John Calvin On Free Will

Versailles-trekearth

Edited from

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

Simon Blackburn defines determinism as follows:

The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen. Blackburn (1996: 102).

In the case of human sin, John Calvin did not believe that God used hard determinism as in forcing or coercing human sin, and nor do I.

I agree that God can use human sin for the greater good, yet human beings have limited free will and freely sin by choice within a sinful nature.

Calvin stated concerning free will:

If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

Human beings in Calvin’s thinking were not forced by God to sin, but God as an infinite being had and used the power to use their sin for the greater good. So to say that God willed evil for the greater good means that God could use sinful actions of others in order to accomplish his divine purpose.

Calvin stated:

For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another. For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing or hard determining one to do so.

I reason the problem of evil is, in large measure, a human problem. I believe in a human fall through sinful choice. God can still will, in a sense, that these sinful actions work for the greater good, but I do not believe in a Universe where God forces people to commit individual sin. People are sinful in nature as they are descendants of Adam. This inherited and sinful nature means people will freely choose to sin and God does not coerce them into doing so. He may provide situations where he knows that certain individuals will sin, but his motives in this are for the greater good. This is not the most satisfying doctrine I suppose, but Biblically and philosophically valid nonetheless. This concept will be discussed throughout my thesis.

God was not the antecedent (preceding cause) of sin in the sense of God coercing or forcing people to commit sinful acts. God does not use hard determinism to cause people to sin as if they were sinning by compulsion and not freely. However, it should be pointed out that in another more strictly philosophical sense, as God is sovereign over all events, he is the primary cause of evil and sin and he determines and allows human beings to freely sin as the secondary cause.

In that sense God is the antecedent of sin. However, God's motives remain pure in all that he wills.

Matin Serein, France-trekearth

Edited from

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

John Calvin’s (1543)(1998) theology holds to a strong view on God’s sovereignty and to a limited view of human freedom.

In modern, but not Reformation era terms, Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and explains that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin viewed God as working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but he pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

He suggests outward human preaching ‘strikes only the ears’ while the inward instruction of the Holy Spirit is how a person is enlightened in Christ. Human preaching is valuable in that it works at times in conjunction with the Holy Spirit transforming individuals. Calvin (1543)(1996: 233).

There is a traditional Christian and Reformed concept and theology that the Holy Spirit is God and does the work that only God can do. The Holy Spirit works directly upon a human mind, in a sense remaking a person and creating a person after the image of Christ.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

Biologically Impossible?

Facebook

Bizpac June 3 2015

In light of recent news this is something to ponder on...

A friend of mine has a co-worker that had his penis removed and had reassignment surgery and now years later regrets it. I hold to a Reformed position on corruption which includes the biological and spiritual within present humanity but to assume the fall has effected one so much that his/her sex is scientifically wrong is very questionable indeed.

With the Biblical concept of a fall from Genesis, Scripture documents the idea of God creating male and female in the image and likeness of God; with the creation of the sexes, gender is definitive and definite and cannot be entirely altered. This is as well a New Testament concept (Romans 1-6).

Cited

Former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry: Being transgender is a ‘mental disorder . . . biologically impossible’

Cited

'The former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital is pouring rain on the Bruce Jenner “Call Me Caitlyn” parade that’s sure to have the former Olympic athlete’s cheerleaders steaming.

Not only does Dr. Paul R. McHugh consider changing sexes “biologically impossible,” he thinks being what is popularly called “transgender” these days is actually a “mental disorder.” McHugh, who has authored six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles, made the statements in a piece he penned for the Wall Street Journal that argued surgery is not the solution for patients who want to live life as the opposite sex. Such people, he wrote, suffer from a “disorder of assumption” in believing they can choose their sex.'

Cited

'He also cited a study that said transgendered people who have reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than non-transgendered people,'

Cited

'He went on to write that changing sexes is impossible and that what transgendered people actually do is “become feminized men or masculinized women.” 

While there are scientists who disagree, it is important to question whether health professionals, politicians and the media are doing more harm than good by enabling people who believe they were born the wrong sex to go to such extremes. For millennia, the first rule of Western medicine has been summed up as “do no harm.” There’s a reason for that.'

The Teleological

Dublin: trekearth

From my PhD

Bloesch defines teleological as a word coming from the Greek telos, or end, where the emphasis is on goals and consequences. Bloesch (1987: 19).

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

Post PhD

Blackburn also describes teleology from the Greek as 'telos' end. It is the study of the ends or purposes of things.  It is described as a Aristotelian view of nature and ethics and is also a view and doctrine of the Christian tradition. Blackburn (1996: 374).

From Teleology August 24, 2014

Teleology is a philosophical doctrine that all nature, 'or at least intentional agents, are goal-directed or functionally organised'. Hull (1996: 791).

Plato suggested that the organised world/universe could be understood by comparing it to the behaviour of organised agents. Hull (1996: 791). This was known as 'external teleology'. Hull (1996: 791). Human beings could anticipate their future and plan accordingly. Hull (1996: 791). Persons could calculate their own futures, so to speak.

Aristotle held to 'internal teleology' as in 'invested nature itself with goals'. Hull (1996: 791). Each of these has their own final cause with the entities being constructed in a way that they tend to meet their directed goal. Hull (1996: 791). Natural theology from theologians and philosophers took these concepts and supposed that the 'all-powerful God' was to fulfill his divine intentions. Hull (1996: 791). Today philosophers may acknowledge apparent 'functional organization' in reality, but attempt to not reference the supernatural. Hull (1996: 791). In other words to not reference, God or angelic beings. Naturalistic references and preferences would be used.

