Category: Uncategorized

Mailvox: the Gordian theologian

In which Cartusiae metaphorically shakes his booty for our amusement:

To clarify, does Calvinism have any relation to the historic man, “Jean Cauvin”?

If so, were these beliefs present in the early Latin edition of ((Institutes)), the French edition following, or the more sizable final editions? Were they present in the documents currently in libraries, either as manuscript editions, editions commonly referred to as critical editions, including critical translations?

Given the historically extended second period of Calvin’s ministry in Geneva, which of the sermons and/or extended glosses and scholia exegetically or eisegetically (as you, or something utilizing your denotation, claims) postulates AND sustains the theses you present under the rubric of ‘Calvinism’?

Whether Scots, UK (anachronistically deployed to refer to the various jurisdictions emerging from the 16th century), Dutch, HRE, Swiss, or other congregations, consistories, presbyteries, synods, bishoprics, Electorates or Palatinates, could you indicate which of these in public confession, commentary on confession, commentary on laws emerging from Scriptural reflection, or in merest battlefield support of ‘Reformed’ polities held the positions attributed to Calvinism?

Or, logically, given a universe of propositions, can you inductively construct a probable argument that conforms to ‘Calvinism’ as you define it and a reliable construction of the varieties of historic and constituted bodies, polities, jurisdictions, or even German encyclopediae of the 19th century?

Something as FOL as “For all R such that R is a set of propositions…” and “There exists a c contained in C such that the union set of r contained in R is to a set of c contained in C where C is the superset of statements I attribute to Calvinists, even if I haven’t made them yet but they can be translated by a Jovian sociologist 500 years hence as I would hope them to be translated when ascribed to me.”

Or, please inform me what your understanding of “bereshit bara elohim et haeretz vet hashamaim” might be.

We’ll start there.

Once I’ve determined a baseline of your understanding of causation, then I can better comprehend your stance vis-a-vis your understanding of the relation between causation, determination, agency, the attribute commonly ascribed to God as ‘justice’ but understood in terms of the originating words, since the cognates emerging from proto-Semitic ANE are drastically different than the extended and quite contradictory–in the strong sense–definitions currently punting about under the cloak of justice; then perhaps I can adequately meet your conversation about the adequation of warranted and credible models of divine responsibility and the coherence of ‘calvinism’ with said scriptures.

No, we really won’t. I pay absolutely no attention to the overblown theological autoeroticism of the sort Cartusiae is exhibiting here with his rhetorical questions. One thing I have observed over the years is that people who don’t actually know what they’re talking about and cannot defend either the facts or the logic of their positions invariably retreat into impenetrable jargon when the mere fact of their waving credentials is insufficiently effective. What Cartusiae has written might intimidate some, but it merely makes me laugh out loud. I mean, I studied economics under economists who wrote the econ textbooks. Do he seriously think I haven’t seen the high-flown jargon tactic before… or had any trouble dealing with it?

VD: “That’s not true. Your argument falls apart here.”

CE: Well, Mr. Day, only after you demonstrate that you have first grokked the confarbulation of the schixamotroid can we begin ascertaining if you truly possess the One True Understanding of the Grand Moxistic Illuminastine’s definition of the upper middle will of God, which of course you must exhibit before we can deal with your impertinent observation that I appear to have calculated 342 as the sum of 2 plus 2.”

VD: That’s all irrelevant. The problem is that 2+2 simply isn’t 342, it’s 4. The foundation of your vast monstrosity of an argument hangs on a miscalculation. So, it’s wrong, your collection of impressive credentials and recitation of irrelevant encyclopedic details notwithstanding.

CE: You know nothing about [insert subject here]!

Perhaps I don’t. And yet, ironically enough, I don’t need to. It doesn’t matter what term is applied, whether it is Reformed, Calvinist, or omniderigiste, because I am not objecting to the labels, but to the specific ideas and the arguments that have been presented to me. In this case, all the navel-gazing theological babble in the world will not change the fact that X!=Not X nor will it make the observable evil in the world vanish. Cartusiae and others who fancy themselves credential experts in the field of God can tie as complicated a Gordian knot as they like, but any sufficiently practiced logician will simply avoid all the extraneous nonsense and cut through the relevant rope.

