More about the basic choice in theology (voluntarism versus realism)

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm by Roger E. Olson

More about the basic choice in theology (voluntarism versus realism) 2011-08-18T19:30:51-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Thanks to those of you who have responded already to the first installment of what may turn out to be a series of posts on this very important but often ignored issue in theology–an issue I call a continental divide in theology and suggest may lie at the bottom of many debates between Calvinists and Arminians.

Here I will assume you have read my previous post on this subject and proceed from where I left off.

It seems to me that this choice of belief about God’s nature very much influences how one interprets the Bible. If one approaches the Bible with voluntaristic tendencies (thinking of God as sheer power and free will without any morally structuring, eternal, immutable character) he or she will probably tend to view the Bible as a revelation of God’s mighty acts and will but NOT as a revelation of God’s character. After all, God does not have a character as such. If one approaches the Bible with non-voluntaristic, realist tendencies, he or she will probably tend to view the Bible as a revelation of God’s character in addition to God’s mighty acts and will.

It seems to me that this watershed in theology explains why in many theological debates the parties seem to be not communicating at all. They are operating out of entirely different sets of assumptions about ultimate reality. This would account for some Christians being able to say (as one did here) that God can do absolutely anything he jolly well pleases and other Christians recoiling in horror from that. (Of course, we all agree that God can do anything he pleases, but realists MEAN by “whatever he pleases” “whatever is consistent with his eternal character” because, strictly speaking, God CANNOT “please” to do something inconsistent with his character.)

Now, it is possible for a realist to be a determinist; Augustine might be a case in point. But I question whether Augustine believed that God determines everything including evil. If he did, he would have been automatically anathematized by the Second Council of Orange in 529. Right off hand I cannot think of any strict divine determinists who are also clearly non-voluntarist/realists. Someone might want to make the case that Jonathan Edwards was a realist/non-voluntarist, but when I read him I get the impression of someone who is torn about this issue but ultimately comes down on the voluntarist side. I am open to being convinced otherwise. For example, Edwards discusses whether God has free will and ultimately says God always does what is wisest and fittest and leaves the impression that he does not think God could do otherwise than he does. That might be an expression of a realist doctrine of God in which God’s eternal nature and character determine and do not only guide what God does. However, this would still create severe problems for knowing what God’s eternal character is–in view of hell within a deterministic theology.

The ultimate problem for any Christian voluntarist view of God is hell. Why would God choose a world that includes eternal suffering? The only answer is that we have no right to question God as God is not subject to any law including one internal to himself. But that makes God totally opaque. So, when pushed on the issue of hell, many determinists shift from a seemingly voluntaristic account of God (“God can do anything he jolly well pleases”) to a realist/non-voluntarist account by saying that hell is necessary to manifest one of God’s attributes–justice. But that just pits God’s love against God’s justice and the latter seems to override the former. When challenged on this they often say that God’s love is totally different from our best notions of love. But that seems to lead back to voluntarism.

C. S. Lewis’ consistent realist/non-voluntarist account of God led him inexorably to his view of hell as the “painful refuge” that is actually a manifestation of God’s love as well as God’s justice–in such a way that there is no conflict between them.

I will suggest here that many Calvinists seem to be confused about nominalism/voluntarism and realism/non-voluntarism. I have read many, many books by leading Calvinists from Calvin to Piper and I am often impressed by this apparent confusion. When answering certain questions they express realist/non-voluntarist views of God, but when answering other questions they express nominalist/voluntarist views of God. The problem is, these are two absolutely incommensurable views of God. Conceptualism is really just a form of nominalism UNLESS it means that universals are eternal concepts in the mind of God in which conceptualism is simply Augustine’s realism! Ockham’s conceptualism was not of this type. Conceptualism may not be sheer nominalism, but it is a variety of nominalism and totally alien to realism.

My major point here is simply this: IF a Calvinist will stick to being a realist/non-voluntarist with regard to God, he or she will find it much easier to communicate with an Arminian and vice versa. (To the best of my knowledge no Arminian has ever been a nominalist/voluntarist.) IF a Calvinist will refuse to fall back on voluntarist exclamations like “God can do whatever he jolly well pleases” (which make God unknowable and not trustworthy), he or she will have a much more difficult time defending Calvinism than otherwise. Calvinism’s best defense is voluntarism, but it raises severe problems with God that most Calvinists cannot live with consistently.

I will compare this with Catholic theologian Hans Kueng’s argument against atheism. (I am not comparing Calvinism to atheism!) Kueng argues in Does God Exist? that atheism and theism are both basic, rational choices, but that atheism requires nihilism and most atheists aren’t willing to embrace that. But he pushes atheism to the wall and forces atheists to admit that their worldview completely undermines basic trust in the meaningfulness of reality. The fact that most won’t admit that constitutes an “indirect proof” of theism.

Similarly, Calvinism and Arminianism are perhaps basic, rational choices in theology. But the high Calvinist of the meticulous providence, TULIP variety MUST embrace nominalism/voluntarism to be consistent. The fact that most won’t embrace it consistently might constitute an indirect proof of Arminianism (or the same theology under a different label). Of course, SOME Calvinists DO embrace nominalism/voluntarism consistently and then they must swallow its “good and necessary consequences” including that we cannot know that God will keep any of his promises because he has no eternal, immutable character that causes him to that and only that. The only reasonable result of consistent voluntarism is Luther’s “deus absconditus”–the hidden God who is the cause of evil as well as of good.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 26, 2010

A Much Neglected Basic Choice in Theology

Next Post

December 29, 2010 Another basic (pre-biblical) choice in theology

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth