Wednesday, March 28, 2007
One Year Anniversary!
Today is C.I.C's one year anniversary and I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to stop by my blog to read what I post here! I'd especially like to thank Bob Ladwig, David McCrory, and Thomas W. S. for making frequent visits and encouragements. I've enjoyed defending the doctrines of grace this past year and, God willing, hope to continue on for several more!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
General Response To Manuel Culwell
Manuel Culwell said:
I think you know exactly what was being said Mr. Cleary in the way of “vacuum isolation”
Since I have never seen nor heard this expression used, then no, I don't know what it means. Nor do I care to speculate on it's meaning since it is unwise to assume definitions of unfamiliar terminology especially when it appears to be made up.
This is the consistent way Calvinists interpret the scriptures, they take one sometimes two passages to showcase a ceratin hard passage in isolation and then psychoanalyze words and phrases of said passages excluding many others that deal with the same doctrine, allow me to give an example of another Calvinist. Edward Dalcour writes...
Here, Manuel proceeds to make an assertion regarding the Calvinist methodology of interpreting scripture. He then cites a snippet from Eddie Dalcour to prove his point. The problem with Manuel's quoting of Dalcour is that Manuel provides no citation or link to Dalcour's full argument which makes it impossible to assess what Dalcour's methodology was. All we see is Dalcour performing a word study on a particuliar greek term. Thus, in order for Manuel to substantiate his assertion, he will need to provide specific citations that can be cross checked. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept Manuel's charicature of Calvinistic methodology. Furthermore, Manuel's complaint about "psychoanalyzing" is quite interesting. I can only assume that Manuel is complaining that Calvinists perform word studies in order to derive meaning from a given text which, by the way, is what Dalcour was doing in the quotation that Manuel provided (the reader should notice that Manuel does not bother to interact with Dalcour's argument). If this is the case, how else is exegesis to be performed? I mean, if one is to draw out the meaning of any given text, are we not to be sure that the words within that text mean what we think they mean?
There is a little more that Manuel says about Dalcour's word study but I'll hold commenting on it for the time being. I will be posting a second response to Manuel in the near future that deals more with exegetical issues surrounding certain verses that Manuel constantly refers to.
...I posted my response to you for a reason and that was to get you to deal with certain arguments so I could deal with your own arguments.
Manuel here states that the reason he posted on my blog was so that he could deal with my arguments on certain issues. The problem is that Manuel did not present specific arguments or issues. He merely posted a very generalized and broad ranging screed against Calvinism to which I responded appropriately. If Manuel wants to deal with specific points of dispute, then he needs to submit specific arguments.
Mr. Cleary I already explained that these good folks on this your blog responded to your “vacuum trap”(I did not.) It could be seen from a mile away. You only submitted two passages to isolate your “sugar stick” that being John 6:44 you set up your trap to the exclusion of other passages yes you submitted (John 12:32) But I saw what you were trying to do, all I needed was one or more passages that you not so much even eluded to that being (James 4:8, and John 6:45)
So besides "vacuum isolation", we now have something called a "vacuum trap". Again, I have never seen this phrase used before so I won't speculate on what Manuel means by it. However, he does appear to be referring to the previous post I did on John 12:32. But yet again, Manuel fails to actually deal with what was written there. Instead, he chooses to dismiss my arguments by throwing out made up terminology along with some nonsense about sugar sticks. Furthermore, if my posts on this blog are as obviously defective as Manuel asserts, then it should be an easy matter for him to refute them. But, it appears that no such refutation is forthcoming.
Yep! No problem…God predestined the salvation of an elect group (the church) to which all maybe added conditioned upon their faith in obedience to the Gospel.
Here, Manuel is responding to my mention of Ephesians 1:5. But the reader should note that nowhere in Ephesians chapter 1 does it state anything about predestination being conditioned on faith. Moreover, what Manuel is alluding to here is the concept of "class election". Yet, the mere mention of this concept is not an argument and arguments are what we are here to consider. Thus, if Manuel wants to argue for the concept of class election, then he is free to do so if and when he responds.
Mr. Cleary thinks individuals are p-r-e-d-e-s-t-I-n-e-d. Find me the passage please that says so?
Well, that would be the aforementioned Ephesians 1:5. Y'know, the verse that states "He predestined us..."?
Now, it's at about this point in Manuel's post that he attempts to answer my mention of Acts 13:48. Sadly however, Manuel's response doesn't interact with the actual wording of that text. In fact, it's not even mentioned at all! Instead, Manuel chooses to go off to the book of Romans where he makes a number of assertions. Needless to say, this leaves Acts 13:48 untouched and the Calvinistic interpretation unrefuted. On top of this, Manuel's assertions in regards to Romans are not really argued. He seems content to sprinkle those assertions with citations and leaving it at that.
the elect are not simply individuals chosen by God while other are simply rejected but the elect refers to those individuals colectively that make the Body of Christ while we are in him which took place through the preaching of the gospel, the drawing of God. We are chosen in him from the foundation of the world as the elect body, the church .
This is Manuel's response to my mention of 2Thessolonians 2:13. Let the reader again notice that Manuel does not interact with the actual wording of that text. He is again content with making an unsupported assertion in lieu of an argument. As it is, I can just as easily assert that the elect are indeed individuals chosen by God unto salvation as stated in 2Thessolonians. Consequently, the rest of mankind is passed over and left to the sin that they love since it is a fact that not all will be saved. Further, the idea that the church as a corporate entity is what is predestined to salvation instead of the individual is fallacious on the grounds that groups consist of individuals and that there is no exegetical reason that can be gleaned from any given text to support the notion of corporate election.
You completely ignored my post and simply added your snide comments and remarks while ignoring the passages I submitted.
To say that I "completely ignored" Manuel's post is beyond inaccurate; it's dishonest. Further, if Manuel wants to complain about the tone of my responses, then perhaps he should not have set that tone to begin with. That is, since I believe in answering folks on their own grounds, then Manuel should be focusing on the tone of his own posts.
Also, I am not obligated to respond to prooftexting. It is enough to point it out for what it is and leave it at that. When Manuel provides exegetical demonstrations for his submitted passages and why they contradict Calvinism, he'll then get a response.
Here in is the problem. You care to much what Calvin had to say, I am not talking to Calvin, I am talking to you,...
Here, Manuel completely dodges a previous challenge to one of his comments. If the reader will remember, Manuel stated that men were robots according to Calvin. I then challenged Manuel to direct us to where Calvin ever said such a thing. Instead of backing up his claim, Manuel chooses to employ a smoke and mirrors tactic of redirecting the reader's attention to me supposedly caring too much about what Calvin had to say. So let the reader be aware that Manuel cannot show where Calvin ever said what Manuel claims. Furthermore, I will now challenge Manuel to substantiate his assertion that I care too much about what Calvin had say. If Manuel's accusation has an ounce of merit, then it should be an easy matter for him to expose my reliance on the words of Calvin. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Manuel will dodge this challenge as well. This is because a brief scan thru the entries on this blog would reveal that Manuel's accusation is completely baseless. Off the top of my head, I know of only one blog entry in which I even mentioned Calvin. Furthermore, I own only one of Calvin's works (and it isn't his Institutes.) These are odd facts indeed for someone who supposedly cares too much about what Calvin had to say!
...I neither care what Calvin, Arminus, Tertullian, the pope, Arius, or anyone else had to say in so called church history or otherwise unless it was the Lord Jesus Christ or the Apostles and brethren from scripture...I really don’t care what Arminius or Calvin had to say about anything, they have no hold or claim on scripture what so ever.
Well, if it's true that Manuel doesn't care about what anybody says other than what's written in God's word, then how can he possibly care about what I say? What's he doing here arguing against my beliefs if he does not in fact care about what I say or write? Further, no Calvinist or Arminian with whom I am familiar has ever made the claim that John Calvin or Jacob Arminius had some sort of "hold or claim on scripture" so I have no idea what Manuel is going on about.
Do you , or do you not believe you are made a believer beyond your will?
That depends on what Manuel means by "beyond your will". If he means that God forces men to believe against their sinful and fallen natures, then no. If he means that God changes the very nature of man by granting him spritual rebirth so that he can now choose according to his new nature, then yes.
Please be a little more forth coming with what you believe so that everyone can distinguish the two doctrines?
This is the first in a series of accusations that I'm trying to hide what I believe as a Calvinist. I'll address most of these accusations below but there are a few points I would like to make here and now:
1) I am not obligated to list and elaborate on the five points of Calvinism in each and every blog entry I write.
2) Just who is it that I'm supposedly hiding my doctrine from? For the non-Calvinist, it should be quite easy to deduce what my doctrine is from the very title of my blog. But, most of the folks who comment on this blog are, themselves, Calvinsts. Is Manuel suggesting that I'm hiding my doctrine from them?
3) If Manuel is asserting that I'm hiding my doctrine from himself, then I will again point out that Manuel's first post here was not an attempt to discern definitional standards. There were no questions asked in regards to what I believe. Rather, it was an all-out attack on my faith.
4) And just for the sake of putting this nonsense to rest, I will briefly lay out my cards for all to see. I am a five point Calvinist with Supralapsarian leanings. My Eschatological preference is Amillinialism with historic pre-mil sympathies. I reject Dispensationalism in favor of Covenant theology. And last (but certainly not least), I am a Trinitarian. Now, if anyone out there doesn't know what any of these positions are then I would be happy to direct them to the appropriate resources or I'll do my best to answer any honest and direct questions.
There is nothing stated in scripture anywhere of “compatibilistic free will.”
The fact that the word 'compatiblism' is not found in scripture is not evidence against it. If it were, then such evidence would prove too much. That is, the term 'libertarianism' is likewise not found in the bible. Thus, Manuel's argument, if true, would disprove his own position on man's will. Indeed, since 'oneness pentacostal' is not found in the bible, Manuel's entire belief system would likewise be falsified if this horribly flawed reasoning were accepted.
Not even one example, it is based on bad interpretation of scripture...
On the contrary, there are many examples of compatiblism within holy writ. For instance, Genesis 50:20 states that both God and Joseph's brothers sent Joseph into slavery. Then there is Ezra 1:1 where God causes Cyrus to issue the proclamation. And who can forget Acts 4:27,28 where God predestined the actions of all those who participated in Christ's crucifixion? Others could be cited but these should suffice. The reader should note that in each instance, both man and God willed the exact same thing but with differing purpose. Man does what he wants to do but simultaneously fulfills God's will. This is the essence of compatiblism.
...you do believe in “inherited sin.”
Actually, I believe in the doctrine of 'original sin'. I make this distinction because there is no way to know what Manuel means when he uses the term "inherited sin" since he does not elaborate on it.
...all five points rest upon each other...
True.
...you seem to be hiding what it is you believe.
Since I affirm the doctrine of original sin along with the fact that the five points of Calvinism flow logically from one point to the next, what can I possibly hiding?
You believe mankind is born dead from Adam onward and so some are chosen to salvation while others are doomed to hell not because of being drawn of God by the gospel being preached .
Yes, I believe that man is dead in sin. This belief is based on Paul's teachings in Romans 5 and Ephesians 2. It is also based on Jesus' own teaching about spiritual rebirth in John 3. Further, if men are in fact "doomed to hell", then they are doomed because of their love for sin.
It can be seen from Mr. Cleary’s response that he is trying very hard to hide what it is he actually believes...Is it,or is it not your belief God supernaturally turns “individuals” He has predestined to salvation?
Manuel makes this statement in response to my comments on Matthew 13. Yet, nowhere does Manuel demonstrate a contradiction between my comments and the text itself. Neither does he elaborate on how Calvinism in general contradicts the aforementioned text. Manuel is simply content to continue with his accusations that I'm hiding something. And as for the "God supernatually turns individuals" comment, it depends on what he means. If Manuel is asserting that God forces men against their will to come to Christ, then no, this is not what I believe. To elaborate on what I have stated previously, I believe God grants spiritual life to whom He will. This results in an acceptance of Christ as savior whereas before, there was no spiritual life in the individual making it impossible to accept the things of God.
Only because Mr. Cleary is hiding what it is he actually believes, he is trying to make it as simplistic as possible without revealing his true colors which will be exposed soon enough.
So Manuel is going to expose me, eh? And just what is it that he's going to reveal I wonder? Is he going to reveal the carefully guarded secret that I'm a Calvinist who has a blog that defends Calvinism!? Really folks, if ever there was a time for one of those "LOLS" that Manuel uses to mock the beliefs of others, this would be it.
Why not, if in fact you believe these things, come out and just tell us what they are?
Why didn't Manuel just ask in the first place? Why did he not inquire as to what my particuliar views as a Calvinist were before attacking them?
all you have to do is just tell us
And all Manuel had to do was ask.
The elect were once sinners (Ephesians 2:3), but God regenerates themIn response to the gospel being preached(1 Peter 1:18-25), which is for all people everywhere. It is not how the Calvinist at all explains.
Yes, it is true that the elect were once sinners and that God regenerates them when they hear the gospel being preached. Also, I would agree that the gospel is indeed for all people. But where I differ with Manuel is that the gospel serves a dual purpose. That is, it brings in God's elect while simultaneously confirms and hardens the reprobate.
