the singularity of being and nothingness
Calvinism, a Syllogism and the Origin of Evil
Those who affirm the canons of Calvinistic philosophy often laud the logical coherence of its systematic formulation. In this post, I would like to turn the tables on this methodological assumption, showing how Calvinistic philosophy, while perhaps logical, leads to a horribly perverse image of the divine nature and will of God. I shall do this through a syllogistic form and shall concentrate upon the origin of evil.
A: God has eternally decreed all that comes to pass.
B: That which God decrees proceeds from the free and boundless will of God.
C: The will of God is essential with Gods being.
Proposition: Evil exists.
Therefore:
A: Because God has eternally decreed that evil should exist, or come to pass:
B: Because the existence and perpetuity of evil proceeds from the free and boundless will of God.
C: Because the will of God is essential with Gods being;
D: It is logically concluded that evil is essential with the being of God.
In response, I suspect a couple different approaches may (and will) be taken. I assume many will argue with the relationship between will and being. Note that I have carefully qualified the language: essential with. I think this prevents a bifurcating of will and being, while also avoiding conflating them en toto.
With that caveat, some may object that the syllogism doesnt stand because it is based upon a pejorative argument; i.e., if evil exists were replaced with the less negative humans exist, perhaps the syllogism would fall. While I considered this in my statement of the syllogism, I eventually decided to proceed, for my issue with Calvinistic philosophy is not limited to its inadequate accounting for the existence of evil, but more importantly is directed against the concept of eternal decrees altogether. I think the entire notion of eternal decrees is philosophically untenable not only in reference to origin of evil, but also in relation to everything else that is not God. In other words, replacing evil with puppies creates just as horrid of a picture of God, for puppies are no more essential to the nature of God than is evil.
When speaking of God, we must avoid an all-too-easy anthropological reductionism. That is, we must allow for the reality that Gods existence is not dependant upon nor qualified by Gods relationship to creation. While this may be difficult or perhaps even impossible to express through human language (which is, by default, anthropologically qualified at every level), we must resist capitulating our conception of the eternality of God to the limitations of our means of expressing it. This is, in my opinion, where Calvinistic philosophy fundamentally fails, for it makes that which should be metaphorical and mysterious into rigid propositional statements and affirmations. By doing so, however, Calvinism has adopted a thoroughly human-centric approach to speaking about God, one which necessarily makes that which God has ordained intrinsically essential to the very being and nature of God.
| Print article | This entry was posted by existdissolve on June 17, 2007 at 12:03 pm, and is filed under Theology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
A Study Bible to End All Study Bibles
about 17 years ago - 42 comments
This may have been out for a while, but I recently ran across it: "The New Defender's Study Bible: Understanding the Critical Issues of Faith from a Literal Creationist Viewpoint". My initial reaction was laughter at such absurdity. After all, here is someone going to the trouble of writing an entire study Bible for the…
Brief Discourse on the Philosophical Tenability of Miracles Commonly Conceived
about 17 years ago - 2 comments
My church just concluded a sermon series on the subject of miracles. On the whole, it was an interesting series and some good points were made. However, there was one particular part of the series that especially intrigued me, that being the definition of "miracle." To explain the concept, the speaker appealed to a Grahamian…
Miracles Considered, Conclusion
about 17 years ago - 4 comments
In my previous post, I briefly discussed some problems which I believe to be inherent to popular conceptions of the miraculous. As outlined, this understanding is based upon the correlation of the miraculous to human ignorance, e.g., that which is miraculous is that which is beyond the [current] knowledge of human persons. The crux of…
Sin as Privation – Brief Conclusion
about 17 years ago - 1 comment
In my previous post, I briefly discussed reasons why Christian theology must necessarily affirm the ontological non-existence of sin. I concluded that if sin is assigned a substantival nature; and if God is to be spoken of as source and sustainer of all that has existence; then one must unavoidably conclude that God has not…
A 1600 Year-Old Justification of an Assertion?
