The exchange included an assertion from a Calvinist saying that no man can seek God before regeneration, to which gb retorted by proof-texting Libertarian Free Will (LFW):
GB: Okay, then Acts 17:27 is wrong.
Rather than rehash a series of fb comments, I want to bullet gb's main points and zero-in on the weaknesses. My intention is NOT: to make Mars Hill into a Calvinist "slam-dunk". It will certainly be consistent with Calvinism, but it was not designed by the Holy Spirit to prove Total Depravity or to refute prevenient grace, or whatever Arminians/Open Theists describe man's LFW. These are categories absent from the time of Paul's sermon, to read those specifically into the text would be anachronistic. That is one big weakness to gb's take...it requires explaining why a modern philosophical categories must be assumed when there was a complete absence of such a category at that time (an explanation he has, as of yet, not bothered to provide). At most, gb might attempt to show how Mars Hill could jive with LFW, but prove it? No.
His main points based on his understanding of the account of Paul at Mars Hill can be boiled down to two:
- Paul is not advocating a god foreign to the Athenians, rather, the Athenians are worshiping Him in an incomplete way.
- God has endowed all men with the ability to find him.
Acts 17:22b-23
“Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
For gb, this altar to an unknown god indicated a genuine relationship between the LORD and the Athenians, albeit, one which lacked completeness. It would be interesting to see gb explain the "genuineness" of a "relationship" between a man and a god he claims to be agnostic about. In what sense does such a man "know" God?
1. The entire exchange between Paul and the Athenians seems strange if he was saying they truly worshiped God. What is an altar for? Isn't it for presenting gifts, maybe even sacrifices, to a deity? It's where men render to a god service by their hands...yet Paul proclaims God is not served by human hands (v25). Why use a physical object which supposedly bespeaks of the Athenians knowledge to proclaim the opposite of the very little that could be surmised from the existence of that altar?
2. Stranger still, this altar is in the midst of all kinds of different idols...the Athenians really believed deity could be contained by material objects, or explained by the product of man's imagination...so it seems unnatural that Paul, using an man-made altar in the midst of other man-made idols proclaimed that this unknown god (which the Athenians "know") doesn't dwell in a temple (v24) nor is His nature like anything formed by the hands and imagination of men (v29). So far, the only content one might reasonably conclude from the altar is actually wrong.
3. Stranger than even the above is the fact that an "unknown god" is, well...an unknown god. There is no theology for an unknown god. There is no revelation of an unknown god...if there were that god would suddenly be known. There would be revelation. Paul is juxtaposing ignorance and vain reasoning with the true God, the One Who speaks...the One Who reveals.
4. Beyond the strangeness of gb's assertion are the facts contained in Acts 17 which contradict his reading.
a. Acts 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.
i. the word "provoked' is a decidedly "negative" term. One would think the Holy Spirit would have offset this negative with a positive to set up the Mars Hill sermon. You know, by saying "Paul's spirit was provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols, provoked that is until a swell of relief washed over him as he came across a true altar of God, albeit, an ignorant one."
ii. The Holy Spirit didn't offset this provocation of Paul's spirit. Should we assume this mention of Paul's provocation is immaterial to the set-up? Just a random bit of knowledge? I don't think so...here's why:
- v18-20 The Stoics and Epicureans didn't recognize this god they apparently knew given they rejected the message Paul gave and found it so foreign that they took him for a confab at the Areopagus. If Paul was not preaching a different god, the Athenians sure got the wrong message.
- Luke, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said the Athenians were idle motor-mouths: v21 "Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new."
Has God endowed all men with LFW?
As noted already, reading LFW into Acts 17 would be anachronistic. In fact, given what is laid out above, there's really little reason to go further. But a few comments might be worthwhile.
v26-27 says: He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.
It doesn't say all men "can" find God and place their faith in Him based on LFW. It does say God has revealed Himself to every man. Each man's providence is God revealing...uncovering something, to set it before another's eyes does not mean the other is able to accept it. At most, it may provoke curiosity. When God provides revelation, we should seek Him. It think it's obvious God provides revelation to all men so that they would seek Him. All men are at once attracted and repulsed by the truth. Whenever a Christian debates an atheist at a university, the auditorium is filled with atheists...groping, intrigued...yet repulsed. They grope "in the dark". They have something from God, but what they don't have is light. They are either blind, or lack a source for comprehending.
Obviously, what I've laid out jives with a Calvinistic understanding...I wouldn't "proof-text" Total Depravity with it, but it does "fit". Does it disprove LFW? I don't know. It wouldn't be my starting ground for "disproving" it...but neither does it prove LFW. In fact, the notion of LFW gets stickier.
14 comments:
okay, blogger's bein stupid. here's attempt 2
Man, whoever this geebob was, he sounds brilliant and I should like to subscribe to his newsletter. Since we seem to come from the same position, there probably wouldn't be any harm in me advocating his position.
ON second though, for simplicities sake, it was me. I'm anonymous enough on blogger.
Concluding LFW from this is not anachronistic. I surely don't think Paul was advocating libertarian free will. I still don't know that it is found anywhere in scripture. I just think it was taken for granted. It is an implication.
Did Paul believe that the athenians worshiped the one true God? I and C.S. Lewis don't see why not. Even if there was so much junk in the culture, that's not to say that there weren't some who had a positive relationship with God. So many of the Early Church Fathers interpreted things in this way as well viewing so many of the ancient greek philosophers as virtual christians.
C.S. Lewis' last book illustrates this with the pagan prince who found favor with Aslan. To his concern about his devotion to the pagan God Tash, Aslan informed him, "Child, all the service thaou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true... that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which that hast done to him, for I and he ar of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted...”
There is no better scripture where this is illustrated than in Paul’s speach to the Athenians where not only does he explicitely says (this is explicit, not like the libertarian free will that is implicit in the passage!) that this God that they don’t know (to which they have an alter) is the one he is going to proclaim to them. Then he identifies him also as the subject of a pagan poem, Cleanthes hymn to zeuss. He then identified him as the object of a claim of Stoic philosophy, that in him, we live and move and have our being. As Lewis figures, that which is good, but attributed to Zeuss is in reality of Yahweh. And it may be the source of an authentic relationship with Yaweh.
In what sense do they know God? In what sense is it authentic? It is a minimal sense. But as I’ve said before, relationships come in degrees. God is always increasing his relationship with us and that is the biblical picture. The Jews had a developing relationship with God from Abraham to Moses to David to the prophets. And that development took a huge leap foward through Jesus. This perfectly coheres with normal relationships. You could anonymously sponser a child through some program to benefit children of developing nations. He might write you a letter of thanks even without knowing your name to be delivered by the charity group (of course you wouldn’t be anonymous to them). It is a real relationship that benefits him, but he does not have as much of a relationship as your wife and your own children. So God has a relationship like that but desires through the gospel to increase that relationship.
Post 2
Disparaging the service of hands to the the unknown alter is strange since God requires the Jews to him at the alter. Paul wasn’t saying that it wasn’t appropriate to sacrifice to God but he corrects there ignorance that God needs this since some pagans viewed alter sacrifices as feeding gods. Still with the Jews, and perhaps to a lesser degree, the gentiles, it is an expression of gratitude and penance.
As for the notion that diety dwells in the alter, I don’t know about that. But God works with people even in their ignorance. The pagan military officer Naaman was blessed even though he took soil from Israel due to a belief in animism, that Yahweh inhabited the soil.
Was there theology for this unknown God? yes. Paul draws it out from elsewhere from the culture as mentioned, from the poetry and philosophy. That they didn’t connect this clearly with one God wasn’t a concern of Paul’s, but rather, his concern was to make the connections now with the arrival of the gospel of this God who had been working with the greeks in subtle ways previously.
I don’t see how what I am saying is in contradiction to Paul’s offense at the greek religion. I’m not a pluralist. C.S. Lewis description of the complex nature of pagan religion is perfect. There is junk in other cultures and religions as Paul notes and there is also truth as he describes as well. Is it not true that God created the Greeks? Is it not true that he is everywhere? Is it not true that from one man he made all the nations? And Paul does call foul on the idolatry. I don’t get why it has to be one or the other and I cant’ make sense of Paul to think that it is. I can’t imagine how anyone can read this and think that paul is only criticizing or only praising the greek religion.
So what if the stoics and epicureans refused to get on board and recognize the greater grace. Rebellion goes on in any context, even one where there was some grace of God’s that was available and is now increasing with the gospel. The individuals may or may not have been responding to God’s grace, and sometimes as it goes with relationships, when it is time to increase, someone balks. I don’t talk Paul as indicating that they were perfectly in line with what God wanted and would continue, only that there were good things, evidences of God’s positive influence and evidences of positive responses. Paul wasn’t describing what a completely appropriately responding person would be like in an unevangelized culture. But he is demonstrating that positive responses did happen.
the passage most certainly does imply that ALL men can find God as surely as Paul held that all men were descended from Adam. And to find God IS to accept him. It may not be a complete acceptance. After all, it is not a fullness of revelation that Jesus brings (that the old testament Jews had). And we do have examples of pagans who did indeed seek and find God, like Job, Melchizedek, and Moses father in Law, Jethrow, all (relatively) independently of the chosen people.
Why would we say there is light and ignorance in the same place. Because that is the universal truth! Everything comes in degrees. So some pagans embrace a little light. They still need more because God wants to increase his relationship which is a part of redeeming the world.
After all, it is not a fullness of revelation that Jesus brings (that the old testament Jews had).
Just a typo here, the old testament Jews did NOT have the fullness of revelation in Jesus.
Rob, you did not interact with the post in any particularly relavent way. The closest you came was acknowledging the "complexity" of the notion that a pagan culture could have a relationship with God while also having contrary practices.
You didn't offer an argument *for* your take. You didn't interact with what I wrote, either. You are just taking your interpretation as a gimme...a complex one, but still a gimme.
Craig, I don't know what you are talking about. I dropped my old style of word for word quote and response. I didn't think it was necessary.
You said I was anachronistic. I agree that it is anachronistic to say Paul promote libertarian free will. but I find it implied, taken for granted and necessary. So you say that I didn't interact with what you said? Did you not say that Paul was anachronistic or not?
Did you not cast doubt on the notion that that the Athenians may have truly worshiped God? Yes, you did. Your incredulity that this was the case was to cast doubt on my interpretation. but I owned it. I said yes, I most certainly did think that some of them may have been authentically worshipping God and I offered C.S. Lewis' picture to explain the complexities. You imply it was unreasonable. How can I better respond to this but to offer a nuanced explanation of HOW it may reasonably be the case.
Did you not make an issue of your alleged claim that deities inhabited the alter. Yes you did, and I offered Naaman and his animism as a counterexample to the claim that this rules out a positive relationship with God.
Did you not complain about the man made status of the alter? Yes, and I offered the Jewish law as a glaring counterexample.
Did you not complain that an unknown God has no theology? Yes, you did, and I pointed out the nature of Paul's citation, not just of that alter but greek thought in philosophy and poetry as a counterexample.
I could go on. But I really don't get it. I geuss I have to conclude that when an argument is too good, you have to pretend it was never made. Help me out here because I really really do not get it. I don't know if this is dishonesty or blindness.
You didn't offer an argument for your take any more than I did. But offering a take IS itself implicitly an attempt to demonstrate how best to understand the passage. That's not just what I did. I addressed your claims SPECIFICALLY and demonstrated that they did not stand up to scrutiny.
omission,
Yes, and I offered the Jewish law as a glaring counterexample.
