DoesCalvinism oblige you to withhold hope in your child’s salvation?
Nowimagine that the topic is salvation. Should you hope that Jones is of the elector of the reprobate? That all depends on whether you have reason to believeJones is of the elect or of the reprobate. If you have no evidence that Jonesis of the elect or the reprobate then you ought to withhold hope that he isultimately of the elect or reprobate.
Theargument as applied to the salvation of Jones depends on the Calvinist viewthat God is the primary determining cause of human election to salvation orreprobation combined with the belief that human beings ought not will contraryto what God wills. Thus, if God wills to be the primary determining cause ofJones’ reprobation then we ought not will other than what God willed.
This isnot a problem for Arminianism because on the Arminian view God’s will is thatall be saved and it is the determining cause of the human being to reject God’ssalvific offer that is the primary determining cause of one’s reprobation.Thus, on the Arminian view the wish that Jones would be saved is a wish thatJones would act in accord with God’s universal salvific divine will. This isvery different from the Calvinistic view according to which the wish that Joneswould be saved is a wish that Jones would act in a way which may be contrary toGod’s particular salvific divine will.
Nowlet’s replace the generic “Jones” with your daughter or son, your spouse orparent. It would follow that insofar as you do not have reason to believe yourdaughter or son, your spouse or parent is elect, that you ought not hope fortheir election. This, I would think, is a problem for Calvinism.
http://randalrauser.com/2012/11/does-calvinism-oblige-you-to-withhold-hope-in-your-childs-salvation/
I’mimpressed by how many bad arguments Rauser can squeeze into four paragraphs.That’s quite an accomplishment, albeit a rather dubious accomplishment.
i) It iswrong to assume a God’s-eye viewpoint unless we actually enjoy a God’s-eyeviewpoint. That’s presumptuous. Since we don’t know God’s will in the case ofany particular individual, we’re in no position to will contrary to God’s willfor that individual. We don’t know enough to oppose God’s will.
If Godwills his salvation, and we withhold “hope,” then one could just as well arguethat that’s opposing God’s will.
ii) Evenfrom an Arminian standpoint, Christians often pray for things that God won’tgrant. They don’t know ahead of time if it’s God’s will to grant their request.By Rauser’s logic, Christians should never pray for something unless they knowin advance that God wills it.
iii)Keep in mind, too, that from a decretal perspective, if we did will (wish,hope) contrary to God’s will, that’s only because God willed us to willcontrary to his will. If I hope for someone’s salvation, God predestined me tohope for someone’s salvation. So at one level, that can never be inconsistentwith God’s (decretive) will.
iv)There’s also an equivocation here. God “willing” something and my “willing”something don’t mean the same thing. In the context of this discussion, God’swill is synonymous with predestination, whereas our will is synonymous withwishing that something was the case. These can’t be set in direct opposition,for they are not the same thing.
iv)Since God is God and man is man, there’s no reason to think God requires us tofeel the same way about the lost that he does. We are human. We have aviewpoint suited to our humanity. And God made us that way. He created us tohave emotional attachments. And some people are naturally dearer to us thanothers.
v)Rauser artificially abstracts predestination from providence. But they arecoordinated. Our prayers can factor into the outcome. Friendship evangelism canfactor into the outcome. The predestined result doesn’t necessarily or evennormally occur apart from what we do, or neglect to do, for the lost.
vi) Apropos(v), we have more reason to “hope” for what we work for (e.g. friendshipevangelism) and pray for, than if we’re talking about some randomunbeliever in the phone book.
Likewise,we wouldn’t pray for somebody’s salvation in the first place, or practicefriendship evangelism, unless we wish for their salvation. And prayer is a wayof aligning our will with God’s will. We submit our desires to God, trusting inhis superior wisdom to either grant our request or refuse our request.
vii)“Hope” is standardly defined as a wish, feeling, or desire, combined withconfidence, anticipation, or expectation of its fulfillment.
Butaccording to Arminianism, God’s universal saving desire doesn’t result in thesalvation of anyone in particular. Therefore, it would be irrational to expectthat God will save Jones.
Indeed,there are Arminians who think most human beings are hellbound, based on theirunderstanding of Mt 7:13-14. How can you expect or confidently anticipate thatJones will be saved if only a fraction of humanity will be saved?
viii)Rauser oscillates between “wishing” and “hoping,” as if these are synonymous.But at best that’s equivocal, and at worst that’s a bait-n-switch. For “hoping”means more than “wishing.”
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder