Open Theism

In my judgment, propositions are either true or false. Either this or that. I don't understand a proposition being neither true nor false. If a proposition can be neutral it seems to make no assertion or statement of fact. But this seems to be self-refuting in virtue that the proposition "all future contingent propositions are neutral" is not neutral.

I'm willing to make the model claim the law of contradiction obtains in all possible worlds; I guess that implies I shoulder the burden to prove the same for bivalence. Perhaps. But I too affirm God possesses non-propositional knowledge. I concur one can deny bivalence. I think open theists do this since they think it entails fatalism. I don't buy it. I think it's a logical leap.

The main contention with open theism is whether propositions of future contingents can be known. I see no reason to deny this. But what is the difference between a truth and a truth that is logically possible to know? The open theist is free to attempt to argue such truths are logically impossible to know. At best I think she can argue God does not know future contingent propositions but this is a far cry from the stronger claim it is logically impossible for Him to know them.

I do think the open theist conception of God is deficient. In open theism God is ignorant of many truths yet considered omniscient. Omniscience is taken as a model notion by the open theist when it is, in fact, a categorical notion. God doesn't merely have the 'ability' to know only and all possible truths; he knows only and all truths.

Divine Foreknowledge

How is man free if God foreknows all things (i.e. states of affairs that will happen)?

Middle knowledge and Simple Foreknowledge affirms libertarian freedom (LF), commonly called liberty of indifference. The position can be construed, roughly, that a person is free if she can choose equally options A or B as the primary source of her choice. She is the first cause of her choice in that she creates the causal chain between actions and acts. This construal of freedom may be the case without the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP). Moreover, it denies the logical possibility of LF and determinism to be compatible, thus named incompatabilism.

The alternative takes compatibilist freedom (CF) as true. This approach argues freedom is best formulated as liberty of inclination. A person is free if she can choose her strongest inclination either option A or B without coercion or constrain. This view allows for hypothetical alternate possibilities.  However, it concedes, all things considered, determinism and freedom (i.e. as so defined) are compatible.

If the first approach is true then God's foreknowledge is not equated with foreordination. God knows things intuitively and exhaustively either by simple foreknowledge  or middle knowledge. So God's foreknowledge is causally inert.

God's knows all true necessary and contingent propositions qua omniscient. Any given proposition is known by God:

(1) God knows P will obtain

But this does not logically entail:

(1)* God knows P must obtain

(1) is a contingent proposition while  (1)* is a necessary proposition. For example, God knows John will choose to eat a cheeseburger for lunch at T1. If John at T1, chose otherwise (e.g. Chicken Strips) then God would have known prior to T1. God's knowledge of free creatures is, in some significant sense, dependent upon their choices.

If the second approach is true then God's foreknowledge is grounded in foreordination. God knows things intuitively and exhaustively since He directly or indirectly determines the truth value of all contingent propositions. God determines all things such that it preserves liberty of inclination.

If, indeed, a person denies (1) he then affirms libertarian free choices are excluded from bivalence thus have no truth value until they obtain. Thus the future remains open. God's omniscience is revised. God only knows what is logically possible which excludes libertarian free choices.

Some problems with the open-theist that denies (1):

Open-theism's denial of the principle of bivalence is implausible. Propositions cannot be neutral, like concepts, since they bear truth value. Hence, a proposition is either true or false--despite it being indexed--thus bivalence applies to future contingent propositions.

If open theism is true then God is the most perfect being yet learns what free creatures will do. This seems contradictory to God as the greatest conceivable being.

Middle Knowledge is a creative attempt to reconcile meticulous providence with libertarian freedom. I agree with the Molinist it is not logically contradictory to say God determines the outcome of a free creatures decision. Perhaps some Molinist ideas can be used by the compatibilist as a heuristic device (e.g. Bruce Ware). However, in my judgement, Molinism does not reconcile the two. In fact, it compounds the problem. It adds mystery with mystery. The Molinist does not explain precisely how God knows what all free creatures will do in all circumstances. Some molinists assert God's knowledge penetrates to the very essence of free creatures. Yet this remains a mystery. But then we are asked, by Molinists, to affirm God knows what all free creatures would do in all circumstances. Two mysteries without parsimony or comprehensive explanatory power and scope.