I’m entirely comfortable with all of the theological possibilities reasonably in play, ranging from the Bible being the imperfect, incomplete, and inconsistent Word of God to God being an omniderigent puppet-master who is typing these words through the mechanism of my fingers as one minute part of an awesomely elaborate Kabuki play. Something is, but none of the concepts absolutely, necessarily has to be… which is why I conclude that the optimal approach is to seek to understand the truth as best we can understand it from the Scriptures, observe it in the world around us, and articulate it through properly applied logic. If the credentialed babblers of the theological world had any utility at all, you would think they would at the very least have been able to come up with a word or two to describe what a significant number of people, both Christians and non-Christians, actually happen to believe regarding God’s relationship with the world.

The only thing of real interest to me is a conclusive answer I have not yet received from anyone capable of speaking for the Calvinist camp. I would like to know if the Wikipedia summary accurate when it states: “Calvin argues that the knowledge of God is not inherent in humanity nor can it be discovered by observing this world. The only way to obtain it is to study scripture. Calvin writes, ‘For anyone to arrive at God the Creator he needs Scripture as his Guide and Teacher.’ He does not try to prove the authority of scripture but rather describes it as autopiston or self-authenticating.”

If this is accurate, then it would explain much about what I have long seen as the logical incompetence exhibited by those holding to various strains of the creed that can be reasonably described as being somehow “Calvinist”.

NFL draft 2011

Here’s hoping it is not the last one, what with the players attempting to turn the NFL into a European soccer system where there is one heavy favorite every year and only two other big-spending teams have any shot at the title. My only thoughts on the actual draft this year are as follows:

1) Cam Newton is a stretch and will not be a star quarterback. Great athlete, but I doubt he’ll be able to read NFL defenses or have the patience to stay in the pocket and find receivers. If he’s willing to work hard, his upside is Michael Vick. Not awful, but you’re not likely to win a Super Bowl with him either. Looks like Vince Young 2.0.

2) The Vikings need to draft Mallet or Dalton. Yes, they’re not likely to be stars either and yes they’ll probably be overpaying, but they have more of a shot than Newton and more of a shot to be decent starters than Joe Webb. The NFL is a quarterbacks league. I would draft a QB first every single year until I had a keeper; there is no shortage of bad teams with great linebackers or wide receivers.

In defense of college

This Cracked commenter’s explanation of why college is worthwhile is more than a little amusing:

College sucked for the first two years for me (as in I was one phone call away from talking to an Army recruiter) but then I ended up studying abroad for a semester, meeting some really cool people and professors and took classes in my major (Rhetoric) which were really eye opening and awesome. I started out as a judgmental hyper-conservative p***k and four years later, here I am graduating in three weeks as a well rounded, tolerant atheist. I don’t mean to toot my own horn (although if I could, I would, heh heh) but I’m certainly much better off, mentally, than I was before college. To me that’s what makes my mountain of debt worth it.

So, there’s some good news and some bad news, Mom and Dad. On the one hand, your son is broke, unemployable, and hugely in debt. On the other, he’s now an atheist. It’s a pity college recruiters and high school guidance councilors are not similarly forthright about the statistically probable outcomes.

The other thing that is always rather funny about the comments following post-bubble articles about the value of college is the way most of the people attempting to defend it are still in college. Which is to say that they are presently enjoying the short-term benefits without taking the long-term costs into account.

HBO is on a roll

It appears someone at HBO has concluded that perhaps they might do better producing shows and series that are based on good books rather than repeatedly regurgitating the generic TV formula of cops and docs.

[Neil] Gaiman followed [Good Omens] with another classic, Neverwhere, in 1996 and Stardust in 1997. I have since adored every tale he has turned out. So it was with great interest I learned that nearly simultaneously with the premier of its epic Game of Thrones, HBO has announced that American Gods will be adapted into a new mini-series, with Gaiman himself co-piloting the writing, along with Robert Richardson.

