GeorgePWood.com

Sean Michael Lucas, God’s Grand Design: The Theological Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011). $17.99, 224 pages.

My doctrine of salvation is Arminian, so you may wonder why I think highly of Sean Michael Lucas’s study of Jonathan Edwards, whose soteriology was Calvinist. The answer is twofold:

First, Lucas has written an accessible introduction to the biblical theology and pastoral practice of “America’s greatest theologian”—as Robert Jenson described Edwards. Whatever their theological stripes may be, interested students of theology are in Lucas’s debt for this service. Edwards’s literary corpus is large and his thought complex, but Lucas ably guides his readers through Edwards’s theology, showing its narrative unity, comprehensive scope, and direct connection to pastoral practice. He illustrates this theology with well-chosen quotations from Edwards works, situating Edwards’s writings in their historical context. And Lucas appends an “Annotated Bibliography” of the best primary sources by and secondary sources about Edwards, so that readers new to Edwards can know what to read first.

Second—and to my mind, most important—by offering this accessible introduction, Lucas offers contemporary pastors an Edwardsian model for how to integrate biblical theology into their own pastoral practice. This offer comes across explicitly in the appendix, “‘A Man Just Like Us’: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Formation for Ministerial Candidates.” But it is implicit throughout the rest of the book. Lucas’s intent for this book, in other words, is not merely historical. Rather, the history serves a larger purpose: namely, helping ministers better understand and practice their divine vocation.

Lucas demonstrates the connection in Edwards’s ministry between what today we might call message and method. The message of the gospel is the desire of the Holy Trinity to take up creation into its own glory, a desire accomplished by the redeeming work of Jesus Christ and reflected by how Christians live. That life is characterized not merely by right beliefs or right actions but most important by right “affections” or “virtue.” The methods by which we promulgate this message must be appropriate to the end God seeks. Ministers, therefore, must call people to faith in Jesus Christ, a faith that produces an all-encompassing love for God and neighbor. The “means of grace” Edwards considered appropriate to this end were preaching, the sacraments (baptism and communion), and prayer.

Obviously, as an Arminian, I have concrete objections to aspects of Edwards’s soteriology, for example, his anti-Arminianism. Lucas (quoting Gerald McDermott) notes that “Edwards’s struggle with Arminianism was but a battle in a life-long war with deism.” Edwards, it seems to me, routinely collapsed Arminianism into deism, even though no less than the evangelical Arminian John Wesley published an edited version of his Religious Affections. So, I must demur from many of Edwards’s conclusions. Nonetheless, and following Wesley’s example, it seems to me that religious affections might be a point of rapprochement between evangelical Calvinists and Arminians. Didn’t Wesley also speak of “heart religion,” after all?

Perhaps it is time that we Arminians stopped thinking of Edwards as a Calvinist only and started thinking of him as a teacher of the entire Church, including us. Obviously, we can’t accept everything Edwards teaches. (Even Calvinists don’t do that!) But we can learn much and benefit greatly from his manifold insights. (Who knows, maybe Calvinists will start treating Wesley in the same way…)

I doubt Lucas intended his book to produce such thoughts in Arminians, but it produced such thoughts in this Arminian. So, I affectionately recommend God’s Grand Design.

P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.

On this day in 1517, Martin Luther nailed the following 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. (Editor)

_______________

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517) Published in:
Works of Martin Luther:
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38

_______________

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10.  Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”
83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”
84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”
85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”
86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”
88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”
89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

In this video, Stephen Barr talks about the relationship between science and faith, from a Catholic perspective. Barr is professor of physics at the University of Delaware and author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.

Here’s the video of my interview with Roger Olson, professor of theology at Truett Theological Seminary and author of “Against Calvinism” (Zondervan).

Here are the questions I asked as well as the minute marks at which Olson answered them.