Grace

The trouble with people and language is specific words can loose their significance by the people that use the words; this happens in theology and Christian living. We use the word 'grace', it's in our churches names, worship songs/hymns, bumper stickers, and T-shirts, but is it in the understanding of our hearts? What is grace? How is it properly defined? The dust of confusion will settle only when terms are properly defined. Once we understand the meaning of grace, and therefore its significance, we cannot help but to savor it. Grace is much like a diamond with many different facets to it but there is a definite meaning behind it. Grace is God's goodness actively to us and for us such that we get what we don't deserve; instead of receiving God's just punishment, we get the gift of God's righteousness in Christ. We get God, when we deserve the rod. But we miss the unconditional, free, nature of grace. It cannot be obligated nor should it be trivialized. Yet we often do both! Or we depreciate grace by mistaking it for mercy. But one is not the other. Mercy is not getting what is deserved. Grace is much more profound. It stretches the limits of our minds and the depths of our hearts. It gives us all that we could ever need, ask or hope for in the place of what we've earned, deserved or entitled.

Think on these things!

Son Eternally Begotten?

Many contemporary theologians I respect (e.g. Dr. Bruce Ware) do not see the eternal generation of the Son in Scripture nor do they see it necessary to preserve Trinitarian theology. This does not prove the eternal begetting of the Son false, but it should give us pause to think through the doctrine carefully. If one wishes to defend the eternal generation of the Son, I think one must clarify the eternal begetting of the Son from the Father. The begetting cannot be contingent on the Father, or else, I fear, we are left with some form of Arianism. Even if we construe it as contingent necessity, it is not necessity. The Father and Son must possess the same essential properties as God. So how, then, should we consider the eternal begetting? We have a choice: either discard the doctrine or revise the doctrine. If we revise the doctrine, I think, the eternal begetting can be understood as necessary. In other words, there can be no possible world which the Father does not beget the Son.

What are your thoughts?             

Is EE Calvinistic?

Evangelism Explosion (EE) is calvinistic as an evangelism outline. Since it rightly upholds the distinction between God's prescriptive/revealed will and decreetive/secret will. Moreover, it makes a genuine offer of the gospel to all people in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, EE, although at first glance may seem to teach easy believeism or decisionism, at its heart takes seriously the sovereignty of God in regeneration to bring people immediately to salvation. So EE ends the gospel presentation with an invitation and obligation to commit one's self to Christ immediately for salvation.    

Evangelism Explosion, and Calvinism

Mark Dever writes,

"And then came Evangelism Explosion. D. James Kennedy, a native of Augusta, Georgia, became the pastor of a little PCUS church in Ft. Lauderdale in 1959.  He began training his people to do evangelism.   And by 1962, he had organized this as a program called Evangelism Explosion.  The book continues on, in its 4th edition.  It has been used literally around the world.  It is the subject of much debate and criticism among evangelicals.  Missional types dismiss it as a modernistic sales job, assuming too much to be of any use today.  Reformed types dismiss it as one-sided, coercive, or decisionistic.  Nevertheless, neither of those sets of discussions need to detain us as a matter of history.

My suggestion is that Evangelism Explosion (and the subsequent dramatic growth of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, especially in the 1960's) became a quiet, but telling piece of counter-evidence against the stereotype of Calvinism killing evangelism.  Kennedy was unashamedly Calvinistic in the soteriology he presented in his sermons.  He later joined the PCA, with the Westminster Confession as its doctrinal standard.  Regardless of how consistent or inconsistent one takes aspects of EE to be with Reformed theology, a church that clearly meant to be Calvinistic pumping out evangelism, and evangelism training throughout the 1960s and 1970s was a telling argument in pragmatic America.  I'm not sure anyone thought of it at the time.  But I think that it substantially weakened the ground of the opponents of Reformed theology.  A pastor born in the 1920s, coming to maturity in the 1940s may have assumed that Calvinism was as gone as the horse and buggy, and partly he may have assumed that because of the "evangelism-killing" argument.  But a pastor born in the 1960s, maturing in the 1980s, would have a hard time taking it for granted that a Calvinistic theology always (slippery slope) leads to killing missions and evangelism.  There would be too many churches around him using Evangelism Explosion."(1)

I have come across, quite recently, criticisms of evangelism explosion (EE) questioning James D. Kennedy's Calvinism, and method. (2)

Anyone familiar with EE can understand why fellow Calvinists would be suspicious of it. EE is not a detailed gospel presentation that emphasizes the wonderful truths of limited atonement, unconditional election or irresistible grace. Primarily because James D. Kennedy took the Scriptures seriously that milk comes before meat. Deep, wonderful, magnificent, beautiful, doctrinal truths that glorify God cannot be received before the doctrinal basics. However, James D. Kennedy did stick to his calvinist convictions, like limited atonement, by outlining EE closely to scripture (e.g. Romans 5:8). Where EE gets off track, in the eyes of some calvinists, is its insistence upon, misquoting texts as exegesis instead of application, and what appears to be decisional regeneration. The former criticism is simple to correct. The latter criticism is serious if in fact true. Does EE reduce the gospel to easy believeism? I think not. Look at what the presenter asks the presentee. First, he explains that eternal life is a gift offered from God to all in Jesus Christ. Second, he proclaims this gift is received by saving faith. Saving faith is defined as (continually) trusting in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. Third, he instructs the gift is received through faith in Christ with evidence of, transferring trust from self to Christ alone, acknowledging Christ as personal Lord and Savior over all, and repentance. After this, a person is told to pray to God to acknowledge the gospel, trust Christ for salvation and ask for help in repentance. Clear necessary characteristics of the gospel are preached. The EE emphasis is salvation is justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone--not a mere prayer. Although at times it may seem like it, since EE gets lumped in with the Four Spiritual Flaws of Campus Crusade for Christ.      

EE is great because it is flexible, can be personalized, and yet there is still room for improvement. As Calvinists we can make EE more doctrinally precise without sacrificing its simplicity. But we must stray away from, being too afraid to use the plain language of Scripture or, belaboring doctrinal truths to the expense of presenting meat before milk (e.g. Emphasizing unconditional election, or limited atonement). We should be open, if conscience permits, to use analogies (e.g. A gift for all who receive it) and terminology (e.g. offer, accept, receive, embrace ) that even Arminians use with the understanding that Calvinism lies at the foundation for both.  















-----------------------
(1) Mark Dever. Where'd All These Calvinists Come From? http://www.9marks.org/blog/whered-all-these-calvinists-come-part-4-10
(2)  George R. Jaffray Jr. Explosive Evangelism. http://www.the-highway.com/explosive_evangelism1.html

Anderson, Calvinism and the First Sin

In this paper (here) Dr. James N. Anderson, Associate Professor of Reformed Theological Seminary, has masterfully taken up the subject of Calvinism (with its respective doctrines of God, providence and sin) to address those that charge it of implicating God as the author of sin.

I do not wish to give a complete summary here. I’d prefer to commend readers to it. I wish only to discuss some of the paper with comments.

Dr. Anderson begins with a familiar discussion in Christian Theology of the devastating nature and effects of sin brought by Adam’s transgression. God created Adam and Eve after His image good--with the ability to choose good or evil. Adam for unknown reasons chose to violate one of God’s commandments. Subsequent to Adam’s transgression, sin was imputed, inherited and imitated, by all mankind.

Dr. Anderson asks the deep and difficult questions we are confronted with, as Calvinists, in light of Adam’s transgression. It is the very same questions believers in the past have had to struggle with such as St. Augustine and Jonathan Edwards. Dr. Anderson states, “the most perplexing question of all is simply this: If Adam was created good, why did he commit evil?”[1]

Dr. Anderson stresses that it must be admitted, from the start, that all theological traditions face difficulties. Nevertheless, all theological traditions must each attempt to construct a coherent model to make sense of God’s providence in relation to Adam’s sin. As we take Calvinism to be the most faithful theological tradition to Scripture. We affirm: (1) God either directly or indirectly determines all things (which includes Adam’s transgression), (2) man freely determines actions and acts, and (3) God is neither the author nor approver of sin. Yet it is precisely these affirmations that require us to construct a coherent model. But many from other theological traditions deem this as an impossible task. Dr. Anderson in the rest of his paper directly addresses objections to the possibility of a Calvinistic model, critiques alternative models, and then offers a Calvinistic model, which best affirms (1), (2), and (3), with less (severe?) philosophical difficulties than alternative models.

Dr. Anderson states that Calvinism is committed to divine determinism in which God is the sufficient cause of all things. But how God precisely determines and causes all things does not necessarily entail physical or causal determinism. So then, in what way are we to understand “God determines all things” and “God is the cause of all things?” Dr. Anderson points out that Calvinism essentially is not committed to any specific view of causality. Therefore many views are open to Calvinism. In this paper Dr. Anderson takes cause generally in its ordinary sense, namely, to bring about a state of affairs. With this definition in mind, Dr. Anderson distinguishes between creator and creature causation. There is a creator/creature distinction that vastly separates God essentially from His creation. For example, God can cause things to exist from nothing. But creation cannot cause things to exist from nothing. By this distinction, Dr. Anderson argues that divine causation can be properly understood as analogical. Thus God determines C by X and man determines C by Y. Divine causation is not transitive to human causation. Things in creation do not cause Y by Z and God causes creation to cause Y by X where XYZ are equivalent. There are two levels of causation that must be kept in tact. The first level is divine causation and the second is creation causation. On the latter we experience daily in creation. It is a linear perspective of causation. However, the first level, God causes the creation to exist; He sustains its existence and concurs with its causation precisely in accordance with His will. I think Paul Helm reinforces Dr. Anderson’s model when he writes,

“(9) Wherever one person X causes another person Y to do moral evil X does moral evil.

 (10) Wherever one person X upholds another person Y and knowingly that Y will do evil does not prevent Y from doing evil, X does moral evil.

    

… it is by no means clear that even if X does moral evil he is doing the same moral evil as Y. Moreover, whether or not X is guilty of moral evil is presumably a matter of what rule or law X has broken or whether his upholding and permitting of X to act in an evil manner is in furtherance of some greater good for which X’s evil act is a logically necessary condition. It is not obvious that either a law has been broken in such a case, or that X’s evil act is not a logically necessary condition for the achieving of certain further goods.”[2]

Dr. Anderson gives helpful insight to divine determinism with discussion on particular models of providence. The first he calls the Domino Model and the second Authorial Model. The first takes causation as straightforwardly causal determinism. The world and everything in it is like a giant game of dominos. In the game of dominos, each individual domino is placed face to face with another domino. Typically a long chain of face-to-face dominos is spread out like a train. And once the first domino of the chain falls, it causes the adjacent domino to fall, continuing on from domino to domino. Eventually, through the chain of causes and effects, all the dominos fall. In the same manner as dominos the Domino model of providence views everything that happens in the world as a chain of causes and effects. God just taps the first domino to fall, as it were, and everything happens precisely in accordance with His will. The Authorial Model takes providence much like an author writes a book.[3] The author controls every element in the story; he can even write himself into the story. But how the author writes the story is not the same as how the characters act in the story. The author can write that a particular character commits a wicked deed, without approving or applauding it, but the author does not thereby commit a wicked deed.[4] Moreover, there is a one-way streak of moral accountability in the Authorial Model. Since the author can rightly hold its characters accountable for their actions. But the characters have no right to hold their author accountable for their actions.[5] Furthermore, to the least extent, the author is merely telling a story with characters that participate in evil, but the author himself does not participate in evil. Dr. Anderson sees that Calvinism with this Authorial Model of Providence is most helpful in understanding divine determinism.

Dr. Anderson after developing the Authorial Model to understand divine determinism, he moves his attention to addressing possible objections to such a model of providence as it relates to the first sin. Dr. Anderson then critiques alternative non-Calvinistic models of providence in the face of Adam’s sin.

I think Dr. Anderson brings great clarity to the difficulties for those who wish to affirm libertarian freedom. First, he points out that such a view violates a moderate principle of sufficient reason (ironically the very law many Arminians vehemently defend in the Cosmological argument).[6] That is to say everything has an explanation for its existence either by necessity or contingency. But Dr. Anderson points out that if libertarian freedom is true there is no explanation for any given person’s decision. Since reasons merely influence any given person, but decisions are made, if any given person wills them. Thus why any given person chooses to will one decision over another remains inexplicable. I think Arminians and Molinists alike would respond to Dr. Anderson that Adam sinned simply on the basis he willed it. So in that sense there is something in Adam. But such a reply does not escape Dr. Anderson’s criticism.

Dr. Anderson concludes with “…five significant virtues of the Calvinist account:

1. Unlike its competitors, the Calvinist account does full justice to the divine perfection of aseity (God’s self-existence and absolute independence). There are no events in the creation that take place apart from God’s will, and God’s knowledge isn’t dependent on brute facts or on anything in the creation.

2. Unlike its competitors, the Calvinist account doesn’t require God to take chances or to rely on “good fortune.” (Even the Molinist account subjects God to some degree of chance insofar as God has to play the hand of feasible worlds that is dealt to him, so to speak, by the counterfactuals of freedom.)

3. Calvinism affirms the doctrine of meticulous providence, which receives strong support in both the Christian scriptures and the Christian tradition.

4.On the Calvinist account there is an ultimate sufficient explanation for the first sin, namely, the good and wise decree of God. God has authored a creational story in which human sin plays an integral role. While the first sin may have been irrational in terms of Adam’s nature, character, and circumstances, it was not irrational in terms of God’s decree. The first sin was not ultimately an irrational brute event in God’s universe. God worked out his sovereign plan through Adam’s sin rather than around it.

5. Calvinists can affirm that the first sin considered in itself was a supremely evil act while at the same time affirming that God decreed Adam’s sin for his good and wise purposes—ultimately, for his own glory manifested in his mercy and his justice—as part of the overall storyline of the history of creation.”[7]

See also my posts Craig, Providence and Calvinism, Original Sin and Middle Knowledge and Harmatology.

                  

---

[1] James N. Anderson. Forthcoming in Calvinism and the First Sin in Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, edited by David E. Alexander and Daniel M. Johnson (Wipf & Stock, 2014) http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Calvinism_and_the_First_Sin.pdf p.3.

[2] Paul Helm. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010)pp.161-162.

[3] John M. Frame. The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg, N.J.,:P&R Pub., 2002)p.p.154-159. See also Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s discussion of cause and authorship in Christian Philosophy, vol 4. (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004)p.p. 268-269.   

[4] Dr. Anderson even points out that most, if not all, good stories must contain some amount of evil. http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Calvinism_and_the_First_Sin.pdf; p.11. See also Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Richard Francks, and R.S. Woolhouse. Philosophical Texts (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998)p.252.

[5] I see no reason why a moderate divine command theory of ethics cannot be incorporated in this model. See Edward John Carnell. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1981. pp.302-303. Gordon H. Clark. Christian Philosophy, vol 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. p. 269. Paul Helm. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010.pp.161-162.Morland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview.Downers Grove: Intervarsity P, 2003.pp.531-532.

[6] William Lane Craig. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs-cosmological-argument-and-the-psr

[7]  http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Calvinism_and_the_First_Sin.pdf p.p.30-31

Biblical Apologetics

The Lord impressed my heart to preach these two sermons, at my church Free Grace Baptist Church of Yuba City. Here is the order I preached them, with my handout below: 

1. Biblical Apologetics: Principles and Practice here 

2. Biblical Apologetics: The Existence of the Biblical God here

Biblical Apologetics: Principles and Practice

A. The Definition of Apologetics  (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Biblical apologetics can be defined as a rational defense of the Christian faith. 

B. The Purpose of Apologetics

The purpose of apologetics is to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31, Romans 11:36).  

   Why should Christians engage in apologetics?

1.   God commands us to engage in apologetics.

2.   It can strengthen our faith.

3.   It can make evangelism more effective.

4.   It can promote zeal for Theology and Evangelism.

5.   It can put the unbeliever to shame.

 C. The Method of Apologetics

The Apostle Paul our Example  (Acts 17:16-36)

Presupposition: an ultimate belief or conviction that is the standard for judging, evaluating, and interpreting knowledge, reality and morals. 

Worldview: a set of presuppositions (i.e. ultimate beliefs or convictions that are the standards for judging, evaluating, and interpreting knowledge, reality and morals).

Paul’s example shows us the Biblical method of apologetics is presuppositional.

D. The Practice of Apologetics 

We are to transparently presuppose, proclaim, and argue from the necessity and authority of God’s revelation in Scripture and nature. 

James Anderson explains,

"The core of presuppositionalism can be encapsulated in two foundational principles: the No-Neutrality Principle and the No-Autonomy Principle.42

According to the No-Neutrality Principle, no one can approach any intellectual endeavor from a position of strict religious neutrality. Whenever we apply our minds to a particular subject matter, we inevitably bring with us a host of presuppositions...

The second principle states that there are ultimately only two kinds of philosophical precommitments—those that are for God and those that are against God—and that only the former are acceptable. In short, either we are committed to the idea that God and his Word are our ultimate authority and standard in every area of life, including our intellectual endeavors, or we are committed (at least implicitly) to some other ultimate authority and standard—which amounts to a rejection of God and his Word. Either we acknowledge that we are creatures whose thoughts should be conformed to the mind of our Creator or we don’t. And those who locate their ultimate authority and standard elsewhere than in the mind of God invariably try to locate it in the mind of man. (What other relevant mind is there?) Consequently, what is reasonable, plausible, possible, and so on turns out to be what conforms to our own “natural” patterns of thought. As noted earlier, the word autonomy literally means “self-law.” An autonomous thinker is one whose mind has become a law unto itself: not subject to any higher authority or corrective standard. According to the No-Autonomy Principle, this understanding of human reason must be firmly rejected.

Taken together, these two presuppositionalist principles assert that everyone thinks with some kind of religious bias, and that the only acceptable religious bias is one submissive to the ultimate authority of God and his Word.”[1]

As Christians we are to practice apologetics from these two principles. Ideally, every argument we make to defend the faith in some way should conform to these principles.

John Frame’s Apologetics Method Outline

I. Normative

A. Always presuppose the truth of God’s Word.

B. Identify the non-Christian’s presuppositions, vs. his claim to neutrality.

C. Show his rationalism (belief the human mind is the ultimate criterion of truth) and irrationalism (the belief there is no ultimate criterion of truth.).

D. Show that he cannot justify or account for meaning and truth. 

II. Situational

A. Present facts that confirm the Christian claims, always presupposing the Word of God. 

B. Present facts that call in question non-Christian views. 

III. Existential

A. Present your arguments with clarity and appropriate passion. 

B. Show that the Christian faith alone is ultimately satisfying. 

C. Speak the truth in love. 

D. Testify to God’s grace in your own life. 

E. Pray that the Spirit will bring the inquirer to faith.

 

Tips for Apologetics

1.   Study: Study and memorize the Bible, Systematic Theology, Evangelism and Apologetics to know what you believe, so you can Biblically preach and defend it. Apologetics presupposes Theology, and Evangelism. One cannot properly engage in Biblical Apologetics without engaging in Biblical Theology with the goal of Evangelism.

2.   Prayer: In apologetics one’s defense is only as good as one’s offense. So both study and prayer must be properly indulged in first before engaging in apologetics with the unregenerate. Remember all men have a sufficient knowledge of God but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Only God can open the unregenerate eyes so we ought to pray God would do so in our apologetic encounters. Apologetics can only show the foolishness of rejecting the gospel. But God can make the gospel and our defense effective.

3.   Respect: Respect the unregenerate as made in the image of God. Don’t assume you know what the unregenerate believes even if he associates himself with a particular religion. Let the unbeliever articulate his views and arguments. When refuting the unbeliever always refute and articulate the unbeliever’s position accurately. Further, always refute the strongest argument the unbeliever can make in favor of his position.

4.   Wisdom: When dealing with the unbeliever’s arguments against or from the Bible always read the scriptures in context and look up the original Hebrew or Greek meaning. Since often times the unbeliever takes scriptures out of context or twists the original meaning of any given passage.  Moreover, we should anticipate the unbeliever’s objections and arguments.

5.   Fellowship: Talk among believers about theology, evangelism, and apologetics. Fellow Christians can learn and encourage one another. Moreover, Christians possess spiritual resources, skills, and experiences that can be shared to proclaim and defend the faith.     

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Biblical Apologetics: The Existence of the Biblical God

I.   Cultural Climate: Unbelief

II.  Knowing God Exists

     1. General and Special Revelation (Romans 1:16-25; 2:14-15)

     2. The Holy Spirit’s Testimony (Romans 8:16)

III. Showing God Exists

     A. Proper Motives     

     B. Presuppositions, Proof, and Persuasion 

     C. Arguments for God’s Existence

1. Cosmological Argument (Col 1:16-17) 

 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
 2. The universe began to exist,

 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.[2]

Unbelievers claim the universe is eternal.

