CALVINIST RHETORIC: Idealistic AbstractionsOr “Plato: Imagination Taking Shape”*

What I Mean by Idealistic Abstractions
To be abstract means to be “thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.” To put it more simply (at least for our purposes), something which is abstract is something which is not defined by our 5 senses. For instance, love, peace, faith, grace, sovereignty, etc… As we can see from the examples, abstraction is quite important for Christianity. Indeed, it is quite important for life since most subjects deal with abstractions, including science, politics, and even sports.

By idealistic abstractions, I mean the absolute “purest” sense of a particular idea. In practice, the “purest” sense of an idea ends up being the most extreme sense, where no qualification is allowed. Much of Calvinistic rhetoric, in fact, hinges on the idea that the “purest” sense of a particular attribute of God is the starting place for understanding who God is and what He is doing.

This shouldn’t be that surprising for those of us that know a bit about theological history. Calvin based a lot of his ideas off of Augustine, who in turn was highly and openly influenced by Plato, whose rhetoric was strongly based off of deduction from ideals. Here are some very telling quotes from The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press, 1997) in regards to Plato:

“These doctrines are all based on a metaphysic… which contrasts the world of sense and everyday experience with a true and higher world of ‘Ideas’ (or better ‘Forms’).” (p. 1299)

“Of perhaps even greater moment for the history of the Christian theology was the fact that the thought of St. Augustine was radically influenced… by Platonic doctrines… Henceforward the Platonic Forms were regularly reinterpreted as the creative thoughts of God.” (p. 1300)

Now I am not saying that Calvinism is some form of Platonism. It’s not. Nor am I arguing that Calvinism is wrong because it was influenced by a pagan Greek philosopher. That would be a genetic fallacy, and somewhat hypocritical since most of Western philosophy has been influenced in part by Plato and Aristotle. Instead, I am merely saying is that Plato is indeed the source of this rhetorical style and is the reason why it is so prevalent in Calvinism especially.

Idealistic Abstractions in Action

It is difficult to not find a Calvinist argument or even belief which is not touched by a reliance on Idealistic Abstraction. It really is a foundation for a great many of their beliefs. For the sake of brevity I have chosen two examples to show what this looks like.

Sovereignty

I’ve chosen to use sovereignty here because it is a major part of Calvinists’ motivations and entire worldview. However, the Calvinist view of sovereignty is a very strong example of idealistic abstraction.

The word ‘sovereignty’ means that one rules over a particular domain. It does not, in of itself, describe how one rules; it just merely describes one as the ruler. Any argument which states that someone is not sovereign unless they rule in a very specific way is neither basing this on the definition of the word, nor on what the Bible says (which simply describes God as king). It is instead an argument based off of that person’s opinion of what perfect sovereignty should be.

This is how the logic works. You start with an assumption (in this case an erroneous one) that any attribute can be reduced down to some pure simple concept. In the case of sovereignty, we reduce the idea of lordship down to the simple idea of control. Sovereigns control things. Therefore, the purest form of sovereignty is absolute and complete control. We then treat this as the basic definition of the word, and then claim that it must be true of God.

This ignores the fact that no earthly sovereign in the history of the world has ever exacted this kind of control over their domain. It ignores the most common duties of a sovereign as part of the definition: creating a peaceful context in which citizens can live, protecting people from threats domestic and abroad, and exacting judgment between citizens and between the citizen and the state. It ignores that the Bible describes God’s interactions with Israel in precisely these terms throughout it. These are nothing more than “earthly particulars” which merely distract us from what sovereignty “should be.”

Aseity

Aseity means self-existence, or having no source or cause for one’s existence. It is one of those theological words that only describe God. God has always existed, and nothing comes before Him. He does not need anything to exist, and would still exist if nothing else did. This is what we mean by aseity.

The Calvinist argument from aseity is probably the most blatantly Platonic (that is deriving from Plato) argument in their arsenal. Plato and his philosophical descendants held to the belief that God was static: He was completely distant, and did not react in any way (including emotionally) to anything else. They argued that this must be true because any movement of God must either be a move from or toward perfection, and, since God is always perfect, no movement is thus possible for God. This, of course, contradicts the biblical narrative, erroneously attributes all attributes of God, such as emotion, to ontology (the study of existence), and doesn’t take into account movements within perfection.

