All arguments are ultimately settled by appealing to the soundness of our first principles. The heart of this book consists of an exposition of Paul's encounter with the Athenians in Acts 17. It shows how the apostle confronted non-Christian religions and philosophies, and how we may mirror his approach today.
You are permitted to print and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for non-commercial purposes as long as the author is clearly identified and the text unaltered.
For the complete collection of our publications, please see the online library.
You are permitted to print and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for non-commercial purposes as long as the author is clearly identified and the text unaltered.
For the complete collection of our publications, please see the online library.
(This is an excerpt from the forthcoming revised edition of Ultimate Questions.)
A sovereign God contradicts the idea that man exercises free will when it comes to any matter, including salvation. The sovereignty of God and the freedom of man are mutually exclusive. To affirm one is to deny the other. Accordingly, a person who insists that he accepts Christ because of his own free will, and not because of God's sovereign choice and direct action in his soul, cannot at the same time affirm a sovereign God. Since the only God presented in the Bible is an absolutely sovereign God, a person who affirms human free will cannot, without contradiction, affirm belief in God.
Some theologians perceive this dilemma, and so they choose to believe in a contradiction. But this makes them look stupid, and some of them cannot endure the humiliation. So they invent a way out, and say that God's sovereignty is "compatible" with human choice. Sometimes it is even said that divine sovereignty is compatible with human "freedom" in the sense that the man who chooses is not coerced in his choice, but he chooses according to his desire.*
Of course man chooses, but what makes him choose? What is the metaphysics of human choice? And what is the metaphysical explanation for his desire? If God is absolutely sovereign, then he also decides and causes human choice and desire. And if God is the one who decides and causes human choice and desire, then to say that divine sovereignty and human choice are compatible is only to say that God is compatible with himself. But we already know that, and man is still not free.
Human choice is irrelevant, since it comes under divine sovereignty. To say that man is not coerced is only to say that in this instance God does not cause one effect of his power to clash with another effect of his power, as he does when he causes two objects to crash into each other. But if there is no contradiction when God causes two objects to crash, then even coercion entails no contradiction. It would only mean that he causes a person to desire one thing but to choose another, and he remains compatible with himself. What would be the problem with that?
Indeed, the absolute sovereignty of God and the moral responsibility of man are compatible. Perhaps this is what the theologians are so worried about. But man is morally responsible only because God has decided to hold him accountable. This has no necessarily connection with choice or freedom. Even coercion does not eliminate responsibility. What does one have to do with another? The moral responsibility of man depends on the absolute sovereignty of God, and nothing else. Therefore, to say that man is responsible, once again, is only to say that God is compatible with himself.
It remains, then, that divine sovereignty and human freedom are incompatible. For man to be free in any relevant sense, he must be free from God, and if he is free from God in any sense and in any degree, then God is not absolutely sovereign. The God of the Bible is rejected.
*I refer to the doctrine of compatibilism. It teaches a kind of human freedom and rests moral responsibility on this freedom. I have refuted it by showing that the kind of freedom that it teaches is irrelevant to a discussion of divine sovereignty, and that there is no necessary relationship between freedom and responsibility. In fact, the Bible denies this relationship. (See Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin.)
Someone alleged that I misrepresented the doctrine by stating that it asserts a kind of human freedom and that it rests moral responsibility on this freedom. He said the doctrine only states that divine sovereignty is compatible with human choice, and that this is because man is not coerced, but chooses according to his desire. He named John Frame as a representative of this doctrine, and thus as someone whose view I misrepresented.
So we will cite John Frame. In his "Free Will and Moral Responsibility," he writes, "An alternative concept of freedom, one consistent with Reformed theology and held by a number of philosophers...is often called 'compatibilism,' for on that basis, free will and determinism (the view that all events in creation are caused) are compatible. Compatibilism maintains simply that in making moral decisions we are free to do what we want to do, to follow our desires....Reformed theology recognizes that all people have freedom in the compatibilist sense....I believe that compatibilist freedom is the main kind of freedom necessary to moral responsibility." Frame explicitly asserts that compatibilism teaches a form of freedom, and that it is even necessary to moral responsibility.