The views of Plato and Aristotle seem over-speculative, as in a finite being cannot safely and fully accurately predict the teleological pattern for self, or teleology for self because of lack of knowledge and because human beings are a secondary cause of thoughts, acts and actions.

God would be the first and primary cause of all things being the infinite, first cause. Only God could determine teleology in a full sense.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

HULL, DAVID, L (1996) ‘Teleology’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Methodology: Daniel Day Williams (PhD Edit)

Facebook

Methodology: Daniel Day Williams (PhD Edit)  

Methodology: Daniel Day Williams 

Daniel Day Williams (1969) comments that there are certain broad foundations of the empirical method that can perhaps be agreed upon.[1]  One, experience in the empirical method is the felt, bodily, organic action of human history.[2]  This experience includes sense data, but is not limited by it.[3]  Williams writes that there is a mysterious disclosure of God by which God is revealed metaphysically, and he reasons that human faith cannot survive without interpreting this metaphysical experience that is manifested in all things.[4]  Traditional Christian thought can agree that, in a sense, God reveals things about himself outside of revealed Scripture. Through creation God provided sufficient evidence for his existence, and therefore persons would be accountable for denying this revelation.  This is known as natural revelation and is distinguished from special revelation. Special revelation would include Scripture and the gospel message and therefore natural revelation would provide natural information concerning God, but not specific information in regard to salvation.  The knowledge of God for humanity is limited when restricted to natural theology.  It is not the same knowledge of God that is revealed supernaturally in Scripture.  James D.G. Dunn (1988) writes it is clear that within the Romans text the concept of God revealing himself through natural theology exists.[5]  This natural theology has always been apparent to humanity, and has been present as long as the cosmos have existed.[6]  

Two, God is experienced as a power and process, immanent, and therefore working within the world, creating ways in which God is experienced by rational communities.[7] Williams asks that if there is a way of getting knowledge outside of science, what is it?[8] Conservative Christians and some liberals would of course answer that God has revealed spiritual knowledge through prophets, apostles and scribes through Scripture. Williams recommends the phenomenological method, which deals with understanding and clarifying human experience.[9]  For Williams, human beings are animals, but a special kind of animal that needs to be understood in the context of human suffering and how this impacts the human relationship with God.[10]  

Three, the knowledge of the character of things is derivable from a disciplined and critical analysis of the structures in experience and testing of the theological propositions concerning God and humankind.[11]  Empirical theology has often denied religious claims that are deemed to be private or related to a church.[12]  Williams admits, however, that this view is problematic as every empirical theology stands within a historical religious perspective.[13]  Even though Williams states that each empirical theology is coming from a historical perspective,[14] it does not mean that claims and doctrines within a historical approach should be beyond criticism.[15] Ganzevoort explains that for the empirical method, Scripture is not limited to its original understanding, and it may be directed to uncover interpretive potential for today.[16] Doctrines and creeds within tradition will be questioned,[17] as will overall religious worldviews.[18] Ganzevoort reasons that for Biblical theology, other disciplines are often used in the process, such as linguistic and literary sciences, archeology, and of course history.[19] The other disciplines can yield insights on Biblical texts,[20] the implication being that empirical theology is a discipline outside of Biblical theology, which can also assist in the understanding of Biblical texts.[21]  Philosophically, I reason that for the sake of religious truth, a member of a faith group, and in particular a scholar such as myself, must be willing to, while striving for objectivity, examine his historical religious perspectives and doctrines, and this can occur through the use of disciplines other than Biblical studies, theology, and philosophy. This work of empirical theology will provide the opportunity to examine the views and doctrines of free will, sovereignty, and soul-making theodicy, and also to evaluate the criticisms of these approaches as well.  

Four, empirical theology has a formal structure that is tentative with correctable assertions.[22] This would seem to be essential as empirical theology by nature is awaiting data[23] and reviewing the quality of that data in order to form conclusions.[24] To form conclusions, based on theological deductions, before empirical data exists,[25] would be the work of philosophical and not empirical theology.  

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books.

GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2004)(2005) ‘van der Ven’s Empirical/Practical Theology and the Theological Encyclopedia’, in Hermans, pp.53-74. C.A.M. & Moore M.E. (eds.), Amsterdam.  

GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2005) ‘WYSIWYG: Social Construction in Practical Theological Epistemology’, in R. Ruard Ganzevoort, R. Ruard Ganzevoort, Amsterdam. 

WILLIAMS, DANIEL DAY (1969) ‘Suffering and Being in Empirical Theology’, in The Future of Empirical Theology, Chicago, the University of Chicago Press.  

 

---

 

[1] Williams (1969: 176).

[2] Williams (1969: 176).

[3] Williams (1969: 176).

[4] Williams (1969: 177-178).

[5] Dunn (1988: 56).

[6] Dunn (1988: 57).  There is no assumption here that human beings existed at the creation of the cosmos.

[7] Williams (1969: 176).

[8] Williams (1969: 178).

[9] Williams (1969: 178).

[10] Williams (1969: 178).

[11] Williams (1969: 177).

[12] Williams (1969: 180).

[13] Williams (1969: 180).

[14] Williams (1969: 180).

[15] Williams (1969: 180).

[16] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 4).

[17] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 4).

[18] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 4).

[19] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 4).

[20] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 4).

[21] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 4).

[22] Williams (1969: 177).

[23] Williams (1969: 177).

[24] Williams (1969: 177).

[25] Williams (1969: 177). 

 

Wales, Travel+Leisure-Facebook