My friend Brandon sent me a copy of Gordon H. Clark's "God And Evil: The Problem Solved", and one of his "Predestination". When I was a Calvinist, my weapon of choice was always R. C. Sproul's "Chosen by God", and I gave away a number of copies, including one to Derek, who would later be instrumental in my conversion to non-Calvinism (perhaps giving your non-Calvinist interlocutor a book is the first step toward conversion?).
I have decided to read these books with an open mind, carefully considering their arguments and, like the Bereans with Paul's words, searching the scriptures to see if what they say is true.
Writing helps me process my thoughts, and so I will be journalling here as I read through them.
May the Lord grant me an alacritous heart, a sharp mind, and deeply-running humility.
The forward to "God and Evil: The Problem Solved" is written by John Robbins. Reading it reminded me of some of the things that first attracted me to Reformed Christianity: the love of God's word and abject submission to its every jot and tittle, rigorous Biblical scholarship, logical elegance, solutions to intellectual and social problems, rhetorical eloquence, and tradition/community. I am not saying that all of this can be found in its one and a half pages, but only that the associated sentiments for all of these things came flooding back to me. Thinking about it now reminds me of how painful it was to leave Reformed Christianity.
At any rate, the forward explains the classical formulation of the problem of evil (henceforth "POE"), and two of its solutions (often called "theodicies"): the outright denial of the existence of sin/evil/pain, and the free will defense. Obviously sin/evil/pain exists, and so we can throw that theodicy out.
But what of free will? Robbins explains to the reader that positing free will doesn't help us answer POE either, because it concedes that God is not almighty, thereby allowing POE to undermine Biblical Christianity.
Robbins then goes on to say that "Christianities" that do posit free will like this (such as Arminianism and "Romanism") are actually counterfeits, and are in fact defeated by conceding to POE that God is not almighty.
Next he explains that the reason POE exerts no force upon Biblical Christianity, is that Biblical Christianity denies several of the presuppositions necessary to get POE off the ground. Namely:
1. "Goodness" has any meaning apart from God
2. God is benevolent toward all His creatures
3. God's actions are not by definition just
Here are my honest reactions to this as I read it:
• I wonder what Robbins means by "counterfeit" in this context and what the implications of his statements are.
• I wonder why Robbins thinks that human free will is incompatible with divine sovereignty. Of course I remember why I used to think so, and why I changed my mind, but I wonder whether I missed something in that process. Are there arguments that I haven't yet heard or understood properly? Am I self-deceived about anything?
• Robbins' denial of (1) above resonates with me. It seems fairly obvious that God is the moral lawgiver, and as such, there is no concept of "goodness" apart from His character.
• Robbin's denial of (3) above also resonates with me. Everything God does must be just.
• I wonder why Robbins denies (2), and thinks that God is not benevolent to all His creatures. Does he think that the Bible doesn't ever say God is all-loving, and so it is acceptable to doubt it? Does he think the Bible specifically says that God is not good to all? How might Robbins understand the long list of verses that seem to say that God is benevolent toward all His creatures (I think of Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 33:11, Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 4:8, 2 Peter 3:9, and, perhaps most clearly, Psalm 145:8-9)?
I am looking forward to hearing Gordon Clark out. I am praying that God can open my eyes and my mind and soften my heart, and help me to carefully consider his arguments, and to honestly and plainly study the scriptures that he will teach from.
As a post-script, I would like to include a statement in which I level with myself and any readers who will be following this series. I am under no delusions that I am capable of a truly unbiased reading of these books. Arguments for Calvinism used to be my stock and trade, and then I was convinced that they are all wanting. Again, it is obviously possible that I missed some arguments or failed to understand some arguments properly, or that I am in denial about the force of some arguments that I do understand.
But the bottom line is that I want to highly esteem and aspire to a genuine disposition of openness and careful consideration, but I don't want to falsely claim that I have completely arrived at it.
I have decided to read these books with an open mind, carefully considering their arguments and, like the Bereans with Paul's words, searching the scriptures to see if what they say is true.
Writing helps me process my thoughts, and so I will be journalling here as I read through them.
May the Lord grant me an alacritous heart, a sharp mind, and deeply-running humility.
The forward to "God and Evil: The Problem Solved" is written by John Robbins. Reading it reminded me of some of the things that first attracted me to Reformed Christianity: the love of God's word and abject submission to its every jot and tittle, rigorous Biblical scholarship, logical elegance, solutions to intellectual and social problems, rhetorical eloquence, and tradition/community. I am not saying that all of this can be found in its one and a half pages, but only that the associated sentiments for all of these things came flooding back to me. Thinking about it now reminds me of how painful it was to leave Reformed Christianity.
