Posted on 04/30/2004 12:50:45 PM PDT by HarleyD
A few days back I was involved in a discussion about character traits. In my post I'm Selfish, Are You? I mentioned that I don't agree with the rather common position that man is inherently evil. I wanted to expand on why I disagree.
As I mentioned in one of my very first posts on this blog, I tend towards a libertarian political view. Not an anarchist libertarian, but a reasonable one. I want a small government. I want people to leave me alone unless they have good reason to interfere in my life. Sure, it opens me up to more risk, but I believe in the concept in personal responsibility.
One of the corollaries that goes along with the idea that man is inherently evil is that rules and laws have to be used to keep him in line. A lack of rules will naturally lead to anarchy and a society based solely on survival of the fittest.
Now some rules are necessary to keep society functioning properly as there are some evil people in the world. But where does the line get drawn?
If you believe that man is evil you are willing to accept quite a few rules and laws. Proponents of big government usually couch their goal in the rhetoric of protecting the people from unscrupulous charlatans. They argue that big business is evil and that there have to be rules in place to protect the little man.
They ignore the concept of caveat emptor. They act as though people are incapable of taking any step to protect themselves. Man is evil and only government has the key to protect us from the evilness of everyone else.
It's really, in my opinion, a depressing way of viewing the world (and this is coming from someone who is constantly being called an unreformable cynic). It is also directly opposed to my belief that government needs to be smaller.
Now this isn't to say that I believe that man is as pure as the driven snow and therefore rules shouldn't be necessary. To think that man is pure is to completely deny reality.
Rather, man is neutral on whole. Some people are bad, most are good. Good people sometimes do bad things and bad people sometimes do good things. But more importantly, man is smart. Man can analyze a situation and figure out how to take steps to protect himself.
Assuming he's allowed to exercise that kind of personal responsibility. Big government doesn't allow for it.
But why do I keep coming back to this personal responsibility concept? Is it important for something more than just "personal responsibility?"
I think it is. When someone takes responsibility for their own actions, they grow. They become more willing to take risks as they become better able to analyze and respond to the potential problems that they might face. And more importantly, they become more self-sufficient and less likely to look to the government for support.
Small government allows for this to happen. Big government, which is one of the side-effects of the inherently evil position, does not.
It in fact becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Man is evil, so more rules are needed. Man loses the self reliance and personal responsibility that come with freedom. He becomes more dependent on handouts. He becomes lazy. Laziness = evil, which means that we now have to create more rules to stop the slacking. And on and on and on.
I have also never seen any real evidence that man as a whole is evil (if you have some, please post a link to it in the comments). There are some people who are evil. Quite a few. But there have also been quite a few good people, too. Man as a group isn't evil, only some men as individuals.
I can't bring myself to reconcile the idea of man being inherently evil with my libertarian beliefs. The two just don't seem to be able to co-exist as they have fundamentally different approaches to the need for rules. Plus, I just don't like the inherent negativity in the inherently evil approach.
Man is not evil. Just a few individuals.
Maybe because some of the articles of faith of GRPL have no counterpart in objective reality. Consider the following axiom, as stated earlier in this thread:
"Calvinism also assumes that Fallen Man is a COWARD." ==============
It is only necessary to observe the actions of other men (many or most of whom can be presumed to be non-Christian) during wartime, or in various disasters (the 9/11 Atrocity, for instance); to see many valorous, unselfish acts. Is it rational to assume that ALL of the Policemen and Firemen who went up into a burning building, knowing that they almost certainly would lose their life were followers of the Way? Such a thought is not only not rational, it is absurd. It is beyond the possibility of belief.
DG
"Pink"? As in the flash-pan hip-hop artist with a few catchy songs?
Well, in terms of her current hair-color... yeah, pretty much.
Leathers, Tattoos, Inks, Bass Guitar and pink hair... yup, that's my baby. I wouldn't change her for anything.
And the beautiful thing is, she doesn't want me to change either. I've dated the Reformed Baptist girls and the born-and-bred OP girls; and at the end of the day, I'd have to change my personality a lot to conform to their expectations.
Not so with Kimmy. Here's more or less how that conversation sorta went:
That last part was pretty much verbatim.
And at that point... stick a fork in me, I'm done. Check, please.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's my girl.
Best, OP
Nor mine. I adamantly believe in Human Free Will.
This morning, for example, I consumed a delicious high-protein PowerBar for my breakfast (with Coffee, of course -- it's not breakfast without coffee) -- of my own Free Will (no, I'm not a health nut; in fact, quite the opposite -- I prefer to get 100% of all my vitamins and minerals in one quick serving, because I know that otherwise I don't pay any attention to my dietary needs).
