Podcast EP229 Foreknowledge Knowledge and MacArthur Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading... Related
I am fully persuaded that Calvinism is determinism wearing a libertarian mask.
If you watch for it, you can literally observe the Calvinist’s love-hate relationship with the foundational core of his theology: Theological Determinism. They are constantly trying to evade it. Constantly trying to cover the face of it with various masks – all designed to portray indeterminism – or a characteristic of libertarian freedom.
When John Piper asks the question “Does god determine everything” – he is revealing Calvinism’s love-hate relationship with determinism. You can guess the answer he’s going to give is the finest bit of double-speak that can be manufactured in short notice. They can’t deny determinism without betraying Calvin – but they will do anything – say anything to hide it. Not only do they not want outsiders to see it – they are repulsed by it themselves.
Recently I had a Calvinist tell me determinism needs to be redefined within scholarship to make it compatible with scripture. What he meant was – compatible with Calvinist double-speak. He rejects the “label” libertarian free will – while attempting to steal its characteristics and apply them to Calvinism. He attempts to represent as Calvinism the very notions Calvinists consistently reject when stated by the Arminian or Open Theist.
And further, I think Calvinists are so psychologically ensnared – they are in total abject denial all the time about it. So, bottom line – I think 90% of Calvinism’s disingenuous arguments are mostly attempts to escape or evade determinism.
This is why Calvin teaches “go about your office AS-IF nothing is determined in any part”
Dr. Tomis Kapitan – Professor Emeritus, Ph.D., of metaphysics, philosophy of language, and international ethics.
“To locate an inconsistency within the beliefs of a deliberating determinist now seems easy; for as a deliberator, he takes his future act to be yet undetermined. But as a determinist, he assumes the very opposite – that his future is already determined and fixed in the past, such that everything he does was previously determined by factors beyond his control. Thus, the ascription of rational-inconsistency within the mental state of the deliberating determinist is secured.”
Keep up the great work my friend! :-]