At any rate, the forward explains the classical formulation of the problem of evil (henceforth "POE"), and two of its solutions (often called "theodicies"): the outright denial of the existence of sin/evil/pain, and the free will defense. Obviously sin/evil/pain exists, and so we can throw that theodicy out.
But what of free will? Robbins explains to the reader that positing free will doesn't help us answer POE either, because it concedes that God is not almighty, thereby allowing POE to undermine Biblical Christianity.
Robbins then goes on to say that "Christianities" that do posit free will like this (such as Arminianism and "Romanism") are actually counterfeits, and are in fact defeated by conceding to POE that God is not almighty.
Next he explains that the reason POE exerts no force upon Biblical Christianity, is that Biblical Christianity denies several of the presuppositions necessary to get POE off the ground. Namely:
1. "Goodness" has any meaning apart from God
2. God is benevolent toward all His creatures
3. God's actions are not by definition just
Here are my honest reactions to this as I read it:
• I wonder what Robbins means by "counterfeit" in this context and what the implications of his statements are.
• I wonder why Robbins thinks that human free will is incompatible with divine sovereignty. Of course I remember why I used to think so, and why I changed my mind, but I wonder whether I missed something in that process. Are there arguments that I haven't yet heard or understood properly? Am I self-deceived about anything?
• Robbins' denial of (1) above resonates with me. It seems fairly obvious that God is the moral lawgiver, and as such, there is no concept of "goodness" apart from His character.
• Robbin's denial of (3) above also resonates with me. Everything God does must be just.
• I wonder why Robbins denies (2), and thinks that God is not benevolent to all His creatures. Does he think that the Bible doesn't ever say God is all-loving, and so it is acceptable to doubt it? Does he think the Bible specifically says that God is not good to all? How might Robbins understand the long list of verses that seem to say that God is benevolent toward all His creatures (I think of Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 33:11, Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 4:8, 2 Peter 3:9, and, perhaps most clearly, Psalm 145:8-9)?
I am looking forward to hearing Gordon Clark out. I am praying that God can open my eyes and my mind and soften my heart, and help me to carefully consider his arguments, and to honestly and plainly study the scriptures that he will teach from.
As a post-script, I would like to include a statement in which I level with myself and any readers who will be following this series. I am under no delusions that I am capable of a truly unbiased reading of these books. Arguments for Calvinism used to be my stock and trade, and then I was convinced that they are all wanting. Again, it is obviously possible that I missed some arguments or failed to understand some arguments properly, or that I am in denial about the force of some arguments that I do understand.
But the bottom line is that I want to highly esteem and aspire to a genuine disposition of openness and careful consideration, but I don't want to falsely claim that I have completely arrived at it.
Hopefully Clarke's "God and Evil: Problem Solved" does more for POE than Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" did for HPC.
ReplyDelete"Next he explains that the reason POE exerts no force upon Biblical Christianity, is that Biblical Christianity denies several of the presuppositions necessary to get POE off the ground."
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing, and quite an easy thing, to deny your opponents presuppositions: it’s easy as saying “I reject P”. It’s quite another thing, and a much more difficult thing, to convince your opponent that her presuppositions, despite their prima facie plausibility, are false.
Good luck presuppositionalism....
Put another way: "That's neat "Biblical Christianity" [sic] is coherent. But is it True?"
ReplyDelete"It’s quite another thing, and a much more difficult thing, to convince your opponent that her presuppositions, despite their prima facie plausibility, are false."
ReplyDeleteIn this context, such a demonstration is unnecessary. A defense against the POE only needs to provide a counterargument to it. If the one who uses POE in the first place wishes to deny Robbins' three points, he must either show that his presuppositions should be accepted by Christians on the grounds of Christianity or admit the POE is an argument predicated on the conflation of two world-views. Either way, the burden of proof is on him.
I look forward to this series Brandon recommended to me. I enjoy Gordon Clark, and although I have not read this book, I have come to understand and accept its thesis through intermediaries like Vincent Cheung. I understand the author is a Molinist? Perhaps in a more appropriate part of this series, he could explain his own solution to the POE such that we could discuss it in the context of Clark's.
"In this context, such a demonstration is unnecessary. A defense against the POE only needs to provide a counterargument to it. If the one who uses POE in the first place wishes to deny Robbins' three points, he must either show that his presuppositions should be accepted by Christians on the grounds of Christianity or admit the POE is an argument predicated on the conflation of two world-views. Either way, the burden of proof is on him."
ReplyDeleteMere internal coherence doesn't get you truth. World views, in most cases, are not incommensurable, right?