But the cultivation of high-protein soybeans, their enrichment with healthy vitamins and minerals, their packaging in a quickie 100% RDA "meal in a bar"... all of these facets of my Free Will choice are pre-conditions over which my Free Will had no input whatsoever -- it was God's will alone to advance Agriculture and Science to the point that I would even have this Choice available to me.
And what is more, it is God who designed my Mind, my tastes and proclivities, God who knit me together in my Mother's Womb. It is God who knew, when He designed me, that I would be the sort of person who prefers a quick "meal-in-a-bar" with Coffee to a nice extended breakfast of cereal and grapefruit and breakfast meats -- and he could have designed me differently, if He so desired.
But He has constructed me as He wills, knowing the Choices that I will make given the construction that I am (Coffee and a PowerBar, thanks, gotta run!), and knowing also the different Choices that I would make if He had seen fit to construct me differently.
In other words, God (by His ordinating construction of Human Minds) does predestine what Free-Will Choices we will make.
Alone in Eternity, He certainly foreknows what Free-Will Choices we Humans will make if He constructs our Minds and Hearts according to one particular design; and He foreknows what different Free-Will Choices we Humans will make if He constructs our Minds and Hearts according to a different design.
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (Matt 11:21)
And God alone decides just however He will construct our Hearts and Minds.
Thus God, by His Predestinating Sovereignty, does determinately pre-ordain just what Choices we shall have available to us; and God, by His Predestinating Sovereignty, does determinately pre-ordain just what Choices we shall make (God foreknew that IF He performed the Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, they would choose to Repent; and that if He did not, they would not. And He chose to NOT perform the Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, and so it came to pass that they did NOT repent). All acording to His purposes.
I don't believe in Meat Puppets. I don't believe in Automaton Robots. I believe in Free Will.
But I also believe that Free Will has only the Choices which God ordains to its allowance (back to the PowerBar -- if God had not ordained the progress of Science and Agriculture to permit the production of high-protein PowerBars, then I could not "Freely Choose" to consume one). And I also believe that God, who alone constructs the Mind and Heart of Man, could choose to construct a Man differently, which would result in different Free Will choices.
Ultimately, I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to combine God's Divine Foreknowledge, with His Divine Freedom of Action, and arrive at a conclusion which is ANYTHING LESS than Absolute Predestination.
Think about it.
Realize that God alone designs the Hearts and Minds of Man, and that He Knows/Foreknows exactly what Choices a Free-Will Human will have, and exactly what Choices a Free-Will Human will make, if God chooses to design that Man a certain way; and that God Knows/Foreknows exactly what Choices a Free-Will Human in certain Created Circumstances will have, and exactly what Choices a Free-Will Human will make differently, if God chooses to design that Man and his circumstances differently.
I submit that this is an absolutely-insurmountable, and absolutely-Biblical, defense of the Doctrine of Absolute Predestination.
If God absolutely foreknows that a Created Human will Freely Choose "Action A" in "Situation A"; And if God absolutely foreknows that a Created Human will Freely Choose "Action B" in "Situation B"...
Then by His Sovereign pre-ordinating Creation of that Human in the circumstances in Question (Let's say, "Circumstance B"), God has absolutely predestined what that Created Human's free choice will be ("Action B").
But the Created Human is still freely choosing. He is freely choosing the precise action which God foreknew he would choose in that precise situation. And God could have chosen to create differently ("for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes"); but God did choose to create that Human in that precise situation. And thus, that Created Human, in that Created Situation, does freely choose exactly what God has predetermined him to choose -- by God so creating him, and creating him and his circumstances thusly and not differently.
Thus God alone, in His Creative Sovereignty, does absolutely predetermine what Choices we will have, and what Choices we will make.
best, OP
What about them?
I freely admit that the State is ordained of God, and necessary Taxes are rightfully paid thereto, for the accomplishment of the State's God-ordained purposes.
"Render unto Caesar that which is His", I say; and not a penny more.
Which behooves us to ask: What, Rightfully, is Caesar's?
I hold with the answer that the Apostle Paul gives right there in Romans 13:
Render unto Caesar that which is his. If Romans 13 does not properly define the authority of Caesar, then I must ask you: what authority belongs to Caesar, which Paul has not exactly defined in Romans 13:8-10, the "fulfilling of the Law"?
What exact sphere of Caesar's rightful authority, "That which is his", did Paul forget to include?
Cite chapter and verse, or nothing. Only the Bible will be accepted as legitimate evidence.
Thanks, OP
Let me illustrate this for you:
I place a piece of meat and a slice of onion in one room, chocolate and a cucumber in another and a leaf of lettuce in the third. I take my dog into the first room and, behold, he "chooses" meat! I then take him to the second room and, behold, he "chooses" chocolate, and then I take him to the third room and, behold, he "chooses not" to eat lettuce!
