked them a question, which if they answered, He would have answered them theirs. The question was, where they thought John the Baptist's authority came from. Cult leaders normally won't leave it unclear as to whether they are from God or not whenever there's a question in the people's mind. Or leave it unclear that they are God or not if they claim to be God. Jesus didn't do that. He seemed to trust that those whom God predestined to open the eyes of to believe would. See Matt. 13:10-17; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10. See also those times when Jesus said "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." [Mark 4:9; 4:23, 7:16; Luke 8:8; 14:35]
- Why did Jesus approvingly pay the temple tax and commend the woman who gave her two small copper coins? By His own admission "the children are free" (Matt. 17:26). Sure cultist leaders are often willing to pay their taxes lest they get in trouble with the government. But this wasn't a tax by the Roman government. It was a religious tax for the temple. Therefore, the political ramifications wouldn't be too great if Jesus refused to pay. If anything, it would be the perfect opportunity to deny the authority of the religious establishment, thumb His nose at them, and affirm His own autonomous authority.
- Why did Jesus make statements that initially offended and embarrassed Nicodemus? He was a potential ally within the religious community. A member of the Sanhedrin no less!
- Why did Jesus say that He didn't know when the Son of Man (speaking of Himself) would return? Many scholars believe that saying is genuine precisely because of the principle of the Criterion of Embarrassment. No later Christian would attribute that saying to Jesus because it would appear to teach too low a Christology. That's why even very skeptical atheistic scholars accept its authenticity. See Mark 13:32. A shrewd cult leader would say he knew the day but that it was for their best interest for them not to know. Or that he wasn't permitted to say.
- Why did Jesus intentionally speak in parables so that people wouldn't understand Him? In fact, His speaking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood was so radical that many people stopped following Him (see John 6). cf. Matt. 13:10-17, Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:8-10
- Why did Jesus say "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."? Cult leaders don't normally say this sort of thing or model it by their behavior. Rather, cult leaders will say and do things so that they will be served.
27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.- Luke 22:27
4 [Jesus] rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself.5 After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.- John 13:4-5
12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you?13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am.14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.- John 13:12-16
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."- Matt. 20:28
45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."- Mark 10:45
- Why didn't Jesus usually try to defend Himself against the accusations of the chief priests and high priest? Cult leaders would rather ignore the criticisms of other religious and political leaders. However, when placed in a situation where it would be in their self interest to defend themselves and to their detriment if they didn't, they usually will defend themselves verbally and legally (often with well paid lawyers). Jesus never defended Himself in that way. He usually just made affirmations and minimally defend Himself for clarification's sake. He would make sure that He spoke in a way that people ought to have understood, but at the same time He didn't go out of His way to always make things absolutely clear; trusting in God's grace to open the eyes of those whom God elected (as mentioned above concerning predestination).
- Why didn't Jesus try to save Himself from Herod and Pilate? If He had explained Himself, His mission and message more clearly, they may not have had Him crucified.
- Why did Jesus endanger His life repeatedly? For example they were about to throw Him off a cliff in Luke 4 because of His message. Throughout His ministry He intentionally provoked the religious leaders to the point that they wanted Him dead. Sometimes it was because they understood Him. Other times because of a misunderstanding that Jesus could have easily cleared up.
- Why would Jesus speak and minister to the Samaritan woman at the well? Being a Samaritan, she was considered by the Jews worse than a Gentile because she came from a race that were "half-breeds." They were part Gentile and part Jewish. Which was considered an abomination to them. Yet Jesus spoke to her prohetically contrary to His disciples expectations. Same thing with the miracle Jesus eventually granted to the Syrophoenician woman.
- Why would Jesus send out His top disciples two by two to preach rather than keep them around Him so as to serve Him and protect Him from scandal or help Him hide His indiscretions? Also, cult leaders like to keep their inner followers close to them least they start to think for themselves.
- Why did Jesus challenge His accusers and critics to prove Him of committing sin. A cult leader would be hesitant to make such a challenge.
Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?- John 8:46
30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He [i.e. the Devil] has no claim on me,31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.- John 14:30-31
- Why didn't Jesus encourage the natural desire to "be somebody [important]" in His apostles and disciples? On the contrary, He said that the greatest among them would be the one willing to be servant of all. Mark 9:33-35; 10:35-44
- Why would Jesus contrast Gentiles rulers who exercise their authority in such a way that they "lord it over" their subjects with the way Christians leaders should treat the laity? If Jesus were a cult leader, He and His closest associates would love "lording it over" the lower class followers. Mark 10:42
42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."- Mark 10:42-45
- Why did Jesus allow the children to come to Him? Cult leaders would rather not have to deal with messy and insignificant children. Sure, some cult leaders will sometimes take the time to meet with children for the purposes of public relations. But this is just one more datum that should be considered when thinking about the character of Jesus. There's a cumulative effect of all these questions that lead one to suspect Jesus was at least sincere and not a fraud. Matt. 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-14; Luke 18:15-16
- Why did Jesus strongly encourage people to forgive other people the sins committed against them? He even taught that if we didn't forgive other people that God wouldn't forgive us. That's a radical statement in light of the fact that cult leaders like to harness other people's bitterness, resentment and anger for their own purposes. Those things segregate people. Forgiveness promotes interaction of various groups. Something which is detrimental to the stability of closely-knit cults.
- Why would Jesus say things like He did in Mark 12:38? The things Jesus denounces are the very things cultists like to do, have and experience. Clearly Jesus didn't do such things openly. Otherwise He would have been branded a flaming hypocrite. Doing them in private would be difficult because of the things I pointed out above.
And in his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces39 and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts,40 who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation."- Mark 10:38-39
- If Jesus was a fraud, how would one explain Paul's conversion to Christianity? There are some naturalistic explanations atheists give. However, none of them are really convincing. One has to take seriously the fact that Paul was a rising star in Judaism. He was advancing quickly in the ranks of his fellow Jews. Why would he abandon the future success, notoriety, comfort and financial security he was almost certain to have gained in Judaism and trade all that for the shame, persecution and hardship of being a Christian. Nevertheless, he converted knowing he would become a major target of persecution since he was a major convert that embarrassed his former peers.
As I said above, while some of the things Jesus did might be done by some cult leaders on occasion, they wouldn't say or do ALL of the things attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. From a Christian perspective, reading all these things about the alleged character of Jesus ought to have a cumulative effect on the psyche of the people who read the Gospels. It ought to naturally lead one to seriously consider whether Jesus really was and is who and what the Christian church claims Him to be. In one sense the Jesus of the Gospels seems too good to be true. Yet at the same time, by the Holy Spirit's inner witness, that's precisely why it's too good not to be true. If, you're not a Christian, I encourage you to prayerfully read through the Gospels and consider if they don't have the ring of truth to them.
If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!"
- Mark 7:16
- Mark 7:16
Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember?
- Mark 8:18
- Mark 8:18
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Detecting and Finding God
(Last updated/edited 12/29/2022 at 5:19 UTC)
This blog should be read in conjunction with my other blog HERE.
Some theologians like Gordon Clark point out that (assuming the concept of God is logically coherent) it would be difficult to disprove the existence of God since it would be like trying to prove that there is no naturally buried gold in Alaska. To prove that there IS natural gold buried in Alaska would be as simple as finding said gold. It might be found one foot away and one inch deep from where you first started digging. However, to prove there is NO gold in Alaska, one would have to search all of Alaska and then, after that exhaustive (and exhausting <grin>) inductive search could one finally make the claim with certainty that there is no gold buried in Alaska. However, most modern atheists don't believe they need to disprove the existence of God since they claim the burden of proof is on those who assert God DOES exist.
According to a widely believed story, the great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on Judgement Day and God asked him, "Why didn’t you believe in Me?" Russell replied, "I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'"
Atheists also like to quote W.K. Clifford's maxim, "[I]t is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." However, how much evidence is "sufficient"? Must the evidence be of such a kind and such a degree that it forces/compels one to believe in the existence of God in order for it to be "sufficient" and for human beings to be morally responsible before God? Why assume that?
Also, is it even possible to inductively prove with apodictic certainty that God exists? Isn't it logically possible for even the angels and saints in heaven to rationally speculate (assuming we're limiting ourselves to inductive reasoning at present and ignoring issues like the Inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit) that they might be in a computer simulation or that there might be a greater God who is above and more powerful than the one they have been worshipping? It seems that no matter how many demonstrations of His power and wisdom God may provide finite creatures, those finite creatures can only experience and examine the demonstrations in a finite way. Also, since (as the saying goes) "the finite cannot contain the infinite," no amount of direct experience of God could lead one to apodictic certainty that it's an experience of the one true and greatest God. Furthermore, any sentient being who lacks omniscience could always question the veridical nature of his/her conscious experiences.
