Pages

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Classical Arminianism and Total Depravity


In this post, I would like to explore similarities and differences in how classical Arminians and Calvinists view the doctrine of total depravity.  I say "classical Arminianism" because many people who claim to be Arminian do not understand Arminianism as it was stated by Arminius himself.  For example, the following website does NOT speak for the classical Arminian:

http://thegracecommunity.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/what-is-arminianism/
Free-will or human ability. ...Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists in his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation. (emphasis mine)
I understand why Calvinists react so strongly to these portrayals of Arminian theology.  Contrary to the quote above Arminius did not believe that faith is the sinner's gift to God.  Nor did he maintain that man's will, in his fallen state, is free from enslavement to sin.  In his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Roger Olson writes the following:
Arminius could not have made clearer his belief that human beings are utterly helpless and totally dependent on grace for their salvation.
Roger E. Olson. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (p. 142). Kindle Edition. 


The classical Arminian does not believe that a man has the ability to respond to God apart from a special act of grace.  Man cannot, by means of his natural free will, please God.  Man cannot, by means of common grace, choose to accept God's offer of salvation.  Arminius held that a special act of grace is required in order to free man's will from enslavement to sin.  Thus, contrary to popular opinion, Arminius did not think that man could save himself by means of his autonomous choice.  In fact, Arminius believed that even after regeneration a man must be carried by grace in order to do any good in the sight of God.  Olson quotes Arminius in the following passage:

I ascribe to grace THE COMMENCEMENT, THE CONTINUANCE AND THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL GOOD,-and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace-From this statement it will clearly appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will...
Roger E. Olson. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (pp. 143-144). Kindle Edition. 
Or again concerning free will Arminius writes:
Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. That I may not be said, like Pelagius, to practice delusion with regard to the word "Grace," I mean by it that which is the Grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration.... I confess that the mind of [animalis] a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins.
Roger E. Olson. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (p. 144). Kindle Edition. 
Suffice it to say that Arminius did not think that man, in his fallen state apart from grace, could accept God's offer of salvation.

Additionally, the classical Arminian notion of total depravity is very close to the Calvinist notion.  One Calvinist website writes the following description of total depravity:

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/index_calv.html
When Calvinists speak of humans as "totally depraved," they are making an extensive, rather than an intensive statement. The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being.  The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins (Romans 5:12). Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel (Mark 4:11f). This is why Total Depravity has also been called "Total Inability."
A classical Arminian would not disagree with this description of total depravity.  In fact, the Society of Evangelical Arminians describes it in nearly the same way.  Arminians believe in original sin and that sin extends to every part of man.  These are not the points of disagreement between the two views of the nature of fallen man.

Where the two views diverge are as follows:
  1. While grace is necessary for salvation, grace is not irresistible.  Man can resist the prevenient grace of God.
  2. While man does not have the ability to respond to God, once enabled by prevenient grace his will is freed (but not necessitated) to accept God's offer of salvation.
  3. The act of regeneration is synergistic in that there are two agents involved.  Arminians don't believe that man can earn his salvation via good works, but that he may agree with God (and accept God's gracious gift) once his will has been freed by grace.
  4. Despite claims made by Calvinists, the acceptance of God's offer (enabled by God's grace) is not a meritorious act.
Arminianism is decidedly synergistic, but the picture painted by Calvinists often misses the mark of what Classical Arminians affirm when they affirm synergy.  In an article by John Hendryx, synergism is defined in the following way:
Synergism is the doctrine that the act of being born again is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace.
This appears to be a minimal definition of synergism.  However, Calvinists often imply much more about synergism than what is found in this "minimal" definition.  In the same article, John Hendryx writes,
In other words, synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God's action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation. Unregenerate man, in this scheme, is left to his freewill and natural ability to believe or reject God. Synergists teach that God's grace takes us part of the way to salvation but that the [fallen, rebellious] human will must determine the final outcome. It does this by reaching down into an autonomous principle within in its fallen unrenewed nature in order to either produce a right thought or create a right volition toward God. ...In this system, then, grace is merely an offer or a help but does not do anything to change man's heart of stone or natural hostility to God. This means that God will only look favorably upon and reward those natural men who are able to produce or contribute faith, independent of God's inward gracious call or spiritual renewal. (emphasis his).
While this characterization may reflect the views of some synergists, it does NOT reflect the view of Arminius himself or those who are faithful to his teachings.  Additionally, synergism as such, does not necessitate that God and man contribute equally to salvation.  What is more, a syergistic view as such does not necessitate that man contribute anything towards the "price of his salvation".  Minimally it simply means that two agents are involved in the process of salvation.  Even if one of the agents is almost entirely passive, synergism is minimally the claim that there are two agents involved as opposed to one agent.

Hendryx's characterization of Arminians fails in at least the following ways:

For classical Arminians,
  1. Faith is not independent of God's grace, but entirely dependent on and enabled by God's grace.
  2. Natural man does not contribute or add anything towards the "price of his salvation".
  3. Unregenerate man, in this scheme, is NOT left to his freewill and natural ability to believe or reject God.  Unregenerate man, apart from grace, cannot believe God.
  4. Grace is NOT merely an offer of salvation.  Prevenient grace is precisely that special act of grace that enables man to agree with God.
  5. God does NOT look favorably upon and reward those natural men who are able to produce or contribute faith, independent of God's inward gracious call or spiritual renewal.  Faith does not come apart from God's grace, nor is faith a contribution on the part of man.  Rather faith is a gift from God that man (under the enabling power of grace) either resists or does not resist.
The narrative of personal salvation that the Arminian has in mind goes something like this.  Man left to himself will follow his sinful nature.  He is a slave to his own sinful nature and does not have the ability to know God or please God.  God in His goodness enables a man, by means of a special act of grace called prevenient grace, to see the goodness of God for what it is.  In so doing, God makes it possible for man to respond to God.  However, man can resist this prevenient grace and so condemn himself to death.

Thus, for the classical Arminian, man is depraved.  He cannot respond to God on his own.  Every part of his being is marked by falleness.  However, the classical Arminian rejects the narrative of personal salvation given by the Calvinist because he thinks that the deterministic claims of the Calvinists are unnecessary for explaining the goodness and sovereignty of God.  In fact, the Arminian thinks that the Calvinist narrative of salvation unnecessarily diminishes the goodness of God.  It is this concern, primarily, that draws the Arminian to the thought of Arminius.

17 comments:

  1. Very interesting looking forward to the rest of this discussion.

    Divine light

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just out of curiosity, how would a classical arminian explain secure salvation? I am still trying to land on a theology that I see as biblical. I, however, have finally rejected calvinism.

    -a theology student

    ReplyDelete
  3. Arminians differ on the doctrine of eternal security. An Arminian can hold to eternal security though. Not all free choices are reversible. If you choose to jump off a cliff, you may do so freely, but you can't simply choose to stop falling because there is another force involved. The Arminian who wants to uphold a doctrine of eternal security can say that salvation is one of those choices, that once made, cannot be unmade.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great entry Matt! I would like to go point by point through Calvinism and see what you think on specific points. This may help narrow it down a bit.

    What is your view of "Total Depravity". I know you said you believe that grace is preveinient and was wondering how you come to this conclusion. What texts in scripture do you feel support your view?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks like there are two questions here. What is my view of Total Depravity and what texts do I used to support the doctrine of prevenient grace.

      To the first question, I agree with what I put in the blog.

      "The effect of the fall upon man is that sin has extended to every part of his personality -- his thinking, his emotions, and his will. Not necessarily that he is intensely sinful, but that sin has extended to his entire being."

      I would use the same verses that a Calvinist uses to arrive at Total Depravity.

      Concerning prevenient grace: That is a more difficult question.

      I don't think there is a verse that is decisive in this regard. It's the overall notion that God will's something for people and people reject what God wants. That people don't do what God wants them to do seems to be a non-controversial point. You would agree that this is the case right? (Acts 7:51, Matt 11:21, etc.)

