Aug: TGB but wouldn’t Talbott press you that the reason people resist God’s grace is because they’re under a delusion?
Tom: Yes! He HAS pressed me on this point. And I’ve pressed back a bit as well! We’ve gone around a few times on the necessity for human becoming of what John Hick terms “epistemic distance.” The idea is that to make the kind of free choices necessary for our maturity and perfection we have to know enough both to be held accountable for making the wrong choice but not be so overwhelmed by information that we’re left no rational recourse for refusing to bow our knee. There has to be adequate ‘space’ for creaturely becoming and character development. And that’s precisely the sort of world I think we live in. God reveals enough of himself to make it more than possible to respond to him but leaves enough ambiguity in the mix to not overwhelm us and so guarantee the choice he desires by constraint (so to speak).
Bob: I can’t see why Calvinists would accept a panentheist (Hartshorne) reasoning that they are pantheists. Because I create or ‘determine’ an object doesn’t make it (identical to) me.
Tom: I can appreciate the questionable nature of the source (a process theist!). And I’ve not unpacked Hartshorne’s argument well enough to discuss it. It would take time and effort I don’t have. But the more I consider it the more sense it makes to me.
Bob: On definitions, I agree “boast” = “an attempt to show one’s worth in one’s self.” So with salvation it boasts that what accounts for my salvation vs. my neighbor’s lack of it lies in a choice that “I” make (even tho in the whole my neighbor and I have equal capacities).
Tom: From my point of view it’s not that “…with salvation it boasts that what accounts for my salvation…is that ‘I’…” but rather “…with my salvation it boasts that what accounts for my value is that ‘I’ freely chose….”
Bob: You ask, ‘why would one confine boasting to so narrow a consideration of the facts that explain his being?’ Because, almost by definition, those distinctions about what makes us different are what boasting by its’ nature always focuses on.
Tom: Then let’s get people seeing the bigger picture and not focusing on a thin slice.
And why can’t a libertarian agree that all possible distinctions fall equally under the embrace of God’s unconditional love? That is, why can’t a libertarian believe that his freely choosing as God requires does not make him more valuable than others, indeed, that none of his choices constitutes a ground for establishing his worth and value? So long as a libertarian can take this view, what’s the problem? Why is LFW getting blamed for boasting when plenty of Christian believers in LFW don’t boast? Why isn’t this enough to turn our attention from LFW to find the real culprit in boasting?
Bob: You grant that pride “points to the part that is ours,” but say (correctly) that even “my self-determined portion entails an essential dependency of myself upon God” and “offers a reason to be thankful.” I respond: People can recognize that their part is gratefully dependent, yet maintain pride, on the basis that their use of this dependent part is better than others.
Tom: Send such people to me. Let me talk to them. There are lots of genuinely humble and meek believers in LFW. An accurate perception of the truth about one’s unconditional worth and value is the perfect medicine here.
Bob: You “struggle” to see how one child can believe “I am superior” (= more valuable) when a father loves both equally. I think this is actually commonplace.
Tom: Oh it’s commonplace, for sure—a common mistake, but common, yes. It’s also can be shown to be incoherent. It’s not sound to claim both that one’s worth and value are unconditionally determined by God’s love apart from anything we do AND to claim that my worth and value are conditionally determined by my free choices. These are easily seen to be contrary statements. I don’t doubt that many believe both. Let’s say many libertarians even believe both. But the fault for this lies with poor thinking, not with FLW.
Bob: Again, it appears your real response to LFW fostering superiority is definitional.
Tom: As is the claim that LFW fosters superiority. As most have admitted I think, both Calvinists and libertarians have managed to mistake their systems for reasons to boast. What each side does to address this is to focus on the right definitions and understanding of relations, right?
But my real response is ‘perceptual’ (although I’m trying to define what’s being perceived and grasped by the human heart here). I mean, I believe that where the self is rightly understood (or perceived) as unconditionally loved and valued by God, one has no grounds to then assert one’s worth and value as greater than another on the condition of freely made proper choices. If one does boast, then it’s only because one fails to grasp the truth of one’s unconditional worth grounded in God, and that in spite of whatever assent one might give to the idea that she’s unconditionally loved. She doesn’t REALLY get it if she’s also attempting to ground her value and significance in her choices.
Bob: You simply define that “pride” can only be grounded on God’s love, and thus can’t exist, since we’re equally loved. But I remain concerned, because the way pride regularly thrives is precisely against the foundation where those dependent elements are equal. It argues that what I do with the equal provisions we are dependent on is what shows that I am superior.
Tom: Then we all need to do more teaching along these lines and drill it into peoples’ heads that their not more valuable just because they make good choices. They’re valuable because God loves them. What occasion of boasting cannot be fully exposed as false and fruitless by the perception of the truth that we are not more valuable because we freely choose to submit to God?
Bob: So, we can agree that such pride “misconstrues” that a person’s ‘part’ increases their ‘value’ when it is superior. I.e people simply deny that all pride is sin, or that it’s impossible to add more value than everyone already has. They stubbornly think the differences count.
Tom: Then the answer is to demonstrate that they don’t count so far as our value and worth are concerned, and that’s easy to do without abandoning LFW. But since Calvinists are prone to arrogance on grounds peculiar to their own unique theological claims (when misconstrued of course!), why think that getting folks to abandon libertarian LFW for compatibilism will make them less boastful?
Bob: So, given your definition of ‘value,’ that people’s choices can’t be used to compare who is better, LFW is compatible with humility, and I’m not worried about you.
Tom: Yes! Thank you Jesus!
Bob: But it’s not obvious to most that pride is impossible, and I fear that your definition of how pride works is irrelevant in the real world, wherein LFW seems to me to encourage many (albeit logically inconsistent with belief in grace) to feel justified in looking down on unbelievers as clearly inferior to them, and more deserving of burning forever than they are.
Tom: I’ll take your word for it, Bob, that there are great numbers of libertarian believers who boast they’re more valuable than and superior to others just because they freely chose to believe in Jesus. I honestly haven’t run into this specific claim to self-importance, and I discuss it pretty regularly with friends. I just don’t think this is that big a deal, but I could be wrong.
But I do think my definitions (or approach) is relevant to the real world. It’s transformed my own life and that of my kids and pretty much all with whom I’m able to give enough time to work through it. I mean, how is it not the case that the truth that our worth and value are guaranteed unconditionally in God’s love for us irrespective of our performance is relevant to the real world’s existential angst, worries, fears and arrogance?
Say my child gets to feeling that her value and significance in our family are dependent upon her performance, upon making good choices. Isn’t the most relevant news this child can hear the truth that she’s unconditionally loved and cherished and valued because of who I am as her father and not because of how well she performs? But that’s all a libertarian need grasp to avoid construing the exercise of his freedom as grounds for increased worth and value.
Well, gotta grade tests! Rats.
I’m very grateful for the input and challenge Auggy and Bob. Thanks again! And let me say that I often tend to read and respond quickly. But if a conversation becomes challenging (and this one has) then I like to go back and read through it. I’ll certainly be doing that here too!
Tom
suppose a father places equal love and worth on two sons (and they both realize it), and gives each $1 million (without which neither could possibly develop a business). One invests in building a fruitful business. The other uses his enablement to squander the gift. Won’t the first conclude that his superior choice justifies having a diminished view of his equally valuable brother? “Both: my brother is totally loved and valuable, and I am clearly superior!”