How then can theists solve these problems?
As a Calvinist, I can only speak as a Calvinist. Calvinists surmount these problems by the Biblically derived teachings of election, regeneration, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the self-attesting nature of Scripture. These are in addition to other standard/common Christian beliefs about our mental faculties being designed by God for rationality, our ability to acquire information, the general reliability of our sense perceptions, of our brains, bodies, minds and environment being adapted to one another etc.
According to Calvinism, God elected some humans to salvation "before" the creation of the world, and in time God regenerates them by enabling them to be able to understand and accept spiritual truth. Then, by the self-authenticating internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the elect coupled with the external testimony of Scripture (or Scriptural truth if one doesn't have access to the Bible) elect believers can know with fallible but yet sufficient certainty that Christianity is true.
[Historically, there has been disagreement among Calvinists about the nature of "assurance". Specifically, whether Christians can have an infallible certainty of their gracious state (and therefore by extension their election). This disagreement seems to have implications regarding the nature of the universal knowledge of God, whether it's actual and whether it's infallible.]
As one notable Calvinist put it, "I believe in this infallible book, in the last analysis, because 'of the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in my heart.' " [Cornelius Van Til here is alluding to the WCF]
Does that mean that humans can't affect their eternal destinies by looking for God and examining the various evidences for God? No, it doesn't. One cannot change their pre-ordained destiny, but one can affect it because God ordains both the ends as well as the means; all the while upholding causal relations. In other words, God providentially predestines not only what will happen, but how they will happen.
So, if God ordained that a person will be saved, then God also ordained the means to their salvation. That can include things like their 1. seeking for God, 2. examining the evidences, 3. praying, 4. reading the Bible, 5. studying apologetics et cetera.
It will be argued, "Sure, God may also ordain the means, but people will not actually seek God unless and until God first regenerates them so that they can genuinely and sincerely seek after God." The charges and assumptions being, that it's not possible for people to initiate a search for God. And that therefore there's no point in admonishing people to search for God. Also, unless they first have reason to believe they are regenerated (and/or numbered among the elect), they have no reason to have confidence or expectation that their search will be fruitful and that they will, in the end, actually find God. But those are false inferences. God's promise that those who sincerely seek Him will find Him stand (e.g. James 4:8; John 6:37b; Matt. 11:28-30; Isa. 55:6-7; Jer. 29:13; Ps. 145:18; cf. James 1:8.; Luke 11:9-10; Heb. 11:6). That's true whether one is regenerated or not. Moreover, God doesn't require either the elect or non-elect to know they are regenerated or elect before they can seek after Him. Humans are free moral agents (even if they don't have libertarian free wills as Calvinism implies). Being free moral agents created by God, all humans have the duty to seek after God and believe in Him regardless of the possibility of their success in that search.
Given Calvinism, both the elect and non-elect can "search" for God, but only the elect will sincerely, honestly and persistently search for Him because of regeneration. Since a knowledge of one's regeneration isn't essential to saving faith, everyone can have personal psychological hope that they might find God by searching for Him.
Therefore, regarding those who are currently non-Christians, for all they know, God will use their search for Him (whether it's currently sincere or insincere) to eventually lead to their finding Him. Their search which may have begun insincerely may end up being sincere by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. So, we are all without excuse if we fail to search for God.
According to general Evangelical Christianity (whether Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran etc.), there is sufficient evidence for God's existence in many fields and sources of inquiry and experience. Among Evangelicals there is disagreement as to what that sufficiency entails. By "sufficient" most Evangelicals mean there is enough evidence so that God's existence not only can be detected, but that it's sufficiently clear and pervasive that all humans are without excuse. Some Calvinists even insist that the evidence for God's existence cannot be escaped and that it is necessarily the case that all humans know God. That is, that all humans directly know that God their Creator, whom they are accountable to, exists. While I'm open to that position (being a Van Tillian apologetically), my tentative/provisional position is that all humans existentially know that God exists, even if they don't necessarily or always rationally know (on the surface of their consciousnesses) that God exists. [See the following links for an article by Paul Manata that has led me to no longer dogmatically hold the traditional Van Tillian view that all human beings actually know God. The links are HERE or HERE of the same article. It caused quite a stir in the Van Tillian community, e.g. HERE]
This is where certain quotes from Blaise Pascal are useful for the Christian apologist/evangelist and the non-Christian seeker. Here are those quotes from his Pensées:
Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
Elsewhere in his Pensées he wrote:
The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it. [bold used for emphasis by me]
According to these quotes, the disposition of the seeker is a determining factor as to whether people will actually find God. The persuasiveness of the evidence is "in the heart of the beholder." A useful analogy would be the multiple possible perceptions of optical illusions. For example, is the picture below that of an old or young woman? Depending on one's neurological "wiring", one will naturally see a young or old woman upon first encountering this classic illusion.
Another analogy that can help explain how one's attitude, point of view and disposition can influence the interpretation of the evidence is the old "Half Full or Half Empty" rhetorical question.
It can also be explained in this following anonymous story.
The Cricket
A Native American and his friend were in downtown New York City, walking near Times Square in Manhattan. It was during the noon lunch hour and the streets were filled with people. Cars were honking their horns, taxicabs were squealing around corners, sirens were wailing, and the sounds of the city were almost deafening. Suddenly, the Native American said, "I hear a cricket."
His friend said, "What? You must be crazy. You couldn't possibly hear a cricket in all of this noise!"
"No, I'm sure of it," the Native American said, "I heard a cricket."
"That's crazy," said the friend.
The Native American listened carefully for a moment, and then walked across the street to a big cement planter where some shrubs were growing. He looked into the bushes, beneath the branches, and sure enough, he located a small cricket. His friend was utterly amazed.
"That's incredible," said his friend. "You must have super-human ears!"
"No," said the Native American. "My ears are no different from yours. It all depends on what you're listening for."
"But that can't be!" said the friend. "I could never hear a cricket in this noise."
"Yes, it's true," came the reply. "It depends on what is really important to you. Here, let me show you."
He reached into his pocket, pulled out a few coins, and discreetly dropped them on the sidewalk. And then, with the noise of the crowded street still blaring in their ears, they noticed every head within twenty feet turn and look to see if the money that tinkled on the pavement was theirs.
"See what I mean?" asked the Native American. "It all depends on what's important to you."
It's true that for Calvinists, we believe regeneration by God is what provides the disposition to be convinced by the evidence and to believe. But as I explained above, we are all naturally able to "search" for God in some sense and therefore are without excuse if we fail to search or stop searching because there is sufficient evidence (at the very least) in General Revelation. And since there are plenty of pragmatic and prudential reasons for believing in God, or at least to continue seeking after God for one's entire life even if the various rational arguments (thus far presented) for God's existence (allegedly) fail. See my A Rational, Pragmatic and Prudential Argument for Believing in God
In his An Introduction to Systematic Theology Cornelius Van Til wrote:
That even Reformed philosophers and theologians do not always make full use of the riches found in Calvin's Institutes may be briefly pointed out by a reference to the work of Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosohy of Education. He says that the position of the atheist and pantheist in actually or virtually denying that there is a Creator is untenable. If a discoverer of an uninhabited island were to search its confines for a particular form of animal life, he might fail to find it. [He then quotes Gordon Clark]
He could not be sure, however that the particular animal had never lived on the island, because, even though the search had been diligent, still tomorrow the remains might be discovered. Similarly, it is clear that no finite amount of searching could rationally lead one to deny the existence of God. During the time of the atheist's investigation of this earth, it just might be that God was hiding on the other side of the moon, and if some rocket should take the atheist to the moon, there is no reason to hold that God might not go over to Jupiter–for the express purpose of inconveniencing the atheist.
[Van Til goes on to comment] But a God who can thus escape to the moon or to Jupiter is not inconveniencing the atheist at all. On the contrary, he shows himself to be so finite, so insignificant, that the atheist can cover the whole earth without being confronted by him [i.e. God]. This is the exact reverse of the teaching of Calvin, based on Paul, that God is divinity and power [ I suspect this is a typo and should read "that God's divinity and power" ], being always and everywhere so obviously present that he who says there is no God is a fool. The foolishness of the denial of the Creator lies precisely in the fact that this Creator confronts man in every fact so that no fact has any meaning for man except it be seen as God's creation. [pages 173-174 2nd edition edited by William Edgar; bold used for emphasis by me]I agree with Van Til that the evidence for God's existence is sufficient that one cannot escape being confronted with evidence for God's existence. However, I'm not so sure that all humans actually rationally know that God exists, even if I am certainly persuaded that they OUGHT to know that He exists because of the evidence in general revelation (both within them and external to them), not to mention the self-attesting evidence of special revelation found in the Bible (of which, admittedly, not everyone is exposed to). So, even if it is the case that not all men know that God exists, they nevertheless ought to know God exists since there is the moral category of culpable ignorance as well as vincible ignorance. This doesn't contradict my earlier statement that while not all men necessarily know rationally that God exists, they do so existentially.
And so, it is logically possible for the evidence for God to be sufficiently clear that all should and could know that God exists, and yet at the same time the evidence could be sufficiently vague enough (by God's design) so that God's existence is not rationally coercive.
A final and highly important consideration must also be factored into the issue of the detection and finding of God. It is the issue of the effects of the Fall on people's hearts and minds. The three main branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, not to mention Anabaptism and the various other ancient Catholic churches etc.) differ on the nature of Original Sin and depravity (e.g. it's effects and whether they are passed on or not et cetera). The issues are complex and can't be dealt with exhaustively here. But a common thread in the various views is that somehow sin affects our ability and/or willingness to accept God's existence.
In the history of Christianity there have been 4 basic views on the nature of our receptivity to God. I'll summarize (maybe oversimplify) them here:
1. Pelagian view
2. Semi-Pelagian view
3. Prevenient Grace or Initiating Grace view
4. Sufficient Grace or Efficacious Grace view
1. The Pelagian view teaches that all humans are born in the moral state Adam was created in. According to this view, people can live in such a way that they can both merit and earn salvation by their own works apart from the salvation provided in Christ. The grace of God can help and aid in one's salvation, but it's not absolutely necessary. This view has been universally and categorically rejected by the Christian church.
2. The Semi-Pelagian view teaches that God's grace is absolutely necessary for salvation (unlike Pelagianism). People cannot be saved without the grace of God. People do need God's grace, however they are already free enough morally to exercise their free wills to accept or reject God's grace for salvation apart from the internal work of prevenient grace taking the first step. In Semi-Pelagianism, God OR MAN can initiate man's salvation. That is to say, man can, of himself, respond to God's grace and offer of salvation apart from God's grace making the first step and initiating salvation. God's grace (in this view) doesn't need to first work in a person to draw them to a response to God. Sometimes Semi-Pelagianism is interpreted to mean that ONLY man can initiate his salvation. But historically Semi-Pelagianism's error was more modest than that. Technically, Semi-Pelagianism doesn't deny that God could (and sometimes does) initiate salvation. The error of Semi-Pelagianism is the idea that SOMETIMES MAN CAN INITIATE his salvation by his free will response to offered grace. Semi-Pelagianism was rejected at the (2nd) Council of Orange (in 529 A.D.). The decrees and teaching of Orange were somehow lost for most of the Middle Ages but approximately around the time of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation they were rediscovered. And so now, at the present time, Catholicism, most branches of Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy (and others) all reject Semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism. In summary, the error of Semi-Pelagianism is NOT that it denies the necessity of subsequent grace (or co-operating grace in Catholicism) in living the Christian life (after becoming a Christian). Rather, the Semi-Pelagian error is in denying the NECESSITY of initiating/prevenient grace (or operating grace in Catholicism) in order to become a Christian. Here's a link to Arminian Roger Olson's blog on Semi-Pelagianism and Prevenient Grace.
[Nota Bene: I used the phrase "becoming a Christian" rather than "conversion" because "becoming a Christian" is the more general and all encompassing phrase. Becoming a Christian is understood differently by different denominations since some believe children become Christians upon infant baptism, while others believe it requires conscious and intentional conversion. As a credobaptist Protestant, I believe in the latter (i.e. conversion). Whereas a Catholic would believe there is initiating grace infused during infant baptism. For adult converts, Catholics would agree that before the person believed on Christ, God's initiating and operating grace was first working in the person which lead the person to be able to freely convert. Besides the various Catholic denominations, there are also Protestant denominations that practice infant baptism and so sometimes also believe prevenient grace is involved.]
The following TWO views correctly reject the idea that SOMETIMES man can initiate his salvation, or that ONLY man can initiate salvation. The following two views affirm that ONLY GOD can initiate salvation.
3. The Prevenient Grace (or Initiating or Enabling Grace) view is the majority view in the Church. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and most Protestants and Evangelicals (e.g. Arminians and other non-Calvinists) hold to this view. It teaches that God's grace must first work in the hearts of people before they can then freely accept God's grace for salvation (hence the word "initiating" and the "pre" in the word "prevenient"). It's a pre-regenerating form of grace (though Catholics might deny this because of their belief in baptismal regeneration). While Catholics believe one can merit one's salvation (by the enablement of grace), and Evangelicals deny it can be merited, both Catholics and Evangelicals deny one can earn or strictly merit salvation (since they both reject Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism). For Evangelicals who hold to prevenient grace the Fall wounded men's minds and wills such that God's grace must first heal it so that it can now freely receive or reject God's free offer of salvation. Prevenient grace doesn't leave men merely indifferent or neutral. It also draws and woos people to respond to God's grace. As Arminian theologian Roger Olson described it, "...it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion)."
4. The Sufficient Grace or Efficacious Grace view is the view that Calvinists hold. Calvinism goes further than (far beyond) the prevenient grace view and says that not only is God's grace necessary, it's also sufficient. That when God begins a work of salvific grace in a person, that person will definitely, certaintly and inexorably come to saving faith in Christ and be saved. This is my view. It is usually considered a form of Augustinianism. While prevenient grace is sometimes called a form of Semi-Pelagianism, I personally think that's a poor label. In my opinion, it's erroneous to call Prevenient Grace a form of Semi-Pelagianism. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists do so. I think the prevenient grace view should be called a form of Semi-Augustianism. Either that or call it Augustinianism and the Calvinist View Ultra-Augustinianism (or Supra-Augustinianism) since there are facets of Calvinistic theology that go way beyond Aurelius Augustine's own doctrines. Rather than the human search for God as the reason why some humans find God, in Calvinism God is ultimately the one who "finds" human beings (i.e. reveals Himself to them) [cf. Rom. 10:20].
Both Calvinistic Evangelicals and (most) Non-Calvinistic Evangelicals (e.g. Arminians) believe that humans are so depraved (apart from grace) that they suppress the evidence for God's existence because there is a universal (but unnaturally natural) aversion to God, His Holiness and His commandments/requirements. So that has bearing on the issue of the "sufficiency" of the evidence for God's existence. For many Arminian-like Evangelicals, they believe that God is constantly wooing non-Christians by his Prevenient Grace, but because of their depravity and their use of the libertarian free wills they often continue to suppress the evidence for God in their hearts and so continue to reject God (even though Prevenient Grace has enabled them now to freely accept or reject God's offered salvation since it offset the effects of Total Inability due to natural depravity since the Fall). Calvinists on the other hand believe that all humans are beneficiaries of Common Grace, but that only God's redemptive Special Grace is sufficient to overcome natural depravity. Hence the term "efficacious grace."
To sum up, options #3 and #4 are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy and should be factored into the issue of the possible detection and discovery of God along with whether there is "sufficient" evidence for God's existence.
See also my comments in the combox of Steve Hays' blogpost:
Calvinism meets Street Epistemology
I recommend another of my blogs where I explore possible reasons why God might intentionally make His existence somewhat vague: "Unveiling" The Hiddenness of God
Not Many Were Wise by James N. Anderson
Christian Apologetics: Who Needs it? by William Lane Craig
More relevant Pascal Quotes
Christian Apologetics: Who Needs it? by William Lane Craig
More relevant Pascal Quotes
Christian Apologetics: Who Needs it? by William Lane Craig
Book Reviews of Recent Atheist Authors by Christian Apologists
Evidence and Arguments Against Materialism and Naturalism
Answering Moral Objections to the Bible
Could God Command a Christian to Kill?
Resources for Dealing with Alleged Bible Contradictions, Discrepancies and Errors
Dealing with Christian Doubts
A Rational, Pragmatic and Prudential Argument for Believing in God
Book Reviews of Recent Atheist Authors by Christian Apologists
Evidence and Arguments Against Materialism and Naturalism
Answering Moral Objections to the Bible
Could God Command a Christian to Kill?
Resources for Dealing with Alleged Bible Contradictions, Discrepancies and Errors
Dealing with Christian Doubts
A Rational, Pragmatic and Prudential Argument for Believing in God
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)