"Forced to Believe" (4)
We are continuing our discussion on inconsistent Calvinism, using A. A. Hodge as our example.
[Continuous creation] is inconsistent with our original and necessary intuitions of truth of all kinds, physical, intellectual, and moral. Our original intuitions assure us of the real and permanent existence of spiritual and material substances exercising powers, and of our own spirits as real, self-determining causes of action, and consequently as responsible moral agents. But if this doctrine is true these primary, constitutional intuitions of our nature deceive us, and if these deceive us, the whole universe is an illusion, our own natures a delusion, and absolute skepticism inevitable. (261)
Hodge is trying to refute continuous creation. Right now, the issue is not whether continuous creation is right, but the issue is that his refutation is terrible. Among other things, this is a spectacular display of begging the question. He says that continuous creation contradicts our intuition, so that if continuous creation is right, then our intuition is wrong, and if our intuition is right, then continuous creation is wrong.
So what? First, he fails to show that our intution is universal. My own intuition certainly does not tell me all that he is claiming here. Second, he fails to show that our intuition is infallible; we have no idea whether it is right or wrong. Third, he fails to show that our intuition is necessary. He claims that if we deny our intuition, then "absolute skepticism" is inevitable, but he fails to show that there are no other ways to avoid skepticism, or that we must reject absolute skepticism in the first place.
Then, when he attempts a positive construction on the subject, he writes:
The properties or active powers have a real, and not merely apparent, efficiency as second causes in producing the effects proper to them; and the phenomena alike of consciousness and of the outward world are really produced by the efficient agency of second causes, as we are informed by our native and necessary intuitions. (261-262)
But he fails to show that our intuition really tells us all of this (mine doesn't), nor does he establish that it is "native and necessary"; yet, he is trying to establish the biblical doctrine of providence on this flimsy basis.
Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though absent from us. (291)
This also begs the question. Hodge is addressing the topic, "Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree inconsistent with the liberty of the agent in that act." But he fails to prove anything here. Just because he inserts the word "freely" does not mean that it belongs there. I can just as easily say, "Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will act, though absent from us; therefore, his action is not free but determined."
**
I think that's enough. Again, my purpose is not to show how bad Hodge is; in fact, he is already better than many. My purpose is to encourage you to abandon the false assumptions and poor habits exhibited by many theological writers, including many respected Reformed/Calvinistic authors. We must instead adopt a thoroughly biblical, coherent, and defensible theology. Such a theology will edify the elect, silence the reprobates, and glorify the God whose written revelation exhibits perfect rationality.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "Arguing by Intuition"
(See www.rmiweb.org)
April 16 2005 | Theology