      Prevenient grace is a doctrine that pertains to the special act of grace insofar as they relate to the act of regeneration. It accounts for the fact that apart from grace, man cannot come to God. But it is also a way to account for both God's love for all (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9) while also accounting for why some don't become part of the elect. I understand that Calvinist's don't take "all" here to mean to the whole world. If you can make your case for this apart from an ad hoc defense of Calvinism, I am certainly willing listen to your argument.

      So in short, there isn't a proof text for the doctrine of prevenient grace. It's a way of understanding the the operations of grace insofar as they relate to God's desire to save all. If God wants all to be saved, but not all are saved, then how do we account for this? Well, we account for it by saying that God's grace is resistible. I can't prove this from Scripture, but I don't think it is contrary to Scripture.

      Delete
  5. Matt,

    I also wanted to ask you about a statement you made. You said

    " In fact, the Arminian thinks that the Calvinist narrative of salvation unnecessarily diminishes the goodness of God"

    I am curious as to how Calvinism diminishes God's goodness? Maybe if all Calvinists held to double predestination.

    Not all Calvinists hold to supralapsarianism so I fail to see how the Arminian could say that Calvinism would diminish God's goodness.

    If all are dead in Adam then God would be perfectly just and loving to punish all mankind. The fact that in His grace and mercy He chooses to save some and pass by others should make us stand in awe that He would save anybody!

    http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Generally speaking, Arminians think that Calvinism diminishes the goodness of God because Arminians think that God, by his nature, wills the good of all. They construe Calvinism as teaching that God does not love (will the good of) all. And they would say this whether you are a supralapsarian or an infralapsarian.

      To speak of God "passing over" the non-elect appears to be a nice way of saying that He doesn't will their good. Would you disagree? Does God love those who He "passes over"?

      If not, then it seems that God doesn't love all. I suppose this isn't a problem for a Calvinist, but for an Arminian it is.

      You wrote:

      "If all are dead in Adam then God would be perfectly just and loving to punish all mankind."

      I understand how God is just in punishing men for their evil deeds. Perhaps you can help me understand how God is loving as He "passes over" those He does not elect?

      Delete
  6. Matthew,

    Thanks for your response. Was a crazy week last week. My AC went out, fridge went out and the ignition in my car went out at the same time.

    Let me respond tow hat you said

    "Generally speaking, Arminians think that Calvinism diminishes the goodness of God because Arminians think that God, by his nature, wills the good of all. They construe Calvinism as teaching that God does not love (will the good of) all. And they would say this whether you are a supralapsarian or an infralapsarian."


    I enjoy this dialog because it makes me think deeper of these issues and I respect you more than you could ever know and it helps shape and sharpen my own views.

    In response I really would not doubt that God, wills the best for everyone but I think the fact God created Adam and Eve with free will was what He thought the best for man and from there after mans sin man lost free-will in the libertarian sense.

    So it would seem that God willing man have free will is what He believed would be the best for mankind but that was lost with Adam and Eve. If you are saying that it is best for Man to be united with God then why not universalism? If you are saying free will is better than universalism it would seem that the free-will Adam and Eve had was lost with Adam and Eve.

    So maybe you could explain what you are saying when you say God wills the good of all. If the good of all is free will then he gave us that with Adam and Eve and it was lost. If you are saying the good would be to be united with God then why not universalism where all go to heaven?

    Next you said

    "To speak of God "passing over" the non-elect appears to be a nice way of saying that He doesn't will their good. Would you disagree? Does God love those who He "passes over"?"

    We were all represented in Adam and Adam was given free will and lost it when we sinned. Man is a slave to sin(Romans6) and by nature a child of wrath (Ephesians 2). Is it your view that God should overide their will and force them in heaven?

    You said

    "If not, then it seems that God doesn't love all. I suppose this isn't a problem for a Calvinist, but for an Arminian it is."


    I think you are assuming God must love all in the same way and I don't know why that has to be the case. I believe God loves the world and all men but I dont know if God loves all men in the same sense or if he has a different love for His elect then for the world. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.


    Next you said

    "I understand how God is just in punishing men for their evil deeds. Perhaps you can help me understand how God is loving as He "passes over" those He does not elect?"

    I think it will go back to whether God loves for the elect is different then it is for the world. I think we need to remember that it is not all these people that just so badly want to be with Christ and cant be. Their will is to hate God and rebel against him. If you are saying that if God is loving he won't pass anyone by, then do you hold to universalism?