The person who accused me of misrepresentation also said that compatibilism does not say that man is free from God, as if I asserted that it does. He missed the point. I understand that compatibilism does not say that man is free from God, and that is why it is irrelevant. My point is that any kind of freedom that asserts freedom from God is impossible, and any kind of freedom that does not assert freedom from God is irrelevant. That man is not coerced is also irrelevant, since if God is sovereign, he is the one who causes both human desire and human choice.
As for my position, it is that divine sovereignty and human freedom are incompatible and mutually exclusive, and that since God is sovereign, man is not free. It appears that this person wished to dispute this, but he did not know how to do it. There is no way to do it. The confusion was probably fueled by the refusal to accept that this cherished doctrine is so easily shown to be ridiculous and irrelevant.
A series of reflections on Paul's second letter to Timothy. Chapters include: "God the Author," "A Spirit of Power," "A Public Intellectual System," "Teaching the Devil's Captives," "Theocentrism vs. Anthropocentrism," and "Alone, But Never Alone."
You are permitted to print and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for non-commercial purposes as long as the author is clearly identified and the text unaltered.
For the complete collection of our publications, please see the online library.
An example of Christian compromise in the area of ethics is graded absolutism. In this prevalent system of ethics, first, God's commands are prioritized, often not according to revelation but according to man's opinion. Second, many situations are said to present dilemmas, according to man's judgment, in which two divine commands (or at least two) seem to apply, but a person must violate one of them in order to obey the rest. Third, the command that is regarded to be the higher one is obeyed, and the other one is broken, while the breaking of it is, without biblical warrant for saying so, not regarded as sin. Graded absolutism is in reality guided relativism.
The rebellion is quite explicit, but the blasphemy is implied. That is, when God gave the commandments, he did not have the intelligence or the foresight to realize that they would generate ethical dilemmas in so many situations, in which it would be impossible to obey all relevant commandments. But it appears that man detects these dilemmas rather easily. We may not be able to kill God, but we can at least work around him. So we prioritize his commandments, sometimes according to his revelation, sometimes according to our own judgment, and decide to obey only those that we consider feasible in any situation.
Can he expect more from us? What, total obedience to every command in every situation? Does God really think that he is God? What if someone knocks on the door and demands to know the location of a friend so that he may murder him? This is the classic test case. Is it not more important to protect a man's life, than to tell the truth, although truth is the principle by which God functions, by which he establishes the value of life, and by which he testifies to us the gospel of grace? But there is no way to obey both commands, is there? What did you say? We should attempt to subdue the attacker, or refuse to disclose the information and risk suffering torture, or even sacrifice our own life to save the friend? You must be joking. We only gave you two options to choose from. Man-centered thinking cannot process selfless courage and sacrifice. Stop confusing us.
Consider what this means for Jesus Christ. Scripture says that he was tempted, but he never sinned. What would this mean according to the proponents of graded absolutism? They say that divine commands often contradict due to the circumstances in which they apply, and when they contradict, the right thing to do is to obey the higher command, whereas to disobey the lower command does not count as sin. This means that, in their view, Jesus could have killed hundreds of thousands of people with his bare hands – men, women, and children – but as long as he was obeying a higher command in each case, he never sinned or murdered anyone. Or, he could have committed fornication, even homosexual acts, hundreds of thousands of times. He could have raped thousands of women and children. He could have stolen hundreds of thousands of times, and lied hundreds of thousands of times. If he was compelled to do so in each case in order to follow a higher command, then he did not sin.