Not much said here by Mr. Cleary because he is not being very forth coming with what he really believes.
This was because Manuel did not elaborate on why the phrase, "the gospel is for all mankind" contradicts my beliefs. As I pointed out above, I can agree with that statement as written. Thus, Manuel's continued charges of me hiding my doctrine continue to have no merit whatsoever.
Is it because God predestinates individuals to be saved?
Yes, God predestines individuals to salvation.
That is what he really believes.
Yep, ol' Manuel is right on top of things!
God to the Calvinist is a partial unloving God dooming some to hell and some to eternal life...
If, by this Manuel means that Calvinists reject the notion of 'omnibenevolence' as defined by such men as Ergun Caner, then this is true. A Calvinist cannot accept the idea that God loves all men equally and without exception when scripture explicitly states that God does indeed hate men. The Calvinist finds support from such scriptures as Psalm 5:5, 11:5, and Romans 9:13. In each of these, it is stated that God hates either particuliar individuals or sinners in general.
...it is of men’s choices that doom them,...
As written, I can agree with this. Calvinism teaches that men choose to sin and that this is why they are damned.
salvation however is available to all men, it is not God’s will that any should perish(2nd. Peter 3:8)
Manuel is here proceeding on an assumed meaning of 2Peter 3:9 (not 3:8). And since there is no exegetical demonstration (again) of Manuel's assertions in regards to this verse, there is nothing for me to respond to.
Do you believe he is the Lord over all without exception?
Yes, I believe that Jesus is Lord over all. God does not need the consent of His creatures for the establishment of His authority. Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God, and not the presidency of God.
Mr. Cleary also assumes there is such thing as the “compatible will” of Calvinism.
On the contrary, it has been Manuel that has done all the assuming in regards to man's will. That is, Manuel believes that his view of libertarianism is the only possible explanation of man's will. But this is patently false. Anyone who has familiarized themselves with the discussions on man's will knows that there are differing views on how a man comes to make a choice. Thus, if Manuel wishes to continue acting as if his is the only viable viewpoint, he will be engaging in gross intellectual dishonesty.
Now, he finally reveals his Calvinism , God does” will it,”...
This is how Manuel chooses to dodge the point I made about him not establishing his view of libertarianism. He just continues right along with his accusations that I'm hiding something.
That is exactly what I am pointing out, is God the Lord over all without exception?
Yes, God is Lord over all without exception. As I stated above, God's sovereignty is not hinged on man's consent.
There is no fact that all or any refers to the Calvinist idea that all kinds of men are individuals somehow dragged against their wills supernaturally when others are not, this is the real issue I feel Mr. Cleary is not being so forthcoming.
Here, Manuel lights up a straw-man that he's been setting up all throughout his post. He states that it is the Calvinist's idea that men are "dragged againsts their wills" to salvation. But, again, this is patently false. This is not a Calvinist idea at all. We do not believe nor teach it. See folks, this is what happens when someone is unable to deal honestly and accurately with what Calvinists actually believe. They set up straw-men and gross charicatures and proceed to attack them. When challenged with the facts, they resort to saying that we aren't being forthcoming with our beliefs. Needless to say, this tactic is most disingenious.
What Mr. Cleary means by:” the willing cannot be forced.” Is that God supernaturally makes you willing and others he does not. This is completely diametric to the teaching of the NT.
Is it really? Then where are Manuel's exegetical refutations to the verses that Calvinists use to support their doctrine? As I look thru Manuel's posts on my blog I cannot find a single exegetical refutation of a single verse used by Calvinists to support the doctrine of man's inability and deadness in sin.
Again, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Where does this passage say what the Calvinist is saying? He is purposely avoiding these areas of his doctrine.
Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Calvinists affirm this. Thus, a better question to ask is, how does this verse specifically contradict what Calvinists believe and teach? Or perhaps the question should be, where has any Calvinist ever stated that men are regenerated apart from the preaching of the gospel? If Manuel fails to address such questions, then it is he who is avoiding things.
...when does God remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh?
At some point after the man first hears the gospel. The precise moment of regeneration is unknown.
The gospel is the supernatural power of God(Romans 1:16) to save through our own faith from the heart...
Romans 1:16 says nothing about man being saved through his own (libertarian) faith. It merely states that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes...". The verse, as written, does not contradict anything in Reformed theology.
what I failed to do is break down all the intricacies and nuances of your doctrine that you are so trying to hide for the sake of being exposed for what you really believe...
In other words, Manuel is indeed failing to accurately represent the Calvinistic position on all the issues that have been brought up.
I do indeed believe the Calvinist preacher is a “false prophet” and has been led astray by a false tradition doctrine of the Reformed passed down through the years by philosophical ideas based on difficulties from the scriptures...
Yet another dodge. Manuel was asked if he specifically believes that Calvinists are not Christians. He stops just short of saying so in his response to the question. But it can be deduced from what he has stated thus far that Manuel does not believe that Calvinists are Christians. But to be sure, I will pose the question again; does Manuel believe that Calvinists are not Christians? Yes or no? If he dodges again, what then of his constant whining that I'm hiding what I believe?
It is the Calvinist that is not consistent, they will back up and say All means all when God is Lord over all but the scripture cannot mean all men but only the elect or all kinds of men, is God the Lord of only all kinds of men, Which would causes the scriptures to contradict itself?
Here, Manuel appears to be complaining that Calvinists will sometimes use the term "all" universally while sometimes they do not. This is quite true but not for the reason that Manuel would have folks believe. Calvinists do not take the meaning of one word and then assume that that same word means the exact same thing in every single instance it appears in scripture. Rather, we allow context to determine meaning. No more, no less. One fine example of this is how the Apostle John uses the term 'world' in his gospel. It is acknowledged by folks on both sides of the Calvinism debate that 'world' is used in several different ways by the Apostle. Thus, when Manuel complains about this, he is again complaining against cold hard facts.
Now, this ends my general response to Manuel. As I'm sure Manuel will point out, there are parts of his post that were not addressed. This was due in part to an upcoming exegetical response to what he has written here so far. The response will deal with several verses that Manuel refers to most often when he argues against Calvinism.
I think you know exactly what was being said Mr. Cleary in the way of “vacuum isolation”
Since I have never seen nor heard this expression used, then no, I don't know what it means. Nor do I care to speculate on it's meaning since it is unwise to assume definitions of unfamiliar terminology especially when it appears to be made up.
This is the consistent way Calvinists interpret the scriptures, they take one sometimes two passages to showcase a ceratin hard passage in isolation and then psychoanalyze words and phrases of said passages excluding many others that deal with the same doctrine, allow me to give an example of another Calvinist. Edward Dalcour writes...
Here, Manuel proceeds to make an assertion regarding the Calvinist methodology of interpreting scripture. He then cites a snippet from Eddie Dalcour to prove his point. The problem with Manuel's quoting of Dalcour is that Manuel provides no citation or link to Dalcour's full argument which makes it impossible to assess what Dalcour's methodology was. All we see is Dalcour performing a word study on a particuliar greek term. Thus, in order for Manuel to substantiate his assertion, he will need to provide specific citations that can be cross checked. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept Manuel's charicature of Calvinistic methodology. Furthermore, Manuel's complaint about "psychoanalyzing" is quite interesting. I can only assume that Manuel is complaining that Calvinists perform word studies in order to derive meaning from a given text which, by the way, is what Dalcour was doing in the quotation that Manuel provided (the reader should notice that Manuel does not bother to interact with Dalcour's argument). If this is the case, how else is exegesis to be performed? I mean, if one is to draw out the meaning of any given text, are we not to be sure that the words within that text mean what we think they mean?
There is a little more that Manuel says about Dalcour's word study but I'll hold commenting on it for the time being. I will be posting a second response to Manuel in the near future that deals more with exegetical issues surrounding certain verses that Manuel constantly refers to.
...I posted my response to you for a reason and that was to get you to deal with certain arguments so I could deal with your own arguments.
Manuel here states that the reason he posted on my blog was so that he could deal with my arguments on certain issues. The problem is that Manuel did not present specific arguments or issues. He merely posted a very generalized and broad ranging screed against Calvinism to which I responded appropriately. If Manuel wants to deal with specific points of dispute, then he needs to submit specific arguments.
Mr. Cleary I already explained that these good folks on this your blog responded to your “vacuum trap”(I did not.) It could be seen from a mile away. You only submitted two passages to isolate your “sugar stick” that being John 6:44 you set up your trap to the exclusion of other passages yes you submitted (John 12:32) But I saw what you were trying to do, all I needed was one or more passages that you not so much even eluded to that being (James 4:8, and John 6:45)
So besides "vacuum isolation", we now have something called a "vacuum trap". Again, I have never seen this phrase used before so I won't speculate on what Manuel means by it. However, he does appear to be referring to the previous post I did on John 12:32. But yet again, Manuel fails to actually deal with what was written there. Instead, he chooses to dismiss my arguments by throwing out made up terminology along with some nonsense about sugar sticks. Furthermore, if my posts on this blog are as obviously defective as Manuel asserts, then it should be an easy matter for him to refute them. But, it appears that no such refutation is forthcoming.
Yep! No problem…God predestined the salvation of an elect group (the church) to which all maybe added conditioned upon their faith in obedience to the Gospel.
Here, Manuel is responding to my mention of Ephesians 1:5. But the reader should note that nowhere in Ephesians chapter 1 does it state anything about predestination being conditioned on faith. Moreover, what Manuel is alluding to here is the concept of "class election". Yet, the mere mention of this concept is not an argument and arguments are what we are here to consider. Thus, if Manuel wants to argue for the concept of class election, then he is free to do so if and when he responds.
Mr. Cleary thinks individuals are p-r-e-d-e-s-t-I-n-e-d. Find me the passage please that says so?
Well, that would be the aforementioned Ephesians 1:5. Y'know, the verse that states "He predestined us..."?
Now, it's at about this point in Manuel's post that he attempts to answer my mention of Acts 13:48. Sadly however, Manuel's response doesn't interact with the actual wording of that text. In fact, it's not even mentioned at all! Instead, Manuel chooses to go off to the book of Romans where he makes a number of assertions. Needless to say, this leaves Acts 13:48 untouched and the Calvinistic interpretation unrefuted. On top of this, Manuel's assertions in regards to Romans are not really argued. He seems content to sprinkle those assertions with citations and leaving it at that.
the elect are not simply individuals chosen by God while other are simply rejected but the elect refers to those individuals colectively that make the Body of Christ while we are in him which took place through the preaching of the gospel, the drawing of God. We are chosen in him from the foundation of the world as the elect body, the church .
This is Manuel's response to my mention of 2Thessolonians 2:13. Let the reader again notice that Manuel does not interact with the actual wording of that text. He is again content with making an unsupported assertion in lieu of an argument. As it is, I can just as easily assert that the elect are indeed individuals chosen by God unto salvation as stated in 2Thessolonians. Consequently, the rest of mankind is passed over and left to the sin that they love since it is a fact that not all will be saved. Further, the idea that the church as a corporate entity is what is predestined to salvation instead of the individual is fallacious on the grounds that groups consist of individuals and that there is no exegetical reason that can be gleaned from any given text to support the notion of corporate election.
You completely ignored my post and simply added your snide comments and remarks while ignoring the passages I submitted.
To say that I "completely ignored" Manuel's post is beyond inaccurate; it's dishonest. Further, if Manuel wants to complain about the tone of my responses, then perhaps he should not have set that tone to begin with. That is, since I believe in answering folks on their own grounds, then Manuel should be focusing on the tone of his own posts.
Also, I am not obligated to respond to prooftexting. It is enough to point it out for what it is and leave it at that. When Manuel provides exegetical demonstrations for his submitted passages and why they contradict Calvinism, he'll then get a response.
Here in is the problem. You care to much what Calvin had to say, I am not talking to Calvin, I am talking to you,...
Here, Manuel completely dodges a previous challenge to one of his comments. If the reader will remember, Manuel stated that men were robots according to Calvin. I then challenged Manuel to direct us to where Calvin ever said such a thing. Instead of backing up his claim, Manuel chooses to employ a smoke and mirrors tactic of redirecting the reader's attention to me supposedly caring too much about what Calvin had to say. So let the reader be aware that Manuel cannot show where Calvin ever said what Manuel claims. Furthermore, I will now challenge Manuel to substantiate his assertion that I care too much about what Calvin had say. If Manuel's accusation has an ounce of merit, then it should be an easy matter for him to expose my reliance on the words of Calvin. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Manuel will dodge this challenge as well. This is because a brief scan thru the entries on this blog would reveal that Manuel's accusation is completely baseless. Off the top of my head, I know of only one blog entry in which I even mentioned Calvin. Furthermore, I own only one of Calvin's works (and it isn't his Institutes.) These are odd facts indeed for someone who supposedly cares too much about what Calvin had to say!
...I neither care what Calvin, Arminus, Tertullian, the pope, Arius, or anyone else had to say in so called church history or otherwise unless it was the Lord Jesus Christ or the Apostles and brethren from scripture...I really don’t care what Arminius or Calvin had to say about anything, they have no hold or claim on scripture what so ever.
