The anti-FV challenge: Part IV

(Opening Reminder: If you want to take a stab at making an anti-FV argument in accordance with this challenge, or if you simply want to pass along someone else's argument to me, then please e-mail me at xonhostetter@gmail.com. Cheers!)

--------------------------------------------

Continuing Introduction

I have taken this method of analyzing anti-FV arguments, in some form, out for a bit of a spin in some online discussions, and it has been suggested that my analysis of anti-FV arguments is somewhat ad hoc and that it like Frankenstein turns into a monster I cannot control. My "philosophical contortions are following an illegitimate hermeneutic of our confessions," whereby I end up making it impossible to show that Wilkins could EVER be outside the Confession, no matter what he ever actually said or wrote. "At this point I literally don’t see how Wilkins could be outside WS even if HE WAS TRYING to be an Arminian."

I don't think this is at all the case, and to show that it is not let's use two examples of contradictions that we should "expect" to be able to show, and which in fact we can quite easily. For the first, we'll follow the commenter I quoted above and try to show a contradiction between "Arminianism" (admittedly a little vague in this day and age) and the Westminster Standards. For the second, I have literally put a few "well known" contradictions in a hat, and drawn one out at random. The selection is Luther and Zwingli's dispute at Marburg over the Lord's Supper.

To be clear, I'm being a bit lazy here. I'm not tracking down precise quotes the way I would expect an anti-FVer to do. But this is because I simply want to show the basic format of how the arguments should go; I don't think it is necessary to provide detailed citations of everything because the contradictions I am trying to show are so commonly recognized already. However, I will happily do more of the 'leg work' if anyone requests it.

First, then, to Arminianism and the Westminster Standards.(And, as might be expected, I responded to this comment re: Arminianism in that thread at the time as well. I'm basically taking my argument in that comment and converting it into "the template" here.)

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: classical Arminianism / Westminster Confession

(Like I said, I'm going to cheat a bit here. I should really name a particular Arminian(s), but I take this particular example to be utterly non-controversial and so I'm trying to save time. If anyone honestly wants to challenge me for a particular quote from a particular Arminian, then I will happily provide one!)

Source: Xon Hostetter, comment at Greenbaggins

Contradicted Proposition: There is no group of people whom God has predestined from the foundation of the world, based on nothing foreseen within the people themselves, to live eternally with Him in glory. (pro/contra)

Arminian source material:

None provided

(Again, I know I'm cheating here!)

Confessional source material:

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed: and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto. (WCF III.3-5)

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

We could easily show an (honest) Arminian to be out of bounds with the Confession, because an Arminianism affirms (at least) the following propositions:

A1: There is no group of people whom God has predestined from the foundation of the world, based on nothing within the people themselves, to live eternally with Him in glory.

A2: Christ’s work satisfying the law of God and dying as the substitute for sin was meant by God to apply to every single person who ever lives.

A3: There is no effectual call to faith in Christ which God makes to a person without that person cooperating with the call in a way that does not involve any assistance from God at all.

And we could easily show that the Confession denies A1, A2, and A3. (These three cover the “U L I” of TULIP. The “P” and the “T” are more complicated, because some Arminians believe in the “P” and some (Wesleyans) believe in the “T” at least in a theoretical sense. We could still give propositions for these Arminian positions too, and these also would clearly contradict the Confession, but doing so would take more time and I don’t see the need.)

The Confession’s teaching that there are elect people, chosen by God based on nothing in themselves, contradicts A1. Its teaching that Christ’s atoning work was intended only to apply fully to those elect people contradicts A2. And its teaching that God sovereignly and irresistably brings about faith in elect people contradicts A3. (Of course, for the full argument we would need to go to the relevant portions of the Confession and convert them into “propositions”, too…but I really don’t think that’s necessary here.)

------------------------------------------------------

Evaluation

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but this seems fairly airtight to me. The dossier above is only for "A1", but I imagine we could do it up for A2 and A3 as well. But, if anyone thinks that either a. I have given a proposition an Arminian would not affirm, or b. the Westminster Standards do not really deny the proposition, then I'm all ears to hear your reasons for thinking so. But until someone points me to an error in what I have said here, I consider the contradiction between Arminianism and the Westminster Confession regarding election to be established.

---------------------------------------------------

Now, let's look at a second example if we like.(Expand to read about Luther and Zwingli, if you dare. If not, you're done with this post. You may pass "Go" if you like, but I don't have your money.)

Basic Dossier

Alleged Contradiction Between: Luther / Zwingli

Source: Xon Hostetter, here

Contradicted Proposition: In the rite of communion, Christ is present with the elements. (pro/contra)

Luther source material:

None provided; non-controversial

(Again, I know I'm cheating here!)

Zwingli source material:

non provided; non-controversial

----------------------------------------------

Argument Verbatim

The famous disagreement between the two Reformers at Marburg featured a sometimes heated dispute over the meaning of Christ's statement at the Last Supper: "This is my body." If we were to take this statement as our proposition, then there might seem to be no contradiction between Luther and Zwingli since both would say that the proposition "[The bread used in communion] is Christ's body" is true. But here we have the same obligation from earlier analyses to make sure that we understand the "usage definitions" of all the words used. When Luther and Zwingli respectively say "The bread is Christ's body," are they using all the words in the same way? If not, then we need to find out what their different meanings are and then re-phrase the proposition.

In this case, the difference is a Clintonian one over the meaning of "is." Zwingli argues explicitly in his writings on this topic that "is" is subject to several meanings, depending on context, before offering what he thinks is the properly understood meaning in Jesus' words of institution. Zwingli's answer is that it is the "symbolic" meaning of "is," where "is" carries a meaning similar to "represents." E.g., love is a long road, etc. Zwingli does seem to believe (or at least, some Zwingli scholars contend that he does) that Christ is present in the faith of the partakers of the Lord's Supper, but He has no literal presence in the elements of bread and wine to speak of. So clearly Zwingli would deny our proposition (in the Dossier): "In the rite of communion, Christ is present with the elements."

As for Luther, his consubstantialist doctrine is equally famous, particularly his formulation that Christ is present "in, with and under" the elements. Whatever exactly this means, it is clear that Luther is positing a "real" presence of Christ in the bread and wine. This is why Luther jumped up and down on Christ's words of institution, reportedly resorting at one point to angry repetition: This is my body! This is my body! Luther is using "is" in a more "regular" way, whereby one thing is identified with another. (The ways in which Luther's doctrine differs from Catholic transsubstantiation is beyond our scope here.) So Luther clearly would affirm our proposition: "In the rite of communion, Christ is present with the elements."

Thus, Luther and Zwingli clearly disagree with one another regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

--------------------------------------------

Evaluation

Again, there's more that could be said; I'm just trying to sketch out how the argument would work within the parameters of the template. It should not be difficult at all to find the appropriate quotes of Luther and Zwingli which show the different ways they are using "is" and the different ways they conceive of Christ's presence in the rite of the Supper. (Zwingli, in particular, wrote explicitly about the word "is" in the passage in question, breaking it down into several possible meanings, and then arguing for the one he thought was correct (the "symbolic").)

So here we have an anlysis of different "usage definitions" working in the opposite direction than how it worked in earlier analysis (such as of the CCP Memorial argument against Wilkins). In this case, the superficial and equivocating reading makes the two thinkers appear to be compatible, and a closer reading reveals them to actually be in contradiction. (Whereas, in the CCP Memorial argument against Wilking regarding election, the superficial and equivocating reading was to see a contradiction, whereas closer analysis revealed compatibility.)

In any case, this is how arguments can be formatted to work within the suggested template while fulfilling rules I-III.

I think these four posts (this one and the three before it) can be allowed to stand as an introduction, more ore less, to what I'm trying to do here. From here out, we'll start looking at various anti-FV arguments and see if they pass "the challenge."