At least by implication, this is their idea of the sinlessness of Christ. If they do not abandon graded absolutism after this has been clearly and repeatedly explained to them, then they should be tried before the church and excommunicated. People who know that their doctrine implies this blasphemy about Christ and still insist on it cannot be considered Christians. And all those who spare them share in their sin. The only correct view is to acknowledge that God's commands never contradict one another, and that it is always logically possible to obey all of them.
(The following has been adapted from an email correspondence.)
If God is sovereign over all things, and everything including the Fall came about by his will, then why should I care about anything?
I never had a choice whether or not I existed – he created me a sinner, why should I care? And, if God is sovereign why should he care either way? He is only getting what he wants.
I am very confused, and I need to repent of this – but God is not willing repentance in my life right now.
Your question assumes that you should care about something only if it is not determined or only if it is not controlled by God. This premise is necessary for your question to be rational or to make any sense. Therefore, unless it is established, your question is arbitrary, random sounds in the air with no logical connection. Why should anyone care to answer it?
It is important to establish the assumption not only to make someone like me care about it, but also to make sense of any alternative. That is, even if your thoughts and actions are not determined, and not controlled by God, why should you care? Even if God had not determined or even caused the Fall, why should you care? Even if he did not create you a sinner, why should you care? If he created you neutral, why should you care to choose to become righteous or unrighteous? Why should you care? If he created you righteous, why should you care to remain righteous? Why should you care? What, you would not want to become a sinner and suffer the consequences? But why? Why should you care?
If your thoughts and actions are not determined and caused by God, but are rather entirely produced by your own control and sovereignty over yourself, so that your thoughts and actions are free, and produce effects entirely attributed to your metaphysical power, so what? Unless you demonstrate why and how meaning, significance, and the reason for caring is established on the basis of indeterminism or human freedom, you still have not found any reason to care.
What kind of person does not care about God, and life, about truth, and worship, and loving others, even though God has issued many commandments about these things? What kind of person would spurn the divine commands because God is sovereign and man is not free, and because divine sovereignty is incompatible with human freedom? A wicked and worthless person.
Then, you say, "If God is sovereign why should he care either way? He is only getting what he wants." Why should he care, because he gets what he wants?! How is this different from saying, "Why should God care? He is getting what he cares about"? Or, "Why should he want anything? He is getting what he wants." Do you mean he should care only if he does not get what he cares about? Do you mean he should want something only if he does not get what he wants? Do you mean that to care and to want are by definition meaningless unless the care and the want are frustrated? If this is not what you mean, then what do you mean? Do you even know? If this is indeed what you mean, then why should I accept this premise? Or, is that just a careless and useless statement, and I am making too much out of it?
You are correct in saying that you are confused and that you need to repent. And I hope you are not being sarcastic about God granting repentance, because it is indeed he who grants or withholds it. Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). Paul writes, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden," and that we instruct people, "in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25), implying that it is up to him to grant repentance, but that he might not grant it.
You will have to excuse me for being blunt, but I do care when people question the truth and appear to be sarcastic about it. If God has not granted you repentance to believe the gospel, or if you think he has but subsequent obstinacy against God's word reveals that he in fact has not granted you repentance, then it means that you are still in your sin, and you will burn in hell when you die. But even if this is the case, you can take comfort in the fact that, since this has been determined by God, then although you will suffer extreme conscious torment for an endless duration in hell, you probably will not care.
(The following has been adapted from an email correspondence.)
I am a Christian, novice philosopher/logician, and scientist in molecular biology. I have been reading Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations. In the latter you state the following about the reliability of science:
If what is said about scientific experiments is difficult for some people to understand, the problem of "affirming the consequent" may be more easily grasped. Consider the following form of argument:
1. If X, then Y 2. Y 3. Therefore, X
This form of reasoning, called "affirming the consequent," is always a formal fallacy in logic; that is, the structure of the argument is invalid. Just because Y is true does not mean that X is true, since there can be an infinite number of things that may substitute for X so that we will still have Y. Correlation is not the same as causation '" but can science even discover correlation? Thus if the hypothesis is, "If X, then Y," the fact that Y turns up does nothing to confirm the hypothesis.
If what you say about science is true, that does not anger me or deter me from doing what I do; however, I want to understand what you are saying. From my point of view, when I am in the lab the argument goes like this:
1. If this solution turns green (X), then chemical Y is present (Y). 2. The solution turned green (X). 3. Therefore, chemical Y is present (Y).
Is this not valid? How am I misunderstanding what you have said?
Your example is valid, but it is something that occurs after the criticism against the scientific method. That is, the scientific method leads to false conclusions, and then these false conclusions are applied.
Consider the following:
Argument A A1. If I punch Tom in the face (X), then Tom will be injured (Y). A2. Tom is injured (Y) A3. Therefore, I have punched Tom in the face (X).
Argument B B1. If Tom is injured (P), then I have punched Tom in the face (Q). B2. Tom is injured (P). B3. Therefore, I have punched Tom in the face (Q).
Argument B is valid, but Premise B1 depends on Argument A, and Argument A is invalid, since it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Premise B1 depends on Argument A, because by itself, it does not eliminate an infinite number of alternatives. If Tom is injured, it does not necessarily mean that I have punched him in the face. Maybe he walked into a wall. Maybe he fell down some stairs. Or, maybe Harry, Mary, Jones, or an infinite number of other possible persons or objects, in an infinite number of possible combinations, beat him in the face (e.g. an alien with a hammer, a monkey with a wrench, or a gang of pandas).
So Argument B is valid, but unsound, because Argument A is invalid. Argument A represents scientific experimentation (the attempt to discover cause-and-effect relationships by positing hypotheses and testing them). Argument B represents an application of the conclusions of scientific experimentation (an application of a supposedly true cause-and-effect relationship).
Therefore, although Argument B is valid, it is also completely worthless.
To make this even more clear with an illustration:
If water is wet (X), then Vincent Cheung is president (Y). Water is wet (X). Therefore, Vincent Cheung is president (Y).
Valid, but untrue and worthless.
Returning to your example, your Premise 1 is like Premise B1 above. By itself it does not exclude an infinite number of alternatives. Thus:
If this solution turns green (X), then an alien spat in it (Y). This solution turned green (X). Therefore, an alien spat in it (Y).
This is what the entire scientific enterprise amounts to: first, it is a systematic repetition of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and second, it is a systematic application of the false conclusions so obtained.
This is not to insult scientists, but to remind them to remain humble before God, and acknowledge their ignorance, for God has made foolish the wisdom of this world. As long as man puts himself at the center of knowledge, thinking that by his own power he can discover all things, he shall discover nothing.
I completely agree with your last paragraph. I think the scientific community is rather arrogant, and thinks that it is the end-all-be-all of truth. Of course, it is probably because the community is run for the most part by secular humanists who hardly believe in objective truth.
Anyway, in all honesty I am still having trouble with something. You mention this in Presuppositional Confrontations, and that is the notion of controls. You address this by saying that there could be an infinite number of parameters needing to be "controlled" in an experiment (i.e., some undetected component in a solution). However, if the controls are constructed properly will we not end up compensating for those variables anyway?
The scientific method suggests that you must identify variables and perform controlled experiments. But the problem of infinite alternatives remain the same.
Suppose a scientist swings a pendulum, makes some objects bump into one another, or perform some kind of experiment like this. He identifies certain variables such as altitude, weight, temperature, and so on. However, he can never say that he has identified all variables, such as an alien messing with his experiment from space, or an unruly and invisible spirit tempering with his project for its own amusement.
These latter possibilities may seem absurd, but according to what standard are they absurd? Only according to the scientist's own assumptions. Also, even if we admit that these are absurd, there are still an infinite number of variables that may or may not be present. The scientist may be missing an entire category of variables. For example, what if the scientist has no concept of temperature? He cannot then possibly measure and control it in an experiment. Yet it might be a decisive factor. If he does not know about it, he cannot even say that he does not know about it. Neither can he say that he knows this category of variables does not exist. There is an infinite number of possible categories of variables that he is missing. Therefore, a scientist can never say that he has accounted for all relevant variables, and he can never claim to have "constructed properly" any experiment.
