The Calvinist Chesterton.

Calvinist John Piper is a fan of G.K. Chesterton, which is odd because Chesterton disdained Calvinism as a force that stifled true humanity. Piper writes:

Here’s the reason Chesterton’s bowshots at Calvinism do not bring me down. The Calvinism I love is far closer to the “Elfland” he loves than the rationalism he hates.

He would no doubt be baffled by my experience. For me the biggest, strongest, most beautiful, and most fruitful tree that grows in the soil of “Elfland” is Calvinism. Here is a tree big enough, and strong enough, and high enough to let all the paradoxical branches of the Bible live — and wave with joy in the sunshine of God’s sovereignty.

In the shade of this tree, I was set free from the procrustean forces of unbiblical, free-will presuppositionalism — the unyielding, alien assumption that without the human right of ultimate self-determination human beings cannot be accountable for their choices. When I walked away from this narrow, rationalistic, sparse tree, into the shade of the massive tree of Calvinism, it was a happy day. Suddenly I saw that this is what all the poetry had been about. This is the tree where all the branches of all the truths that men have tried to separate thrive.

William Watson Birch - scourge of all things that start with a "c" and end in "alvnist" - observes:

Does no one find odd the fact that Adam and Eve could make free will, self-determined choices in the Garden of Eden and yet God remained "sovereign"?

For me, the most absolutely astounding supposition of Calvinists -- deterministic Calvinists like John Piper -- is how eager they are to discard "free will" and "self-determination" and affirm that God decrees our so-called "choices." Though, I think, these alleged "choices" are only apparently genuine, since, in Calvinism, God has already predetermined what we shall do/choose/say/think.1 John Calvin writes that "men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction" (emphases added).2 Where is the fear and honor of God present in such an admission? Why not just admit that God is the only real sinner in the universe?

Calvin further admits, "Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of his judgments."3 Such evil, in Calvinism, is committed according to God's predetermined plan, not by "bare permission": "If the binding and infatuation of Ahab is a judgment from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end."4

Webster is right. Chesterton delighted in apparent paradoxes that demonstrated the cleverness of God. Thus, Chesterton took delight in the tension between God's apparent providential care for His creation and God's decision to give real freedom for His creation, for God's great cleverness in accomplishing His ends through the free actions of His creation. Chesterton had no time for those who would solve the tension by denying that it actually existed.

There's probably more to it than this.

Still the Anti-Christ after all these years.

Answering the question of why so many Calvinists sound like they have just time-travelled from the 17th Century, it seems the reason is that they are still being taught 17th Century terminology and ideology.

This explains why apparently normal Americans can use historically derogatory terms like "Roman," "Romanist" and "Papist" and not understand that these terms are freighted with historical bigotry.

God bless their ignorant little hearts. It's the same way with members of the older generation, dropping their casual racial slurs with all innocence, which makes my toes curl when I hear it. Of course, that is becoming less of a problem every year because no one is providing continuing education courses that reinforce the use of those derogatory slurs.

Calvinism on Natural Law.

Lots of links to "Two Kingdom Theory."

Thank you, Mark Shea. Part 2.

As a New Years encore, Mark Shea offers this post on the Calvinist mindset.

A few excerpts:

FWIW, I'm not sure what problem, if any, Mr. Spencer has with my remark, which is largely a description of my own experience trying to figure out how to square Calvinist rhetoric of "irresistible grace" and "eternal security" and similar nonsense ideas with actual human experience. I don't come from a Calvinist background (unlike, say, Scott Hahn or Jimmy Akin) and my encounter with Calvinism was a most unhappy affair. I have grown more patient with it precisely because of my encounters with Catholics who are former Calvinists who see some good in it. Scott once described it as "Monotheism come of age" and added that "Catholicism is *trinitarian* monotheism come of age." I think there's a real insight in that remark.

And:

My encounter with Calvinism came through the good offices of Gary North, whose cocky arrogance and insouciant "tough luck for you, you unelect loser" attitude raised huge and terrifying questions for this neurotic who had stumbled into Christianity through the Evangelical tradition with its strong strain of Arminian emphasis on free will.

And:

The Calvinist guy, trying his best to remain true to the Calvinist diagram of reality, replied, "I don't know." He had to say this, because the Calvinist system demands it, and for a true Calvinist, the System trumps suspiciously touch-feely stuff like the Love of God. If you are Elect, then yes, God loves you. If not, then you're screwed. And since no man's destiny is known this side of heaven, we can never say for certain of anyone that God loves them. So to the hungry soul Calvinism perforce must reply "I don't know if God loves you" and then deliver a rebuke to "feelings based Christianity" if the hungry soul bleats in protest at this icy and inhuman diagram.

