Augustine and Sex

Like the fact or not, Augustine (yes, THE Augustine—St. Augustine the Blessed: Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Early Church, Patron of the Augustinian Order,) was a bit of a lady’s man. Meow. For a long time in his life he struggled with sexual ethics. Early in his life he was a hedonist and prayed the famous prayer, “Grant me chastity and continence… but not yet.” We know that much of the western world (by extension of morals granted us through our history which intertwines with that of the Roman Catholic church,) has been influenced by his far reaching writings and the impact he had on the early orthodoxy, and hence, the world (and it continues, still). He later in life drew away from the world and lived monastically in order to keep himself reigned in.

The conversion of Augustine is a stepped and multifaceted process that culminated in his full turning unto God. His story is interesting and maintains many parallels to modern Christians who have had similar experiences throughout the process of their own conversion unto Christ. For many nominal western believers, as well as many audiences that Augustine preached to, becoming a Christian is seen as a one-time event. The life of Augustine certainly suggests a process under which the Holy Spirit draws one unto belief, working through the lives, words, and circumstances of others.

The two primary influences in Augustine’s early life were his parents. Augustine’s Christian influence was found in his mother. His father was a pagan and a member of the local ruling class; while not a Christian, Patricius still gave his son many positive attributes through his relationship. Primarily, Augustine’s father instilled in his son a solid education and the desire for knowledge. It was through these resulting periods, quests for knowledge and truth as Augustine dabbled in philosophy, Manichaeanism, and Neoplatonism, that Augustine encountered a major influence in the person of Ambrose who provided a rational and well thought out response to Augustine’s questions. An educated and intelligent person with familiarity of the same philosophers and modern world-views was exactly what Augustine needed to spur him into a radical pursuit of a converted life. While Augustine had been raised with a basic knowledge of Christianity, he recognized that he was still bound in his flesh and lusts; while this is perhaps a similar motif to the dualism inherent in the philosophy systems Augustine leaned towards, it was the combination of divine revelation as Augustine read scripture, and the influence of Ambrose, that led Augustine to desire to be fully tuned unto God and forsake his sin nature. (He’d kept a concubine for many years up until his engagement to a wife of status, but took at least one more after that fact… but abandoned them after his true conversion.)

There were many other early believers who also influenced Augustine. Victorinus was one such prominent person who Augustine yearned to intimidate; Victorinus’ public conversion caused a stir in that Victorinus had so much to potentially lose, but chose the sacrifice necessary for genuine salvation. Victorinus was a prominent public figure in a time when it was incredibly scandalous (and dangerous) to be a Christian. It was a similar willingness to die to the lusts of the flesh, to make such a clean and permanent break from the past, which characterized the life of Augustine and the nature of his full and complete conversion. He turned and fled from those lusts that once entangled him—he even put away his concubines and pursued a monastic life so that he would not fall back into his habits and could concentrate only on the new, such was his sincerity.

I find it ironic that so many written works try to skirt the issue of Augustine’s sexual mishaps. While receiving a brief glossing over of the issue, little time is usually spent on what was such a primary issue to Augustine’s motivation and recognition of need for a saving grace. The discomfort caused by discussion of the topic is likely a direct outcropping of the sexual ethics influenced by Augustine’s post-conversion approach.

Augustine is commendable for his willingness to sacrifice that which is such an integral part of his humanity/flesh. Of course, for him, the right thing was to swing the pendulum as far away from lust as possible (2 Timothy 2:22 comes to mind). Over time, however, and because of the broad reaching impact of Augustine's writings, an overtly "puritanical" view of human sexuality became the prevalent mentality (an ideology which likely turned away many who may have chosen belief if they thought that walk possible.) In our culture we still deal with the Augustinian model whereby sex is evil, bad, wrong, or immoral and is a part of the lusting sin nature of man; this probably stems from the gnostic dualism inherent within the training and educations that molded Augustine. Of course, modern humanism’s relatively recent impact on the general western worldview has swung that pendulum far in the opposite direction. Holy Spirit illuminated scripture can be the only guide to sexual ethics for a God fearing married couple. Sex is awesome, kids. Get married! Yeah, my wife rocks.

With such an issue so central to his conversion, a reading of the forums posted by most of the class, a cursory reading reveals, sidesteps the issue. As Christians and as humans, we are usually willing and available to talk about sexuality, especially within a Christian context—but guided by Augustinian influence, we usually strive purposefully to avoid the issue unless it is forced by another party, and even then we usually try to use it as an opportunity to evangelize rather than discuss Christian ethics and morality. The suppression of the topic leads to a hidden festering of the problem, like gangrene, sometimes until a part of the body becomes irredeemable and necessitates amputation. Christians should not hide sex in the dark. As it says in Isaiah 29:15 (and elsewhere) those who do evil deeds try to do them in the dark—but God still knows them.

Modern believers would do well to be at least passingly familiar with Augustine. While one might not necessarily be in full accord with his theological beliefs, there is no doubt that we could all use a dose of his passion and zeal for living the Godly life. There is, in fact, much which I do not like about Augustine. He did, however, understand something key to being a strong believer. Matthew 24:12,13 says that the love of many will grow cold because the lawlessness increases. A good gauge of your walk with Christ is in asking yourself, “have you ever been more in love with Christ than right this second?” If you’ve ever been closer than right now, then your love is growing cold! Double down and call out to Him… let your love “endure until the end and be saved.”

To be a Flautist, or not a Flautist?

I’ve been meditating specifically on Matthew 11: 16, 17 these last couple days. It’s a passage that is easy to read and simply gloss over. 16 “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17 “‘We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’”

Like children we can be so misguided at times. Children playing in the Middle Eastern marketplace would not have much an idea about what was actually happening in the broader realm of the market, the hustle and bustle, the deals and important affairs of the grownups. Like with modern children, narcissism is the norm; their world is the only one that exists and it is paramount. A child would play a flute and probably expect his peers to dance, perhaps imitating the traditions of the market: expecting to perform a show and gain a few coins for their efforts. There would be some wounded feelings when they refused to play along.

The marketplace is full of adults—as Christians, we must be adults. In this analogy (the Jews and Hellenistic God-Fearers being the children) we are called to grow up; only the mature can bring about world change—children cannot viably affect the market accept for passing amusement. As children we must realize the sway of the adults, the inevitable parents. If we be children with bad parents, (the powers of secularism and antagonistic philosophies) then our fathers give us snakes when we ask fish and stones for bread. We must grow up and lead others into correctness by example. We must bear in mind the context of Matt 11 and 12—we cannot force our peers to believe just as we do because they will only resent us like those Pharisees who condemned Christ and the disciples who failed to conform to their pattern. We cannot fall into the “Fast Lane trap…” we shouldn’t be like that guy in the traffic fast lane, you know, the guy who is driving two miles under the speed limit in the passing lane and tries to enforce the speed limit upon others—let the police regulate traffic, ours is only to obey, not cause in others a resentment for our own boundaries. The slow guy in the passing lane can actually cause auto collisions, possibly causing deaths.

In the context of these two chapters one realizes that the Pharisees are walking with Jesus. They are at his side and hearing his teachings (and bristling at them.) He makes it quite plain through overt speech and a parable of the cities that unrepentant religion, outward and right conduct with impenitent hearts, is abhorrent to God. The purpose of all the law and the prophets is to bring changed lives. After all the explanation and teaching to the Pharisees who shadowed him, they still were so thickheaded that he had to demonstrate it and even reveal a glimpse of the divine by healing a man’s withered hand before their eyes. Balking at the miracle, failing to see him as Lord, they decided to kill Jesus because he healed the body of a broken man and didn’t follow their rules.

Are we impatient children, demanding our own way? If a child is put to work by a good father in His marketplace booth do we ridicule and deride him for not playing our games? Jesus was discussing religious sentiments in this passage. We are so easily hung up on religion: ignorant of the world outside our own rules and ready to take our ball and go home if others won’t play by the rules we invent (which is historically accurate if one researches the post Babylonian formation of the rules which the Pharisees followed: various adopted sets of halakhoths, or extra rules or “laws of religious norms.”) Matthew 11 and 12 are dripping with this context. The immature failed to recognize John the Baptist because he neither ate nor drank and they failed to recognize Jesus because he built relationships with those he came to save; they called him a glutton and drunkard. In their eyes, he didn’t perform as men expected and thus could not be the messiah. “You can’t play with us anymore Jesus.”