The scientist simply does not know - he assumes without argument, without evidence, and without proof. He can do what he wishes, but if he claims that this whole thing is rational, then he is just arbitrarily calling it so. In fact, from even a simple analysis of science, there is no way that a scientist can claim to have any rational contact with reality at all. And certainly, he would have no right to call the Christian irrational.
The idea is simple. To know that any experiment is "constructed properly" the scientist's knowledge must be "bigger" than the experiment. But if his knowledge is already "bigger" than the experiment, then he hardly needs to perform the experiment to gain knowledge that is limited by the experiment. The only way to be sure that one has identified and controlled all variables that may affect the experiment is to possess omniscience. The conclusion is that only God can tell us about the universe.
After thinking about what you wrote for a bit, the question that lingers is this: Can I, first as a Christian and second a scientist, be consistent in trusting my results in the lab as far as pursuing truth? Granted, I as a Christian have the mind of Christ and recognize His Lordship over all creation, but does merely admitting that I know nothing and that God knows everything and trusting Him in my work of exploring His creation therefore give me the ability to describe my findings as truth? Or is the real truth the realization that my findings are true only inside the box that is "scientific study" as described by fallible humans rather than truth in the sense that Christ is Truth? If it is only true in a box, is it true at all?
I guess, now that what you have said about science makes sense to me I am wondering about my work and how I can worship and give God glory in my work if the work itself does not purpose to find truth outside the box of science.
There is no rational justification for saying that there is any truth at all in science. The inherent irrationality and even epistemological impossibility are built into its assumptions and method. There is no way to justify empiricism, induction, and the scientific method.
There is a school of thought that claims that if we will use the Bible as the first principle of our thinking, then the Bible can justify or at least "account for" these things that are unjustifiable when considered in themselves (sensation, induction, science, etc.). However, this just makes it worse. It is one thing to say that these things could be somehow rational in themselves, and that the only problem is that there is no rational foundation to place them on, although this to say this is perhaps nonsense in the first place. But it is much worse to realize that these things are irrational in themselves, so that no epistemological foundation can ever justify them, and then to insist that God and the Bible could justify them. This position makes God an accomplice to irrationality and falsehood. It is blasphemy. Even if we begin with God, we still cannot justify things that are false in themselves like "1 + 1 = 83629473.9273" or "The devil is a golden retriever named Skip." A true first principle destroys falsehood; it does not justify or support it.
As for science, it can remain as long as it does not claim too much for itself. Please see "A Career in Science" in my Doctrine and Obedience.
What about the results that science has yielded? Technology, medicine, the computers that we are currently using to communicate, the microwave that I used this morning, the ultrasound machine used to see my unborn son? If we take any type of medication, then are we relinquishing our health to the irrationality of science? Whether or not we can accurately describe truth may be another issue, but it can hardly be denied that science has yielded results that are of use to us.
You said that science can remain as long as it does not claim too much for itself, and again I agree. Does it not have its place, its role to play in our existence?
I have answered this question in "In God We Trust," in my Blasphemy and Mystery. But I will make some remarks about it here as well.
Think about what you are saying. It is as if you say, "I know that it is not true, but...." Well, if we have the first part, do we need to hear the second part?
To appeal to the effect of science (medicine, microwave, etc.), is only an appeal to the fallacy of affirming the consequent again. Affirming the consequent is just another way of saying an appeal to the result or effect. The assumption is that if you seem to be getting the result that you want or predict, then there must be some truth behind the assumption that yields this result. Again, that is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not indicate causation. But my contention is that science cannot even detect or establish correlation.