    I am interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks for the conversation bro.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Devin,

      Thanks for your reply. I'll try to be as concise as possible and if you want me to elaborate on anything, please let me know.

      You wrote:

      "God created Adam and Eve with free will was what He thought the best for man and from there after mans sin man lost free-will in the libertarian sense."

      So God created man with libertarian free will and then after the fall we don't have libertarian free will anymore? I don't know that I have ever heard this before. Are you saying that pre-fall = man has libertarian free will and post-fall = man has no free will? Some kind of compatiblist free will?

      You asked:

      "If you are saying that it is best for Man to be united with God then why not universalism?"

      Universalism is not true because human beings resist God.

      In the Calvinist scheme, it is not possible for man to resist the saving grace of God. Thus if God loved all in the same way, all would be saved.

      In the Arminian scheme, it is possible for man to resist prevenient grace. So for an Arminian, universalism is not true because, while God loves all (in some sense), some reject God's prevenient grace.

      God wills all to be saved antecedently (which is what I mean when I say that God loves all), but wills some to be saved consequently. It's not that Arminian's are without a doctrine of election. It's that they hold to a doctrine of election that includes a secondary agent (man).

      You asked,

      "Is it your view that God should overide their will and force them in heaven?"

      No. Arminians are typically claiming that Calvinism is the view that God overrides human free will.

      You wrote:

      "I think you are assuming God must love all in the same way"

      I do not assume that. I say that God loves all, but not necessarily in the same way. He wills the good of all, but the good of all is not ultimately achieved. I do believe that God loves the elect in a different way than the non-elect. The precise nature of this, I don't really know.

      You wrote:

      "I think we need to remember that it is not all these people that just so badly want to be with Christ and cant be. Their will is to hate God and rebel against him."

      This is not what Classical Arminians think. Classical Arminians don't think that man seeks after God. They agree that man is dead in sin and cannot seek God apart from a special act of grace. I hit this point over and over in my article because Calvinists frequently misrepresent Classical Arminians in this regard. Arminius believed in the bondage of the will.

      You asked:

      "If you are saying that if God is loving he won't pass anyone by, then do you hold to universalism?"

      You keep bringing this up. I don't know why you think the Arminian is committed Universalism by claiming that God loves all. My guess is that it's because you read Calvinism into the phrase "God loves all". Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think the Arminian view leads to this?

      Delete
    2. Matt,

      Thanks for your reply.As I said I am learning alot so maybe revamping or changing my views along the discussion.

      You said

      "So God created man with libertarian free will and then after the fall we don't have libertarian free will anymore? I don't know that I have ever heard this before. Are you saying that pre-fall = man has libertarian free will and post-fall = man has no free will? Some kind of compatiblist free will?"

      Seems as though there are differing views as to the definitions of "libertarian" and "compatabilism" so I will just try and state what I believe.

      I believe Adam and Eve before the fall did not have a sin nature. Meaning they were not "dead" in sin because sin had not happened. They were not slaves to sin as Romans 6 says because they had not yet sinned. They were not blind and unable to respond to spiritual truths as 1 Corinthians 2:14 says.

      As I have looked over our discussion you agree man is totally depraved or you would not agree man needs a special act of God's grace to come to Him (John 6:44).

      I do not believe man was a slave to sin, spiritually dead before the fall but that mans will became enslaved after the fall. Would you agree with this?


      Next you said

      " Universalism is not true because human beings resist God"

      So are you saying it is better for man to have free will (Please define what you mean by free will and do we have the same free will that Adam and Eve had?) then to have union with God. If you are saying that man wills the good for all man then it would seem that you are saying that if he gave all man free will and some can resist him then free will would be more important then union with God or why not just have universalism where all go to heaven. Please clarify for me.

      Next you said

      "In the Calvinist scheme, it is not possible for man to resist the saving grace of God. Thus if God loved all in the same way, all would be saved."

      And I do not see why God would have to love all in the same way. You initially made the charge that If God loved all then all would be saved and then said it would not be a problem in Calvinism because God does not love all. However I think there is a third option and that is God does not love the elect in the same way he loves the world.

      Next you said

      " In the Arminian scheme, it is possible for man to resist prevenient grace. So for an Arminian, universalism is not true because, while God loves all (in some sense), some reject God's prevenient grace."

      I understand that is what Arminian theology teaches. The objection that I made and maybe was not clear enough was that if you are saying it is the BEST for all man to be united with God then He should over ride their free will so all go to heaven. What you seem to be saying though is that the best for all people is to have free will where they can accept or reject Christ. Am I correct?

      Thanks for your clarifications and your time

      Delete
    3. Here is a great article for those interested as to Adam and Eve and free-will

      http://www.reformationtheology.com/2010/09/did_adam_and_eve_have_a_libert.php

      Delete
    4. Devin,

      Again, thanks for your response...

      1. "I believe Adam and Eve before the fall did not have a sin nature. Meaning they were not "dead" in sin because sin had not happened. They were not slaves to sin as Romans 6 says because they had not yet sinned." -Agreed.

      2. "I do not believe man was a slave to sin, spiritually dead before the fall but that mans will became enslaved after the fall." -Agreed.

      3. "So are you saying it is better for man to have free will (Please define what you mean by free will and do we have the same free will that Adam and Eve had?) then to have union with God."

      No. What is best is that all men know God and are in union with him. A world where everyone knew and loved God would be a better world than one where some people ignore and hate God.

      As to my view of free will, I hold to a form of Compatiblism. Or better yet I maintain that free acts are "voluntary human actions". So I don't agree with Sproul. I don't think the view that "men always act in accordance with their greatest desire" is an adequate view of free will.

      When I say I am a compatiblist, I am primarily referring to the fact that I believe that free will and divine sovereignty / foreknowledge / etc. are compatible. I am not so much referring to a specific psychology of how man acts freely.

      Philosophically speaking I don't think it makes sense to say that we have a "different" free will than Adam and Eve. I don't have any compelling reasons for holding that, even after reading the article you sent.

      Theologically, our free will is broken. It's not that we have a different free will, it's that the free will that we do have is maligned.

      4. "If you are saying that man wills the good for all man then it would seem that you are saying that if he gave all man free will and some can resist him then free will would be more important then union with God or why not just have universalism where all go to heaven."

      I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't think that free will is "more important" than union with God. THE goal is union with God. Free will is merely the means by which a truly "personal" union is possible. Is this what you are getting at?

      5. "And I do not see why God would have to love all in the same way."

      I don't think God does love all the same way, simply that in one way or another He does love all.

      6. "God does not love the elect in the same way he loves the world."

      I agree with your third option here. If you look in my post immediately preceding the one you sent, I wrote "I say that God loves all, but not necessarily in the same way."

      7. "What you seem to be saying though is that the best for all people is to have free will where they can accept or reject Christ. Am I correct?"

      No. What is best for men is to have union with God. God has allowed, in his providence, that men have the ability to reject what is best for them, namely union with Him.

      Does that help? Does that answer your questions / objections?

      Thanks!

      Delete
    5. Matt,

      Hope all is well bro. It looks like we agree on much the disagreement is this idea of previenient grace and synergism. I would be interested in your view of election.

      Is it your view that God elects people based on His knowledge that He knows they would choose him after preveinient grace?

      Also could you explain your view of synergism.

      I am learning a lot from the conversation and really want to thank you for taking the time to talk with me as I learn so much from you.

      Delete
    6. Devin,

      I'll be honest, I don't have a worked out view of election. I have some parameters though.

      1. Since God is not composed (doctrine of divine simplicity), He doesn't learn anything from Creation. He doesn't wait to see if I will have faith as if He didn't already know from all eternity. He knows everything comprehensively. Finally, He knows through Himself as the cause of all things.

      2. To say that God causes something does not necessitate a kind of hard determinism or something like Spinoza's Necessesitarianism. Unfortunately Arminians don't usually make distinctions between different kinds of determinism which usually makes them embrace Libertarianism. In the free will / sovereignty debate Libertarianism implies an incompatibility between God's sovereignty and man's free will. This widens the divide between Calvinists and Arminians and it often has the undesirable effect of making modern day Arminians into Open Theists.