How would I compare this generation? As always we must look at the individuals; so many are identical to those of Jesus’s era. If it weren’t prophesied already it’d be anachronistic. But so many are also full of the passion and fire of God: a resurgence of Jesus Followers dedicated to Him whose only potential flaw is their seeming disdain of the church which Jesus loves… although I sometimes wonder if this is the true Bride of Christ, molted from within the shell of the former.

Don’t be that child, but rather stand and change the market place—be at work. Call the children to maturity! But never lay down that flute; never stop dancing—reach the children and the adults and lead like Christ… just don’t purport to be Him. After all Jesus’s explanation and teaching, will His bride remain mired in religion and rules or will it simply love as He loved and walk as He walked and thus finally be worthy of Him?

I think we need this guy's passion:

Evil, meet my secret Nazi Time Machine

…building a theodicy. From the World English Dictionary--"Theodicy: the branch of theology concerned with defending the attributes of God against objections resulting from physical and moral evil."

I talked a little about Gordon Haddon Clark in November and I wanted to come back to his extreme Calvinist (deterministic) theodicy. Clark just really gets me jacked up, I thought guys named Clark were supposed to be mild-mannered?

In his book, Systematic Theology, Millard Erickson uses three primary solutions to the problem of the existence of evil. He admits that this is perhaps “oversimplified,”[1] but is an excellent starting point. Each argument must be made within a well-tailored theodicy for it to have any significance; the entirety of the argument must not suffer from self-contradiction as a primary characteristic of the theodicy.[2]

The first solution Erickson introduces is Finitism, or the idea that God’s omnipotence is somehow limited. This idea often directly or indirectly models a dualistic system, such as Manichaeism (which is noticeable in Augustine’s earlier theology.[3]) Finitism stresses that this limit is not the result of God’s voluntarily imposed self-limitation. While this provides an answer to the problem of evil quandary, it does so at the expense of the omnipotence of God. While it may provide certain appeal to hard-lined free-will theists due to its mandated cooperation between God and man for His purposes,[4] the dissolution of God’s omnipotence leads directly into questioning the veracity of His goodness.

Secondly, Erickson discusses Modification of the Concept of God’s Goodness. From this viewpoint, we recognize that perhaps what we see as the boundaries of good and evil are not the same boundaries for God. Perhaps, because of His very nature, whatever God does is therefore good—even if it is an act we humans would label evil. He is the very standard of right.[5]

Finally Erickson brings up the Denial of Evil. Perhaps such a thing does not even exist. This is traditionally a pantheistic viewpoint and can easily lead into beliefs in theistic emanation. Typically, denying the existence of evil, whether of an actual nature or metaphysical nature, the effects of said evil (or whatever it becomes in its new definition) still remains. While this belief typically renders evil as illusory, the horizontal effects still remain, for example, a Jewish adherent of this belief might not give credence to the existence of evil as they labor in a Nazi slave camp, and yet the evil of others will still affect them adversely proving the problem of evil is based on more than belief or lack of belief in evil’s reality.

I find the most appealing answers somewhere between the lines of Erickson’s second argument. While I don’t believe God will directly cause such sin as Clark’s deterministic example of the drunkard shooting his family[6], God’s sovereignty demands that he be allowed to impede to a certain degree into the lives of men in the interest of preserving goodness. I might spark further debate and discussion by building a time machine and examining the history of Nazi Germany. It is not disputed that Hitler was an evil person who did unspeakable atrocities to God’s people. Given the option, would it be “good” to travel back and assassinate young Adolph before he rises to power? It would prevent a great evil and therefore be a just action. Perhaps God’s omniscient will causes the drunkard to murder his family to prevent a child from becoming our next Fuhrer. Of course, the fact that I propose a time machine in the first place, as if we could make the choice to undo what has happened, introduces my own Arminian leanings, but it is useful to inciting discussion on the subject. God’s goodness is somewhere in the midst, yet our inherent finitism is incapable of seeing it.

---

[1] (Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.) 439

[2] (Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.) 1184, 1185

[3] (Erickson 1998) 440

[4] (Erickson 1998) 441

[5] (Erickson 1998) 443

[6] (Erickson 1998) 442

Against the Divine Machine

So yeah, you may noticed that it's been a little while since I blogged. I've written TONS... just not posted much cuz most of it's been for my post-grad work. Some of it's decent, some is pretty dry. I decided I should just start posting some of the stuff that really jacks me up, anyway. So here's my caveat, some of it may get a little heady... some may get REALLY long and some might be simple book reviews, etc. In any event, you may find it interesting. If you don't, then you don't have to read it... anyhow, following is one of my favorite pieces... just trying to open a can of hellacious worms and look at the Arminian/Calvinism debate!