And:

At this point it is customary for the Calvinist to reply with a homily condemning faith based on experience instead of on the Unshakable Word of God. This is sleight of hand, of course. Because words like "assurance" and "security" are appeals to subjectivity, not objectivity. They *demand* you have a particular experience and they condemn you for having some other experience that doesn't confirm the doctrine of eternal secuity and assurance of Salvation. And the strange brew of Evangelicalism, which constantly muddles appeals to subjective experience with The Objective Truth of the Word of GOD gives the average person very little help in such struggles. When somebody does sin or apostatize, the solution tends to be "Oh, that person wasn't *really* a Christian". The apotheosis of this kind of dodge was something my pal Sherry Weddell heard in a class on the Holocaust she took many moons ago. The teacher read a virulently anti-semitic passage from a writer and asked the students in the class if this was Christian. The Evangelicals all confidently declared that whoever has said it "wasn't really a Christian". The author, of course, was Martin Luther. "You're telling me Martin Luther wasn't really a Christian?"

I can't speak for others, but my way out of the impasse was via Chesterton who described Calvinism as, variously, a form of devil worship (sacrificing the doctrine of God as Love to the doctrine of God as Omnipotent Power) and as a sort of madness which supremely sought to subjugate God to Reason and became, in the process, one of those little systems of order by which the madman loses everything except his reason.

I had a similar encounter with the Calvinists at Beggars All. In this thread the idea that "God is love" and that "God wills the salvation of all men" is treated by the resident Calvinists as a threatening bit of heresy, although both ideas are exact quotes from the New Testament. And this thread shows the way that Calvinists have to sacrifice key portions of the Gospel to that of "God as Omnipotent Power" becomes obvious, particularly in the comments around my post at 7:00 pm.

Aquinas meets the Truly Reformed.

Rhology has a post at the Calvinist blog "Beggars All" that takes on an unnamed Catholic's e-mail that it is possible to "keep" the 10 Commandments.

As a Calvinist, it seems that Rhology is committed to the proposition that even with grace such a thing is impossible, and he presents a fair argument for all the ways that a person can break the 10 Commandments without really knowing it.

The ambiguity in the argument has to do with the notion of "breaking" the 10 Commandments. Does every action seemingly in violation of the 10 Commandments constitute a breach? Is it possible to keep the 10 Commandments less than perfectly?

In De Malo, Q. VII, First Article, reply to Objection 1, Aquinas responds to Augustine's definition of sin as a "word or deed or desire contrary to the eternal law." Aquinas writes:

There are two kinds of division. One is the kind that divides a univocal genus into its species, species that equally share the genus, as, for example, the division of animal into ox and horse. The other is a division of a common analogue regarding the things of which predicate the analogue by what is prior and what is subsequent, as, for example, we divide being into substance and accident and into potentiality and actuality. And in such things, the common aspect is in one contained completely but in the others contained in a respect and by what is subsequent. And such is the division of sin into venial and moral. And so the cited definition of sin indeed belongs completely to mortal sin but incompletely and in a respect to venial sin. And so we properly say that venial sin is beyond the law but not contrary to it, namely, that venial sin somewhat recedes from the ordination of the law but does not destroy the very ordination of the law. For venial sin does not destroy love, which is the fullness of the law, as Rom. 13:10 says.

My lengthy response "translated" from Aquinas is found in this thread.

Rhology,

Thank you for your candid answers, which went as follows:

(1) Is it your view that you break each of the 10 commandments on a daily basis?

1) Dang near. Probably, and probably multiple times.

(2) Is it your view that each of your sins are identical in terms of deliberation and moral gravity?
2) No. I do deny that a sin I could commit could vary in its power from another sin to separate me from the justification imputed to me by Christ (of course, since no sin could do that).

(3) Is it your desire to commit fewer sins?
3) Yes

(4) If it is your desire, do you practice any spiritual disciplines to help you reach the goal of developing a habit of practicing virtue rather than committing vice?
4) Yes.

(5) To the extent that you have mastered such a spiritual discipline, have you experienced any joy or pleasure in developing a habit of virtue instead of vice?
4) Yes.

The importance of the final three questions is that they establish that you really do agree with the observations that I’m going to offer, perhaps because the natural law is written on the hearts of all and is accessible by reason.

Clearly the key question was #2. Your position is one that has been held at various times throughout history – e.g., the Stoics and the Cathars, according to Aquinas – and is apparently the preponderant position of various Protestant confessions.

I don’t think it is tenable, however, as a biblical position because the bible is filled with references to sins having different gravities and effects.

For example, notwithstanding your belief that there is no sin that could part you from Christ, I suspect that you would acknowledge that the sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can do exactly that.

Similarly, Christ Himself points to degrees of sin when He says: “He that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin" (John 9:11.) If Christ talks about greater and lesser sins, that is some indication that there are such things.

Likewise, there are sins that are “mortal” – or unto death - and those which are not. 1 John 5:16.

Finally, there are “sins” which do not separate a person from Christ, but which, nonetheless, detract from a person’s perfection and must be “purged” before that person can enter Heaven (1 Corinthians 3: 8 – 15) because, as you correctly point out, only the perfect can enter Heaven.

All of this suggests that “keeping” the 10 Commandments is not simply a “yes” or “no” affair. It seems that it is possible to keep the 10 Commandments more or less than perfectly and yet not “break” them in some a way that puts a person outside of the plan of salvation. In other words, the term “sin” is applied to two different things: one thing is what we truly mean by sin – a firm and deliberate turning away from God. The other involves something beyond the commandments but not necessarily contradictory to it.