Problems

1. Such a claim is arbitrary.

2. It is inconsistent with the unbeliever’s faith in philosophy and science. Since both support the beginning of the universe. 

Philosopher Peter Kreeft gives a helpful analogy:

“Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, God.” ^[3]

Christianity makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. Teleological Argument (Col 1:16-17)

          

Unbelievers appeal to evolution to dodge design. However, if God didn’t design everything, we cannot trust our minds to tell us any truths.

Unbelievers appeal to chance and evolution.

Problems

1. If evolution is true we cannot trust our minds.

2. If the universe is a byproduct of random chance then anything can happen in the universe (e.g. Donkeys popping into existence from nothing).

3. We cannot make sense of chance without the presupposition of order.

Christianity accounts for the exquisite: fine-tuning, order, purpose and design in the universe.

 3. Moral Argument (Romans 2:14-15)

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist,

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist,

3. Therefore, God exists.

Unbelievers claim there are no objective moral values.

Problems

1.Their actions betray their beliefs.

2.There would be no distinction between right and wrong.

Christianity makes sense of objective moral values and duties.

4. Ontological Argument (Acts 17:25)

1. God has all perfections.

2. Necessary existence is perfection.

3.Therefore, God exists.[4]

Christianity makes sense of logical (e.g. If p, then q, p therefore q), conceptual, (e.g. “necessity” 2+2=4) and causal (every effect has a cause) necessity.

5. The Resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-11)

1. Jesus died by crucifixion

2. Jesus’ tomb was found empty.

3. The origin of the Christian faith: Jesus’ disciples were transformed and sincerely believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them.

4. Paul, the church persecutor, was converted to Christianity and willing to die for his faith.

5. James, the skeptic, was converted to Christianity and willing to die for his faith.

Unbelievers respond by the swoon, hallucination, conspiracy, and twin brother explanations. Yet all of these alternative explanations are historically discredited.  

Christianity makes sense of the resurrection of Christ.

6.Transcendental Argument (1 Cor 1:20)

Unless Christianity is true, we cannot prove or know anything.

Unbelievers charge this argument as fallacious. They say given enough time they will be able to provide a foundation for human thought and experience without Christianity. However centuries have passed and unbelievers are still without a foundation for human thought and experience. To resist Christianity with hope to find an alternative foundation is blind faith. Consequently, by admitting Christianity provides the foundation for human thought and experience unbelievers acknowledge defeat.  

Christianity makes sense of human thought and experience.              

7. Personal Experience (John 14:21)

Christianity makes sense of Christians’ personal experiences.

---

[1] http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Frame_Festschrift_Essay.pdf

James N. Anderson, “Presuppositionalism and Frame’s Epistemology,” in John J. Hughes, ed., Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009)pp.447-448.

[2] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith; Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books. 1994 p.92.

^[3] http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

[4] John Frame. Apologetics to the Glory of God (P&R, Philipsburg 1994) p.115.

Hope they edify!

Craig, Providence, and Calvinism

Dr. William Lane Craig lists five objections against a Calvinistic conception of providence in the book above. Craig's five objections can be summarized as follows:

1. Calvinism is exegetically unfaithful to the Scriptures (indications of a robust doctrine of human freedom).
2. Calvinism is self-refuting.
3. Calvinism makes God the author of sin.
4. Calvinism destroys human freedom.
5. Calvinism entails human thought and experience is illusory.

1. Calvinism is exegetically unfaithful to the Scriptures.

Craig merely asserts Calvinism is contrary to the plain teachings of Scripture. He does not exegete any text to argue the supposed exegetical shortcomings of Calvinism. Craig claims Calvinism undermines all scriptural texts that affirm "genuine indeterminacy and contingency."I fail to see how Calvinism cannot affirm "genuine indeterminacy and contingency," if God (analogically) determines them.

2. Calvinism is self-refuting.

Simply to say one believes Calvinism given the truth of Calvinism seems trivial. But Craig sees this as self-refuting. Since a person is determined to believe in determinism, (somehow) this determined belief is not acquired rationally, but why not? Craig is assuming latently by this objection Calvinism entails causal determinism. But there is no obvious reason why it must. In fact, many Calvinists would adopt an analogical understanding of determinism whereby God determines C by X and man determines C by Y. On such a view divine causation is not taken as univocal, but, rather analogical.

3. Calvinism makes God the author of sin. 

“…God is the first efficient cause of everything, but evil has come, not from His first act, but by a second act, an act of creatures.

God is the author of the author of sin, He cannot be the author of sin itself, for sin is the result of a rebellion against God. 

If God is not the author of sin, at least He must be charged with being responsible for sin…A little reflection on the subject will show the contradiction involved in charging God with responsibility. Let us ask one question: Responsible to whom, or to what?...Obviously  if we are talking about the Almighty, He already is the highest power there is. Therefore, when God decreed this type of universe where Christ was to die for the sins of all who believe, God was responsible to none but Himself.” [1]

“God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though He is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that He does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does…God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids Him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex.” [2]

“(1) Necessarily, if God exists he is all-good.

 (2) God exists and ordains whatsoever comes to pass.

 (3) Necessarily, if A is a human action then A is causally determined.

 (4) There are morally evil human actions.

 (5) Either God is the morally culpable author of the morally evil actions or human beings are   their sole morally culpable authors.

 (6) (1) and the first disjunct of (5) are formally inconsistent.

 (7)(1),(3) and the second disjunct of (5) are not formally inconsistent.

 (8)Any agent who freely and knowingly sets up a deterministic process with a certain outcome must be responsible for that outcome.

 (9) Wherever one person X causes another person Y to do moral evil X does moral evil.

 (10) Wherever one person X upholds another person Y and knowingly that Y will do evil does not prevent Y from doing evil, X does moral evil.

    

…moreover, it is by no means clear that even if X does moral evil he is doing the same moral evil as Y. Moreover, whether or not X is guilty of moral evil is presumably a matter of what rule or law X has broken or whether his upholding and permitting of X to act in an evil manner is in furtherance of some greater good for which X’s evil act is a logically necessary condition. It is not obvious that either a law has been broken in such a case, or that X’s evil act in not a logically necessary condition for the achieving of certain further goods.”[3]

“Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands, they are not independent of God nor, plausibly, is God bound by moral duties, since he does not issue commands to himself.

If God does not fulfill moral duties then what content can be given to the claim he is good? Here Kant’s distinction between following a rule and acting in accordance with a rule has proved helpful. God may act naturally in ways which for us would be rule following and so constitutive of goodness in the sense of fulfilling our moral duties, so that God can be said similarly to be good in an analogical way….God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so forth, and His commandments are reflections of his own character.” [4]

             
4. Calvinism destroys human freedom.
Instead of rehearsing the, already mentioned, alternative to causal determinism in favor of compatibilism, I'd like to focus on Craig's offered alternative. He would say libertarian freedom is the only view that rightly upholds human freedom. On such view a subject is free if the subject makes a choice without any sufficient or necessary causal conditions. Any given person, with the options of X or Y, to be free should have the ability to choose between the two (independently of any other factors such as genes, dispositions, desires, customs, and practices). But how is such a view any more plausible? Given the fact that a person can choose between X or Y (independently of any other factors such as genes, dispositions, desires, customs, and practices) amounts to the person being indifferent. Why then should an indifferent person chose one thing over another? I think Craig wants to say, simply because the agent reasoned to will one choice over another. It seems to me, then, this freedom of indifference make a person's choice utterly arbitrary. Reason being that any given reason why a person should choose X, an identical reason can be given to choose Y. [5]

5. Calvinism entails human thought and experience are illusory. 

Quite the contrary, if analogical determinism is true. But for the sake of argument, even if causal determinism is true,  it would not entail human experience is illusory given the fact that on such a view there really is secondary causes. And therefore, people are not rightly construed as puppets in the hands of God; instead they're agents that possess knowledge, volition, purpose, and deliberation. 

[1] Edward John Carnell. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1981. pp.302-303.
[2]Gordon H. Clark. Christian Philosophy, vol 4. Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004. p. 269.
[3]Paul Helm. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010.pp.161-162.
[4]Morland, J.P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview.Downers Grove: Intervarsity P, 2003.pp.531-532.
[5] I take this point from the insights of Bruce Ware, John Frame, and Ronald Nash.