Of course science has a role. It is an irrational feeling in the dark. It can never claim to have the truth, and not just when it comes to religion. In this conversation with you, I have suppressed the problems with sensation and induction, but have focused on the method of science (the process of reasoning after the reliability of sensation and induction have been assumed without proof, and even assumed despite proof to the contrary). Once we introduce them back into the conversation, we would not even be able to get so far as to discuss method. That is, it is not that the scientist is feeling in front of him in the dark. He does not even have arms.
You might wish we could say more for science, but how? There is no rational basis to say more for it. Science touts itself as a rational enterprise, but here I am, giving arguments that even elementary school children can grasp and apply to completely destroy it. Science is essentially, pervasively, undeniably, incurably, and often arrogantly, irrational. To believe that it can discover truth is nothing other than superstition.
(The following is taken from an email correspondence.)
Let me give you a passage from Lloyd-Jones that is perhaps an even better example of how the tradition of affirming paradox has poisoned our theology, making us look like fools before the world and believers who have not yet been programmed. This is so ridiculous that I must make a point of saying that these are two consecutive paragraphs, with no interruption in between. Also, although this was an oral lecture at first, it was transcribed and revised for print, but no one seems to have noticed or cared about it.
Above all, we shall have to realise that there are certain things which we, with our finite minds, will not be able to reconcile with one another. Now I am trying to avoid the use of technical terms as far as I can, but here I must introduce the word antinomy - not antimony. What is an antinomy? It is a position in which you are given two truths which you yourself cannot reconcile. There are certain final antinomies in the Bible, and as people of faith we must be ready to accept that. When somebody says, "Oh, but you cannot reconcile those two," you must be ready to say, "I cannot. I do not pretend to be able to. I do not know. I believe what I am told in the Scripture."
So, then, we approach this great doctrine like this: in the light of the things we have already considered about the being, the nature, and the character of God, this doctrine of the eternal decrees must follow as an utter, absolute necessity. Because God is who and what He is, He must work in the way in which He does work. As we have seen, all the doctrines in the Bible are consistent with one another, and when we are considering any particular doctrine we must remember that it must always be consistent with everything else. So as we come to study what the Bible tells us about the way in which God works, we must be very careful not to say anything that contradicts what we have already said about His omniscience, His omnipotence, and all the other things that we have agreed together are to be found in the Scriptures.
(Great Doctrines of the Bible, Vol. 1; Crossway, p. 95-96)
"There are certain things which we, with our finite minds, will not be able to reconcile with one another."
But as I often say, it appears that some minds are vastly more finite than others.
The God of Disasters "Where is God when disasters strike?" Based on a passage from Micah 2, this article answers the question of God's relation to and uses of both natural and "man-made" disasters.
The Problem of Evil A biblical refutation to one of the most popular arguments against Christianity.
Human Struggle and Divine Sovereignty A response to someone who struggles with how God uses his sovereignty over all things. The three major sections deal with the relation between God's sovereignty and human infirmity, human depravity, and human spirituality.
Policy on Charity This is a revised transcript of a four-part series on 1 Timothy 5:3-16, with the main focus on verses 3-8.
Faithful in Famine A call to faithfulness at a time of financial crisis and hardship.
You are permitted to print and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for non-commercial purposes as long as the author is clearly identified and the text unaltered.
For the complete collection of our publications, please see the online library.
Item Category: Current Item comments: http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/01/16/special-recommendations/#comments
The following are some questions that I posed to an atheist several years ago in the course of a written exchange. These questions and others like them are unanswerable by any belief system that places any dependence on the reliability of sensations. The questions do not apply only to non-Christian systems, but almost all of them also apply to any system of so-called Christian theology, philosophy, or apologetics that affirms the reliability of sensations, induction, or science.
You are permitted to print and distribute unlimited copies of our publications for non-commercial purposes as long as the author is clearly identified and the text unaltered.
For the complete collection of our publications, please see the online library.