about 17 years ago - 5 comments
In several of my posts, I have argued that human language is incapable of propositionally communicating truth about the divine nature of the Godhead. The qualification of propositionally is important, I think, because on the one hand it acknowledges the severe break that exists between the human and divine in terms of ontology (and the…
The Closing of the Evangelical Mind
about 17 years ago - 21 comments
Let's just be completely perspicuous: evangelicalism is doomed. It's leaders sense it. It's adherents feel it, uneasily. Everyone looking at it from the outside fully acknowledges it. The most pitiable fact, however, is that evangelical's fatal wound is entirely self-inflicted. It's arsenic? Sola Scripura. Why, the inquisitive reader may ask, is sola Scripture so deadly?…
A Brief Introduction to The Absolute Necessity of Speaking of Sin as "Privation"
about 18 years ago - No comments
Think about the word "sin." What do you think of? A stain? Some black, ethereal substance? A "negative" field of energy? Throughout history, humans have struggled with defining this difficult concept to align with and elucidate religious and social notions of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and ethics. In Christian theology, sin occupies…
Human Language and the Divine
about 18 years ago - No comments
Over the last several monthsand especially within the last few daysI have been involved in numerous conversations about the nature and function of human language in describing God. What follows is not meant to be a fully-developed essay, but is rather intended to be somewhat of a summary of the lines of thinking I have…
More Correlations Between the Hebrew Scriptures and Ancient Near-Eastern Literature
about 18 years ago - 1 comment
Continuing in my research concerning the parallels between Hebrew and other ancient Near Eastern writing, I would like to share some additional interesting correlations in some of the texts. In the following, I have quoted, at length, the various texts under considerations. At the end of each section is a concluding discussion about similarities. I…
about -1917 years ago
Where does evil come from? Some teach Gods complete sovereignty, excluding any sovereignty or free will from man. They think this gives greater glory to God, giving Him all the glory for mans salvation. I completely agree on this point, for mans heart is sinful from birth, nothing good comes from it; therefore mans salvation must be completely sourced from God. But I also believe man has limited sovereignty or free will . God allows the non-elect restrained freedom in this realm; this is the source of evil. When God calls the elect to Himself, they throw down their sovereignty, their will and their past, for as Paul said, It is rubbish . The desire and ability to do this is given by God through the Holy Spirit, therefore the statement is true: All good things come from above - even the desire to turn from sin to God. This is in line with John 7:17 If any man desires His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is from God or I speak from myself. Jesus states it is His will that opens our eyes, and I feel the desire must come from him also, for again- we are sinful from birth.
But to take this concept to its extreme and declare even sinful man has no sovereignty makes God the sole originator of both good and evil; Im not sure those who teach such things understand that when they deny sinful mans limited autonomy (limited by God), they are in fact saying God is the source of evil. I believe man does have some level of autonomy, but he is never saved from Gods wrath in or by this autonomy; in fact, it can only lead to unrighteousness and to his eventual destruction. It is only when God enters in and supplants mans will with His own that man can be saved. Evil is originated only in the hearts of self-ruled creatures-Satan, demons and the non-elect of mankind. But none of these have complete autonomy. Their limited autonomy can only operate under the umbrella of Gods complete autonomy. As Job 1 and Luke 22:31 illustrate, even the most powerful of these- Satan, has to beg God to be allowed to follow his wicked desires. All authority is sourced from the Father in heaven, but all evil is sourced from the hearts of the self- ruled of creation. God, in His wisdom, grants limited authority to those who would desire evil things; but God uses such things to minister to the eventual good of the elect, & as tangible evidence for the indictment of the non-elect.(Luke 17:1, 2 Cor. 11:15)
I believe the sifting of Peter occurred when Satan was permitted to stir up concealed doubt within Peters heart as the disciple denied knowing Jesus three times; but because Our Lord had prayed for him, Gods Spirit entered his heart to bring him to understanding & repentance of his sometimes hesitant faith. Peters faith most often paralleled his personality- fiery, vocal, & contagious, yet at times his faith also seemed to become cold, silent, & dispassionate. God ministered to Peters need to see the obscure failings of his heart by granting this fallen creature (Satan) strictly limited autonomy to follow his nefarious desires.
Yes, all iniquity is innovated only in the hearts of the fallen & unregenerate of creation (God is the sole regenerator ), & to accomplish this new creation (sin), these persons must have been accorded some measure of restrained autonomy. Scripture asserts we would do well to be ignorant, as much as possible, of such things. New levels of depravity are sourced not from the Creator, but the creation; ignorance of such things is not only blissful, but expedient to a steadfast single-mindedness by which we grow closer to God. We should desire to observe the regenerative good things from above, not the degenerative evil from below.
Jesus said in the letter to the seven churches man would be judged by his deeds, but if man is not accorded sovereignty, they could not be his deeds. What I believe Jesus was saying in this passage (& elsewhere) is that if a mans deeds corporately lack Godliness, this reveals a heart & will lacking God & testify to a void between that man & Gods convicting Holy Spirit. – John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (1 John 3:8-10)
In summation, deeds done unto destruction are performed within the creations small & limited realm of sovereignty; deeds done unto life are only accomplished outside that realm, by the Creators supernatural manifestation alone.