Implicit Calvinism

[LittleFaith]

Reading the recent thread on Augustine brought to mind a thought I've had a few times in recent years.

In that thread, @Brian Withnell pointed out that we don't have the ability to create a being that can freely choose what we fore-ordain. But what about fiction writers. Do they not "create" mini-universes where people freely choose to do what we've decreed they will do?

I know Harry Potter is controversial, so bear with me. I read all the books when I was younger and I loved them. I don't know if I would read them now, or allow my children to read them. But because they are so popular, it seems to illustrate my point well. In the last book, Bellatrix LeStrange, one of the most heartlessly "evil" characters in the series, is killed in a dramatic fashion in the final battle - just after killing one of the beloved Weasley twins. Lots of HP fans grieved over the death of Fred Weasley and rejoiced over Bellatrix's death. Some fans would say things along the lines of "how could Rowling do that to us?" as the Weasley twins were immensely popular characters, and inseparably close to each other.

What I've never heard anyone do is complain about how J.K. Rowling was unfair or a bad person because of the way she treats her characters, although I'm sure there's a Reddit thread for that. And more generally, I don't hear people begruding a fiction writer the right to create characters who are evil/insufferable/annoying/ill-fated and dole out to them all sorts of consequences, deserved or otherwise. Nor do people complain about the fact that "good" characters often suffer greatly along the way. And although we recognize that there is an insurmountable difference between the non-real characters of a fictional work and real flesh-and-blood humans, this doesn't stop people from getting as heavily invested in make-believe characters as in real ones.

So I just wonder - do we, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, instinctively recognize the right of a creator to sovereignly ordain what created beings then freely choose? Are we all implicit Calvinists in some way or another?

 

[MyCrows]

In my experience, the default tendency of sinful human beings is to be self-centered, serving primarily their own flesh and desires. Their God is their belly, they worship themselves.

This idolatry is always coupled with a deluded sense of freedom. A freedom to pursue their own desires, and a freedom to be free from any constraint (even their own enslavement to sin).

I would say the default is to deny divine sovereignty.

 

[No Other Name]

I would hesitate to say fiction writers create "people" who can freely choose what the writer fore-ordains.

I never got into Harry Potter so if there is a deeper point somewhere in there, I will not be able to process it.

I also read an article from our own C. Matthew McMahon who did watch the films and it does not recommend them to me because of the moral relativism of the heroes and the possible confusion and consequences that could introduce to our families, but I have no firsthand experience with anything.

Leaving aside Harry Potter if I may, it seems the scenario you posit can be easily applied to any fictional author such as Shakespeare "cruelly" writing tragic deaths to his characters.

There is no crisis of theodicy in the characters because they never even imagine they are characters ever. If they did imagine they are characters, then it seems you would have a spectrum of speculation and beliefs regarding the nature of the author.

There is no crisis in theodicy for real people who buy movie tickets because they readily know and accept the "creator-character" distinction between the writer and the world with created beings.

When faced with evangelism and the Gospel and the real-life "Creator-creature" distinction, everything is different.

I know many non-Calvinists who are showing evidence of a faithful life of faith in Christ. They may believe intellectually in a synergistic justification based on misinterpreted verses, but their genuine humility reveals to those of us who know them that it seems God is working them to growth in holiness, fruits of the Spirit, and genuine discipleship in the Word and in the local church where they serve.

I think the nature of the Triune God directly conflicts with the natural inclination of all of us - Calvinist or not.

Even faithfully worshipping the God of creation in His Spirit and mediated by the God the Son, we all still at times begrudge God for things not going the way we thought He was setting things up. It is part of our sin nature.

Even Job said "I am a good guy; why should I suffer?"

By his grace, we learn from it and grow in Him and persevere with Him, but what a miraculous grace it takes!

If anyone sees it all and has no problem with a sovereign God writing our lives like an author, then it is humility and faith born from his grace alone.

If anyone sees it all and says it is ok for a human author to do what they will, but not God to do what he wills because I am not just some fictional character and I deserve better than that because I made a decision for him when I was 7 years old, then no, I would not say there is any implicit Calvinism in them.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

we recognize that there is an insurmountable difference between the non-real characters of a fictional work and real flesh-and-blood humans

But this difference makes all the difference, you know what I mean?