There is no free choice here, OP. The dog is "predestined" to do what the dog is designed to do, and I have given him only the choices I could predict he will make.
By this construct, Hitler and Stalin and Caiaphas and Judas and Pontius Pilate were all doing God's work, which is always good. They bear no responsibility for their evil acts because they were predestined to make the choices by none other than God's design to slaughter millions of people.
It amazes me that Calvinists and other Reformed brethren do not see something wrong in all this.
Christ is Risen!
Perilously close to Absolute Foreknowledge based predestination, eh.
Unless, of course, God acts without forethought. And I don't think there's any evidence of that.
Who makes up the government?
More? No. "More regulation," IMHO, would just lead to such a state of complexity that the average citizen couldn't know whether or not he broke the law.
Somewhere along the lines, evangelical Christianity started poo-pooing the law. I have my suspicions that a particular systematic theology, of which I am a former adherent, is at least partially responsible, but ultimately, that's irrelevant. The passages that we are not under law, but under grace have been over-emphasized, so that we've lost sight of how beautifully simple the law is; and that, to a certain extent, we are obliged to obey the moral code of the OT. (Hence, in Romans 13:9, the 10 Commandments and Lev 19:18 are cited authoritatively as binding upon Christians.)
So what's the beauty of the OT law? That it was written down in clear language, laying out exactly what God expected of Israelites. The language is not the language of lawyers, but rather colloqial. Many of the laws are either straightforward "Thou shalt not...." or equally simple (albiet more easily broadly applied) "if a man...."
What I'm saying here, therefore, is that "more laws" isn't an answer, because it just leads to complexity, and complexity doesn't help keep totally depraved men from expressing that depravity. Rather, "more laws" provides more opportunities for both intentional and inadvertant violations.
Similarly, I believe the government has a right to demand whatever taxes it needs. At the same time, as a conservative, I realize that the Laffer curve demonstrates that lower taxes encourage greater prosperity. So, while I chafe at paying Social Security, knowing I will never see it -- as a college student who earns under $5k a year, those are all the taxes I pay, really -- as a Christian, I acknowledge that the government has every right to demand that of me.
Now, as I interpret Romans 13, I see no room for a Locke-style social contract -- the authorities that be are ordained of God, whether or not they are oppressive. Nero was a legitimate governmental authority, and insofar as his commands were moral, Christians were obliged to obey him. Were Adolf Hitler my authority, if he lawfully commanded me to drive 55 MPH, I would be obliged to obey. I believe moral authority does not derive from the morality of the governmental leader.
Of course, that raises the issue of civil disobedience -- when is it permissible for Christians to disobey the state? The only times in Scripture we have civil disobedience portrayed is when the authorities commanded something that they were not entitled to -- Darius told Daniel that he could only pray to Darius, and the Apostles were commanded by the Sanhedrein not to preach the gospel. Those, as far as I know, are the only cases of civil disobedience in the Bible. I know that my perspective is contrary to the Locke social contract theory that is the very basis of American government, but its what I see.
OP: I don't know for sure, but it seems as though I might be leaning towards a theonomist understanding of government, although not their eschatology. I'd value your input; Romans 13 is a passage I've been studying lately.
If you believe God ordained everything I guess the question is do you believe God ordained whether you would choose Him or not? That would determine whether you're a Calvinist and whether you believe God ordained everything.
God ordained my decision to follow Christ. He has placed his stamp of approval upon it and either caused it to happen (by a direct act of divne intervention) or permitted it to happen (by His determination that he would allow it to take place exactly as it did). Either way God is glorified in my decision to follow him and is equally glorified in a person's decision to reject him. Is he not?
God doesn't ordain the "whethers" inasmuch as God has known from all eternity what will be. Thus from God's perspective there are no "Whether or nots" to ordain. What happens is what God has ordained. If it doesn't happen, it wasn't ordained to happen. That goes for your salvation as well as your next breath. And that goes for people's ultimate damnation as well.
Now am I a Calvinist in your book?
Or consider the example OP brought up: Christ said Tyre and Sidon would be converted if He performed miracles in their midst. But God chose not to. Absolute foreknowledge? Sure -- He knew the contingency that would occur should he decide to work miracles in Tyre or Sidon. One could say that he foresaw faith. But "foreseen faith" isn't the determining factor.
Of course, these are just the pathetic attempts of a college punk to understand the incomprehensible. And you're absolutely right: we get to the same place. We're both, ultimately, predestinarian. We both, ultimately, agree about God's sovreignty even over salvation. We both, I think, believe in Perseverence of the Saints, after a fashion. Our agreements are much larger than our disagreements. As far as I am concerned, thats good enough for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.