The Calvinist argument from aseity is very similar. Now, I don’t reject God’s aseity (quite the opposite) in much of the same way that I don’t reject that God is perfect. However, I do reject the Platonic logic that Calvinists like to employ when trying to use it against Arminianism, especially since they make some similar mistakes.

Here is an example from Tim Prussic:

this Arminian notion makes God dependent upon creation for his knowledge. This aspect is exceptionally pernicious. One of God’s attributes is knowledge. This theory says (explicitly) that God knows because of us. We determine God’s knowledge. Don’t you see the impressive violence that does to the doctrine of God, his self-sufficiency, and possibly his immutability?

Josh Thibodaux does a pretty good job dismantling this argument at SEA, so I do not believe that it is necessary to do the same here. It is sufficient, for the purposes of this post, to point out how this argument is very similar to the Platonic argument that God has no emotions, especially in making the same mistake of attributing all attributes of God to ontology. Just like Plato arguing that God having an emotion causes a shift in His being, the Calvinist here is arguing that God’s knowledge is somehow ontologically tied to the thing known (as if my essence would increase as I gained knowledge, which might explain child obesity).

Like the Calvinist view of soveriegnty, this is taking an abstract concept and taking it to an extreme. While it is contradictory to general experience that the subject of a piece of knowledge impacts my capacity to know and be, the Calvinist ideal of what aseity should be apparently says that God can only know that which He causes. Personally, I see this as circular reasoning.

The End Result
There are two major effects that I believe this style of rhetoric has. First, it allows the Calvinist to propose very powerful sounding arguments without the need for things such as proof or evidence. After all, they are arguing from the idea, and as long as that idea can be articulated well, they are going to sound convincing.

Second, it gives the Calvinist a great deal of power in debate. I would say that Calvinism doesn’t hold up as well under long careful analysis as Arminianism does. However, in the middle of a debate, it is not the one who makes the better argument who wins, but the one whose argument can be simply articulated. Platonic rhetoric was designed for discussion (hence why he always wrote in dialogue). Therefore it is unsurprising that a theology steeped in it also tends to do well in similar formats.

As Arminians, we expose this rhetoric by demonstrating what these ideas would look like in real life. Most of these arguments fall on their face when confronted with the real world. And if they are saying that we are defining God based off of the world, correct them, and point out that the Bible speaks out of the real world as well. The biblical authors didn’t separate out God from their tangible experiences. Indeed, that is precisely the way that they came to know Him. If that is how the biblical authors sought to understand God, then how can we do otherwise?

For series index, click here.


___________________________
*This is the official slogan of Play-Doh©, from Hasbro. Hasbro does not endorse this post, nor does it encourage the flagrant use of its product’s name to make bad jokes about ancient philosophers, gods of death, former planets, and animated canines.

Calvinist Rhetoric: The Series

This is the index page of a new series that I am planning on doing. As the series progresses, I'll be adding links here to each installment. What distinguishes this series from most of my other ones is that its length is not planned. I'll include new installments as I come up with them. The first installment will be up tomorrow, and will probably be the most philosophically based one.

This series will be engaging in what is known as presuppositional apologetics (or in this case polemics) where the underlying assumptions of a position are considered as opposed to looking at evidence or surface level arguments. While I will be talking about some arguments in particular, that will not be my objective. Instead, I will be trying to assess why Calvinists argue what they argue (even when it comes to decent arguments) based off of how Calvinists tend to argue.

My current posts in this series are:

• Idealistic Abstractions
• Euphemism and Dysphemism
• The Stronghold
• Slipperly Slopes
• Consistancy
• Proof-Texting
• Strawman
• Jargon
• Piety

Each post has three sections: What I Mean By _____(where I explain the rhetorical phenomenon I'm talking about), ____ In Action (where I discuss briefly some Calvinist arguments that use the rhetoric), and The End Result (where I talk about my analysis of rhetoric's effectiveness with Arminians, other Calvinists, and those without soteriological commitments). You may also notice that each post has two titles: one which is silly and one which is serious. This is because I enjoy torturing people with my bad sense of humor. Please indulge me.