Fictional characters aren't people in any sense at all. Fictional characters don't "make choices" or do anything at all. It's all imaginary.

 

[Knight]

Reading the recent thread on Augustine brought to mind a thought I've had a few times in recent years.

In that thread, @Brian Withnell pointed out that we don't have the ability to create a being that can freely choose what we fore-ordain. But what about fiction writers. Do they not "create" mini-universes where people freely choose to do what we've decreed they will do?

I know Harry Potter is controversial, so bear with me. I read all the books when I was younger and I loved them. I don't know if I would read them now, or allow my children to read them. But because they are so popular, it seems to illustrate my point well. In the last book, Bellatrix LeStrange, one of the most heartlessly "evil" characters in the series, is killed in a dramatic fashion in the final battle - just after killing one of the beloved Weasley twins. Lots of HP fans grieved over the death of Fred Weasley and rejoiced over Bellatrix's death. Some fans would say things along the lines of "how could Rowling do that to us?" as the Weasley twins were immensely popular characters, and inseparably close to each other.

What I've never heard anyone do is complain about how J.K. Rowling was unfair or a bad person because of the way she treats her characters, although I'm sure there's a Reddit thread for that. And more generally, I don't hear people begruding a fiction writer the right to create characters who are evil/insufferable/annoying/ill-fated and dole out to them all sorts of consequences, deserved or otherwise. Nor do people complain about the fact that "good" characters often suffer greatly along the way. And although we recognize that there is an insurmountable difference between the non-real characters of a fictional work and real flesh-and-blood humans, this doesn't stop people from getting as heavily invested in make-believe characters as in real ones.

So I just wonder - do we, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, instinctively recognize the right of a creator to sovereignly ordain what created beings then freely choose? Are we all implicit Calvinists in some way or another?

If I understand the aim of your question correctly, I argue this point using the following analogy (see here for full context):

In contexts involving the problem of evil and the Reformed response, I tend to hear a lot about God as the "author of evil." But consider two publishers:

1) Publisher 1 publishes a book he wrote, and the book he wrote includes characters that choose moral evil.

2) Publisher 2 has drafts of books handed to him (by whom? who knows!), and he chooses to publish one in which characters choose moral evil over any drafts of books in which no one chooses moral evil.

Is there a significant moral difference between the two publishers? I fail to see one. One might argue that because publisher 1 was also the author of the book, he is morally "responsible" for causing the characters who choose moral evil in a way that publisher 2 was not.

Now, a publisher who is also the author has more direct, intentional impact on why characters act a certain way. But his reasons for writing them the way he does need not differ from the reasons a mere publisher perusing the same book might choose it involving the same characters. If it is morally acceptable for the second publisher to publish the same book as the first publisher (who also authored the book), the burden is on the one who argues that the first publisher acted in a morally unacceptable way to pinpoint why the first publisher's more direct and intentional connection is morally unacceptable. Simply stating that the first publisher was also the author is not an argument against the moral acceptability of his actions.

In fact and on the contrary, I would argue that an author who intentionally writes characters a certain way is, if anything, in a better position to know why the book is worth publishing in contrast to a publisher who has been handed several drafts ("dealt" a hand) and left to divine - pun intended - which one tells the best story!

So while Molinists like Craig may charge Reformed Christians with believing God is the author of sin - and I have argued elsewhere that whether or not this is accurate or even problematic depends on what the person making the charge means by "author" - Molinists like Craig believe God is the publisher of sin. For the same reasons Craig would not view his position as problematic, Reformed Christians have analogous appeals as to why their view is not problematic. A book that is worth publishing was a book worth authoring.

Open theists escape this particular criticism, as such people deny Hebrews 12:2 et al.

 

[LittleFaith]

I would hesitate to say fiction writers create "people" who can freely choose what the writer fore-ordains.

I never got into Harry Potter so if there is a deeper point somewhere in there, I will not be able to process it.

I also read an article from our own C. Matthew McMahon who did watch the films and it does not recommend them to me because of the moral relativism of the heroes and the possible confusion and consequences that could introduce to our families, but I have no firsthand experience with anything.