Well, if it's true that Manuel doesn't care about what anybody says other than what's written in God's word, then how can he possibly care about what I say? What's he doing here arguing against my beliefs if he does not in fact care about what I say or write? Further, no Calvinist or Arminian with whom I am familiar has ever made the claim that John Calvin or Jacob Arminius had some sort of "hold or claim on scripture" so I have no idea what Manuel is going on about.
Do you , or do you not believe you are made a believer beyond your will?
That depends on what Manuel means by "beyond your will". If he means that God forces men to believe against their sinful and fallen natures, then no. If he means that God changes the very nature of man by granting him spritual rebirth so that he can now choose according to his new nature, then yes.
Please be a little more forth coming with what you believe so that everyone can distinguish the two doctrines?
This is the first in a series of accusations that I'm trying to hide what I believe as a Calvinist. I'll address most of these accusations below but there are a few points I would like to make here and now:
1) I am not obligated to list and elaborate on the five points of Calvinism in each and every blog entry I write.
2) Just who is it that I'm supposedly hiding my doctrine from? For the non-Calvinist, it should be quite easy to deduce what my doctrine is from the very title of my blog. But, most of the folks who comment on this blog are, themselves, Calvinsts. Is Manuel suggesting that I'm hiding my doctrine from them?
3) If Manuel is asserting that I'm hiding my doctrine from himself, then I will again point out that Manuel's first post here was not an attempt to discern definitional standards. There were no questions asked in regards to what I believe. Rather, it was an all-out attack on my faith.
4) And just for the sake of putting this nonsense to rest, I will briefly lay out my cards for all to see. I am a five point Calvinist with Supralapsarian leanings. My Eschatological preference is Amillinialism with historic pre-mil sympathies. I reject Dispensationalism in favor of Covenant theology. And last (but certainly not least), I am a Trinitarian. Now, if anyone out there doesn't know what any of these positions are then I would be happy to direct them to the appropriate resources or I'll do my best to answer any honest and direct questions.
There is nothing stated in scripture anywhere of “compatibilistic free will.”
The fact that the word 'compatiblism' is not found in scripture is not evidence against it. If it were, then such evidence would prove too much. That is, the term 'libertarianism' is likewise not found in the bible. Thus, Manuel's argument, if true, would disprove his own position on man's will. Indeed, since 'oneness pentacostal' is not found in the bible, Manuel's entire belief system would likewise be falsified if this horribly flawed reasoning were accepted.
Not even one example, it is based on bad interpretation of scripture...
On the contrary, there are many examples of compatiblism within holy writ. For instance, Genesis 50:20 states that both God and Joseph's brothers sent Joseph into slavery. Then there is Ezra 1:1 where God causes Cyrus to issue the proclamation. And who can forget Acts 4:27,28 where God predestined the actions of all those who participated in Christ's crucifixion? Others could be cited but these should suffice. The reader should note that in each instance, both man and God willed the exact same thing but with differing purpose. Man does what he wants to do but simultaneously fulfills God's will. This is the essence of compatiblism.
...you do believe in “inherited sin.”
Actually, I believe in the doctrine of 'original sin'. I make this distinction because there is no way to know what Manuel means when he uses the term "inherited sin" since he does not elaborate on it.
...all five points rest upon each other...
True.
...you seem to be hiding what it is you believe.
Since I affirm the doctrine of original sin along with the fact that the five points of Calvinism flow logically from one point to the next, what can I possibly hiding?
You believe mankind is born dead from Adam onward and so some are chosen to salvation while others are doomed to hell not because of being drawn of God by the gospel being preached .
Yes, I believe that man is dead in sin. This belief is based on Paul's teachings in Romans 5 and Ephesians 2. It is also based on Jesus' own teaching about spiritual rebirth in John 3. Further, if men are in fact "doomed to hell", then they are doomed because of their love for sin.
It can be seen from Mr. Cleary’s response that he is trying very hard to hide what it is he actually believes...Is it,or is it not your belief God supernaturally turns “individuals” He has predestined to salvation?
Manuel makes this statement in response to my comments on Matthew 13. Yet, nowhere does Manuel demonstrate a contradiction between my comments and the text itself. Neither does he elaborate on how Calvinism in general contradicts the aforementioned text. Manuel is simply content to continue with his accusations that I'm hiding something. And as for the "God supernatually turns individuals" comment, it depends on what he means. If Manuel is asserting that God forces men against their will to come to Christ, then no, this is not what I believe. To elaborate on what I have stated previously, I believe God grants spiritual life to whom He will. This results in an acceptance of Christ as savior whereas before, there was no spiritual life in the individual making it impossible to accept the things of God.
Only because Mr. Cleary is hiding what it is he actually believes, he is trying to make it as simplistic as possible without revealing his true colors which will be exposed soon enough.
So Manuel is going to expose me, eh? And just what is it that he's going to reveal I wonder? Is he going to reveal the carefully guarded secret that I'm a Calvinist who has a blog that defends Calvinism!? Really folks, if ever there was a time for one of those "LOLS" that Manuel uses to mock the beliefs of others, this would be it.
Why not, if in fact you believe these things, come out and just tell us what they are?
Why didn't Manuel just ask in the first place? Why did he not inquire as to what my particuliar views as a Calvinist were before attacking them?
all you have to do is just tell us
And all Manuel had to do was ask.
The elect were once sinners (Ephesians 2:3), but God regenerates themIn response to the gospel being preached(1 Peter 1:18-25), which is for all people everywhere. It is not how the Calvinist at all explains.
Yes, it is true that the elect were once sinners and that God regenerates them when they hear the gospel being preached. Also, I would agree that the gospel is indeed for all people. But where I differ with Manuel is that the gospel serves a dual purpose. That is, it brings in God's elect while simultaneously confirms and hardens the reprobate.
Not much said here by Mr. Cleary because he is not being very forth coming with what he really believes.
This was because Manuel did not elaborate on why the phrase, "the gospel is for all mankind" contradicts my beliefs. As I pointed out above, I can agree with that statement as written. Thus, Manuel's continued charges of me hiding my doctrine continue to have no merit whatsoever.
Is it because God predestinates individuals to be saved?
Yes, God predestines individuals to salvation.
That is what he really believes.
Yep, ol' Manuel is right on top of things!
God to the Calvinist is a partial unloving God dooming some to hell and some to eternal life...
If, by this Manuel means that Calvinists reject the notion of 'omnibenevolence' as defined by such men as Ergun Caner, then this is true. A Calvinist cannot accept the idea that God loves all men equally and without exception when scripture explicitly states that God does indeed hate men. The Calvinist finds support from such scriptures as Psalm 5:5, 11:5, and Romans 9:13. In each of these, it is stated that God hates either particuliar individuals or sinners in general.
...it is of men’s choices that doom them,...
As written, I can agree with this. Calvinism teaches that men choose to sin and that this is why they are damned.
salvation however is available to all men, it is not God’s will that any should perish(2nd. Peter 3:8)
Manuel is here proceeding on an assumed meaning of 2Peter 3:9 (not 3:8). And since there is no exegetical demonstration (again) of Manuel's assertions in regards to this verse, there is nothing for me to respond to.
Do you believe he is the Lord over all without exception?
Yes, I believe that Jesus is Lord over all. God does not need the consent of His creatures for the establishment of His authority. Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God, and not the presidency of God.
Mr. Cleary also assumes there is such thing as the “compatible will” of Calvinism.
On the contrary, it has been Manuel that has done all the assuming in regards to man's will. That is, Manuel believes that his view of libertarianism is the only possible explanation of man's will. But this is patently false. Anyone who has familiarized themselves with the discussions on man's will knows that there are differing views on how a man comes to make a choice. Thus, if Manuel wishes to continue acting as if his is the only viable viewpoint, he will be engaging in gross intellectual dishonesty.
Now, he finally reveals his Calvinism , God does” will it,”...
This is how Manuel chooses to dodge the point I made about him not establishing his view of libertarianism. He just continues right along with his accusations that I'm hiding something.
That is exactly what I am pointing out, is God the Lord over all without exception?
Yes, God is Lord over all without exception. As I stated above, God's sovereignty is not hinged on man's consent.
There is no fact that all or any refers to the Calvinist idea that all kinds of men are individuals somehow dragged against their wills supernaturally when others are not, this is the real issue I feel Mr. Cleary is not being so forthcoming.
Here, Manuel lights up a straw-man that he's been setting up all throughout his post. He states that it is the Calvinist's idea that men are "dragged againsts their wills" to salvation. But, again, this is patently false. This is not a Calvinist idea at all. We do not believe nor teach it. See folks, this is what happens when someone is unable to deal honestly and accurately with what Calvinists actually believe. They set up straw-men and gross charicatures and proceed to attack them. When challenged with the facts, they resort to saying that we aren't being forthcoming with our beliefs. Needless to say, this tactic is most disingenious.
What Mr. Cleary means by:” the willing cannot be forced.” Is that God supernaturally makes you willing and others he does not. This is completely diametric to the teaching of the NT.
Is it really? Then where are Manuel's exegetical refutations to the verses that Calvinists use to support their doctrine? As I look thru Manuel's posts on my blog I cannot find a single exegetical refutation of a single verse used by Calvinists to support the doctrine of man's inability and deadness in sin.
Again, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Where does this passage say what the Calvinist is saying? He is purposely avoiding these areas of his doctrine.
Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Calvinists affirm this. Thus, a better question to ask is, how does this verse specifically contradict what Calvinists believe and teach? Or perhaps the question should be, where has any Calvinist ever stated that men are regenerated apart from the preaching of the gospel? If Manuel fails to address such questions, then it is he who is avoiding things.
...when does God remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh?
At some point after the man first hears the gospel. The precise moment of regeneration is unknown.
The gospel is the supernatural power of God(Romans 1:16) to save through our own faith from the heart...
Romans 1:16 says nothing about man being saved through his own (libertarian) faith. It merely states that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes...". The verse, as written, does not contradict anything in Reformed theology.
what I failed to do is break down all the intricacies and nuances of your doctrine that you are so trying to hide for the sake of being exposed for what you really believe...
In other words, Manuel is indeed failing to accurately represent the Calvinistic position on all the issues that have been brought up.
I do indeed believe the Calvinist preacher is a “false prophet” and has been led astray by a false tradition doctrine of the Reformed passed down through the years by philosophical ideas based on difficulties from the scriptures...
Yet another dodge. Manuel was asked if he specifically believes that Calvinists are not Christians. He stops just short of saying so in his response to the question. But it can be deduced from what he has stated thus far that Manuel does not believe that Calvinists are Christians. But to be sure, I will pose the question again; does Manuel believe that Calvinists are not Christians? Yes or no? If he dodges again, what then of his constant whining that I'm hiding what I believe?
It is the Calvinist that is not consistent, they will back up and say All means all when God is Lord over all but the scripture cannot mean all men but only the elect or all kinds of men, is God the Lord of only all kinds of men, Which would causes the scriptures to contradict itself?
Here, Manuel appears to be complaining that Calvinists will sometimes use the term "all" universally while sometimes they do not. This is quite true but not for the reason that Manuel would have folks believe. Calvinists do not take the meaning of one word and then assume that that same word means the exact same thing in every single instance it appears in scripture. Rather, we allow context to determine meaning. No more, no less. One fine example of this is how the Apostle John uses the term 'world' in his gospel. It is acknowledged by folks on both sides of the Calvinism debate that 'world' is used in several different ways by the Apostle. Thus, when Manuel complains about this, he is again complaining against cold hard facts.
Now, this ends my general response to Manuel. As I'm sure Manuel will point out, there are parts of his post that were not addressed. This was due in part to an upcoming exegetical response to what he has written here so far. The response will deal with several verses that Manuel refers to most often when he argues against Calvinism.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
It Never Rains But Pours
mlculwell said:
This is what Calvinists are so good at; "vacuum Isolation" which they call "exegesis" but is really "exegesis" these good folks(those attempting your argument using your own submitted isolated passages and scenarios) just fell into your isolation vacuum trap. LOL!
This is the opening statement from a somewhat lengthy comment posted to my blog earlier this week and, as one can readily see, should prove to be yet another interesting look at how folks choose to argue against Calvinism. Surely a near incoherent statement that ends with "lol" isn't promising much in way of a serious critique. In fact, the above statement reminds me of the bad joke told badly. No one laughs except the poor bloke telling it.
At any rate, just what is "vacuum isolation"? How does it relate to the blog entries it was posted to? I say entries because mlculwell posted the same comment to three or four different blog entries and none of them were directly interacted with. In fact, one of the blog entries that this was posted to was one in which I discussed John 12:32 within it's immediate context. Thus, I'm left wondering how I can be accused of "vacuum isolation" (whatever that means exactly) when I presented an argument based on the immediate context in which the verse is found.
(John 7:38-39 KJV) This passage says If A-N-Y man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He is allowed by his thirst. Oh, but the Calvinist will say what about the next verse?
Mr. mlculwell seems to think that spelling out certain words is enough to refute Calvinism. Fine. Since I'm one who believes in answering folks on their own grounds, what about Ephesians 1:5 where it states that Christians are P-R-E-D-E-S-T-I-N-E-D to adoption acording to God's will? Then there's Acts 13:48 that says the gentiles who were A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D to eternal life believed. And who can forget 2Thessolonians 2:13 where it is stated that God has C-H-O-S-E-N the elect for salvation? Will mlculwell concede the force of his own argument when it is turned around on him? Will he then present an actual argument as to why John 7:37 (not v. 38 & 39) contradicts Calvinism? Will he, for instance, elaborate on his underlying assumption that "if any man thirsts" really means that every man without exception thirsts for the gospel and only needs a little wooing on God's part for him to drink? Will he directly interact with the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse and others like it? Or, will he simply continue with his spelling-bee argumentation?
Because the believer according to Calvin is a mindless robot made to believe, made to thirst.
I would be very interested to see if Mr. mlculwell can provide the book and page number where Calvin made the claim that men are robots who are forced to believe against their will.
One will notice that the above passage does not use the term A-L-L but rather A-N-Y
Aside from the fact that this is still spelling-bee argumentation, what is the point? What difference does it make if John 7:37 has 'any' instead of 'all'? Where is Mr. mlculwell's discussion on whether or not these words are limited by contextual considerations?
There is that little nasty indefinite pronoun* any *again and it's relation to anyone hearing the word and either accepting or rejecting the word in their hearts because of different situations or cares of this life and the flesh of mankind because men love their flesh rather than the spirit of God.
As written, this statement is a bit difficult to follow. It seems that Mr. mlculwell believes that the mere appearance of the term 'any' necessarily implies libertarian free-will over and against compatiblistic free-will (i.e. the Calvinist position). If so, this would of course beg the question. Further, the above statement conflates two different sections of scripture (Matt. 5 and Matt. 13) without a clear demonstration of how they relate to each other or the point being made.
Above is a person/persons that have a stony heart because of the cares of this life (Not because of sins of their forefathers as both Catholics and Calvinists falsely claim...
This statement appears to be based on Matthew 13:20. If so, Mr. mlculwell has it all wrong. The Calvinistic interpretation of this verse does not rest on anything other than what the verse itself states. Matthew 13:20 is part of the parable of the sower. In this parable, four different types of people and how they react to hearing the gospel are presented. The first refers to people who hear the gospel but do not understand. This lack of understanding results in the gospel message not taking root. Reformed theology is consistent with this description. The second person is presented as having a stoney heart but the verse does not state that the stoney heart comes from the "cares of this life" as Mr. mlculwell stated above. The "cares of this life" phrase refers to the third person described. This person is too caught up and in love with the world to have room in his heart for the gospel. Reformed theology is likewise consistent with the two previous descriptions. The fourth and final description is in reference to someone likened to "good soil" and thus the gospel takes root and is fruitful. This final description is also consistent with Calvinism. Thus, if Calvinism is consistent with all the descriptions found in the parable of the sower, then Mr. mlculwell is mistaken to assert that Calvinism interprets this parable thru some supposed grid.
...man is a free moral agent able to hear, choose and be saved by his God.
Yes, man is indeed a free moral agent who is able to hear and choose and be saved by his God. So, since Calvinism affirms this statement as written, what is Mr. mlculwell's argument?
...the gospel message is for all of mankind...
Yep.
...not all will be saved...
True.
...but any man can be saved .
And I can agree with this but with one caveat. Any man can be saved if God so wills it. Thus, the difference between Mr. mlculwell's view and my own is the assumption of libertarian free-will which has yet to be established.
Next, Mr. mlculwell quotes Romans 10:8 and says this:
(who Calvinists ? NO the 12 apostles of the lamb who were sent…
The only response I can possibly give to this devastating observation is, well, what?
(Side note:he cannot be the Lord "over all" but only "all kinds of men" and thus Calvinists remain consistent in their interpretation. Go figure….
Here, Mr. mlculwell seems to be complaining that Calvinists often point out that words like 'all' and 'any' are often limited by contextual considerations. Thus, he is complaining against cold hard fact. Go figure.
Calvinists say God makes you a believer without you being involved in the process, What? Ridiculous!
Actually, Calvinists say that God grants men the faith that is required to come to Christ. Once that faith is given, it will then be excercised thus making man involved in the process. This is in stark contrast to Mr. mlculwell's assertion that Calvinism teaches man is saved apart from faith which is truly ridiculous.
(oh but God automatically makes you believe without hearing more ridiculousness)
At this point, I feel it necessary to point out that we're dealing with someone who is swimming in ignorance. Either that, or this person is about as intellectually dishonest as they come. Reformed theology doesn't teach that "God automatically" does anything. Further, Reformed theology does not teach that God forces men to believe for the simple reason that the willing cannot be forced. That is, Calvinism teaches that God removes man's heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh that is capable of belief. And what of Mr. mlculwell's unsupported assertion that Calvinists believe that we are saved apart from the preaching of the gospel? Well, to use his own words, "more ridiculousness"!
...these false prophets refuse to preach that same message and we hear all kinds of ridiculous reasons why.
Here, Mr. mlculwell is referring to Reformed preachers when he uses the term "false prophets". The assertion here is basically that Reformed preachers (and by extension, all Calvinists) do not say the same thing as the Apostles (at least, according to mlculwell) and therefore they are all false prophets. But if this doesn't beg the question, nothing possibly can. In order to establish this notion, Mr. mlculwell will need to sit down and refute Calvinism en toto while simultaneously establishing his own viewpoints as the only Biblical option. And as I have shown above, he hasn't even come close to successfully critiquing Calvinism. Moreover, to say that Calvinists are false prophets is fundamentally no different than saying that we are not Christians. Is this indeed Mr. mlculwell's view? I would be interested in hearing him elaborate on this point.
...yes, the Calvinist is correct when they teach the term "all" is limited in certain contexts concerning believers and unbelievers...
And with this admission, Mr. mlculwell effectively torpedos his own statements above about 'any' and 'all'. That is, once it is admitted that terms like 'all' and 'world' are often times limited by context, these words can no longer be thrown out as if their mere appearance in a text of scripture automatically falsifies the Calvinist's interpretation.
There is quite a bit more that Mr. mlculwell posted but most of it re-hashes what has already been covered above and so going on would not be productive. I mean, really, how much more bad argumentation am I going to have to showcase in order to drive home the point that too many non-Calvinists are far too willing to engage in the most horrid argumentative antics in order to attack a system of theology that they do not like?
This is what Calvinists are so good at; "vacuum Isolation" which they call "exegesis" but is really "exegesis" these good folks(those attempting your argument using your own submitted isolated passages and scenarios) just fell into your isolation vacuum trap. LOL!
This is the opening statement from a somewhat lengthy comment posted to my blog earlier this week and, as one can readily see, should prove to be yet another interesting look at how folks choose to argue against Calvinism. Surely a near incoherent statement that ends with "lol" isn't promising much in way of a serious critique. In fact, the above statement reminds me of the bad joke told badly. No one laughs except the poor bloke telling it.
At any rate, just what is "vacuum isolation"? How does it relate to the blog entries it was posted to? I say entries because mlculwell posted the same comment to three or four different blog entries and none of them were directly interacted with. In fact, one of the blog entries that this was posted to was one in which I discussed John 12:32 within it's immediate context. Thus, I'm left wondering how I can be accused of "vacuum isolation" (whatever that means exactly) when I presented an argument based on the immediate context in which the verse is found.
(John 7:38-39 KJV) This passage says If A-N-Y man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He is allowed by his thirst. Oh, but the Calvinist will say what about the next verse?
Mr. mlculwell seems to think that spelling out certain words is enough to refute Calvinism. Fine. Since I'm one who believes in answering folks on their own grounds, what about Ephesians 1:5 where it states that Christians are P-R-E-D-E-S-T-I-N-E-D to adoption acording to God's will? Then there's Acts 13:48 that says the gentiles who were A-P-P-O-I-N-T-E-D to eternal life believed. And who can forget 2Thessolonians 2:13 where it is stated that God has C-H-O-S-E-N the elect for salvation? Will mlculwell concede the force of his own argument when it is turned around on him? Will he then present an actual argument as to why John 7:37 (not v. 38 & 39) contradicts Calvinism? Will he, for instance, elaborate on his underlying assumption that "if any man thirsts" really means that every man without exception thirsts for the gospel and only needs a little wooing on God's part for him to drink? Will he directly interact with the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse and others like it? Or, will he simply continue with his spelling-bee argumentation?
Because the believer according to Calvin is a mindless robot made to believe, made to thirst.
I would be very interested to see if Mr. mlculwell can provide the book and page number where Calvin made the claim that men are robots who are forced to believe against their will.
One will notice that the above passage does not use the term A-L-L but rather A-N-Y
Aside from the fact that this is still spelling-bee argumentation, what is the point? What difference does it make if John 7:37 has 'any' instead of 'all'? Where is Mr. mlculwell's discussion on whether or not these words are limited by contextual considerations?
There is that little nasty indefinite pronoun* any *again and it's relation to anyone hearing the word and either accepting or rejecting the word in their hearts because of different situations or cares of this life and the flesh of mankind because men love their flesh rather than the spirit of God.
As written, this statement is a bit difficult to follow. It seems that Mr. mlculwell believes that the mere appearance of the term 'any' necessarily implies libertarian free-will over and against compatiblistic free-will (i.e. the Calvinist position). If so, this would of course beg the question. Further, the above statement conflates two different sections of scripture (Matt. 5 and Matt. 13) without a clear demonstration of how they relate to each other or the point being made.
Above is a person/persons that have a stony heart because of the cares of this life (Not because of sins of their forefathers as both Catholics and Calvinists falsely claim...
This statement appears to be based on Matthew 13:20. If so, Mr. mlculwell has it all wrong. The Calvinistic interpretation of this verse does not rest on anything other than what the verse itself states. Matthew 13:20 is part of the parable of the sower. In this parable, four different types of people and how they react to hearing the gospel are presented. The first refers to people who hear the gospel but do not understand. This lack of understanding results in the gospel message not taking root. Reformed theology is consistent with this description. The second person is presented as having a stoney heart but the verse does not state that the stoney heart comes from the "cares of this life" as Mr. mlculwell stated above. The "cares of this life" phrase refers to the third person described. This person is too caught up and in love with the world to have room in his heart for the gospel. Reformed theology is likewise consistent with the two previous descriptions. The fourth and final description is in reference to someone likened to "good soil" and thus the gospel takes root and is fruitful. This final description is also consistent with Calvinism. Thus, if Calvinism is consistent with all the descriptions found in the parable of the sower, then Mr. mlculwell is mistaken to assert that Calvinism interprets this parable thru some supposed grid.
...man is a free moral agent able to hear, choose and be saved by his God.
Yes, man is indeed a free moral agent who is able to hear and choose and be saved by his God. So, since Calvinism affirms this statement as written, what is Mr. mlculwell's argument?
...the gospel message is for all of mankind...
Yep.
...not all will be saved...
True.
...but any man can be saved .
And I can agree with this but with one caveat. Any man can be saved if God so wills it. Thus, the difference between Mr. mlculwell's view and my own is the assumption of libertarian free-will which has yet to be established.
Next, Mr. mlculwell quotes Romans 10:8 and says this:
(who Calvinists ? NO the 12 apostles of the lamb who were sent…
The only response I can possibly give to this devastating observation is, well, what?
(Side note:he cannot be the Lord "over all" but only "all kinds of men" and thus Calvinists remain consistent in their interpretation. Go figure….
Here, Mr. mlculwell seems to be complaining that Calvinists often point out that words like 'all' and 'any' are often limited by contextual considerations. Thus, he is complaining against cold hard fact. Go figure.
Calvinists say God makes you a believer without you being involved in the process, What? Ridiculous!
Actually, Calvinists say that God grants men the faith that is required to come to Christ. Once that faith is given, it will then be excercised thus making man involved in the process. This is in stark contrast to Mr. mlculwell's assertion that Calvinism teaches man is saved apart from faith which is truly ridiculous.
(oh but God automatically makes you believe without hearing more ridiculousness)
At this point, I feel it necessary to point out that we're dealing with someone who is swimming in ignorance. Either that, or this person is about as intellectually dishonest as they come. Reformed theology doesn't teach that "God automatically" does anything. Further, Reformed theology does not teach that God forces men to believe for the simple reason that the willing cannot be forced. That is, Calvinism teaches that God removes man's heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh that is capable of belief. And what of Mr. mlculwell's unsupported assertion that Calvinists believe that we are saved apart from the preaching of the gospel? Well, to use his own words, "more ridiculousness"!
...these false prophets refuse to preach that same message and we hear all kinds of ridiculous reasons why.
Here, Mr. mlculwell is referring to Reformed preachers when he uses the term "false prophets". The assertion here is basically that Reformed preachers (and by extension, all Calvinists) do not say the same thing as the Apostles (at least, according to mlculwell) and therefore they are all false prophets. But if this doesn't beg the question, nothing possibly can. In order to establish this notion, Mr. mlculwell will need to sit down and refute Calvinism en toto while simultaneously establishing his own viewpoints as the only Biblical option. And as I have shown above, he hasn't even come close to successfully critiquing Calvinism. Moreover, to say that Calvinists are false prophets is fundamentally no different than saying that we are not Christians. Is this indeed Mr. mlculwell's view? I would be interested in hearing him elaborate on this point.
...yes, the Calvinist is correct when they teach the term "all" is limited in certain contexts concerning believers and unbelievers...
And with this admission, Mr. mlculwell effectively torpedos his own statements above about 'any' and 'all'. That is, once it is admitted that terms like 'all' and 'world' are often times limited by context, these words can no longer be thrown out as if their mere appearance in a text of scripture automatically falsifies the Calvinist's interpretation.
There is quite a bit more that Mr. mlculwell posted but most of it re-hashes what has already been covered above and so going on would not be productive. I mean, really, how much more bad argumentation am I going to have to showcase in order to drive home the point that too many non-Calvinists are far too willing to engage in the most horrid argumentative antics in order to attack a system of theology that they do not like?
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Analogy of Divine Determinism
The analogy of an author writing a play may help us to grasp how both aspects can be true. In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, "Who killed King Duncan?" On one level, the correct answer is "Macbeth." Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, "Who killed King Duncan?" would be "William Shakespeare": he wrote the play, he created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.
It would not be correct to say that because Macbeth killed King Duncan, William Shakespeare did not kill him. Nor would it be correct to say that because William Shakespeare killed King Duncan, Macbeth did not kill him. Both are true. On the level of the characters of the play Macbeth fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan's death, but on the level of the creator of the play, William Shakespeare fully (100 percent) caused king Duncan's death. In similiar fashion, we can understand that God fully causes thing in one way (as Creator), and we fully cause things in another way (as creatures).
Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology
pgs. 321 & 322
The words of King David himself mirror the above analogy:
All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. Psalm 139:16 NIV
Thus, it would seem that the world is God's storybook.
It would not be correct to say that because Macbeth killed King Duncan, William Shakespeare did not kill him. Nor would it be correct to say that because William Shakespeare killed King Duncan, Macbeth did not kill him. Both are true. On the level of the characters of the play Macbeth fully (100 percent) caused King Duncan's death, but on the level of the creator of the play, William Shakespeare fully (100 percent) caused king Duncan's death. In similiar fashion, we can understand that God fully causes thing in one way (as Creator), and we fully cause things in another way (as creatures).
Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology
pgs. 321 & 322
The words of King David himself mirror the above analogy:
All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. Psalm 139:16 NIV
Thus, it would seem that the world is God's storybook.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Assuming The Definition Of Choice
Our new friend Chris has left another comment on another thread. I'm addressing it here because this latest comment was posted on a rather old entry I made back in May and it has nothing at all to do with my previous response to him. This aside, Chris' latest comment seems hinged on the notion that the mere fact of choice defeats Reformed theology. But as every professing Calvinist already knows, this simply isn't the case. Added to this is the fact that Chris nowhere defines just what a 'choice' is. He, like so many non-Calvinists, seems to believe that there is only one way to define 'choice' (if a definition is even pondered at all). So again, without any further ado, let's look at what Chris has to say about choice.
I never said God was powerless over the decisions that men make.
Chris doesn't have to spell it out. His theology does it for him. See, Chris' theology affirms that God cannot or will not violate the so-called free-will of man. If God does, then Chris' theology judges God as being unjust because God is said to be making a man into a robot (which is an argument that Chris mentions below). So, since God cannot be unjust, then God cannot be in control of the decisions of His creatures.
My theology believes in a God that chooses to allow mankind to make his own decisions.
So does mine. That is, in Reformed theology, man not only makes choices, but does so according to his strongest inclination at the moment the choice is made. Thus, man chooses what he desires most at any given moment. Now, I don't know about Chris, but this sure sounds to me like mankind does indeed "make his own decisions".
Key word being "Chooses".
It would have been helpful if Chris would have taken the time to define what he means by "chooses". As it is, this statement is meaningless since Reformed theology more than accounts for the reality of choice.
Sure God could have created a world full of robots who move, speak, make decisions etc... whenever He turns the key but that idea absolutely defeats the purpose of so many things such as faith; whenever He turns the key...
Ah, the old "Calvinism turns man into robots" argument. What Calvinist hasn't seen this one or has taken the time to respond to it? Indeed, Calvinists have written extensively on this. In fact, I have yet to see an introductory work on Calvinism that hasn't addressed it. Thus, I'm forced to ask if Chris has read even one? If so, then why is he not interacting with what Calvinists have to say in response? If he hasn't, then, yet again, Chris has alot of studying to do if he wishes to refute Reformed theology.
...but that idea absolutely defeats the purpose of so many things such as faith; Who needs faith to believe when the decisions are being made for them?
The Reformed definition of 'choice' that I gave above is enough to refute Chris' statement about "decisions being made for them". That is, if man chooses according to his strongest inclination at any given moment, then no one but man is making his decisions. But what of Chris' reference to faith? Does Reformed theology undermine the need for faith? Not in the least. See, Chris' statement has the underlying assumption that faith in God is not an efficacious and divine gift. But scripture teaches otherwise (see Ephesians 2:8). Scripture further teaches that man is spiritually "dead in trespasses and sin" and that man's will is enslaved. Now, if these all be true then one is forced to ask how a man's will is free in the libertarian sense. And since faith in God is a spiritual act, how can a spiritually dead sinner who's will is enslaved to sin, perform a spiritual act such as excercising saving faith? This question is made even more problematic for Chris' theology when 1Corinthians 2:14 tells us that a sinner cannot accept or understand spiritual things. The Calvinist's solution to this scriptural dilemma is to simply accept scripture's teaching that faith is indeed a gift from God. Thus, Reformed theology does not undermine faith but confirms it.
God's omnipotence is reflected in the fact that He can do whatever He wants to do.
And I can agree with this. In fact, I submit that Reformed theology does more than give lip service to this definition of omnipotence. That is, Calvinism affirms that if God chose to create a world where everything that happens has a purpose, including evil, God has the right to do so. Calvinism also affirms that if God had chosen to create a world where He has predestined some to eternal glory and chooses to leave the rest in the sin that they love (reprobation), then He has the right to do so. In stark contrast, given his theological pressupositions, Chris' theology does not give God these rights. Thus, Chris' theology does not affirm the definition of omnipotence that Chris himself has offered.
If He chooses to allow a man to make a choice, it occurs that way because God chose it to be.
Here again, Chris has as his underlying assumption that Reformed theology does not account for the fact of choice. But since this is patently false and has been shown as such here, this statement is rendered meaningless.
If I allow my children to use their own free will to make a choice, does that make me an impotent father? No it doesn't.
A few points here:
1) Chris' analogy of a father allowing his son to use his free-will is itself inaccurate. There is not a father/son relationship between God and all mankind. Only God's elect enjoy such a relationship.
2) The analogy has as it's starting assumption that libertarian free-will is a fact. But this just begs the question in favor of the analogy.
3) Granting just for the sake of argument that the analogy is accurate, God would still be impotent because it is a self-imposed impotence. That is, God may have the power to override the free-will of His creatures but He does not. Thus, within the context of Chris' theology, God cannot override the supposed free-will of His creatures no matter how much He would want to because of a self-imposed limit of His power.
Now, this wraps up my response to Chris' latest post. I don't believe however, that Chris will take the time to respond to what I've written since he has yet to respond to my previous entry. In fact, Chris hasn't deemed my last entry to him as worthy of response so it is unlikely that he'll respond to this entry as well. One can always hope though...
I never said God was powerless over the decisions that men make.
Chris doesn't have to spell it out. His theology does it for him. See, Chris' theology affirms that God cannot or will not violate the so-called free-will of man. If God does, then Chris' theology judges God as being unjust because God is said to be making a man into a robot (which is an argument that Chris mentions below). So, since God cannot be unjust, then God cannot be in control of the decisions of His creatures.
My theology believes in a God that chooses to allow mankind to make his own decisions.
So does mine. That is, in Reformed theology, man not only makes choices, but does so according to his strongest inclination at the moment the choice is made. Thus, man chooses what he desires most at any given moment. Now, I don't know about Chris, but this sure sounds to me like mankind does indeed "make his own decisions".
Key word being "Chooses".
It would have been helpful if Chris would have taken the time to define what he means by "chooses". As it is, this statement is meaningless since Reformed theology more than accounts for the reality of choice.
Sure God could have created a world full of robots who move, speak, make decisions etc... whenever He turns the key but that idea absolutely defeats the purpose of so many things such as faith; whenever He turns the key...
Ah, the old "Calvinism turns man into robots" argument. What Calvinist hasn't seen this one or has taken the time to respond to it? Indeed, Calvinists have written extensively on this. In fact, I have yet to see an introductory work on Calvinism that hasn't addressed it. Thus, I'm forced to ask if Chris has read even one? If so, then why is he not interacting with what Calvinists have to say in response? If he hasn't, then, yet again, Chris has alot of studying to do if he wishes to refute Reformed theology.
...but that idea absolutely defeats the purpose of so many things such as faith; Who needs faith to believe when the decisions are being made for them?
The Reformed definition of 'choice' that I gave above is enough to refute Chris' statement about "decisions being made for them". That is, if man chooses according to his strongest inclination at any given moment, then no one but man is making his decisions. But what of Chris' reference to faith? Does Reformed theology undermine the need for faith? Not in the least. See, Chris' statement has the underlying assumption that faith in God is not an efficacious and divine gift. But scripture teaches otherwise (see Ephesians 2:8). Scripture further teaches that man is spiritually "dead in trespasses and sin" and that man's will is enslaved. Now, if these all be true then one is forced to ask how a man's will is free in the libertarian sense. And since faith in God is a spiritual act, how can a spiritually dead sinner who's will is enslaved to sin, perform a spiritual act such as excercising saving faith? This question is made even more problematic for Chris' theology when 1Corinthians 2:14 tells us that a sinner cannot accept or understand spiritual things. The Calvinist's solution to this scriptural dilemma is to simply accept scripture's teaching that faith is indeed a gift from God. Thus, Reformed theology does not undermine faith but confirms it.
God's omnipotence is reflected in the fact that He can do whatever He wants to do.
And I can agree with this. In fact, I submit that Reformed theology does more than give lip service to this definition of omnipotence. That is, Calvinism affirms that if God chose to create a world where everything that happens has a purpose, including evil, God has the right to do so. Calvinism also affirms that if God had chosen to create a world where He has predestined some to eternal glory and chooses to leave the rest in the sin that they love (reprobation), then He has the right to do so. In stark contrast, given his theological pressupositions, Chris' theology does not give God these rights. Thus, Chris' theology does not affirm the definition of omnipotence that Chris himself has offered.
If He chooses to allow a man to make a choice, it occurs that way because God chose it to be.
Here again, Chris has as his underlying assumption that Reformed theology does not account for the fact of choice. But since this is patently false and has been shown as such here, this statement is rendered meaningless.
If I allow my children to use their own free will to make a choice, does that make me an impotent father? No it doesn't.
A few points here:
1) Chris' analogy of a father allowing his son to use his free-will is itself inaccurate. There is not a father/son relationship between God and all mankind. Only God's elect enjoy such a relationship.
2) The analogy has as it's starting assumption that libertarian free-will is a fact. But this just begs the question in favor of the analogy.
3) Granting just for the sake of argument that the analogy is accurate, God would still be impotent because it is a self-imposed impotence. That is, God may have the power to override the free-will of His creatures but He does not. Thus, within the context of Chris' theology, God cannot override the supposed free-will of His creatures no matter how much He would want to because of a self-imposed limit of His power.
Now, this wraps up my response to Chris' latest post. I don't believe however, that Chris will take the time to respond to what I've written since he has yet to respond to my previous entry. In fact, Chris hasn't deemed my last entry to him as worthy of response so it is unlikely that he'll respond to this entry as well. One can always hope though...
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Yet Another Fine Example Part Two
Chris said:
This will be my final comment because it is clear that you have the gift to justify whatever you do or say, by the way which is a huge indicator of pride.
I find it odd that Chris would say that I'm trying to justify what he calls sarcasm while he paints his own rhetoric as "true feelings". He then goes on to intimate that on top of being hateful, I'm now being prideful. So let me get this straight; if someone defends their theology from attack then they're being prideful? If someone defends themself against ad hominum then they're being prideful?
My comments do reflect my sincere feelings. It's very wrong of you to judge them as anything other than just that,my sincere feelings...
Okay, so everything Chris says is his sincere feelings and I am wrong to judge them. Fine. But if this is the case then it is equally wrong for Chris to judge my response to him as sarcasm because I too was sincere in what I stated. So by his own standards, Chris is wrong in calling my comments sarcasm and his jab about me being prideful is equally wrong for the same reason.
I just don't understand how angels can rejoice over one lost soul receiving Christ when it was predetermined.
Well, Calvinists believe in predetermination and we don't have a problem rejoicing when we see a lost soul saved. Thus, It would seem that Chris' difficulty here is due to his theological presupposition of libertarianism. To a Calvinist, God is simply saving creatures that do not deserve anything other than damnation.
