Chesterton on Predestination

[Scott]

I started reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Yikes:

Perhaps the strongest case [that poets do not go mad] is this: that only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and the white flat lilies of the Ouse. He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin.

 

[lwadkins]

Sigh:

All too common a veiw today.

[Edited on 7-14-2006 by lwadkins]

 

[brymaes]

As I recall, this was the paragraph that made me put down Orthodoxy. I've not since returned to it.

As a side, why do you think that Chesterson is so popular among FV types?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Evidently, Chesterton, who wrote a biography on St Thomas, never read or ignored or misunderstood what Thomas (or Augustine or any of dozens of patristic and medieval theologians!) actually taught on predestination.

Thomas was explicitly predestinarian. It is a subset of providence. The one entails the other. He tends to deny absolute human freedom (ST 1a 83 1). Human actions are still free and somehow that freedom is comprehended in the divine providence (De Malo, 6).

His reply to the four objections in 1a 23.1 would warm the heart of Gottschalk and Calvin, he quoted Rom 8:30. He treated it as a subset of providence, though he also returned to it in 3a 24.1ff re the predestination of Christ. In 1a 23.2 he located predestination primarily in the divine intellect. God predestines what he foreknows. The cause of predestination does not lie in the thing/one predestined (contra Origen).

The number of the elect is certain (1a 23.7).

Thomas also taught reprobation. In reply to the objection that God does not reprobate, Thomas said:

On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2,3): "I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau."

I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article [1]) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question [22], Article [2]). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question [22], Article [1]). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
He deftly answers the problem of the ground of reprobation:
Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present---namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future---namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true---namely, "Destruction is thy own, O Israel."

In answer to the objection that if there is predestination, it is of a general sort precluding specific election.

On the contrary, It is said (Eph. 1:4): "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world."

I answer that, Predestination presupposes election in the order of reason; and election presupposes love. The reason of this is that predestination, as stated above (Article [1]), is a part of providence. Now providence, as also prudence, is the plan existing in the intellect directing the ordering of some things towards an end; as was proved above (Question [22], Article [2]). But nothing is directed towards an end unless the will for that end already exists. Whence the predestination of some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and love:---love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of eternal salvation; since to love is to wish well to anyone, as stated above (Question [20], Articles [2],3):---election, inasmuch as He wills this good to some in preference to others; since He reprobates some, as stated above (Article [3]). Election and love, however, are differently ordered in God, and in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not cause good, but we are incited to love by the good which already exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love.

 

[a mere housewife]

As far as I have read about Cowper, it was Newton-- the Calvinist-- that almost saved him from insanity? It seems very ungenerous, not only to doctrines but the people themselves, to think that insanity is always the result of a too logical mind rather than chemical imbalance.

<i>Orthodoxy</i> is superb, though obviously not infallibly inspired. I think the people who love Chesterton, love him because he could write the romance of truth, and the flatness of error. The problem is going farther and appreciating him for what he was not --systematic, or accurate in details. He is concerned with the sweep of things, and his generalities are sweeping. So he often sweeps the errors he is dealing with effortlessly away, but he is also liable to miss where they are completely. He was a champion of the paradoxical: I can almost predict his sentences now because even his style is a sort of exultation in extremes. Probably some people would say that is why the FV like him, a la blaming Van Til.

I would say the FV types like him because in their favor, many of them have a sense of poetry and style (at least in what they read). And perhaps also because I have noticed a certain tendency to do theology (and even literary crit) by poetic appeal "“ so an appeal to something being 'incarnational' might carry more weight than less appealing systematic and even factual argumentation (& Joyce's not being allowed to take communion as a baby can be read into passages from the <i>Portrait</i>, as the sinister underlying cause of all his secularism). I think poetic people tend to want things to be 'neat' just like everybody else. Only they want them to be neat with a certain aesthetic fog. This is very Chestertonian, much as I love Chesterton.

He is hung up on predestination: he almost seems bitter about it "“ and it is the bitterness that comes across, and even interferes with his style. However notice in the quote from <i>Heretics</i>, below, that he rejoices in a sovereign Deity. I think he just never bothered to reconcile that joy very accurately with anything except other poetically appealing principles.