This series is meant to be neither comprehensive in terms of discussing all aspects of Calvinist rhetoric, nor to be comprehensive in terms of each post applying to every single Calvinist. Instead, this series is indicative of my experience interacting with Calvinists and is meant to be representative of how, in general, Calvinism is being presented.

Harry Potter and the Lingering Controversy

One of the things that I have often thought to write on is this controversy surrounding the Harry Potter books. I don't really know anyone that really shares my perspective on it so I think it is good to pen it somewhere. For the sake of full disclosure, I'll state the gist of my opinion first which is that the Harry Potter books do not represent real witchcraft on any level, but are quite worldly. While I do not agree with those who put a special ban on these books, I do believe that they should be read with caution and criticism from a Christian perspective.

Witches, Wizards, Warlocks, and Other W-words

The first thing to point out is that real witchcraft is a conglomeration of medieval superstition, pagan ritual, and anything that witches think sound cool. While there is certainly nothing universal about what witches and warlocks believe, in general the basic worldview behind witchcraft is that there are sentient intangible invisible forces which govern the ebb and flow of the natural order of things. Witchcraft religions are mostly a series of rituals to communicate with, barter with, make peace with, or sometimes outright control these forces.


Here is where I take issue with the vast majority of the criticism I hear about Harry Potter. Most complain that it teaches witchcraft: it doesn't. Yet many of these same people of no problem with other works of fantasy. WhileNarnia and Lord of the Rings are indeed legitimate exceptions, since they have no good witches in them and "magic" is understood in relation to an ultimate monotheistic deity, most of them have no problem with The Wizard of Oz or generic fairy tales (like Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty). Now some do have an issue with all these works, and those people I respect. My principle complaint is hypocrisy here. If you are going to complain about the book in particular, you need to have complaints that are unique to that book.

Some Complaints That Are Unique to This Book

I personally rather enjoy the genre of fantasy, as does much of my family. Mostly I find the idea of alternate fictional realities to be fun, whether we are dealing with fantasy, science fiction, or comic books. Placing the human being in a completely different kind of context often makes fascinating studies in human nature. (And it's fun watching people turn into newts, and Jedis slicing through stuff with light-sabers)

So when the first Harry Potter book came out, my family was one of the first families to grab onto it. Most of my family, including me, had read the book before it started showing up in the general media. In fact, I had read the book twice before I started to hear Christian leaders telling people that they shouldn't. At the time, I laughed at it because their criticisms weren't based on anything that was true with the book.

As I got older, and especially as Harry got older, I started to notice some things that did bother me, as a Christian, in the books.

First, there is the general theme of rebellion throughout the books. I think that some people are too strict with rules, and when I first read the book, I read that attitude into them. However, I started to notice a general pattern that Harry not only often broke the rules, he seemed to have little regard for them at all. Indeed, they were often in his way of achieving his objectives.

Harry's role models didn't really help much either. In general, when breaking the rules resulted in something poor or wrong, he was generally punished by someone other than his role models. And when his role models did get involved, it was usually after he accomplished something quite good, and was thus only rewarded. This seemed to be justified by the idea of teaching Harry independence and bravery. However, it is also true that he rarely taught how to work within the system to accomplish his goals.

Second, there is certainly a general worldliness to the books. You can tell, especially in the latter books, that while this isn't true witchcraft, it most certainly isn't Christian. I don't think that we should only read things that are Christian, but considering that this is supposed to be children's literature, parents should be aware of what is in the books that their children are reading.

And this brings me to my third a last criticism (at least for this post). The books aren't really children's literature: it is teen literature. J. K. Rowlings supposedly set up the books so that it was targeting the age group that Harry was within that book. So in the first book he is 11, but in the last book he is 17.

That isn't really practical in real life. When a child finishes one book, they are going to want to read the next. And you can't say that we can just make them wait a year, because that is now turning it into a ritual, and I don't really feel comfortable doing something like that with these books. So I would never recommend the 1st book to someone who I don't think is ready to read the 7th.

