"Forced to Believe" (1)

NOTICE:

This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.

The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.

 

 

I have talked much about "inconsistent" Calvinism, both in my books and articles, and on this blog. Here I would like to use A. A. Hodge to give you an example of what inconsistent Calvinism can make you say.

But first let's get something out of the way. In using Hodge as an example, I am not challenging his orthodoxy, or his dedication to Scripture, Christianity, and Calvinism. In fact, it is precisely because his orthodoxy is generally unchallenged that I prefer to use him as an example, so that you will see that the problem is not found only in crazy heretics or bumbling idiots.

So here is our example. In the context of discussing creation ex nihilo, Hodge writes:

Although the absolute origination of any new existence out of nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one whit more so than the relation of the infinite foreknowledge, or foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency of men, nor than many other truths which we are all forced to believe.

A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology,
(The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999 reprint), p. 240.

In other words, the biblical doctrine of creation is "inconceivable," but that's all right because many other biblical doctrines are also inconceivable — and that makes it all better!

Are we expected to swallow this? The better question would be whether the Bible talks about its own doctrines this way. Does the Bible say that its own doctrines are rationally inconceivable (I add "rationally" because this is the sense in which Hodge meant it)? Does the Bible say that its own doctrines are rationally so difficult to accept, that we must be "forced to believe" them?

If we answer in the negative, then in this instance, and in all other instances when Hodge writes this way, he is not representing what the Bible really teaches. Rather, he is measuring biblical doctrines against some anti-biblical standard, and since what is biblical is incompatible with what is anti-biblical, then if he insists on affirming both, then of course the biblical doctrines all of a sudden become "inconceivable," and of course one would feel as if he is being "forced to believe" them. But the problem is in Hodge's own mind, and not in the biblical system of doctrines.

Many Calvinists talk like Hodge does — STOP IT! It is not a sign of faith and reverence to sound like a lunatic and then drag God into it.

What? You are trying to defend Christian doctrine, and you are calling your own worldview "inconceivable," and that you are "forced to believe" it? It is this kind of unbiblical and irrational statements that non-Christians often exploit. Now, what do you think I should do if someone were to bring this quote up in a debate? For the proper defense of the gospel, I must renounce Hodge, at least on this point. I must say that, at least on this point (and in reality also on many other points), he neither speaks for me nor for Scripture; he is wrong.

In contrast, I say that although they might not be exhaustively grasped (since God's mind is infinitely greater than ours, and therefore we cannot exhaustively learn all its contents), all that God has revealed — all biblical doctrines — are conceivable, understandable, reasonable, defensible, and undeniable.

Because unbelievers are sinful and irrational, it is impossible for them to affirm that which is holy and rational, and therefore unless God directly acts upon their minds and changes them, they will never believe. However, all the biblical doctrines are easy for the elect to believe because God has granted them the gift of faith.

Biblical doctrines are only inconceivable if measured against some irrational premise or standard. What we need to do is to cast aside these false principles and assumptions that are not part of our worldview in the first place. But if you are going to take principles and assumptions from two contradictory worldviews and try to jam them together, then, yes, you are going to end up with something inconceivable. Just don't call that Christianity or Calvinism.

(to be continued)

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians

Vincent Cheung, More on "Apparent" Contradictions

Vincent Cheung, Comments on "Why I am not a Calvinist"

Gordon Clark, Predestination