By which I specifically meant the Jewish requirements regarding the need to sacrifice at an alter.
oops
Did you not say that Paul was anachronistic or not?
that is citing Paul as a promoter of libertarian free will.
I grant that I see only two important details that I did not address. I will address them.
Your complaint that I didn't interact with your post though remains completely 100 percent bizarre.
Rob,
I said you didn't interact with my post in any *relevant* way.
When I have time, perhaps tomorrow, I'll explain with some detail.
Well, always good to precede your response with bluster the day before. Speak loudly and worry about the stick later.
So to the text, I can see why one might suggest that the phrase “For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.” Might be taken that they are just ignorant in their worship of some god, but Paul’s going to proclaim their ignorance and highlight the real God. I’ve looked at different translations and quite honestly, I’m not dead set against the idea that that Paul is just using the alter to the unknown God to tell them that they don’t know what they aren’t talking about.
This to my assessment may be the only thing you said that carries any weight. But even if you are right, it really doesn’t weaken my case that much. So the alter isn’t an example of where the Greek religion authentically grasped God. Their philosophers and poets still got something right that is authentically true and basic about God. It’s still the case that God made it possible for them to seek and to find him.
But I don’t think this way of taking it is the best understanding. It’s more natural and it fits the context better that the alter to the unknown God is a contact point with the real God. Maybe not for everyone. Recall Lewis’ artful prose. And Paul what Paul proclaims at length most certainly is a God unknown to them. While I say your counterclaim has the most merit of all your points, I still have no confidence in it.
The other point I missed was the deal you made about Paul being provoked. This, Craig, I don’t take it seriously at all. Of course he was provoked by Idols. I have no clue by what convention of English or normal communication standards you insist that therefore, everything Paul says after this has to be negative about the religion just because Luke doesn’t immeadiately say that there’s going to be some positive comments. That Paul cites some things positive in the Greek belief system is perfectly in line with his use of them against what he finds appalling that distressed him earlier. I see no reason why Luke has to inform us ahead of time that even though Paul is disturbed, he’s going to marshal some greek thought against that which disturbs him.
“One would think the Holy Spirit would have offset this negative with a positive to set up the Mars Hill sermon.” One would think this. Craig French. That’s the only one I could think of. Maybe some other ones do to. But this one, Rob, has no clue why anyone should think this at all except to grasp at straws to avoid the obvious implications of these verses.
Rob: "Well, always good to precede your response with bluster the day before. Speak loudly and worry about the stick later."
Rob,
I can’t control how you take a comment. I wasn’t offering “bluster” nor was I waiving some sort of a stick.
To say you haven’t interacted with my post in a relevant way only means you missed the target.
That’s all I had time to say.
When someone misses the target, writing a response becomes time-consuming. It’s redirecting a ship. I guess I could have just said nothing, but I didn’t want to give the impression I was ignoring your comments.
If you would like to impute some sort of ill-will, or rashness to me, I will simply leave my post as is and not say any more. Not as “punishment”, mind you. Thoughtfully re-directing someone is already a time-consuming thing. It becomes even more time-consuming when the one being re-directed imputes wrong motives. Once that begins, it’s nearly impossible to get past that let alone have a productive discussion. Been there, done that.
Craig, you said I didn't respond in ANY relevant way. C'mon craig, you made some points... really BAD points. I accept I might've missed something important but c'mon, that whole thing about the alter being man made (when the Jews made alters by God's command) and missing Paul's note that it was that God didn't NEED them (which really speaks to a pagan culture), that's just one example.
If you want to insist that I missed something important, okay. that I missed the boat on the central or key issue, great, I'm waiting. But you said I didn't interact in [b]ANY[/b] relevent way. It remains craig, somewhere between some and all of your points were technically refuted (which is not a claim of success, it is a claim of relevence).
I posted a response:
http://www.antipelagian.com/2011/06/acts-1727-redux.html
Post a Comment