'Dionysus made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. Jesus Christ also made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. But Omar makes it, not a sacrament, but a medicine. He feasts because life is not joyful; he revels because he is not glad. "Drink," he says, "for you know not whence you come nor why. Drink, for you know not when you go nor where. Drink, because the stars are cruel and the world as idle as a humming-top. Drink, because there is nothing worth trusting, nothing worth fighting for. Drink, because all things are lapsed in a base equality and an evil peace." So he stands offering us the cup in his hand. And at the high altar of Christianity stands another figure, in whose hand also is the cup of the vine. "Drink" he says "for the whole world is as red as this wine, with the crimson of the love and wrath of God. Drink, for the trumpets are blowing for battle and this is the stirrup-cup. Drink, for this is my blood of the new testament that is shed for you. Drink, for I know of whence you come and why. Drink, for I know of when you go and where."'

[Edited on 7-14-2006 by a mere housewife]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by a mere housewifeI would say the FV types like him because in their favor, many of them have a sense of poetry and style (at least in what they read). And perhaps also because I have noticed a certain tendency to do theology (and even literary crit) by poetic appeal "“ so an appeal to something being 'incarnational' might carry more weight than less appealing systematic and even factual argumentation

... I think poetic people tend to want things to be 'neat' just like everybody else. Only they want them to be neat with a certain aesthetic fog. This is very Chestertonian, much as I love Chesterton.

This seems right to me. I am impressed with the apparent intelligence of some of the defenders of FV. Most of them write well. Most of them are articulate, thoughtful, and winsome. They are well read and engaged with the culture.

They are often former fundamentalists who are reacting to their fundamentalist roots. They seem to be searching for something more than what Geneva or Edinburgh or Princeton can offer but they want to stay within the Presbyterian/Reformed orbit. Why exactly, I'm not sure.

The problem is, in most cases, they just don' t know what they're doing. They are mostly amateurs. Some have MA's in classics (Wilson) or Philosophy (Lusk). In their case, these two decided not to go to seminary to get actual theological training. This suggests a little arrogance. Some are pastors with MDiv's (Barach and Wilkins) but no more training than that. Joel Garver is a philosopher (PhD) but not a theologian by vocation or training. Some are undergraduates (Minich) and yet are lionized as the future of Reformed theology!

They presume to revise Reformed theology without ecclesiastical sanction and without any real, genuine, instruction from the Reformed confession (and let's not hear any blather about all diversity in Reformed theology on fundamental doctrines such as justification and covenant).

There is a also, in the FV movement, a significant degree of dissatisfaction with the Reformed confession. I'm not sure they're all completely aware of how dissatisfied they are. Perhaps a sort of self-consciousness is developing.

It's also a movement with considerable irony. Despite all their talk about the church and the means of grace, and despite their ordination vows, in no case, of which I'm aware, has one of them submitted their views in writing to a recongized federation/denomiation for evaluation by a Presbytery/Classis or Synod or GA. Some have been asked to submit their views, but none has done it voluntarily.

Good and interesting question. I suspect much of the answer lies in the sociology of the Reformed churches, our theological fragmentation, the widespread ignorance of the confessions, and in the sociology of the movement itself.

rsc

 

[Scott]

It's also a movement with considerable irony. Despite all their talk about the church and the means of grace, and despite their ordination vows, in no case, of which I'm aware, has one of them submitted their views in writing to a recongized federation/denomiation for evaluation by a Presbytery/Classis or Synod or GA. Some have been asked to submit their views, but none has done it voluntarily.

I have noticed this inconsistency too.

 

[bookslover]

I started reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Yikes:

On non-Christian subjects, Chesterton (1874-1936) is quite wonderful. He was one of the most important essayists (and there are dozens and dozens of them) in the first third of the last century. His essay on the subject of embarrassment, "On Chasing One's Hat," is a classic of the form. His strangely off-center, elliptical style sort of sucks you right in.

His poetry, of which there is more than you might think, is a delight.

And, of course, there are the Father Brown mysteries...

1874 was a good year. It gave us Churchill, W. Somerset Maugham, and Chesterton.

 

[Davidius]

I actually just started reading "Orthdoxy" as well and am on the fourth chapter. He doesn't stop with the jabs at predestination at the first passage you quoted, unfortunately.

 

[Craig]

This seems right to me. I am impressed with the apparent intelligence of some of the defenders of FV. Most of them write well. Most of them are articulate, thoughtful, and winsome. They are well read and engaged with the culture.

They are often former fundamentalists who are reacting to their fundamentalist roots. They seem to be searching for something more than what Geneva or Edinburgh or Princeton can offer but they want to stay within the Presbyterian/Reformed orbit. Why exactly, I'm not sure.

The problem is, in most cases, they just don' t know what they're doing. They are mostly amateurs. Some have MA's in classics (Wilson) or Philosophy (Lusk). In their case, these two decided not to go to seminary to get actual theological training. This suggests a little arrogance. Some are pastors with MDiv's (Barach and Wilkins) but no more training than that. Joel Garver is a philosopher (PhD) but not a theologian by vocation or training. Some are undergraduates (Minich) and yet are lionized as the future of Reformed theology!

They presume to revise Reformed theology without ecclesiastical sanction and without any real, genuine, instruction from the Reformed confession (and let's not hear any blather about all diversity in Reformed theology on fundamental doctrines such as justification and covenant).

There is a also, in the FV movement, a significant degree of dissatisfaction with the Reformed confession. I'm not sure they're all completely aware of how dissatisfied they are. Perhaps a sort of self-consciousness is developing.

It's also a movement with considerable irony. Despite all their talk about the church and the means of grace, and despite their ordination vows, in no case, of which I'm aware, has one of them submitted their views in writing to a recongized federation/denomiation for evaluation by a Presbytery/Classis or Synod or GA. Some have been asked to submit their views, but none has done it voluntarily.

Good and interesting question. I suspect much of the answer lies in the sociology of the Reformed churches, our theological fragmentation, the widespread ignorance of the confessions, and in the sociology of the movement itself.

rsc

Wow...some of my thoughts (though yours are better articulated), and some new ones.

I think you just boiled it down wonderfully. I read several FV blogs who are cheerleaders for these guys and what you described fits them precisely.

 

[caddy]

Very nice assessment on Chesterton! I have a huge Chesterton Collection that I started 20+ years ago. I pull him out to read him from time to time. He was right about so many things. Part of his charm was his ability to communicate ( as Scott says ) in a winsome way and through paradoxical statements that turned ideas, opinions, theories on their heads and forced people to consider them from a different light.

It seems that the Reformed are the only ones I have seen so far that can really understand where he went wrong, which was not often!

Enjoying the comments in this thread.

As far as I have read about Cowper, it was Newton-- the Calvinist-- that almost saved him from insanity? It seems very ungenerous, not only to doctrines but the people themselves, to think that insanity is always the result of a too logical mind rather than chemical imbalance.

<i>Orthodoxy</i> is superb, though obviously not infallibly inspired. I think the people who love Chesterton, love him because he could write the romance of truth, and the flatness of error. The problem is going farther and appreciating him for what he was not --systematic, or accurate in details. He is concerned with the sweep of things, and his generalities are sweeping. So he often sweeps the errors he is dealing with effortlessly away, but he is also liable to miss where they are completely. He was a champion of the paradoxical: I can almost predict his sentences now because even his style is a sort of exultation in extremes. Probably some people would say that is why the FV like him, a la blaming Van Til.

I would say the FV types like him because in their favor, many of them have a sense of poetry and style (at least in what they read). And perhaps also because I have noticed a certain tendency to do theology (and even literary crit) by poetic appeal "“ so an appeal to something being 'incarnational' might carry more weight than less appealing systematic and even factual argumentation (& Joyce's not being allowed to take communion as a baby can be read into passages from the <i>Portrait</i>, as the sinister underlying cause of all his secularism). I think poetic people tend to want things to be 'neat' just like everybody else. Only they want them to be neat with a certain aesthetic fog. This is very Chestertonian, much as I love Chesterton.

He is hung up on predestination: he almost seems bitter about it "“ and it is the bitterness that comes across, and even interferes with his style. However notice in the quote from <i>Heretics</i>, below, that he rejoices in a sovereign Deity. I think he just never bothered to reconcile that joy very accurately with anything except other poetically appealing principles.

'Dionysus made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. Jesus Christ also made wine, not a medicine, but a sacrament. But Omar makes it, not a sacrament, but a medicine. He feasts because life is not joyful; he revels because he is not glad. "Drink," he says, "for you know not whence you come nor why. Drink, for you know not when you go nor where. Drink, because the stars are cruel and the world as idle as a humming-top. Drink, because there is nothing worth trusting, nothing worth fighting for. Drink, because all things are lapsed in a base equality and an evil peace." So he stands offering us the cup in his hand. And at the high altar of Christianity stands another figure, in whose hand also is the cup of the vine. "Drink" he says "for the whole world is as red as this wine, with the crimson of the love and wrath of God. Drink, for the trumpets are blowing for battle and this is the stirrup-cup. Drink, for this is my blood of the new testament that is shed for you. Drink, for I know of whence you come and why. Drink, for I know of when you go and where."'

[Edited on 7-14-2006 by a mere housewife]