Against the Divine Machine: The Nature of Determinism, Which is the Logical Conclusion at the Far Edge of the Calvinistic Pendulum

Introduction

Humorist and cartoonist Bill Watterson named half of the iconic duo Calvin and Hobbes after theologian John Calvin. Ironically, or perhaps with purpose, Calvin once asks his friend if he believed his destiny was already fixed by cosmic forces. Hobbes is a nonbeliever while Calvin is sure. “Really? How come?” Hobbes asks. “Life’s a lot more fun when you’re not responsible for your actions,” Calvin replies.[1] While meant in jest, it is this Deterministic creed which many live their lives by.

Determinism is the belief that human actions are the result of antecedent causes which have been formulated naturalistically or theistically. The natural viewpoint sees every action as resulting from, and causing another, action ad infinitum. This makes humans a part of “the machinery of the universe.”[2] Theistic Determinism sees all of these predetermined actions as a direct result of God’s control. While it may be a nice platitude meant to reassure the troubled soul, how much control over daily minutia do we mean to infer God actively has when we say, “Don’t worry; God is in total control.” How does that impact the nature of God, specifically His love and justice?

Many scholars, even those theologians normally opposed to each other, make the same point that God’s loving character or his loving nature (as revealed to us in scripture) would be inaccurate if there were no such thing as free will[3]; as typical to such a debate, such a war is won in the definition of the terms and thus “Free Will” becomes hotly debated. Even most hardcore determinists claim there is such a thing as free will and the exercise thereof, however they redefine freedom or will in order to fit their theology into an acceptable mold. The devil is in the details.

Problematic Deterministic Theodicy

The primary apologetic Calvinists are determined to reinforce is to find a way to reconcile this nature of God with predestination or election, especially when the concept of double-predestination is scrutinized (whereby the “nonelect” are condemned to Hell after judgment: a sentence which they had no control to avoid).[4] It seems that a God of such Deterministic machinations is neither just nor loving. A loving, omnipotent God cannot predetermine the damnation of certain souls while his love remains intact; does He truly love everybody if the option of Hell remains on the table and such Election or nonelection remains unconditional? A God of love is not omnipotent if he cannot simply save the souls of the ones he loves.

Justice cannot truly exist under the umbrella of Determinism. Sometimes God may seem to appear unjust, but only ever at the benefit of those He loves; God does not give what is undeserved except when he gives a reprieve, this is fundamental to Grace.

Debate over this specific issue has raged for generations, and for good reasons. Either point taken to the extreme results in an unbalanced theodicy and potentially discredits the rationality behind Theology. Taken to the far edge, Calvinism becomes staunchly predestination and stifles all free will—humans have no capacity to make their own decisions and God is a great machine, this results from the second point of Calvinists’ TULIP: Unconditional Election. We will examine this concept further.

On the other end of the spectrum Arminianism risks infringing upon the sovereignty and power of God. The same was mentioned in regards to Determinism, though more in the hyperbolic context of love and the nonelect. Arminianism, taken to the edge, elevates human authority above the rule and dominion of God; presented as a theodicy the extremity of this viewpoint is the Open Theism view[5].

This paper deals primarily with the side of Determinism. Admittedly, it leans towards an Arminian bent. Particularly this is because of my belief that I am a sinner and my acceptance and acknowledgement that I cannot do otherwise without the help of a savior. This may sound like the exact opposite argument Calvinists expect, perhaps even like a point in their favor. I expect Justice, however, and I know and understand that no penance can recompense God for violating His laws. But if God chose for me to commit my sins, and will then punish me for them, then He is not just. If God cannot stand sin and foreordains all mankind to sin, thus expelling us yet desiring us to come to Him, then He is not logical. Chiefly Justice, but also other of God’s traits are of primary concern to this study.

Any study of God’s Justice or Love must include a logical theodicy, or a whole theology that explains the existence of sin or moral evil. At Determinism’s worst, a skewed theodicy results whereby God willingly forces men to commit atrocities that violate the moral law the theodicy is meant to explain.