Recommendations

So where does this leave me? Well, I think this is a matter of what an individual can handle. There are some that probably shouldn't read the books because they can't handle the themes that I mentioned. However, I think for most mature adults and even most teenagers, the books are fine, as long as they are read critically.

If you have a personal conviction against reading any fantasy or anything with magic, then don't read it. If you have a child who is too young to be able to read a book and be critical of that books message, then don't have them read it. If you are bothered by a story where the protagonist in constantly encouraged to break the rules, then don't read it. If you have a conviction not to read anything with worldly or secular themes, then don't read it. Otherwise: enjoy.

Non-Calvinists

For those who frequent my site (both of you), I am sure that you noticed that I disagree with Calvinism. Indeed I have a lot of negative things to say about Calvinism, mostly because I find much of the recent push for it to be bad for the Church in general (otherwise it would just be one of those things I disagree with but don't say much about, like Open-theism, Mormonism or Nicolas Cage). I am not alone with my opinion on this.

However, I do want to make the point that I am not a Non-Calvinist. Well, to some degree I am, in the sense that I am indeed not a Calvinist, but I don't define my soteriology based off of my opinion of Calvinism.

I am an Arminian, and very proud to be one. Jacob Arminius himself was a great theologian, and a great man of God, and while I don't agree with him on everything, I do agree with his commitment to biblical theology, orthopraxy, and concern for the character of God. I am not an Arminian because I am not Calvinist. Instead, I am not Calvinist because I am already Arminian.

Some may say that they don't like to be extreme. Believe me, I understand that. I always shy away from extremes. But considering that Arminianism isn't extreme at all, and represents a very balanced approach to divine soveriegnty, human autonomy, and general soteriology, it is surprising that this would be an objection.

Some may say that they don't like theology, they are fine with "Jesus is the Son of God, and He saved me." What they fail to understand though is that that is theology. It is like 1+1=2 is math just as much as calculus is. There is nothing wrong with having a thought-out robust theological understanding. Indeed, it is invaluable for being asked a lot of questions, and needing to aply our worldview to new situations. Systematic theology allows us to be flexible in our practice, because we know what we believe, and why we believe it.

Those of you are are simply Non-Calvinist, I would encourage you to really look into Arminianism, especially Arminianism as it is defined by Arminians. You do not have to choose between Calvinism and not having a thought-out systematic view of salvation. There is a stance you can take.

What Is The Difference Between England, Britain, and the United Kingdom?

I found this video recently, and it answered a question that I've had for a while. I also found it funny. Please enjoy:

Boasting

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Many Calvinists have attempted to argue that Arminianism falls short of this passage by making faith something to boast about. I believe this argument is based off at least one of four problems:

1. The Calvinist not understanding the Arminian position of prevenient grace
2. The application of Calvinist presuppositions that Arminians don't hold
3. A complete misunderstanding of the nature of faith.
4. A complete misunderstanding of the nature of boasting.

In this post, I will be dealing with each of these mistakes in turn.

Misunderstanding Arminianism

One of the ways that Calvinists have expressed the reasons why Arminians should be "able to boast" is because "faith is something that originates inside of man, and thus the thing that saves you comes from you."

There are a couple of different problems with this, but the issue that I wish to point out here is that Arminians do not hold that faith is something that originates within you. Faith is made possible by the prevenient grace of God.

Prevenient grace simply means grace which comes before. In this case, it is the sum total of all those acts of grace which God bestows upon us before salvation which prepares us for salvation. All Arminians believe that prevenient grace is necessary in order for us to be saved. Indeed, it is necessary in order for us to have faith.

Now some Calvinists may argue that the notion of prevenient grace doesn't solve the problem. This seems to be based off of the idea that if man is not 100% passive, than man is 100% responsible for the result, even if God does all the actual work. I have read multiple reasons why Calvinists think this (none of which I find convincing obviously), but I don't have space to go into each one now. What is important for the purposes of this article is that Arminians believe that God is the source of our faith.

It is important for the Calvinist to realize that no one would ever boast off of something that they "should" logically conclude. Instead, if they are going to boast, they are going to boast based off of what they actually believe, and we don't believe that faith originates within us.