I am no Gaiman fanboy, but I did rather like American Gods. Given that Stardust translated very effectively to the screen, I have little doubt that HBO’s American Gods will be every bit as entertaining as the Harris and Martin adaptions that preceded it.

Some of the other SF/F books I’d like to see HBO eventually address are the Melanie Rawn Dragon Prince series, Ann McCaffrey’s Harper Hall series, (although Dragonriders would make for much more HBO-style material), and Lloyd Alexander’s Chronicles of Prydain.

The great financial rape

Tyler Durden shows how the banks used the housing bubble to rob the middle class of half their wealth:

The Great Middle Class between those in poverty and the top 20%–56 million households– owns about $2.7 trillion in financial wealth, and the millions with mortgages own an additional $1 trillion in home equity. That comes to $3.7 trillion, or about 6.5% of the total household net worth.

Consumer durables–all the autos, washing machines, jet-skis, etc.–are worth about $2.2 trillion ($4.6 T = $2.4 T in consumer debt). Add the durables and the other wealth, and the Great Mortgaged Middle Class holds about 10% of the total household wealth ($5.9 trillion).

Before the housing bubble, households owed about $5 trillion in mortgages. The housing bubble came along, introducing the fantasy of home-as-ATM-cash-withdrawal-machine, and mortgages ballooned to over $10 trillion.

Back at the top of the bubble, the middle class had $6 trillion more assets on the books. Considering the Mortgaged Middle Class now owns about $6 trillion in net assets, then the bursting of the housing bubble caused their net worth to drop by 50%.

With regards to the importance of real estate and debt, note that household and nonprofit real estate is now worth $18.2 trillion despite its $6.8 trillion decline since 2006. This is non-trivial, given that real estate is still nearly twice the current $8.9 trillion of the M2 money supply. What I find particularly interesting is that mortgage debt and consumer credit are both nearly flat; this indicates that the Fed has successfully resisted the debt-deleveraging thus far while being unable to prop up the prices of certain asset classes.

This is further indication that what we are presently seeing in the equity and commodity markets is a speculative spike driven by liquidity rather than true monetary inflation. The silver market, in particular, has gone nearly vertical, which in most situations would indicate that there should be some further buying opportunities in the relatively near future. Alternatively, if the rising commodity prices are indicative of hyperinflation, we’ll see real estate prices start rising soon and silver could go to 400.

I think, however, that we’re more likely to see prices start collapsing when QE2 comes to an end. For all that the rising prices look superficially impressive, they’re actually quite moderate in comparison with the $5 trillion in global liquidity pumping. No doubt there will be calls for QE3, but given the increasingly obvious failures of the first two quantitative easings and the attention that is being given to the debt, I doubt the Fed will be in much of a position to try it.

Anyhow, the two most interesting signals now appear to be housing prices and silver. Right now, these markets are moving in opposite directions and its as foolish to ignore one as the other. Sooner or later, one of them is going to reach an inflection point and reverse direction and that should provide us with a better idea of whether Federal Reserve pumping has been disguising the deflation or various factors unique to the housing market has been mitigating the effects of inflation in the real estate market.

Obama finally releases his birth certificate

And with no surprises, apparently. Here it is. No doubt it will be thoroughly checked out. Now, if we are to credit the “cunning plan” theorists, we should see a massive uptick in Obama’s approval ratings. I note that in addition to apparently exploding the conspiracy theories about his birth in Kenya, it also blows away the theories of those who claimed that it had already been released or could not be released.

While Donald Trump is taking credit for Obama’s 180 on the long form certificate release, I suspect that it has a little bit more to do with Jerome Corsi’s upcoming book. I assume there must be some interesting stuff in there to have finally forced Obama’s hand.

UPDATE – Key word above being “apparently”. The document released by the White House appears to be digitally altered. Here we go again…..

For those uninterested in the omniderigence debate

It’s not as if there are a dearth of other matters to discuss, such as the potential consequences of refusing to raise the debt ceiling:

Proponents of the “just say no” approach argue that refusing to raise the debt ceiling won’t automatically lead to a default. In the past, they point out, Congress has waited several months after the debt limit was reached before authorizing an increase, and the economy did not collapse. Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) has proposed legislation in the Senate designed specifically to prevent a default by directing the Treasury Department to prioritize interest payments on the national debt over all other forms of spending in the event that the debt ceiling is reached.

As Veronique de Rugy and Jason Fichtner write in The Washington Times, the United States is estimated to owe about $205 billion in interest this year, to be paid out of revenues totaling about $2.17 trillion. Under Toomey’s plan, after the interest was paid off Congress would be left with $1.97 trillion to spend on actual programs. That’s about $1.5 trillion less that what President Obama requested in his (first) 2012 budget, but enough to cover Social Security ($741 billion), Medicare ($488 billion), and Medicaid ($276 billion), with about $400 billion left for other programs, including national defense….
Such a strategy carries a number of self-evident risks, namely that the doomsayers are right and uncertainty over the debt limit would spark a run on Treasury bonds, sending interest rates soaring and plunging the United States (and the world) economy into a second Great Depression, at which point a political squabble over which side was to blame would be the last thing the American public wanted to hear.

Here’s the problem. America and the world economy are already in the second Great Depression, the fact is merely being papered over by the $5 trillion that has been pumped into the global financial system by the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England since 2006. The only thing providing the illusion of economic growth and recovery is a continued expansion of debt and spending. Once it stops, the game is over.

So, the “risk” isn’t really a risk at all, since the worst outcome is guaranteed regardless of whether the ceiling is raised or not. It would have been better to take the medicine back in 2008, but better 2011 than 2016, when the collapse might be to such an extent that it would take down multiple governments.

By the way, according to WND, Republicans are backing away from their commitments to keep the debt ceiling in place. Only 102 of the 142 House Republicans previously on board with WND’s “No More Red Ink” campaign are still planning to vote against it.

Piper and the schizo god

A number of the omniderigistes here have spoken highly of John Piper. Now, I haven’t paid any attention to the man in the past nor do I know much about him, only that I tended to disagree with his past statements about Greg Boyd and to agree with his more recent statements about Rob Bell. So, I thought it might not be a bad idea to read through a few of his arguments in order to see what this reportedly formidable theologian had to offer. I read a few of his articles and I downloaded a PDF of a book rather dramatically entitled Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity.

When reading the book’s Forward, I was immediately unimpressed by the way Piper began by launching into numerous appeals to historical authority and emotion. I have no doubt it goes over well among like minds in the pews but I am entirely unmoved by emotional posturing, particularly of the self-elevating variety. Perhaps some will find my case less convincing for the admission, but I am not the least bit “broken-hearted” by what I consider to be the devious snake’s heart of Calvinism; I would be remiss if I failed to congratulate Piper for the invention of an exciting new logical fallacy, the Appeal to the Sad Puppy Face. People get things wrong all the time for a near-infinite variety of reasons, many of them less than nefarious, but I suppose it’s much more satisfying to see the hand of Hell behind every insufficiently orthodox idea. On my part, my sole interest in this, as in most things, is the purely Abelardian one of what is so and what is not so. I’m not the least bit interested in the personal angle, so there is no need for anyone to get his panties in a bunch on Piper’s behalf. Every argument must either either stand or fall on its own regardless of who first happened to formulate it.

After reading the forward, I then turned my attention to his article on the controversial repentance verse in 1 Samuel, and as I expected he would, Piper followed the conventional Calvinist pattern of interpreting the Biblical text naturally or unnaturally depending upon whether the verse fits his dogma or not. It is very easy to spot when he is interpreting it unnaturally – by which I mean that he is straining to force-fit an improbable or invalid interpretation of a passage – because he resorts to one or more analogical explanations to justify the misreading. And this is where his arguments are most vulnerable. Because his unlikely interpretation is a force-fitted one, he is forced to rely upon flawed examples that do not actually support the point he is attempting to make. This isn’t always immediately obvious to the casual reader, but to one who has a great deal of experience of picking out similar logical contortions and distortions in the arguments of the New Atheists, it is readily apparent. And these exemplary flaws are further highlighted by the need to subsequently turn around and deny the more natural reading of the text.

This is what I have observed to be the characteristic structure of the Piperian critical argument:

1. The Bible states A, which appears to prove B.
2. But A does not prove B because A is actually Not A.
3. A must be Not A because in a different verse, the Bible states C and C not only takes precedence over A in this particular application, but must be taken as universally applicable.
4. Provide an example substituting a for A.
5. Conclusion: because a is Not A, A fails to prove B and B is therefore incorrect.

Being aware of this fallacious structure, I spotted no less than six errors in Piper’s 1998 article entitled “God Does Not Repent Like a Man”. If one wishes to be truly pedantic, there are seven, but I see no reason that aprevistans need to resort to such dubious measures as would be required to assert the seventh flaw. These errors are particularly problematic in light of Piper’s claim that Open Theism “dishonors God, distorts Scripture, damages faith, and would, if left unchecked, destroy churches and lives.” But one must view Piper’s judgment with an extremely skeptical eye, given the way in which his own writings are quite literally error-filled; in the article criticized here he averages nearly an error per paragraph.

1. Factual Error. Piper says it is not true to human experience to say that God would not lament over a state of affairs he himself chose to bring about. (Or to remove the double negative, it is true to human experience that God would lament over something that He intended to do and successfully did.) But this not only substitutes the exception for the rule, it is an incorrect summary of the actual aprevistan argument. God didn’t merely lament making Saul king, He regretted it and then acted to undo His previous act. But since Piper is appealing to human experience, the observable fact is that most humans do not regret or attempt to undo things that work out exactly as they intended from the start.

2. Logical Error. Piper appeals to nothing more substantial than his own imagination when he claims, “more importantly”, that God “may well be capable of lamenting over something he chose to bring about”. Or, on the other hand, he may well not be. Piper would more reasonably have theorized that God may be schizophrenic on the basis of the apparent contradiction between repenting and not repenting, especially since the not-repenting aspect was actually given a different name. The fact that Piper places more importance on this appeal to his own imagination than his appeal to human experience highlights the inherently insubstantial nature of his argument.

3. Logical Error. Piper provides an inappropriate example in an attempt to assert that God can simultaneously lament and affirm an act as being for the best. In postulating a spanking of his son that leads to his son running away, Piper says that he “may feel some remorse over the spanking – not in the sense that I disapprove of what I did…. If I had it to do over again, I would still spank him.” But this example is not relevant to the situation described in Samuel, where God not only laments having made Saul king, but also acts to undo Saul’s kingship. It is clear that if God had to do it over again, He would not have made Saul king, otherwise He would not be stating His regrets as well as undoing the results of His previous action. At no point does God affirm His selection of Saul as having been for the best, and His actions, as well as His earlier statements that Israel’s request for a king was evil, indicate that it was not. Note that Piper concludes the flawed example with a second appeal to his own imagination.

4a. If I wished to be stubbornly obtuse in the way some omniderigistes are when presented with a literal text, I would point out that “the Glory of Israel” is not necessarily God. However, since I prefer to read a text in a straightforward manner without utilizing dogmatic lenses, I accept the assumption that “the Glory of Israel” is a reference to God. But note that it is still an assumption, even if the assumption is a perfectly reasonable one.

4b. Logical Error. Piper claims that the difference between God’s regret of verses 11 and 34 and the Glory of Israel’s non-repentance in verse 29 “would naturally be that God’s repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge”. This is complete nonsense. It would most naturally be nothing of the kind. Piper is making the customary Calvinist mistake of taking a singular action and transforming it into a general principle on the basis of nothing, and doing so in contradiction to other singular actions.

Piper has ignored that Samuel’s statement about God is made in the context of Samuel’s angry attempt to get the Lord to change His mind about taking Saul’s kingship away. “Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.” Piper has also ignored that Samuel’s statement is in direct response to Saul’s plea for forgiveness and the removal of the punishment. The natural explanation between two repents and one not-repent is not a bizarre change of subject to divine versus human foreknowledge, but the fact that God does not repent of His decision to take the kingdom away from Saul and is not lying when He says that He has already taken it away and given it to another when neither Saul nor Samuel nor anyone else can possibly see any sign of that having happened yet.

Piper would no doubt be confused should he read an Agatha Christie novel. After all, since Poirot repeatedly says that he “knows everything” when confronting a culprit at the climax of the book, why would he have any need to gather clues and talk to people on his next case? Since he knows everything, obviously he must know who all subsequent murderers are, correct? This resort to a universal interpretation is no less absurd in the Biblical context than in the Christie novels.

The same contextual point holds true for the reference to Numbers 23:19. Balaam is referring to God’s specific command to bless Israel instead of cursing it, the statement is no more intended to be universally applicable than the immediately subsequent statement that no misery is observed in Israel. That Piper’s universal interpretation is incorrect should be obvious, given the subsequent curses God later metes out to Israel.

5. Factual Error. Piper substitutes “feel sorrow” for “regret”. This substitution is not valid because it is not sufficient and Piper himself notes that “regret [= repent]”. When Jesus Christ calls us to repent, he is not merely expecting us to feel sorry, but to take action as well. Piper writes: “For God to say, ‘I feel sorrow that I made Saul king,’ is not the same as saying, ‘I would not make him king if I had it to do over.’ That is perfectly true, but it also doesn’t suffice to correctly describe the situation. For God to say “I regret that I made Saul king” and then to remove the kingship from him most certainly amounts to saying “I would not make him king if I had it to do over.” Piper focuses on the emotion and completely ignores the action: the fact that God undid His previous action at what appears to have been the second opportunity.

6. Logical Error. Piper asserts that “God’s commitment to his promises hangs on his not repenting like a man”. But this, too, is an entirely spurious statement. It is an observable fact that mere men can, and do, keep their commitments to their promises. Therefore, God’s ability to do the same clearly cannot depend upon a total incapacity for changing His mind or regretting a past action.

Based on what I’ve seen thus far, Piper’s omniderigent theology rests upon a combination of willful obtuseness, a determined lack of reading comprehension, emotional appeals, and invalid logic. It is primarily the result of confusing capability for action and mistaking singular statements for universally applicable ones. In any event, I have pointed out six specific errors committed by Piper, four logical and two factual. I shall be interested to know exactly how many of those six errors his fellow omniderigents and/or Calvinists are willing to assert are not, in fact, errors.

Education vs Economics

Nature questions the assumed wisdom of churning out more PhDs:

In developed nations, the number of PhDs given in the sciences each year has grown by almost 40 percent since 1998, reaching about 34,000 doctorates in 2008. This type of expansion sounds great in theory: interest in the sciences is growing, and we now have a population that is more educated than ever. However, the effects of this worldwide trend are troubling. The workforce cannot absorb all these highly trained graduates, there is little money to support these expensive programs, and the quality of education is often low, among other problems. This week’s issue of Nature examines the problems with the expansive growth of the PhD.
A worldwide phenomenon

Worldwide, the plan is essentially the same: to stimulate the economy by educating the population. Increasing the number of students that pass through the higher education system isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but the resources must be there to make the system work. In much of the world, this just isn’t the case.

I have three observations. First, why are we supposed to respect scientists for their intelligence when they obviously can’t figure out simple concepts like “supply and demand” or bother to do enough research to see if there will be any jobs available in their field by the time they finish collecting degrees.

Second, the idea that education produces economic growth is one of the more obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments I’ve ever seen. Given that there is now sufficient empirical evidence gathered in numerous countries to prove this is untrue, how many decades will need to pass before it is abandoned as a political policy? I would say the over/under must be at least two.

Third, I contend this supports my point that the advancement of science is a consequence of societal wealth, not a cause of it.

Mailvox: Who rules the world?

AS took exception to my column yesterday:

I’ve been a faithful follower of your commentaries at WND for many years now, and I do quite often side with you when you assert perspectives that make other conservative Christians squirm and squeal (though they should not). That being said, from one Christian to another, I cannot fathom how you can simultaneously make the emphasized statements in [three long quotes from the column] your April 25 editorial “The Problem with Evil” at WND.