Leaving aside Harry Potter if I may, it seems the scenario you posit can be easily applied to any fictional author such as Shakespeare "cruelly" writing tragic deaths to his characters.
[...]
If anyone sees it all and says it is ok for a human author to do what they will, but not God to do what he wills because I am not just some fictional character and I deserve better than that because I made a decision for him when I was 7 years old, then no, I would not say there is any implicit Calvinism in them.

I read his article on Harry Potter as well - I didn't really need to cite Harry Potter as a specific example. It was just the one that came to my mind because it was what prompted the thought, and because, particularly when the books were first being released, HP fans were very emotionally invested in the characters. So when I think of the prospect of a creator being made morally culpable for the preordained fate of the created characters, she more readily came to mind. That's just long-winded explanation - there's nothing deeper specific to Harry Potter and any other character would do just as well - Boromir! Or Pliable and Obstinate.

That aside, thank you for your reply which I enjoyed reading.

 

[LittleFaith]

But this difference makes all the difference, you know what I mean?

Fictional characters aren't people in any sense at all. Fictional characters don't "make choices" or do anything at all. It's all imaginary.

This is true, and I agree. But that said, people still implicitly tend to treat fictional characters as free agents. An author might be critiqued for bad or unconvincing writing - but the whole reason fiction appeals is that people resonate with, or are repulsed/fascinated by, fictional characters just as if they were real people.

I admit that it's a rather tenuous lesser-to-greater argument... in much the same way that I could predict someone's behavior without impinging on their free choice and then extrapolate to a compatibilist explanation of divine sovereignty. But it's just a thought experiment I've had and I don't put a lot of stock in it for that reason. It's been helpful to read some of the responses here and in one sense you are right - fictional characters aren't real. It's a pale imitation of the creative ability God possesses and has communicated in a greatly inferior way to us humans.

 

[LittleFaith]

If I understand the aim of your question correctly, I argue this point using the following analogy (see here for full context):



Open theists escape this particular criticism, as such people deny Hebrews 12:2 et al.

Thank you - I will dig into this further. Very intriguing!

 

[Brian Withnell]

Reading the recent thread on Augustine brought to mind a thought I've had a few times in recent years.

In that thread, @Brian Withnell pointed out that we don't have the ability to create a being that can freely choose what we fore-ordain. But what about fiction writers. Do they not "create" mini-universes where people freely choose to do what we've decreed they will do?

I know Harry Potter is controversial, so bear with me. I read all the books when I was younger and I loved them. I don't know if I would read them now, or allow my children to read them. But because they are so popular, it seems to illustrate my point well. In the last book, Bellatrix LeStrange, one of the most heartlessly "evil" characters in the series, is killed in a dramatic fashion in the final battle - just after killing one of the beloved Weasley twins. Lots of HP fans grieved over the death of Fred Weasley and rejoiced over Bellatrix's death. Some fans would say things along the lines of "how could Rowling do that to us?" as the Weasley twins were immensely popular characters, and inseparably close to each other.

What I've never heard anyone do is complain about how J.K. Rowling was unfair or a bad person because of the way she treats her characters, although I'm sure there's a Reddit thread for that. And more generally, I don't hear people begruding a fiction writer the right to create characters who are evil/insufferable/annoying/ill-fated and dole out to them all sorts of consequences, deserved or otherwise. Nor do people complain about the fact that "good" characters often suffer greatly along the way. And although we recognize that there is an insurmountable difference between the non-real characters of a fictional work and real flesh-and-blood humans, this doesn't stop people from getting as heavily invested in make-believe characters as in real ones.

So I just wonder - do we, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, instinctively recognize the right of a creator to sovereignly ordain what created beings then freely choose? Are we all implicit Calvinists in some way or another?

Um, fiction writers ("fiction", remember) do not have the ability to create any beings. So I'm not given to speculate the C.S. Lewis or any other fictional work has much if any bearing on the topic. Talking theologically about a work of fiction seems ... I don't know ... futile?

And if you want to talk about fictional characters that are "unfairly" characterized as fated to evil, you can start *way* before anything in the last hundred years. (You might start with Mac Beth and the three witches, and Hecate ... and yet I'd suspect none would give real world theological thought to Mac Beth. They do not exist, and Shakespeare could not "create" them ... they are but thoughts.)

I would not give credibility to bad theology because of these thoughts.

 

[Ulster Fry]

Um, fiction writers ("fiction", remember) do not have the ability to create any beings. So I'm not given to speculate the C.S. Lewis or any other fictional work has much if any bearing on the topic. Talking theologically about a work of fiction seems ... I don't know ... futile?

And if you want to talk about fictional characters that are "unfairly" characterized as fated to evil, you can start *way* before anything in the last hundred years. (You might start with Mac Beth and the three witches, and Hecate ... and yet I'd suspect none would give real world theological thought to Mac Beth. They do not exist, and Shakespeare could not "create" them ... they are but thoughts.)

I would not give credibility to bad theology because of these thoughts.

Actually, in fairness to the original poster, there are deep philosophical questions here regarding fictional entities, how we refer to them, and more specifically whether there is an analogue between such entities and our existence as God's creatures (which is what I think the OP is interested in).

Here's a very interesting discussion of this latter idea by two theistic philosophers (one a Jew, the other a Christian):

 

[LittleFaith]

In posing this question, I did not have in mind any deeper discussions about the nature of our reality or the reality of fictional characters. To me, it is fairly clear cut that we exist and fictional characters don't, though I'm sure there are deeper metaphysical discussions to be had, and various nuances of the concept of existence. From my POV those are for another thread.

I simply wondered at the fact that people often implicitly accept an author's sovereignty over the fate of his characters while denying the same sovereignty to God. It was kind of an intriguing lesser-to-greater argument to me, but, especially in light of some of the replies here, maybe not a very strong or consequential one. I've wondered as well - though not mentioning this in the OP - if such an argument might have any use in discussions with non-Calvinists or unbelievers, but perhaps not. I agree with those who have pointed out the vast difference between God's creation of what is true and real and the pale shadow of creative activity that we engage in.

Thank you all for your thoughts. As always I am grateful to be able to come here with such questions knowing that I'll get honest and insightful responses.

 

[py3ak]

I simply wondered at the fact that people often implicitly accept an author's sovereignty over the fate of his characters while denying the same sovereignty to God.

I have thought that compelling narratives of any kind often do presuppose a doctrine of providence. The sense of inescapable fate that's so gripping in the Oedipus cycle is one kind, and its reality and deficiency are both evident because it's so strongly marked. But other works have a doctrine of providence that may be less clear as well as more or less accurate, and yet it is genuinely there.

In other words, narrative worlds where needs are met to enable significant action, seem to me to be witnesses that on a deep level human beings are aware of a providence that is active in the world, even if their ideas about it are inchoate and confused.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Following what Ruben wrote, I think there is an analogy between a human author and his characters, but we need to be careful to maintain the Creator-creature distinction.

A human author, no matter how talented, is not able to create characters who are self-determined. A character in a novel acts a certain way because he is written that way.

I was teaching Providence to the High School kids yesterday. In that, I emphasized (as I always do) that God is not like us. He is able to ordain whatsoever comes to pass, and His Providence infallibly and immutably governs all that has been decreed, but this does not negate second causes.

A person might follow the analogy of a fictional character but then will force God to the level of the human author and insist that if He decrees and upholds such a universe so that human sin occurs, then they make Him the author. Not only unbelievers but professed Christians will insist that God must be the author of evil if the sins of demons and men are immutable and infallible. This is because they deny to the Creator that He is not like men. They attempt to reason univocally and assume that God thinks like them.

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

 

[LittleFaith]

Following what Ruben wrote, I think there is an analogy between a human author and his characters, but we need to be careful to maintain the Creator-creature distinction.

A human author, no matter how talented, is not able to create characters who are self-determined. A character in a novel acts a certain way because he is written that way.

I was teaching Providence to the High School kids yesterday. In that, I emphasized (as I always do) that God is not like us. He is able to ordain whatsoever comes to pass, and His Providence infallibly and immutably governs all that has been decreed, but this does not negate second causes.

A person might follow the analogy of a fictional character but then will force God to the level of the human author and insist that if He decrees and upholds such a universe so that human sin occurs, then they make Him the author. Not only unbelievers but professed Christians will insist that God must be the author of evil if the sins of demons and men are immutable and infallible. This is because they deny to the Creator that He is not like men. They attempt to reason univocally and assume that God thinks like them.