Let me ask you a question... Have you ever said something, knowing what you meant but it was misconstrued by someone else?
Here, Chris is still trying to justify Falwell's prayer that God not let anyone say no to His will. But if I have misconstrued what he meant (which I haven't since I am aware of what Falwell's soteriological stances are), so what? It is irrelevant as to what Falwell meant to say for the simple reason that what he actually said is inconsistent with his own theology. Thus, my statement that he tripped over his own tongue is still accurate.
So, in essence what you are saying is, you've never missed the will of God.
No, that is not what I'm saying. My acceptance of His word is by His grace and power and not of my own wisdom and understanding. No more, no less.
Sin is not the will of God but you do it anyway.
Was it God's will for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery? Was it God's will that the Assyrians plunder and destroy Israel? Was it God's will for men to crucify our Lord Jesus? If Chris says yes to any of these, then he effectively dismisses his own statement here. That is, each of these events were done according to God's will yet each of them involved sinful actions on the part of men. Reformed theology can account for this. Can Chris' theology do the same?
When you fail it is by your own consent, not God's.
Yes, but so? Who is claiming otherwise? Is Chris suggesting that we Calvinists believe that God "forces" men to choose the things that he does? If so, Chris has alot more studying to do.
What about David who was a man after God's own heart... was it God's will for him to fall?
Again, if Chris knew as much about Reformed theology as he should in order for him to successfully attack it, then he wouldn't need to ask this question.
I know this, Rom. 8:28 says He'll take our sin and use it to fulfill His perfect plan. That doesn't mean the sin we commit is His will it means that there is provision made.
This might be what Chris thinks Romans 8:28 means but it isn't what the verse says. The verse states that "...God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose." At best, Chris' statement is an unsupported assertion regarding the meaning of the verse. Moreover, is Chris aware that this verse is one of Calvinism's prooftexts? If not, then, again, Chris has a lot more studying to do if he wishes to successfully critique Reformed theology.
It is really cocky to portray one's self as a man who just never has missed the Lord's direction for his life.
So along with "hateful" and "prideful", I'm now "cocky". Chris' ad hominum's are starting to pile up. At any rate, this latest jab at my character is based on a misunderstanding of a previous point made (see above) thus nothing more need be said here.
My only concern is that we don't miss what's really important, winning the lost no matter the cost!
While I can appreciate Chris' zeal for evangelism, is Chris really willing to "win the lost no matter the cost"? Does this include sacraficing sound doctrine? Has Chris ever heard the saying that "what you win them with is what you win them to"?
I suppose the term "Hyper-Calvanist" would be a term that has been given to those who believe that some were created to populate Hell with absolutely no chance for redemption.
What Chris is saying here is that anyone who agrees with election and reprobation is a hyper-Calvinist. But this is so ridiculously wrong that it's almost humorous. I suppose Chris got this notion from listening to men like Ergun Caner who, despite his position at Liberty University, doesn't have a clue as to who is a hyper-Calvinist and who isn't. Indeed, I suspect that Ergun Caner doesn't care one way or the other and simply uses the term to spite Calvinists. At any rate, Chris would do well to follow this link and read up on what constitutes true hyper-Calvinism.
That doctrine makes the crucifixion a sideshow.
And Chris can only make this statement by first assuming without benefit of argument that the substitutional atonement of Christ was made for all men without exception. But this is just more question begging.
Why would Christ have died if the Lamb's book of Life were already filled out?
Upon reading this, one wonders if Chris has read Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. Both these verses explicitly state that the Book of Life had been written "from the foundation of the world". Now, that certainly sounds to me like it had indeed already been filled out.
Why would God send His son to suffer at the hands of His chosen people if salvation was predetermined?
Well, simply put, God has ordained the ends along with the means to those ends. Again, if Chris had done his homework before coming here to attack Calvinism, he wouldn't be asking these kinds of questions.
My theology says, like Christ, whosoever will may come.
So does my theology. Yet again, Chris is not aware of the real issue here. The real issue is *how* and *why* men come to Christ. Throwing out the above means that Chris must first assume that because men choose to come, it must mean by default that their decision was not predetermined. But this is just more question begging.
Once you've said yes, you are eternally secure.
So just how does that work in a libertarian theology? Does Chris really believe that you have the "free-will" to get yourself in a relationship with God but afterward you don't? To put it another way, if man can choose Christ of his own "free-will", why can't man then reject Christ of his own "free-will" afterward? Does Chris really believe that before you say "yes" you have free-will but afterwards you don't?
J. Matthew's theology says only a select few may come therefore making it a club.
Chris just can't resist reiterating his rhetorical nonsense about "clubs". At any rate, John 6:44 states that only those drawn to Christ may come to him and that those same ones will be raised to life. These individuals constitute the bride of Christ. If Chris wishes to keep refering to the Son's bride as a "club" then that's fine me as I won't be the one answering for it later on.
Even though I am eternally secure, I know my sin matters because it breaks the heart of God and reaps consequences.
Chris misses the point here. That is, to those who do not hold to eternal security, Chris' sin does not matter because it doesn't determine ultimate destiny after spiritual rebirth. This is why his theology is susceptible to this criticism that he leveled earlier at Calvinism. Thus, if sin doesn't matter to Calvinists, it doesn't matter to Chris' theology for the same reason.
J. Matthew's theology is really a strike against the preached word because as in his own words, "In my theology, God wills it and it is so." Wouldn't this mean that all of those who were meant to be saved would just automatically come to Christ?
Yet again, if Chris had studied up on Calvinism before attacking it, he would know that this just doesn't wash. As I pointed out above, God has ordained the means along with the ends. This means that the preaching of the word is an ordained method to bringing in God's elect. Thus, the preaching of the word becomes a necessity in bringing those to Christ who God has predestined for glory.
"Of course, Chris assumes without benefit of argument that the "old old story" is one of Arminian libertarianism and autonomy. Can anyone say, "question begging"?"
Makes no sense.
Here, Chris dodges a point I made previously about his habit of question begging. Actually, this is the second of two dodges but I'll let the first one slide in favor of time considerations. Now, Chris stated earlier that Calvinism "sucks the hope out of the old old story". But as I rightly pointed out, Chris can only say this by first assuming that his theology is correct. But the problem for him is that he is a long way from proving this. Thus, he begs the question by making such statements because he has yet to show that the "old old story" is about human autonomy.
You're exactly right about one thing. My theology does say that grace and mercy not extended to every soul defeats the purpose of grace and mercy.
Chris here admits that his theology places obligation on grace and mercy which now causes him no end of problems. Grace is defined as "the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God." The question that Chris must answer is, how can grace be both obligated and freely given at the same time? Indeed, if grace is obligated, then God owes it to man and it is no longer freely given. Grace, then, is no longer grace.
Yes I do affirm God's foreknowledge. He is Omniscient. What I do not affirm is that it was not His choice that John T. Sinner reject His son.
Here, Chris sidesteps the point regarding God's foreknowledge. So I'll reiterate. If God knows that Mr. Sinner is going to reject Him from the beginning of time, then history is somehow fixed. This means that when Mr. Sinner is actually born in time, he will live and die with no more than an illusory choice of where his eternal destiny lies. It cannot be any other way than what God knew it to be from the point of creation itself. It is this same dilemma that caused men such as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd to embrace open theism yet Chris refuses to even acknowledge the problem.
I'll leave this to you and all of your friends. I have a ministry to oversee and really don't have the time you have to spend on this type of thing.
Here, Chris states his intention of leaving this discussion because he simply has no time for it. Yet, Chris has commented on my blog several different times now since writing this and has even stated that he'll respond if there is anything that he would apparantly deem worthy responding to. So which is it? Will he continue this discussion or leave it? Has the restraints that his ministry places on him suddenly dissappeared or is Chris reserving an out for himself? I suppose we will have to wait and see.
This will be my final comment because it is clear that you have the gift to justify whatever you do or say, by the way which is a huge indicator of pride.
I find it odd that Chris would say that I'm trying to justify what he calls sarcasm while he paints his own rhetoric as "true feelings". He then goes on to intimate that on top of being hateful, I'm now being prideful. So let me get this straight; if someone defends their theology from attack then they're being prideful? If someone defends themself against ad hominum then they're being prideful?
My comments do reflect my sincere feelings. It's very wrong of you to judge them as anything other than just that,my sincere feelings...
Okay, so everything Chris says is his sincere feelings and I am wrong to judge them. Fine. But if this is the case then it is equally wrong for Chris to judge my response to him as sarcasm because I too was sincere in what I stated. So by his own standards, Chris is wrong in calling my comments sarcasm and his jab about me being prideful is equally wrong for the same reason.
I just don't understand how angels can rejoice over one lost soul receiving Christ when it was predetermined.
Well, Calvinists believe in predetermination and we don't have a problem rejoicing when we see a lost soul saved. Thus, It would seem that Chris' difficulty here is due to his theological presupposition of libertarianism. To a Calvinist, God is simply saving creatures that do not deserve anything other than damnation.
Let me ask you a question... Have you ever said something, knowing what you meant but it was misconstrued by someone else?
Here, Chris is still trying to justify Falwell's prayer that God not let anyone say no to His will. But if I have misconstrued what he meant (which I haven't since I am aware of what Falwell's soteriological stances are), so what? It is irrelevant as to what Falwell meant to say for the simple reason that what he actually said is inconsistent with his own theology. Thus, my statement that he tripped over his own tongue is still accurate.
So, in essence what you are saying is, you've never missed the will of God.
No, that is not what I'm saying. My acceptance of His word is by His grace and power and not of my own wisdom and understanding. No more, no less.
Sin is not the will of God but you do it anyway.
Was it God's will for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery? Was it God's will that the Assyrians plunder and destroy Israel? Was it God's will for men to crucify our Lord Jesus? If Chris says yes to any of these, then he effectively dismisses his own statement here. That is, each of these events were done according to God's will yet each of them involved sinful actions on the part of men. Reformed theology can account for this. Can Chris' theology do the same?
When you fail it is by your own consent, not God's.
Yes, but so? Who is claiming otherwise? Is Chris suggesting that we Calvinists believe that God "forces" men to choose the things that he does? If so, Chris has alot more studying to do.
What about David who was a man after God's own heart... was it God's will for him to fall?
Again, if Chris knew as much about Reformed theology as he should in order for him to successfully attack it, then he wouldn't need to ask this question.
I know this, Rom. 8:28 says He'll take our sin and use it to fulfill His perfect plan. That doesn't mean the sin we commit is His will it means that there is provision made.
This might be what Chris thinks Romans 8:28 means but it isn't what the verse says. The verse states that "...God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, those who are called according to His purpose." At best, Chris' statement is an unsupported assertion regarding the meaning of the verse. Moreover, is Chris aware that this verse is one of Calvinism's prooftexts? If not, then, again, Chris has a lot more studying to do if he wishes to successfully critique Reformed theology.
It is really cocky to portray one's self as a man who just never has missed the Lord's direction for his life.
So along with "hateful" and "prideful", I'm now "cocky". Chris' ad hominum's are starting to pile up. At any rate, this latest jab at my character is based on a misunderstanding of a previous point made (see above) thus nothing more need be said here.
My only concern is that we don't miss what's really important, winning the lost no matter the cost!
While I can appreciate Chris' zeal for evangelism, is Chris really willing to "win the lost no matter the cost"? Does this include sacraficing sound doctrine? Has Chris ever heard the saying that "what you win them with is what you win them to"?
I suppose the term "Hyper-Calvanist" would be a term that has been given to those who believe that some were created to populate Hell with absolutely no chance for redemption.
What Chris is saying here is that anyone who agrees with election and reprobation is a hyper-Calvinist. But this is so ridiculously wrong that it's almost humorous. I suppose Chris got this notion from listening to men like Ergun Caner who, despite his position at Liberty University, doesn't have a clue as to who is a hyper-Calvinist and who isn't. Indeed, I suspect that Ergun Caner doesn't care one way or the other and simply uses the term to spite Calvinists. At any rate, Chris would do well to follow this link and read up on what constitutes true hyper-Calvinism.
That doctrine makes the crucifixion a sideshow.
And Chris can only make this statement by first assuming without benefit of argument that the substitutional atonement of Christ was made for all men without exception. But this is just more question begging.
Why would Christ have died if the Lamb's book of Life were already filled out?
Upon reading this, one wonders if Chris has read Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. Both these verses explicitly state that the Book of Life had been written "from the foundation of the world". Now, that certainly sounds to me like it had indeed already been filled out.
Why would God send His son to suffer at the hands of His chosen people if salvation was predetermined?
Well, simply put, God has ordained the ends along with the means to those ends. Again, if Chris had done his homework before coming here to attack Calvinism, he wouldn't be asking these kinds of questions.
My theology says, like Christ, whosoever will may come.
So does my theology. Yet again, Chris is not aware of the real issue here. The real issue is *how* and *why* men come to Christ. Throwing out the above means that Chris must first assume that because men choose to come, it must mean by default that their decision was not predetermined. But this is just more question begging.
Once you've said yes, you are eternally secure.