• 1:05 Are you against everything Calvinism stands for, or only particular things?
• 2:40 What is the historical background to TULIP, “the five points of Calvinism,” or what Calvinists refer to as “the doctrines of grace”?
• 5:02 What is the unified testimony of the ante-Nicene church regarding these issues? Why don’t Calvinists take this testimony into account?
• 8:32 Can you demonstrate that Jesus, Paul, or other New Testament writers were not theological determinists? What about Romans 9-11?
• 15:50 Why do the “good and necessary consequences” of Calvinist doctrines make God a “moral monster,” despite Calvinists’ best intentions?
• 24:00 How does an Arminian deal with the many verses in the Bible that speak about election and predestination?
• 28:00 Examples of cooperation and competition between Arminians and Calvinists in evangelical history.
• 30:00 How can Arminians and Calvinists disagree without being disagreeable? (I interrupted Olson in the middle of his answer with a question about which Arminian books and theologians he would recommend.)
• 36:00 Given its biblical deficiencies, why does Calvinism have a dominant presence in the American church?
• 39:33 What do you appreciate most about the “New Calvinist” movement? (I interrupted Olson with a further question about Calvinism and evangelism/missions.)
• 42:03 What is “middle knowledge”? I asked how, on an Arminian basis, God can predestine based on foreknowledge if, as Olson argues, middle knowledge is impossible.
• 48:05 What are Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, and how is Arminianism distinct from them? Is “Arminianism of the head” susceptible to Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism?
• 53:32 Are universalists Arminians?
• 56:38 How to disprove limited atonement.
• 59:18 The Assemblies of God’s fourth reason for being is compassion. Does Arminianism or Calvinism sit better with an emphasis on compassion ministries?

Michael Horton, For Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). $16.99, 208 pages.

Roger Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). $16.99, 208 pages.

In 2009, just in time for the 500^th anniversary of John Calvin’s birth, Time magazine declared “the New Calvinism” as one of “10 Ideas Changing the World Right now.” Christianity Today scooped Time on this story with a 2006 article by Collin Hansen entitled, “Young, Restless, Reformed,” which Hansen later turned into a book (and Time referred to). The rise in popularity of this centuries-old theological system with young people seems surprising at first, but given the dearth of in-depth biblical and theological teaching in evangelical churches, it’s not totally unexpected. Christians long for an intellectually rigorous expression of the faith, and the New Calvinists aim to please.

In For Calvinism, Michael Horton offers a thoughtful explanation and defense of what Calvinists refer to as “the doctrines of grace.” At the popular level, these doctrines are known by the TULIP acrostic: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Horton grounds each of these doctrines in the biblical text, quotes relevant comments from John Calvin on each topic, and deals with philosophical objections along the way. What emerges from Horton’s presentation is the evangelical character of Calvinist soteriology. That is to say, Calvinism articulates the gospel of Jesus Christ and the life that flows from it. Horton’s main concern throughout his book is to defend the gracious character of God’s offer of salvation.

Proverbs 18:17 says, “In a lawsuit, the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.” Horton’s case is indeed persuasive, until one reads Roger Olson’s cross-examination, Against Calvinism. Olson’s main concern throughout his book is to defend God’s reputation against what he considers the “good and necessary consequences” of four Calvinist doctrines: meticulous providence, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Horton notes that Arminians agree with Calvinists on total depravity and disagree among themselves about perseverance of the saints. He argues that a Calvinist understanding of meticulous providence logically entails divine determinism and that unconditional election entails double predestination. He denies that the Bible teaches limited atonement, a doctrine that apparently even Calvin did not advocate. And against the monergism of irresistible grace, he argues for synergism, the cooperation of God’s grace and human faith. For each of the controverted doctrines, Olson shows the possibility of a legitimate, Arminian interpretation of the relevant biblical texts.

I found Olson’s critique of Calvinism the more persuasive of the two books. It is hard to understand how—given Calvinism’s doctrine of meticulous providence—God is not the author of sin. Moreover, it is hard to understand why God would unconditionally elect to save some but not all, when universal salvation is clearly—on Calvinist terms—within his power. If God can save all, then the fact that he does not save all seems to indicate a lack of good will toward his creatures. Calvinism, thus, harms God’s reputation.

Regardless of which author one agrees with, both Horton and Olson are to be commended for their thoughtful, irenic debate. At the end of the day, Calvinists and Arminians are colaborers in the Great Commission. If we cannot come to agreement on doctrine, we should at least learn to disagree agreeably. Horton’s and Olson’s books model the way such debate should take place. I highly recommend reading both books.

P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page. You can read my longer review of Against Calvinism here.

P.P.S. I’m interviewing Roger Olson about Against Calvinism on Thursday, October 20, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. (CST) on MinistryDirect.com/live. If you’d like to ask Olson a question about his book, email it to questions@ministrydirect.com, tweet it using #MinistryDirect, or enter it in the Facebook interaction tool on the live page. (You must be signed into Facebook to use this tool.)

P.P.P.S. You can watch my interview of Roger Olson about his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, here:

I’ve started reading Justin L. Barrett’s book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? In it, Barrett uses “the latest cognitive and psychological scientific data and theory” to answer the question of the title. Here’s his argument in brief:

By virtue of our biological endowment as human beings and our environmental endowment from living in this world, people all over the world have similar minds. Regardless of culture, people tend to have minds with many basic structures that perform numerous mundane tasks, such as discerning the objects around us, defining those objects, and observing how those objects causally interact. Operating largely without our awareness, mental “tools” encourage us to think similarly about many banal features of the world around us. These mental tools also encourage people to think about and believe in gods, the Judeo-Christian God enjoying particularly favorable treatment, especially during child development. Once introduced into a population, belief in the existence of a supreme god with properties such as being superknowing, superpowerful, and immortal is highly contagious and a hard habit to break. The way our minds are structured and develop make these beliefs very attractive.

What do you think?

Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). $16.99, 208 pages.

In 2009, just in time for the 500^th anniversary of John Calvin’s birth, Time magazine declared “the New Calvinism” as one of “10 Ideas Changing the World Right now.” Christianity Today scooped Time on this story with a 2006 article by Collin Hansen entitled, “Young, Restless, Reformed,” which Hansen later turned into a book (and Time referred to). The rise in popularity of this centuries-old theological system with young people seems surprising at first, but given the dearth of in-depth biblical and theological teaching in evangelical churches, it’s not totally unexpected. Christians long for an intellectually rigorous expression of the faith, and the New Calvinism aims to please.

Roger E. Olson is none too pleased with Calvinism’s renaissance, however. In Against Calvinism, he argues that although Calvinists do not intend to slander God’s good reputation, they inadvertently do so through the “good and necessary consequences” of their doctrines. Which doctrines? Olson focuses on four: “meticulous providence,” “unconditional election,” “limited atonement,” and “irresistible grace.” He argues that “meticulous providence” is nothing more than “divine determinism,” which robs humans of moral responsibility for their actions and makes God the author of sin. He argues that “unconditional election” amounts to “double predestination” and “arbitrary choice,” for God’s sovereignty is all-determining, and his choice to save some but damn the rest apart from their faith is capricious. Olson argues that Calvin himself did not limit the efficacy of the atonement to the elect and that the logic of Calvinist soteriology rather than biblical teaching is what necessitates limited atonement. Finally, he argues that “irresistible grace” like “unconditional election” is dispensed arbitrarily. If God could give grace to all, why wouldn’t he?

That question seems to be the nub of Olson’s brief against Calvinism: If God could save all, why wouldn’t he save all? The inability of Calvinism to answer that question, or rather, its assertion that God could save all but doesn’t is what constitutes a slander on God’s reputation for Olson.

Against Calvinism makes its case by extensively quoting mainstream, representative Calvinists (e.g., Calvin himself, Jonathan Edwards, Loraine Boettner, R. C. Sproul, and John Piper). He points out flaws in their interpretation of Scripture. He identifies conundrums in Calvinist theology that can be resolved only through rejection of its distinctive doctrines. And he exposes the verbal gymnastics that Calvinists use to downplay or soften the logical implications of those doctrines.

As an alternative to Calvinism, Olson invites his readers to investigate Arminianism, an alternative that makes better sense of Scripture, the tradition of Christian doctrine, reason, and experience. Interested readers can pursue further study on this alternative in Olson’s Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. I interviewed Olson regarding Arminian Theology in the video below. I hope to interview him regarding Against Calvinism in the near future.

Interview with Roger Olson regarding Calvinism …, posted with vodpod

P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.”

I’m reading The Atheist’s Guide to Reality by Alex Rosenberg, who is the R. Taylor Cole Professor and chair of the Philosophy Department at Duke University.

He advocates a new term for atheism: scientism. “This is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when ‘complete,’ what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today” (pp. 6–7).

In the book, he asks and provides “scientific” answers to life’s “persistent questions. On pages 2–3, he provides a précis of both questions (which are italicized) and answers:

• Is there a God? No.
• What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
• What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
• What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
• Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
• Does prayer work? Of course not.
• Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
• Is there free will? Not a chance!
• What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
• What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
• Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
• Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
• What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
• Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
• Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it ever had any to begin with.

This précis is, admittedly, a bit chirpy, but the pages that follow provide chapter and verse of scientific evidence in favor of each of his answers.

Which got me thinking: If, as Rosenberg argues, “There is no self, soul, person”; if there is no free will; if morality consists of doing what makes me feel better; and if “Anything goes,” then why does Rosenberger—or any “atheist” or “scientismist” who thinks like him, for that matter—critique people for believing in God? On his own account, those people—my people—did not choose their beliefs. There is no “self” or “soul” that has the “free will” to choose. Rather, according to Rosenberg, their brains tricked them into belief through a “hyperactive agency detector” (p. 327). One can hardly be blamed, morally speaking, for holding a belief that one is biologically hardwired to have, especially when “There is no moral difference between [right and wrong, good and bad]” in the first place. And what if religious belief makes the believer more happy than he or she would’ve been apart from the belief? How can one criticize that person for being “irrational,” which is a moral value judgment, by the way?

My initial impression after reading this précis is that if science entails what Rosenberg argues it does, then science is a load of crap. Or at least scientism is. I’ll let you know which when I finish reading the book.

Your thoughts?

I’m reading The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory MacDonald as research for an article on universalism that I’m writing. (MacDonald is a pseudonym for Robin Parry.) On page 38, MacDonald—citing Thomas Talbott—lists three propositions:

1. It is God’s redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself.
2. It is within God’s power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world.
3. Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

Following Talbott, MacDonald argues that these three propositions seem to be grounded in Scripture and theology but form an inconsistent set. To overcome the inconsistency, Calvinists deny (1), Arminians deny (2), and universalists deny (3). In other words, Calvinists believe God can save everyone but doesn’t want to. Arminians believe that God wants to save everyone but can’t. And universalists believe that God both wants to and can save everyone.

I am an Arminian, soteriologically speaking, so I am committed to the denial of (2), although I have some quibbles with how MacDonald formulates it. I believe that what limits God’s ability to achieve his redemptive purpose is the sinful exercise of free will by human beings. God cannot redeem those who resist being redeemed. For Calvinists and universalists, free will cannot hinder God achieving his purposes. This means that Calvinists locate the fact that not all are saved within God’s choices, rather than humanity’s. But what kind of loving God would refuse to save all people if he could? The answer to that rhetorical question is “no kind,” and it explains why I’m not a Calvinist.

Universalists also deny human free will, or at least the notion that God cannot override sinful human choices in pursuit of some good. On page 23, MacDonald writes, “It is hard to see that libertarian freedom is so precious that it cannot be temporarily overridden in such dire circumstances.” In other words, if the Arminian says, “People are in hell because they have made choices whose natural consequence is hell,” the universalist will respond, “Being in heaven is a greater good than having free will, so God will override free will and bring hell’s residents to heaven.”

But the denial of free will carries costs, it seems to me. Consider the issue of horrendous suffering that many experience in this lifetime, due to chronic illness, extreme poverty, victimization in wartime, or natural disaster. If universalism is true, then God desires the best for people and has the ability to realize that desire. Now, when people experience horrendous suffering, as they surely do, Calvinists may say that suffering is part of God’s purpose, and Arminians may say that God cannot remove this suffering because it is the natural consequence of human free will. But universalists, having denied both Calvinism and Arminianism, cannot resort to either argument. God both wants the best for people and can realize it. So why do people experience tremendous suffering?

In MacDonald’s terms, why would God, knowing that Adam and Eve’s sinful choice would lead to horrendous suffering, not override their free will and have them choose obedience rather than disobedience? If God could do this, why wouldn’t he? As far as I can tell, universalists have no good answer.

Today is the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture at the University of Regensburg, “Faith, Reason, and the University: Memories and Reflections.” The lecture generated a controversy among Muslims because Benedict quoted a derogatory statement about Mohammed uttered by Byzantine Emperor Michael II Paleologus: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The subject of the lecture was not Islam, however, but the necessary roles both faith and reason play in “genuine dialogue of cultures and religions.” Benedict cited the emperor’s remarks about Mohammed as context for his quote about God and reason: “not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature.” Benedict then goes on to critique the dehellenization of Christianity, sundering as it does this necessary link between faith and reason in favor of an irrational voluntarism. He then concludes:

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being – but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”. The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

What do you think?