Thank you for these thoughts. You raised a really good point that I hadn't considered about attributing to God the authorship of sin.

Do you think that, analogically, a good fictional character can be convincing enough to draw the reader in and forget that he is not self-determined? That a character can be well-developed enough that his actions seem organic and natural? I am, of course, thinking analogically, or endeavouring to. I don't have a univocal conception of the fiction-creation analogue. But again I am coming to realize that there may not be even a good analogical parallel for the way in which we as created beings are both self-determined yet foreordained.

 

[py3ak]

Do you think that, analogically, a good fictional character can be convincing enough to draw the reader in and forget that he is not self-determined?

Authors of fiction report the experience of "finding" characters they hadn't planned, or of being surprised by what a character wound up doing and becoming. In one sense, authors are of course able to write down whatever they please. But in terms of psychological possibilities, respect for the integrity of the fictional characters means they have to "discover" what will fit.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm trying to remember the name of the female author who wrote herself into a novel because she wanted to rescue or help the main character.

I think these analogies can be quite moving and, from a fictional perspective, give us some things to ponder as to how the thought life of characters would be if we had the power to create beings with agency. Yet, in the end, all our thinking and imagination cannot approach the greatness of our Creator.

I was thinking about this today as we were in Isaiah and, after several long periods of him recounting how the people of God will get what they deserve, he suddenly shifts to God's salvation and rescue.

From a human standpoint, we often want to force God into accounting for why He would ever bring calamity upon sinners or that the category of "sinners" should not exist (except the people who believe there is such thing as sinners).

I admit to being increasingly weary of the kind of apologetics I see among those trying to appeal to respectable cultural sensitivities. I listen to the Unbelievable radio program primarily to keep up with mainstream Evangelical apologetics. I think many Christians care about the lost, but they don't care too much for the idea that God is holy and not like us. When atheists condemn the OT for genocide or misogyny, they're more concerned about "damage control" and the idea that anyone would ever believe in a God that they couldn't explain that He might not be cool with a whole host of ideas and behaviors we take for granted.

I guess my point in all of this is that I'm OK with analogies like human authorship as long as we pause and then say: "But remember that human analogies fail because they cannot comprehend the glory of God."

 

[LittleFaith]

I'm trying to remember the name of the female author who wrote herself into a novel because she wanted to rescue or help the main character.

I think these analogies can be quite moving and, from a fictional perspective, give us some things to ponder as to how the thought life of characters would be if we had the power to create beings with agency. Yet, in the end, all our thinking and imagination cannot approach the greatness of our Creator.

I was thinking about this today as we were in Isaiah and, after several long periods of him recounting how the people of God will get what they deserve, he suddenly shifts to God's salvation and rescue.

From a human standpoint, we often want to force God into accounting for why He would ever bring calamity upon sinners or that the category of "sinners" should not exist (except the people who believe there is such thing as sinners).

I admit to being increasingly weary of the kind of apologetics I see among those trying to appeal to respectable cultural sensitivities. I listen to the Unbelievable radio program primarily to keep up with mainstream Evangelical apologetics. I think many Christians care about the lost, but they don't care too much for the idea that God is holy and not like us. When atheists condemn the OT for genocide or misogyny, they're more concerned about "damage control" and the idea that anyone would ever believe in a God that they couldn't explain that He might not be cool with a whole host of ideas and behaviors we take for granted.

I guess my point in all of this is that I'm OK with analogies like human authorship as long as we pause and then say: "But remember that human analogies fail because they cannot comprehend the glory of God."

Was it Sophie's World? A really good book, btw.

Thank you for these thoughts, again. I'd like to respond in more depth, but may have to do so at another time.

 

[py3ak]

I admit to being increasingly weary of the kind of apologetics I see among those trying to appeal to respectable cultural sensitivities. I listen to the Unbelievable radio program primarily to keep up with mainstream Evangelical apologetics. I think many Christians care about the lost, but they don't care too much for the idea that God is holy and not like us. When atheists condemn the OT for genocide or misogyny, they're more concerned about "damage control" and the idea that anyone would ever believe in a God that they couldn't explain that He might not be cool with a whole host of ideas and behaviors we take for granted.

The mealy-mouthed "God meets your standards" is idolatry masquerading as apologetics.