So just how does that work in a libertarian theology? Does Chris really believe that you have the "free-will" to get yourself in a relationship with God but afterward you don't? To put it another way, if man can choose Christ of his own "free-will", why can't man then reject Christ of his own "free-will" afterward? Does Chris really believe that before you say "yes" you have free-will but afterwards you don't?
J. Matthew's theology says only a select few may come therefore making it a club.
Chris just can't resist reiterating his rhetorical nonsense about "clubs". At any rate, John 6:44 states that only those drawn to Christ may come to him and that those same ones will be raised to life. These individuals constitute the bride of Christ. If Chris wishes to keep refering to the Son's bride as a "club" then that's fine me as I won't be the one answering for it later on.
Even though I am eternally secure, I know my sin matters because it breaks the heart of God and reaps consequences.
Chris misses the point here. That is, to those who do not hold to eternal security, Chris' sin does not matter because it doesn't determine ultimate destiny after spiritual rebirth. This is why his theology is susceptible to this criticism that he leveled earlier at Calvinism. Thus, if sin doesn't matter to Calvinists, it doesn't matter to Chris' theology for the same reason.
J. Matthew's theology is really a strike against the preached word because as in his own words, "In my theology, God wills it and it is so." Wouldn't this mean that all of those who were meant to be saved would just automatically come to Christ?
Yet again, if Chris had studied up on Calvinism before attacking it, he would know that this just doesn't wash. As I pointed out above, God has ordained the means along with the ends. This means that the preaching of the word is an ordained method to bringing in God's elect. Thus, the preaching of the word becomes a necessity in bringing those to Christ who God has predestined for glory.
"Of course, Chris assumes without benefit of argument that the "old old story" is one of Arminian libertarianism and autonomy. Can anyone say, "question begging"?"
Makes no sense.
Here, Chris dodges a point I made previously about his habit of question begging. Actually, this is the second of two dodges but I'll let the first one slide in favor of time considerations. Now, Chris stated earlier that Calvinism "sucks the hope out of the old old story". But as I rightly pointed out, Chris can only say this by first assuming that his theology is correct. But the problem for him is that he is a long way from proving this. Thus, he begs the question by making such statements because he has yet to show that the "old old story" is about human autonomy.
You're exactly right about one thing. My theology does say that grace and mercy not extended to every soul defeats the purpose of grace and mercy.
Chris here admits that his theology places obligation on grace and mercy which now causes him no end of problems. Grace is defined as "the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God." The question that Chris must answer is, how can grace be both obligated and freely given at the same time? Indeed, if grace is obligated, then God owes it to man and it is no longer freely given. Grace, then, is no longer grace.
Yes I do affirm God's foreknowledge. He is Omniscient. What I do not affirm is that it was not His choice that John T. Sinner reject His son.
Here, Chris sidesteps the point regarding God's foreknowledge. So I'll reiterate. If God knows that Mr. Sinner is going to reject Him from the beginning of time, then history is somehow fixed. This means that when Mr. Sinner is actually born in time, he will live and die with no more than an illusory choice of where his eternal destiny lies. It cannot be any other way than what God knew it to be from the point of creation itself. It is this same dilemma that caused men such as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, and Gregory Boyd to embrace open theism yet Chris refuses to even acknowledge the problem.
I'll leave this to you and all of your friends. I have a ministry to oversee and really don't have the time you have to spend on this type of thing.
Here, Chris states his intention of leaving this discussion because he simply has no time for it. Yet, Chris has commented on my blog several different times now since writing this and has even stated that he'll respond if there is anything that he would apparantly deem worthy responding to. So which is it? Will he continue this discussion or leave it? Has the restraints that his ministry places on him suddenly dissappeared or is Chris reserving an out for himself? I suppose we will have to wait and see.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Yet Another Fine Example
In my previous posts, I've been pointing out the lack of any real interaction and argumentation coming from those who would attack Reformed theology. Since I started blogging about ten months ago, I've had several visitors come by to take a passing shot at Calvinism. Only two of those attempted to put up actual arguments but they ended up abandoning those arguments as soon as they were challenged. Last night, a fellow named "Chris" came by and left his thoughts on a post I did months ago concerning one of Ergun Caner's bad sermons. I would characterize Chris' post as yet another fine example of what I've been talking about recently, that being an almost total bankruptcy of argumentation from non-Calvinists. So without any further ado, let's take a look at what Chris has to say.
I would have to say that you are grasping at straws to say, "Falwell tripped over his own tongue".
I beg to differ and will elaborate on this in a moment.
It was clear in Dr. Caner's sermon that it is indeed the will of our Father for us all to come to His son for salvation.
I assume that what Chris means by "us all" is that God wills each and every individual man and woman to come to Christ and it may be clear in Caner's sermon that this is what both Caner and Falwell believe but there is nothing in Caner's sermon that establishes this notion. Caner, like so many non-Calvinists, assumes his interpretation of passages like 2Peter 3:9 without bothering to demonstrate that their's is the correct interpretation over and against the Calvinistic understanding.
I believe his prayer reflected that of one who desires that the lost be saved.
Yes, but so? Falwell's desire to see lost men saved doesn't justify his remark being inconsistent with his theology. Moreover, is Chris tacitly suggesting that Calvinists do not want to see sinners saved? I hope not because this notion would be utterly ridiculous and easily refuted.
I understand his prayer as asking the Spirit of God to strongly convict the sinner so that they would repond positively to the gospel.
This may be what Chris understands Falwell to mean but this isn't what Falwell said. Falwell specifically used the phrase "do not let one person say no". This phrase is couched in a statement and not part of a request. Further, this statement is not consistent with Falwell's libertarian theology. In other words, this is something only a Calvinist can say while being consistent with his own theology. Thus, my statement about Falwell tripping over his tongue is accurate.
I am one who allows the Spirit of God to guide me through prayer and Bible study.
And herein lies the rub. In Chris' theology, man allows God to do this or that. In Chris' theology, God is sovereign only by consent from those He rules. In Chris' theology, God's rule is reduced to mere Presidency. In stark contrast, I am one who allows nothing where my God's will is concerned. In my theology, God sees fit to give me wisdom and insight into His written word. In my theology, God wills it and it is so. In my theology, God is king over His creation and His will is not dependant on mere consent.
I believe in eternal security because it is a doctrine that is clearly spoken of in the word of God not because someone I look up to told me I should.
And I too believe in "eternal security" (minus, of course, any attached libertarian notions) and for the same reasons. I would hasten to add however that I believe in the other four points of Calvinism for the same reason that I believe in "eternal security". That is, all five points of Calvinism are clearly set forth in God's revealed word. It is for this reason that I embraced Reformed theology and continue to do so even after many interactions with folks like Chris.
I do not accept the doctrine that says God has predetermined and ear marked certain souls for Hell. I believe that according to what I have read and studied.
If Chris is refering to the doctrines of election and reprobation, then I can only say that I do accept these doctrines according to what I have read and studied. It would have been helpful if Chris would have defined what he means by "ear marked certain souls for hell" and interacted with what Calvinists have to say about election and reprobation.
I wanted to establish that because it is also my take that those who consider themselves "Hyper Calvinists" appear to be very hateful.
And here is where Chris' post takes a nose dive. Who is considering themselves to be hyper-Calvinists? Not I. Nor does anyone with whom I have linked to on my site along with those who frequent my blog. In fact, I have never met a self professed hyper-Calvinist on the 'net or anywhere else. Moreover, who is being hateful? In what way? Is Chris suggesting that anyone who calls themself a Calvinist of any stripe is hateful?
I suppose you feel as if you can be because you have been preselected for Heaven and your sinful attitude doesn't really matter to God seeings that you are part of the club.
Here, Chris throws out a couple of gross but common charicatures of Reformed theology in that our sin supposedly doesn't matter and that we are part of some sort of "club". For the first, Chris apparantly doesn't realize that everyone who holds to any form of eternal security gets this criticism about how sin doesn't really matter. Thus, Chris shoots himself in the foot for bringing this up without elaborating on how it relates to Reformed theology. As for the second, I have seen this one many times. It's often times thrown out by the most bitter of non-Calvinists who have interacted with Calvinists at length but haven't gotten anywhere. I can't help but wonder if Chris realizes that what he calls a "club" is what we Calvinists call the bride of Christ.
I guess I would have to wonder; if what you say is true of God really is, then what's the purpose? I mean, why experience life; so you can try to make everybody agree with your point of view?
This one is a bit confusing. That is, I think I know what Chris is asking but what he actually states ends up as a criticism against his own theology. In his view Chris must "win" as many people to Christ as possible which is all well and good. But those who hold to Chris' theology will very often go off the deep end with how they go about "making everyone agree" to accept Christ. Gimmicks and outright shameful tactics are often employed in libertarian churches to achieve this end. In contrast, a Calvinist will preach the gospel as it is, without compromise and gimmick, and leave it in God's capable hands. We do not go to absurd lengths to "win the lost at any cost" as some would say.
You paint a very grim picture of our God and for that you should be very ashamed.
And I would say that to posit God's impotence in the face of His creation's will is a far more grim portrayal of our God than anything a Calvinist can conjure.
You people suck the hope right out of the old old story.
Of course, Chris assumes without benefit of argument that the "old old story" is one of Arminian libertarianism and autonomy. This is of course begging the question.
Your point of view makes grace and mercy a myth and the prayer of the saintly Grandmother a waste of time.
I honestly don't know what Chris is going on about in regards to "saintly Grandmothers". But I do know that Calvinism is the truest expression of grace and mercy that I have come across simply because we don't place obligation on them. That is, in Chris' theology, God is only graceful and merciful if He offers all men without exception a libertarian choice to accept or reject Him. If God does not, then God is unjust according to Chris' theology. This makes grace and mercy an obligation and thus completely empties the two terms of any real meaning.
Do the world a favor and just keep your doctrine of destruction to yourself.
Of course, Chris doesn't show how Reformed theology is a doctrine of destruction. But that's just par for the course at this point. And despite the suggestion to the contrary, I intend to keep on blogging in defense of Calvinism as long as I am able. Sorry to disappoint you Chris!
Atleast then those who are supposedly on their way to Hell without a chance can enjoy the life they are living here on earth!
As I look at Chris' closing shot, I can't help but wonder if Chris has ever thought about his libertarian views in light of God's knowledge of future events. I assume that Chris affirms the foreknowledge of God so I would ask Chris how someone whom God knew would end up in hell from eternity past would have a "chance" to not go to hell? To put it another way, let's say that before God creates the world, He foresees that John T. Sinner is going to live and die without Christ. Several thousand years later John is born. Now, does John have a real chance at changing his destiny? If yes, then Chris throws out God's knowledge of all things for the sake of human autonomy because had John went to heaven, God's knowledge would be falsified. If Chris says no, then John T. Sinner never had anything more than an illusory chance at salvation and thus Chris' own position bears the brunt of the criticism he's leveling at Calvinism. So Chris can pick his poison.
Now, I invite Chris to come back to elaborate and defend his statements and to do so without all the emotionally charged rhetoric that he has displayed thus far. Only then will we be able to have a constructive dialogue if in fact dialogue is what Chris seeks. However, I think most folks would readily agree that dialogue is not what Chris had in mind when he posted his comments to my blog.
I would have to say that you are grasping at straws to say, "Falwell tripped over his own tongue".
I beg to differ and will elaborate on this in a moment.
It was clear in Dr. Caner's sermon that it is indeed the will of our Father for us all to come to His son for salvation.
I assume that what Chris means by "us all" is that God wills each and every individual man and woman to come to Christ and it may be clear in Caner's sermon that this is what both Caner and Falwell believe but there is nothing in Caner's sermon that establishes this notion. Caner, like so many non-Calvinists, assumes his interpretation of passages like 2Peter 3:9 without bothering to demonstrate that their's is the correct interpretation over and against the Calvinistic understanding.
I believe his prayer reflected that of one who desires that the lost be saved.
Yes, but so? Falwell's desire to see lost men saved doesn't justify his remark being inconsistent with his theology. Moreover, is Chris tacitly suggesting that Calvinists do not want to see sinners saved? I hope not because this notion would be utterly ridiculous and easily refuted.
I understand his prayer as asking the Spirit of God to strongly convict the sinner so that they would repond positively to the gospel.
This may be what Chris understands Falwell to mean but this isn't what Falwell said. Falwell specifically used the phrase "do not let one person say no". This phrase is couched in a statement and not part of a request. Further, this statement is not consistent with Falwell's libertarian theology. In other words, this is something only a Calvinist can say while being consistent with his own theology. Thus, my statement about Falwell tripping over his tongue is accurate.
I am one who allows the Spirit of God to guide me through prayer and Bible study.
And herein lies the rub. In Chris' theology, man allows God to do this or that. In Chris' theology, God is sovereign only by consent from those He rules. In Chris' theology, God's rule is reduced to mere Presidency. In stark contrast, I am one who allows nothing where my God's will is concerned. In my theology, God sees fit to give me wisdom and insight into His written word. In my theology, God wills it and it is so. In my theology, God is king over His creation and His will is not dependant on mere consent.