Calvinist Presuppositions

One of the common mistakes of Calvinist Apologetics is claiming that Arminianism is internally inconsistent. The term "Internally Inconsistent" means that there are 2 or more beliefs which exist within a system of thought that are contradictory ideas. However, what most Calvinists seem to mean by this term is that certain Arminian conclusions do not naturally follow from Calvinist presuppositions.

There is an excellent example of this within this particular subject. Many Calvinist would argue that because the difference between one saved and one who is not saved is faith, that therefore faith is something to boast about. However, this assumes the idea that any condition within man that God uses is therefore meritous (which it isn't), and it assumes that if God does not directly cause something than it is purely man's accomplishment (which is silly). Both of these ideas derive from the idea of unconditional election, and is therefore a circular argument.

These are Calvinist presuppositions that Arminians do not hold, and because we do not hold them, we are not being inconsistent. We just simply disagree with Calvinists.

The Nature of Faith

Probably the silliest aspect of Calvinists claiming that Arminians "can boast" is that it is impossible to boast about real faith. You can't do it. To boast about faith is like boasting about humility: you negate it by boasting. Just try and think about what that would really sound like:

"I have more faith in my complete depravity and absolute necessity in my great, powerful merciful savior to atone for the sum of my sinful and worthless deeds than you do. You loser!"

I cannot imagine how someone who understands how necessarily humbling true biblical faith is can possibly claim it is something someone can boast about. And as silly as it sounds just by calmly thinking about what it must mean, it amazes me that people are convinced by this. Indeed, it saddens me that this is one of the most popular and successful Calvinist arguments. It shows me that we Arminians have done a poor job articulating our theology.

The Nature of Boasting

So far I have talked about how it false to argue that Arminianism can lead to boasting. Now I am going to change gears a bit and explain why Calvinism doesn't protect one from it.

First of all, let's deal with a misunderstanding of the Biblical text. Here it is again for those who may want to reference it:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Many Calvinists believe that the point of this text is that grace is supposed to take away the ability for humans to boast (as opposed to taking away all reason for boasting). At least, this is how the argument seems to me.

However, history and common experience tells us that humans do not only boast about accomplishment. Indeed, we will boast about any status to makes us superior to someone else, whether that be accomplishments, race, class, etc... Therefore, because being saved is superior to not being saved, it is possible for someone to boast about it, regardless of how one is saved.

I don't see why it is impossible to say, "I'm elected and you're not. So I'm better than you." Well, in some degree you are! I mean God chose you didn't He? Even if His selection was arbitrary, God still chose you. That's pretty sweet, and means that you are in a better position than those who aren't.

"Wait a second," says the Calvinist, "even if someone were to boast about being unconditionally elected, that boasting would be completely unjustified." Well the same goes for having been saved by faith. If the text means that the person has no legitimate reason to boast, than the Calvinist has no basis to use it against Arminians, as I have already shown.

And ultimately, that's my point. Salvation is by faith, which the text clearly says, and it is because of the nature of faith that one cannot boast. Indeed, that fact that it is by faith is what makes it a grace, because God has the right to make us earn it if He wanted to. But we don't have to earn it; we just have to believe. The only boasting salvation encourages me to make is to boast in the glory and graciousness of my God and His Son, and it is vanity to argue otherwise.

Does A Yeast Flake Prove Darwinism?

A little over a week ago, my friend Chris sent me an article talking about how a grad student, by the name of William Ratcliff from the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, has gotten single cell organisms, namely brewer's yeast, to exhibit multi-cellular characteristics. Chris sent me this article because an atheist aquaintance of his claimed that this event proved Darwinism beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, like many Darwinists, he has failed to appreciate the length of that shadow.

[Two caveats: First, I am not a scientist. I am a theologian. I am not trying to claim that I fully understand each and every reference about evolution that comes to me. My intent is to properly explain what Creationism believes about evolution, and to show that the differences between it and Darwinism are philosophical and not scientific.