In the first and third instances quoted, to imply or infer that Satan is (or ever has been) in control of this world to a greater degree than God and/or in a way independent of the sovereignty of God, is quite frankly not an orthodox Christian doctrine. Surely, Job 1-2 ought to be enough to put that idea to rest forever. I would much prefer to charitably credit what you said here to carelessness than to intention. The second instance quoted gives me hope for what you might mean given more articulation. You are quite right to say that the glorious redemptive events of Good Friday and Easter required a truly heinous context in which to occur, but to say that God was not in control of them is quite contrary to Scripture.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it.”
– Acts 2:22-24

“For truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and your purpose determined before to be done.”
– Acts 4:27-28

The word for “determined purpose” and “determined before” in both of these passages is not a light or passive word. The root ‘orizo (from which we get the word horizon, i.e. boundary) and the compound proorizo indicate a very active demarcation of limits and actions. There is a great deal more that could be said.

As for the “prince of this world” still being the ruler, he most certainly is not still the ruler. Jesus was quite clear about that. Speaking of his impending crucifixion in John 12:31, Jesus said: “Now is the judgment of this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out.” And he elaborated on the ministry of the Helper (Spirit) to come in John 16:11 saying that he would “convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment … of judgment, because the prince of this world has been judged.” I don’t know what could be clearer about this than the Great Commission and the necessity of Christ’s present session and continuing conquest.

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, going, disciple the nations, baptizing [the nations] in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching [the nations] to obey everything I have commanded you. Behold, I am with you, even to the consummation of the age.
– Matthew 28:18-20

He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy [not the first enemy] that will be destroyed is death.
– 1 Corinthians 15:25-26

It’s only fair that I lay all my cards on the table and say that I’m coming at this as a postmillennialist and Calvinist. And from what I’ve gathered over the years, you’re neither. But Scripture is Scripture, and you must be more careful, accurate, and honest about what the Word of God teaches.

I replied thusly: Look, if you want to believe that God and Jesus are homicidal maniacs and there is no difference in Satan ruling over the world prior to the Resurrection and Jesus ruling over it afterwards, that’s fine with me. But if you genuinely believe that there has been no Satan in the world for 2,000 years, I suggest you are simply not paying attention.

As is so often the case in such matters, I think you are applying a POSSIBLE meaning which contradicts that which can be observed and arguing that it is the ONLY meaning. For example, you don’t appear to understand the concept of “sovereignty”. Queen Elizabeth may be sovereign over her English subjects but she exercises virtually no control over them. In fact, I would question if you have a reasonable understanding of the concept of control. So, I will ask the obvious question: do you believe God micromanages and is personally responsible for every single human and demonic action in the world?

If your answer is yes, then we will simply agree to disagree. If it is no, then we simply have different opinions regarding the degree to which human events are dictated by Divine will and which are the result of independently exercised free will.

AS replied:

That was poorly reasoned response. But worse, it was not a Christ-like response but rather carnal response to give to anyone, especially a fellow Christian (who is usally quite agreeable to your views, who shares your views with others, and defends them when necessary). Such a response is quite unbefitting of you.

I neither said nor implied the following:

“Look, if you want to believe that God and Jesus are homicidal maniacs and there is no difference in Satan ruling over the world prior to the Resurrection and Jesus ruling over it afterwards, that’s fine with me. But if you genuinely believe that there has been no Satan in the world for 2,000 years, I suggest you are simply not paying attention.”

This is belittling and inflammatory language, a red herring and an ad hominem attack. It’s a distorted, over-simplied, and caricatured version of what I said. I said nothing one way or the other about how the triune God’s rule and exhaustive providence (“micromangement” if you wish) relates to the willful actions of men. (I could give a rather long and qualified response to that issue.) It assumes that all death caused by God (if he does do that) must be homicidal mania and could not be justifiable or characterized in some other fashion. (I would support the latter.) I said nothing one way or the other about a difference in the oversight and character of human affairs and civilization before and after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. (I do think there are element of continuity and discontinuity in that regard.) And I said nothing one way or the other about Satan’s non-presence in the past 2000. (My understanding on the matter is that of a severe restriction, not a total expulsion.) At no point was Scripture itself engaged and exegeted (not that any burden on your time is required or obliged to me).

Yes, I grant you that my use (and generally the Reformed use) of “sovereignty” is unlike that of any earthly sovereign. I’ll find a better term for it if that helps; I’ll even accept the label of “micromanagement” despite its verbal baggage.

“So, I will ask the obvious question: do you believe God micromanages and is personally responsible for every single human and demonic action in the world? If your answer is yes, then we will simply agree to disagree. If it is no, then we simply have different opinions regarding the degree to which human events are dictated by Divine will and which are the result of independently exercised free will.”

I think that’s a bit of a false dichotomy. As such I’m willing to say a bit of both your proffered answer. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree to an extent. Also, yes, we do have differing opinions about the degree to which divine will dictates human events. It’s certainly not a new argument in church history.

I can only ask that when you speak for Christianity as a whole, that you do so in a manner that is more mindful and reflective of the full range of doctrine which has defined the genuine Christian faith and the one holy catholic and apostolic church of Christ. You’re piece from last week regarding Rob Bell’s TIME magazine interview is a great example of that; I was very pleased and encouraged by it and shared it with others.

First, I have to note that this is the third emailer in three days who does not know what ad hominem means to claim that I have made an ad hominem response to him. It would appear general ignorance of logical terms spans a very wide breadth of creeds. But ad hominem does not mean “a response that is less polite than I would like”. It does not mean “a response that I find insulting” or even “a response that is unequivocally full of direct personal insults”. It means “a criticism that attempts to rebut the argument by attacking the arguer instead of the argument.”

A failure to understand that is bad enough, if not unusual. But what renders AS’s opinion completely invalid, from my perspective, is his attempt to dance around the Aristotelian logic which states that A cannot equal Not A. How can it be a “false dichotomy” to force him to choose between “God micromanages and is personally responsible for every single human and demonic action in the world” and “God does not micromanage and is not personally responsible for every single human and demonic action in the world”? Can God be both personally responsible and not personally responsible for a given act? Can God act and not act in the very same action? I don’t see how I can be expected to take seriously the criticism that my argument is “poorly reasoned” from anyone who hasn’t yet mastered A!=Not A.

I must also point out that it makes no sense to attempt to blindly apply the Bible without also paying attention to the world to which one is attempting to apply it. If our sensory observations that tell us of of a world that is still fallen, that is still full of evil, cannot be trusted, then we cannot rely upon our reading of the Bible either, since our reading of the Bible also depends upon our senses.

The unavoidable fact of the matter is that free will either exists or does not exist. If I am correct, I am choosing to type these words of my own free will and God is not responsible for them, He is merely responsible for setting in motion the chain of events that eventually led to me typing them. If I am incorrect, then I am simply a puppet and God is dictating these words to you, which would seem to imply that anything I write should be taken as the literal word of God. So, even if I am incorrect, I must be correct – therein lies the real dichotomy.

It is important to understand that sovereignty neither implies nor requires action. The confusion of sovereignty and action on the part of the Calvinist is remarkably similar to the common confusion between divine capability and divine action on the part of the atheist. I don’t think this ironic similarity is purely coincidental, however, as both creeds tend to lead to similar conclusions. For the atheist, do what thou wilt because thy will is the whole of the law. For the Calvinist, do what thou wilt because thy will is intrinsically guided by the Will of God.

Now, I am entirely open to the possibility that we are all puppets in an extraordinarily complicated kabuki that an omniderigent God performs by Himself for His own amusement. I simply don’t regard that to be either the most logically credible possibility nor do I consider it to be the one most strongly supported by Scripture.

When I look at the world, I see no shortage of evil. I observe that while there are pockets of resistance to his rule, the present ruler of this world is the one to whom Paul referred, post-Resurrection, as “the god of this age”. And finally, I must note that I do not speak for Christianity, either in whole or in part. I speak only for myself, because I am the only person for whom I am authorized to speak.