While many Calvinists might argue that such a belief is not the intent of TULIP theology, it is the natural outcropping of this theology. In fact, the position that God causes humans to sin was taught by Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s immediate successor.[6]

Calvinist theologian and philosopher Gordon Haddon Clark makes his thoughts expressly clear in his writings. “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it.”[7] It is this position of Clark, and similar positions, which this paper explores. Clark presses his point, “Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent.”[8] Clark’s position is hotly contended by many passages of scripture.

Natural Determinism

Clark’s type of theology is certainly dangerous to the health of the general public. While not endorsing the view that theology mesh with contemporary existential understanding, it would certainly make the topic less hotly debated.

John Calvin insisted that the doctrine of predestination does not lead to carelessness regarding morality, or the cavalier attitude that one can continue to sin care-free since his or her election is assured. Calvin insists that knowledge of our election leads us to pursue holy living.[9] One wonders how much time Calvin spent with other humans given that viewpoint; like utopian communism, such an idea looks good on paper but seems contrary to human nature. Psychologist Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler enacted experiments to examine whether participants who believed that human behavior is predetermined would be more encouraged to cheat. Exposure to a message implying a deterministic worldview increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems which they'd been instructed to solve themselves. Increased cheating was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In another experiment, participants who read statements endorsing free will did not cheat while their counterparts did. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.[10]

The worst of these implications is the total abandonment of any form of theology and the universality of atheism. The rejection of freewill emasculates any concept of moral obligation. Author-philosopher and Faraday Institute Associate Nicholas Beale asserts that denying freewill “is the closest thing I can imagine to a scientific refutation of Christianity.”[11]

Beale differs from modern scientific thought in that his philosophical presuppositions leave room in the framework for the possibility of a god. Beale’s quote is a common assertion among the atheistic community. Much of those, touting science as the ultimate answer, have worked the Deterministic angle as a proof against God. Beale claims a personal belief in evolution and even makes a philosophical argument for its logical necessity to increase the attribute of Love and goodness of God[12] although it seems to disagree with his position regarding causation of “natural evils” such as earthquakes. Thus, we see what science has to offer Determinists.

Stephen Hawking notes the impossibility of scientific Determinism explaining nonquantifiable, factual data. “Gödel’s theorem, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and the practical impossibility of following the evolution of even a deterministic system that becomes chaotic, form a core set of limitations to scientific knowledge that only came to be appreciated during the twentieth century.”[13] Hawking is admitting that any phenomena that cannot be measured or empirically observed and cannot therefore be reduced to quantitative analysis (things such as “meaning,” “beauty,” or “justice”) cannot be explained by science. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle alone wrecks any argument for Determinism.

Science, then, has left us bereft of answers. The scientific community can agree that they place their faith in the Darwinian model and the evolutionary process. They cannot agree, however, as to the best way to disprove God: to invalidate their agnosticism with proven cause for atheism. While determinism seems an option on face value, it alone cannot explain justice and other philosophical concepts outside the realm of science. Scientific based Determinism cannot touch God and so philosophy is appealed to. Beale notes, “The idea that [Determinism] is, philosophically, a defeater for religious belief is mistaken.”[14] And so, science appeals to philosophy to sound the death knell of God, and philosophy demands the same of science. Science cannot answer these questions because these concepts are immeasurable and unobservable.

Philosophy tries to grasp onto the theological precepts, however, philosophy does not operate with an accurate concept of evil. Beale, and other philosophers, often define “evil” from within an existential framework. Evil is something which causes feelings other than pleasure. “It is clear that, if you love someone, you do not knowingly allow them to suffer serious pain or evil without sufficiently good reasons. People do suffer serious pain and evil, and at least some (most Christians would say, all) of them are people whom God loves.”[15] Beale’s view of evil, that it would include natural disasters and such occurrences, seems to compromise God’s loving nature. How does one reconcile those positions? The answer is the opposite of Determinism, or Open Theism, whereby God surrenders his omniscience and sovereignty except to act in specific situations to ensure His will is enacted. Arguing for some form of Determinism we arrive at its antithesis and neither conclusion integrates well with the Biblical source data.

Theological Determinism

Since philosophy and science both fail to adequately come to terms with the God of the Bible, the only logical place to turn is to the pages of Scripture itself. The Determinism concept, in various forms and doctrines, is something that theologians have grapple with for ages; even in the 1800s it was pointedly asserted that the Determinism paradigm was unsolvable and yet is also a topic that we cannot just sweep under the rug. Francis Garden wrote about Gordon H. Clark’s God/murder situation a hundred years prior. “How can we say of the very same thing that it has been decreed by the will of God, and that it is contrary to that will? ...an absolute shutting up of the question is unsatisfactory, and in reducing ourselves to silence we may bring on an oblivion of much important truth.”[16] Either something is God’s will or it is not. Clark takes the notions set forth in Puritan Calvinist Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will, whereby God decrees what he foreknows and mankind acts on this (thus redefining “Free Will,”[17]) and eradicates the attempted separation of the individual’s freedom to act from God’s compulsory, decretive will.

In Garden’s version of the murder story, a man is murdered and he asks the hypothetical question of how we counsel his widow. If we believe in predestination, then surely the murder must be the will of God. “A large portion of the events which happen in this world is made up of men's crimes, sins, wrong-doings of every imaginable degree. Has God predestined them? And if not, where are we to draw the line?”[18]

Is there a theology that treads the middle path? Freewill Theism, a form of Self-Determinism, is any type of theological model that affirms that, contrary to Process Theism, (which is a facet of Open Theism,) “God can unilaterally intervene in earthly affairs and does so at times” while still denying a fundamental precept of Theological Determinism, “that God can both grant individuals freedom and control its use.”[19]

Scriptural Analysis

In decoding the theological impetus behind Determinism, one must look at the biblical concept of election. In the New Testament, Paul the Apostle joins love with the principle of election on at least four occasions.[20] As mentioned earlier, love is a fundamental aspect which must be reconcilable within one’s theodicy.

Very specifically, it is worth looking at Paul’s background as he penned the manuscripts surrounding election. Timo Eskola does an excellent job forming a solid exegesis of Paul’s writings. He begins with the Jewish context for Paul's theologizing. Eskola focuses especially on the demonstrably pre-New Tesatament material such as select apocalypses, wisdom books, and the Qumran documents.

Using Sirach as his key witness, Eskola argues that the sapiential tradition reflects a significant departure from the Deuteronomic approach to Israel's salvation. The varied responses to persecution among Jews compelled the wisdom teachers to adopt a new eschatological dualism, according to which personal salvation was not ultimately determined just on the basis of covenantal election, but also on the basis of fidelity to the law.[21] There exists, then, a significant departure in electoral belief structure from one Testament to the next, that departure can be traced back to the inter-testamental period.

A similar picture emerges from a study of key apocalyptic books (I Enoch, Jubilees, 4 Ezra) and of the Qumran material. In all these sources, the soteriology is also synergistic: one's covenantal status is not, in itself, sufficient for deliverance. One must validate that status through observance of the law. Proof was required of commitment to that elected status. Important to this soteriology within Eskola’s argument is that predestination in these writings is not deterministic. Even at Qumran, the destiny of human beings is not fixed by divine decree but left open to the choices people make either to follow or to reject the way of law-keeping.[22] Given the background material it is reasonable to suggest that the original audience of the Pauline writings would understand the concept of “election” under similar terms.

Eskola’s theodicy is complete, allowing fully for both God’s wrath and his salvation. Paul radicalizes the Jewish understanding in that all people are bound by sin and subject therefore to God's wrath. No longer is there a basis, at least at the outset, for positive human response to God. Paul's solution is not the predestination of individuals, such as in the Augustinian and Calvinist tradition, but a universal Christological predestination. “All human beings have first been predestined to damnation. All men have been ‘elected’ to find salvation in Christ”[23]

Eskola concludes that predestination involves universal election in Christ, but this universal election does not necessarily bring salvation to all. Election involves the provision in Christ of atonement for all, but “does not yet deliver salvation to individuals.”[24] This is perhaps the most frank and literal reading of the scripture one will find when they study the topic both systematically and exegetically.

Conclusion

The idea of God’s omniscience, free will, and predestination in most current thought and theology is linear. In Theistic Determinism, God created originally and set everything in motion, this makes all subsequent events contingent and thus predestined. The problem with this is that we are limiting an infinite God. “Determinism is the view that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future,”[25] according to Peter van Inwagen, the noted philosopher and metaphysicist. Limiting the dimension of God by our human perspective, we act just like the residents of Abbott’s Flatland, not able to see beyond our own dimension and understand that some objects transcend our own reality; who better fits that description but God.

Imagine a world map with a pin on a specific location; the map fails to take into account the fact that the earth is not a mere two dimensional layout (which anyone not believing the world is flat can agree with.) A point on a map is insufficient for a miner wishing to harvest minerals from a mountain marked by the map, there is also a depth or elevation necessary with the dimensional coordinates; any person who has installed a satellite receiver on the roof knows that they cannot receive the proper signal with just the number of circular degrees, but must also measure and pinpoint the dish’s azimuth in order to locate their signal source. An exponentially increasing number of possibilities might exist in a true free-will scenario, though only one reality exists, as far as our base assumptions on the nature of the universe (which some philosophers may argue is a weighty assumption) and therefore we base our theodicy and theology on destiny and election on this very notion.

Perhaps it would be more fitting with the character and nature of God, especially his infinite nature, to reenvision the base model of divine knowledge as a visual family tree where every branch is a point in time related to an individual and to their available options at that point in time (even taking into account contingency and natural leanings of that man). This would obviously create quite an immense, tangled and intertwined tree branching off with such a large and ever expanding number of variables that it boggles the mind… the human mind that is. This a limitation of the human mind, however, and must be reconciled with a limitless God who can easily encompass far more than our mind can ever achieve—we cannot compare our perception of reality versus the Infinite One. While this thinking might be less understandable, it is perhaps easier to reconcile with the concept of sovereignty, omniscience, and the Calvinist accusation of a limited God given an Arminian perspective. Perhaps that is what is called for in developing a new theodicy for a contemporary rational age: that we finite beings surrender the need to understand everything about an infinite God, or even begin to open ourselves to the possibility of things beyond our finite dimension. Perhaps then we can find some genuine common ground with each other.

Election must remain within the realm of soteriology and not venture beyond its doctrinal borders without doing much harm to the doctrine of free will. In any discussion of election, we must begin with Jesus and restrain taking liberties with any theology we have merely inferred from the text.

Bibliography

Basinger, David. The Case for Freewill Theism A Philosophical Assessment. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.

Beale, Nicholas. "Free Will, Free Process, and Love." Think Autumn (2009): 115-124.

Calvin, John. "book 3, chapter 23, section 19." In Institutes. n.d.

Caner, Ed Hindson and Ergun, ed. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene: Harvest House, 2008.

Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason, and Revelation. P{hiladelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961.

Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will: Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue, and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co, 1860.

Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Eskola, Timo. Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Sotenology. Tübingen: Paul Mohr Verlag, 1998.

Garden, Francis. "Divine Predestination: An Attempt Approximatley to Solve the Main Difficulty Connected With It." Contemporary Review, June 1872: 423-429.

Hawking, Stephen. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam, 2001.

Horton, Stanley, ed. Systematic Theology. Revised. Springfield: Logion Press, 1995.

John Walvoord, William Crocket, Zachary Hayes, Clark Pinnock. Four Views on Hell. Edited by William Crocket. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Kathleen Vohs, and Jonathan Schooler. "The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating." Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell) 19, no. 1 (Jan 2008): 49-54.

van Inwagen, Peter. "An Essay on Free Will." In The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Watterson, Bill. The Authoritative Calvin and Hobbes. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1990.

---

[1] (Watterson 1990) 152

[2] (Elwell 2001) 467

[3] (John Walvoord 1992) 140

[4] (Erickson 1998) 930

[5] (Caner 2008) 241

[6] (Erickson 1998) 926

[7] (Clark 1961) 221

[8] (Clark 1961) 237-238

[9] (Calvin n.d.)

[10] (Kathleen Vohs, and Jonathan Schooler 2008) 49

[11] (Beale 2009) 117

[12] (Beale 2009) 118

[13] (Hawking 2001) 139

[14] (Beale 2009) 124

[15] (Beale 2009) 115

[16] (Garden 1872) 425

[17] (Edwards 1860) 1-10

[18] (Garden 1872) 424

[19] (Basinger 1996) 12

[20] (Horton 1995) 356

[21] (Eskola 1998) 41-44

[22] (Eskola 1998) 273

[23] (Eskola 1998) 185

[24] (Eskola 1998) 185, 186

[25] (van Inwagen 1975) 10