Second, the article in question does not suggest that this proves Darwinism; I seriously doubt that was the intention of Mr. Ratcliff as well. Therefore what follows is not a criticism of the article or the experiment. Indeed, i do not feel qualified to critize either. Instead, it is a response to those that believe that this is a blow to Creationism, which it is not]

Missing Data

First of all, there is not enough data in this article to claim that evolution has really occured. There is no real dissicussion of the genetics: no mention of mutations. All that is recorded are differences of behavior, and biological lifeforms can change their behavior based off of their environment.

Second, there are no links to original sources (and I also could not find any in my research). I even attempted to find some but to no avail (the link to William Ratcliffe was also inaccurate). Therefore, there is very little I can do to verify or elucidate what went on here.

Why It Doesn't Matter

However, there really is not that much of a threat here to Creationism anyway. The problem with most Darwinists' criticisms of Creationism is that they think that we outright reject evolution. We don't. Evolution is nothing more the a discription of the process of biological adaptation. Consider this: all Creationists believe that the whole of the human race finds its origin in one man and one woman. Clearly we believe that biological lifeforms progenicly adapt to their environment. Therefore examples of speciation, adaptation, and genetic mutation do not, in of themselves, refute Creationism.

Now it is true that there are certain, shall we say, gaps in the evidence for Darwinism (including but not restricted to: the shift from procaryotic cells to eucaryotic cells, the introduction of sexual reproduction, the disentropic development of a global biosphere, the irreducible complexity of proteinic systems, and, of course, the advent of multicellularity), and it is true that Creationists do much to rhetorical exploit these gaps. But it would be ignorant to therefore think that the Creationist position is merely comprised of filling these gaps with God.

To be fair, many Creationists are responsible for this misunderstanding, using the term 'Evolution' to refer to Darwinism. Some use 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' to distinguish between the two positions, which is better, but I prefer to spearhead straight to the heart and declare things as they are. We are dealing with 2 philosophies: Darwinism and Creationism. The reason why the difference is philosophical is that the difference between the two is not falsifiable.
Darwinism, generally, believes that evolution is progressive. I say "generally" because Darwinists will admit that evolution sometimes results in something "weaker" (such as albino lizards living in caves). However, the process as a whole is seen as progressive.

Creationism on the other hand considers the evolutionary process to be a form of specialization. In a special creative act, God formed a small but diverse population of lifeforms and from these lifeforms comes all of the creatures on the earth today. The original creatures possessed the potential for all of the forms that we currently have, but it was the various environments which their ancestors found themselves in that shaped the precise forms of modern day life.

The problem is that you cannot prove or disprove either of these ideas... yet. Any example of evolution can be interpreted through either lens. Unsurprising, the exmple at hand, the development of multicellular characteristics within a population of yeast cells, can easily be interpreted as a innate aspect of yeast to be able to exist on both a single cellular and multicellular level.

On To Particulars

Considering that what this needs to disprove is that yeast never had the capacity to exist in a multicellular way before, I offer the following explanations why it fails:

1. Yeast are communial. Yeast already are single-cell organisms that interact with each other. Confining their environment to intensify this feature is not the same thing as generating multicellarity.



2. All that is really discussed here is behavior. A change of behavior is not the same thing as evolution. Without a layout or discussion of the changes of genetic material, I cannot ascertain whether or not evolution has really occurred here at all.



3. Yeast are fungi. Many fungi are multicellular, some are monocellular, and many fungi act in a somewhat middle ground manner between the two using hydrae. It is not surprising then that scientists would believe that the gap between single-celled organisms and multicelled organism could be crossed through the fungi kingdom. However, fungi also possess other unique properties that separate them from animals, plants and other lifeforms, and there is no way of indicating that this isn't just inherit to the design of fungi.



4. The article itself actually says that yeast used to be multicellular. While I do not know what the source of this comment is, and whether or not I would agree with it, activating a quality that already exists within the species is essentially the Creationist position, and this is all that this project seems to have demonstrated.

In short, the article and the experiment fail to prove Darwinism over Creationism. This is because the difference between the two is not a matter of experimentation, but interpretation of the evidence. If atheists are going to really criticism the Creationist position, they have to begin to try and understand it.