Think for example of Christ’s response to the Pharisees when they complained about breaking the Sabbath. Mark 2:23. Christ’s response was to note that while there may have been a technical breach of Sabbath, the “sinful” conduct was motivated by a love of God or neighbor – the highest commandments of all. Contrawise, perfectly “lawful” conduct may be “sinful” if it fails to take into account charity to one’s neighbor. Romans 14:23.

“True” sins are those actions which are not built upon or connected to a love of
Christ. The other kind of sin – breaches of the commandments, if you would – may not truly be sin if they are built upon Christ or connected to a love of God or a love of neighbor.

This means that determining whether a person is “breaking,” or “keeping” the 10 Commandments more or less perfectly, requires an examination of more than that person’s external conduct. One needs to look at the circumstances of the person, the gravity of the conduct and the person’s state of mind with the goal of determining if that person’s conduct is connected to God by a love of God or neighbor. Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:8-15.) This is why people who do the things you’ve outlined may not be “breaking” the 10 Commandments, although they may be keeping the 10 Commandments less than perfectly. (Cf. Matthew 19:22.)

Of course, we should be concerned with keeping the 10 Commandments perfectly. Nothing may enter Heaven unless it is perfect and our – inevitable – failure to keep the commandments perfectly will be purged eventually. Further, habits develop into vice and then develop into a definite turning away from God, so we need to develop habits that always move toward a love of God and neighbor.

Based on your final answers, I think you see that. You essentially acknowledge that we ought to move toward perfection, that we can master our vices – with obviously greater and lesser difficulties – and that we are “wired” to take pleasure in our movement toward virtue. I would submit that God would not wire us with the capacity to delight and take joy in the good, unless He wanted us to exercise our human capacity to become good.

Of course, if you disagree, then I’m left with wondering how it is possible to to create a Christian ethical system, and, if that’s the case, the picture I get of God is that of an arbitrary and irrational Power, which does not fit my understanding of a God who is love. 1 John 4:16.

Of Conversions and Calvinism.

C. Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen pulls off a rare gambit by providing a human account of why he became a Calvinist.

It's worth reading, particularly if you are like me and can't fathom why anyone would find the notion that God damns some just because He can to be particularly attractive.

Patton describes the Arminian position as:

I had reasoned this way: If God knows everything, even the future, then He knows who will choose Him. Therefore, He simply looks ahead in time and chooses those who choose Him! That is it! Next question please.

Yes, I came to that conclusion on my own without even knowing that I was articulating an Arminian position with regards to election

I think that Aquinas rejected something like that position:

And so others said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination; giving us to understand that God gives grace to a person, and pre-ordains that He will give it, because He knows beforehand that He will make good use of that grace, as if a king were to give a horse to a soldier because he knows he will make good use of it. But these seem to have drawn a distinction between that which flows from grace, and that which flows from free will, as if the same thing cannot come from both. It is, however, manifest that what is of grace is the effect of predestination; and this cannot be considered as the reason of predestination, since it is contained in the notion of predestination.

I think that Aquinas is saying that God's foreknowledge doesn't explain the giving of grace because it is the giving of grace that results in the predestination in the first place.

Further, I think that Aquinas ultimately doesn't see distinction between free-will and predestination:

Therefore, if anything else in us be the reason of predestination, it will outside the effect of predestination. Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is not distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes, as was above shown (22, 3). Wherefore, that which flows from free-will is also of predestination. We must say, therefore, that the effect of predestination may be considered in a twofold light--in one way, in particular; and thus there is no reason why one effect of predestination should not be the reason or cause of another; a subsequent effect being the reason of a previous effect, as its final cause; and the previous effect being the reason of the subsequent as its meritorious cause, which is reduced to the disposition of the matter. Thus we might say that God pre-ordained to give glory on account of merit, and that He pre-ordained to give grace to merit glory. In another way, the effect of predestination may be considered in general. Thus, it is impossible that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have any cause as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace. For neither does this happen otherwise than by divine help, according to the prophet Jeremias (Lamentations 5:21): "convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." Yet predestination has in this way, in regard to its effect, the goodness of God for its reason; towards which the whole effect of predestination is directed as to an end; and from which it proceeds, as from its first moving principle.

The way I understand this is that predestination and free will both flow from the directing of the individual will to the ultimate good. For Aquinas, all movements of the will are directed to some good. No choice is really a "free" choice in the sene that it is random or arbitrary or lacks a chosen end.

People may choose lesser and temporal goods - which means that they choose against the infinite good of God - but insofar as they choose the good which is God they choose that good on account of God's pulling their will to His good. So, even a choice that is inevitable is free because it involves the movement of the individual's will.

Even Calvinists can't dispense with the language of "choice." Patton writes, for example:

That day I realized how radical grace is and how sovereign God is in His administration of it. That day I joyfully gave the Potter charge over the clay and placed my hand over my mouth. That day I knew that I could never be lost since I had nothing to do with being found.

In other words, after being convinced that he has no choice in his own salvation, Patton chooses to give "the Potter charge over the clay." In other words, even in a system of Calvinist predestination, it appears that there is free will in action.