      3. I maintain that God does cause free actions (which Libertarians maintain is a contradiction). God is the primary efficient cause of all our free actions. However, as a synergist, I hold that man is the secondary efficient cause. Calvinism appears to view man, not as an efficient cause of his own actions, but as an instrumental cause. I don't think that we can say that man is only an instrumental cause and still maintain that his actions are "free". This, I think is a contraction. But to say that God is the cause AND man is the cause of his actions, I think upholds God's sovereignty and mans free will. Man is not simply a passive piece of clay, but is an agent that acts, not apart from God's causality, but enabled by God's causality.

      So this is more of a philosophical account. I haven't worked this out theologically yet.

      Delete
  7. Matthew,

    I shared your blog with a good friend who is also a Calvinist and he wrote a couple of responses I would like to hear your thoughts on. He said he will come to the blog as time permits and try and interact with you but I wanted to get his post up:


    Nathanael Taylor


    I think the best response to this is that Calvinist have a much stronger case against the Arminians on this score. So in other words I would claim that the Arminian conception of God is such that it undermines God's goodness as well, but I would contend that this is much more serve in virtue of the fact that on Arminianism God undermines his goodness to himself (or each member of the Trinity undermines their goodness to each other).

    God has to (if he were to create) send some to damnation and many to salvation (post mill is true) in order to function in accordance with all of his great making properties (which he has in virtue of him being the greatest possible being) of justice, mercy, love, hatred of sin, punishment of sin, and grace. And acting in accordance with all of those divine properties is going to make it the case that God will not will heaven for all persons. Does this undermine God goodness? Of course not because if God did not send some persons to hell he would not be displaying hatred towards evil (which is a property better to have rather than to lack if God were to create) and then God would not be good to himself in trinitarian communion.

    It seems obvious that if one has to choose between being good to another divine person or another human person then the good thing to do is to be good to a divine person and this is what God does (of course this does not make God selfish because he is three persons).

    Now why might one think that Arminians diminish the goodness of God? Well this is because of the fact that a necessary condition of arminianism is that creatures have libertarian free will and libertarian fee will is inconsistent with the great making properties aseity and absolute control (or sovereignty). Most Arminian and philosophers in general think there is good reason to affirm that aseity is a great making property so let us stick to that, here is how the argument might run for that:

    Premise 1: God has the properties of omniscience and aseity in every possible world (Anselmian perfect being philosophy)

    Premise 2: The definition of Omniscience entails that God knows all future propositions

    Premise 3: The definition of Aseity entails that God is not dependent on anything besides himself

    Premise4: If agents beside God have libertarian free will then God’s omniscience is dependent on those agent’s choices

    Conclusion: There is no possible world were agents other than God have Libertarian free will.

    I have a paper that I have attached if you want to see this argued more in depth. Ultimately the arminian undermines God's great making properties so that each of the member of the Trinity are unloving toward each other because each member is not dealing with the creation in a way that most glorifies each other. Ultimately the Calvinist here values God's goodness and maximal greatest at the cost of humanistic intuitions. It seems to me that since God is the greatest possible being that we ought to have intuitions that are in accordance with viewing God as the highest rather than humanistic intuitions which seek to validate the welfare and treatment of man. Any day of the week I would much rather pay the cost of exulting the divine rather than the human. I hope that helps...I will try to get to the blog discussion as time permits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Devin,

      I think I will wait for Nathanael to respond directly to the claims on my post. I will say a couple things though:

      1. I do not agree with perfect being theology. Not because perfect being theology makes God too big, but because it makes God too small. God is not the greatest conceivable being. God is not conceivable. You can assert true propositions about God (analogically), but you cannot have a concept in your mind that corresponds univocally to God.

      2. It doesn't appear the Nathanael is a Thomist. If we are going to talk philosophical theology then we may very well get sidetracked. That's fine with me, but if we get too far from the Calvinism / Arminian debate, then perhaps we can find another venue for our philosophical discussion.

      Thanks.

      Delete
  8. Let me know if you want to see the paper and I can post it for you

    ReplyDelete