I believe in eternal security because it is a doctrine that is clearly spoken of in the word of God not because someone I look up to told me I should.
And I too believe in "eternal security" (minus, of course, any attached libertarian notions) and for the same reasons. I would hasten to add however that I believe in the other four points of Calvinism for the same reason that I believe in "eternal security". That is, all five points of Calvinism are clearly set forth in God's revealed word. It is for this reason that I embraced Reformed theology and continue to do so even after many interactions with folks like Chris.
I do not accept the doctrine that says God has predetermined and ear marked certain souls for Hell. I believe that according to what I have read and studied.
If Chris is refering to the doctrines of election and reprobation, then I can only say that I do accept these doctrines according to what I have read and studied. It would have been helpful if Chris would have defined what he means by "ear marked certain souls for hell" and interacted with what Calvinists have to say about election and reprobation.
I wanted to establish that because it is also my take that those who consider themselves "Hyper Calvinists" appear to be very hateful.
And here is where Chris' post takes a nose dive. Who is considering themselves to be hyper-Calvinists? Not I. Nor does anyone with whom I have linked to on my site along with those who frequent my blog. In fact, I have never met a self professed hyper-Calvinist on the 'net or anywhere else. Moreover, who is being hateful? In what way? Is Chris suggesting that anyone who calls themself a Calvinist of any stripe is hateful?
I suppose you feel as if you can be because you have been preselected for Heaven and your sinful attitude doesn't really matter to God seeings that you are part of the club.
Here, Chris throws out a couple of gross but common charicatures of Reformed theology in that our sin supposedly doesn't matter and that we are part of some sort of "club". For the first, Chris apparantly doesn't realize that everyone who holds to any form of eternal security gets this criticism about how sin doesn't really matter. Thus, Chris shoots himself in the foot for bringing this up without elaborating on how it relates to Reformed theology. As for the second, I have seen this one many times. It's often times thrown out by the most bitter of non-Calvinists who have interacted with Calvinists at length but haven't gotten anywhere. I can't help but wonder if Chris realizes that what he calls a "club" is what we Calvinists call the bride of Christ.
I guess I would have to wonder; if what you say is true of God really is, then what's the purpose? I mean, why experience life; so you can try to make everybody agree with your point of view?
This one is a bit confusing. That is, I think I know what Chris is asking but what he actually states ends up as a criticism against his own theology. In his view Chris must "win" as many people to Christ as possible which is all well and good. But those who hold to Chris' theology will very often go off the deep end with how they go about "making everyone agree" to accept Christ. Gimmicks and outright shameful tactics are often employed in libertarian churches to achieve this end. In contrast, a Calvinist will preach the gospel as it is, without compromise and gimmick, and leave it in God's capable hands. We do not go to absurd lengths to "win the lost at any cost" as some would say.
You paint a very grim picture of our God and for that you should be very ashamed.
And I would say that to posit God's impotence in the face of His creation's will is a far more grim portrayal of our God than anything a Calvinist can conjure.
You people suck the hope right out of the old old story.
Of course, Chris assumes without benefit of argument that the "old old story" is one of Arminian libertarianism and autonomy. This is of course begging the question.
Your point of view makes grace and mercy a myth and the prayer of the saintly Grandmother a waste of time.
I honestly don't know what Chris is going on about in regards to "saintly Grandmothers". But I do know that Calvinism is the truest expression of grace and mercy that I have come across simply because we don't place obligation on them. That is, in Chris' theology, God is only graceful and merciful if He offers all men without exception a libertarian choice to accept or reject Him. If God does not, then God is unjust according to Chris' theology. This makes grace and mercy an obligation and thus completely empties the two terms of any real meaning.
Do the world a favor and just keep your doctrine of destruction to yourself.
Of course, Chris doesn't show how Reformed theology is a doctrine of destruction. But that's just par for the course at this point. And despite the suggestion to the contrary, I intend to keep on blogging in defense of Calvinism as long as I am able. Sorry to disappoint you Chris!
Atleast then those who are supposedly on their way to Hell without a chance can enjoy the life they are living here on earth!
As I look at Chris' closing shot, I can't help but wonder if Chris has ever thought about his libertarian views in light of God's knowledge of future events. I assume that Chris affirms the foreknowledge of God so I would ask Chris how someone whom God knew would end up in hell from eternity past would have a "chance" to not go to hell? To put it another way, let's say that before God creates the world, He foresees that John T. Sinner is going to live and die without Christ. Several thousand years later John is born. Now, does John have a real chance at changing his destiny? If yes, then Chris throws out God's knowledge of all things for the sake of human autonomy because had John went to heaven, God's knowledge would be falsified. If Chris says no, then John T. Sinner never had anything more than an illusory chance at salvation and thus Chris' own position bears the brunt of the criticism he's leveling at Calvinism. So Chris can pick his poison.
Now, I invite Chris to come back to elaborate and defend his statements and to do so without all the emotionally charged rhetoric that he has displayed thus far. Only then will we be able to have a constructive dialogue if in fact dialogue is what Chris seeks. However, I think most folks would readily agree that dialogue is not what Chris had in mind when he posted his comments to my blog.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Dennis Clough Strikes Again
Readers of this blog may remember a charming fellow by the name of Dennis Clough who argued here on my blog that the story of Cain and Abel refuted the Calvinistic position on a number of issues. Readers of this blog may also remember that Mr. Clough became very emotional and outright nasty in his posts and was warned several times to either control himself or go elsewhere with his tirades. In the end, he disappeared leaving various points and issues sitting on the table. Several days ago however, Mr. Clough resurfaced after six whole months and sort of picked up where he left off on the Cain and Abel issue. Here is how he chooses to dust off his arguments in that particuliar thread:
You aren't half as tired of my comments as I am of the conclusions of Calvinism which will not stand the light of Scripture. And it's actually funny to be accused of repeation from the Calvinist camp! They who crank out endless books "explaining" Calvinism over and over again to the fully indoctrinated lest they forget exactly how many hairs there were on Calvin's head. The rank and file are so inundated with the flood of cookie cutter books they have little time to read the Word itself it would seem.
And then if there are not the proper "oohs" and "ahhs" from the choir at each presentation of the faded and frayed "tulip" , there will be recriminations! It will be suggested that one is not intellectual, perhaps the unpardonable sin to a Calvinist!
After all, didn't Jesus carefully seek out educated fishermen and indoctrinate them in the theological maze of Calvinism? Peter, James and John were trained theologians, having graduated from the Seminary of Full Nets with a degree in sheep feeding! Not sure if this qualified them to be serious Calvinists however, especially since they were too busy writing Scripture that refutes those nefarious doctrines to actually study Calvinism. Too bad, they could have really done something for God if they were better equipped!
As anyone reading this can readily see, this latest broadside by Mr. Clough is woefully short on substance. There is no mention of any of the issues that he left six months ago nor does he even try to salvage his arguments regarding Cain. The post is nothing but emotionally charged rhetoric which is what his posts devolved into before he disappeared (for further examples see here and here) and thus requires no direct interaction from me. One would think that after so many months Mr. Clough would have been able to calm down enough to actually engage the issues surrounding Calvinism. But ironically, I suppose I should thank Mr. Clough for his latest jab at Calvinism because it only serves to highlight and reinforce my comments and observations from my previous post on the bankruptcy of argumentation from non-Calvinists.
You aren't half as tired of my comments as I am of the conclusions of Calvinism which will not stand the light of Scripture. And it's actually funny to be accused of repeation from the Calvinist camp! They who crank out endless books "explaining" Calvinism over and over again to the fully indoctrinated lest they forget exactly how many hairs there were on Calvin's head. The rank and file are so inundated with the flood of cookie cutter books they have little time to read the Word itself it would seem.
And then if there are not the proper "oohs" and "ahhs" from the choir at each presentation of the faded and frayed "tulip" , there will be recriminations! It will be suggested that one is not intellectual, perhaps the unpardonable sin to a Calvinist!
After all, didn't Jesus carefully seek out educated fishermen and indoctrinate them in the theological maze of Calvinism? Peter, James and John were trained theologians, having graduated from the Seminary of Full Nets with a degree in sheep feeding! Not sure if this qualified them to be serious Calvinists however, especially since they were too busy writing Scripture that refutes those nefarious doctrines to actually study Calvinism. Too bad, they could have really done something for God if they were better equipped!
As anyone reading this can readily see, this latest broadside by Mr. Clough is woefully short on substance. There is no mention of any of the issues that he left six months ago nor does he even try to salvage his arguments regarding Cain. The post is nothing but emotionally charged rhetoric which is what his posts devolved into before he disappeared (for further examples see here and here) and thus requires no direct interaction from me. One would think that after so many months Mr. Clough would have been able to calm down enough to actually engage the issues surrounding Calvinism. But ironically, I suppose I should thank Mr. Clough for his latest jab at Calvinism because it only serves to highlight and reinforce my comments and observations from my previous post on the bankruptcy of argumentation from non-Calvinists.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Missing The Mark
About a month ago someone named Evelyn had this to say in response to my blog in general:
Calvanism: How do you explaine this?
Passage 2 Peter 2:20:
20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
1 Corinthians 15:2:
2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
To which I responded with:
Hi Evelyn,
Explain what? Calvinism affirms the truthfulness of these passages just as much as they do the truthfulness of such passages as John 6 and Romans 9. If you believe that the two passages you have quoted somehow contradicts my position then you will need to present an argument for me to consider. As it stands, all you've done here is prooftext under the guise of posing a question.
I haven't heard back from Evelyn so I would like to go ahead and briefly comment further on her passing shot at Calvinism.
Aside from the fact that she's obviously prooftexting, she simply misses the mark. Her quoting of 2Peter 2 and 1Corinthians 15 appears to be aimed at the doctrine of "the perseverance of the saints". Since this doctrine is the logical and theological conclusion of other more basic and foundational doctrines (i.e. God's sovereignty, the nature of man's will, election and reprobation etc.), her passing shot is virtually meaningless. It's like she's trying to stop a train by disabling the caboose or killing a rattlesnake by cutting off it's tail. It's simply not going to get her anywhere and only serves to highlight the bankruptcy of argumentation from the non-Calvinist side and further strengthens my convictions in regards to Calvinism being the truest expression of the gospel of our Lord.
Calvanism: How do you explaine this?
Passage 2 Peter 2:20:
20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
1 Corinthians 15:2:
2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
To which I responded with:
Hi Evelyn,
Explain what? Calvinism affirms the truthfulness of these passages just as much as they do the truthfulness of such passages as John 6 and Romans 9. If you believe that the two passages you have quoted somehow contradicts my position then you will need to present an argument for me to consider. As it stands, all you've done here is prooftext under the guise of posing a question.
I haven't heard back from Evelyn so I would like to go ahead and briefly comment further on her passing shot at Calvinism.
Aside from the fact that she's obviously prooftexting, she simply misses the mark. Her quoting of 2Peter 2 and 1Corinthians 15 appears to be aimed at the doctrine of "the perseverance of the saints". Since this doctrine is the logical and theological conclusion of other more basic and foundational doctrines (i.e. God's sovereignty, the nature of man's will, election and reprobation etc.), her passing shot is virtually meaningless. It's like she's trying to stop a train by disabling the caboose or killing a rattlesnake by cutting off it's tail. It's simply not going to get her anywhere and only serves to highlight the bankruptcy of argumentation from the non-Calvinist side and further strengthens my convictions in regards to Calvinism being the truest expression of the gospel of our Lord.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
When Ignorance Isn't Bliss
The other day, my family and I were eating out at a local resturant. We were in a section that had one other large family sitting in it. At one point the other families' discussion grew more audible and we could tell that they were discussing the bible. It was at this point that we were privy to this interesting tidbit:
The bible was written in Hebrew, then translated into jewish. From jewish, it was translated again into the King James.
Now, it isn't neccessary for me to go into a correction of the above quote for the simple reason that if you are reading this blog then you probably have an idea of how our english bibles came to be. I suppose the only thing I would like to say about this episode is that if people are going to be this ignorant, they should at least do it in the privacy of their own homes because they never know when their ignorance might appear on the 'net as someone else's blog fodder!
The bible was written in Hebrew, then translated into jewish. From jewish, it was translated again into the King James.
Now, it isn't neccessary for me to go into a correction of the above quote for the simple reason that if you are reading this blog then you probably have an idea of how our english bibles came to be. I suppose the only thing I would like to say about this episode is that if people are going to be this ignorant, they should at least do it in the privacy of their own homes because they never know when their ignorance might appear on the 'net as someone else's blog fodder!
Monday, October 16, 2006
To My Readers (both real and imagined)
I would like to apologize to anyone out there who might visit this blog regularly (especially you Tom) as I have not blogged on anything in over a month. Much of my online time the past month has been spent engaged in drawn-out dialogues with some pretty nasty anti-Calvinists on a certain message board. Engaging these kinds of people is quite time consuming and can mire a body down in so much theological muck as to cause a person to wonder why they bother in the first place. I have to keep reminding myself that somebody has to do it. Why? Because really bad anti-Calvinist argumentation is rampant on message boards like the one I frequent. These arguments are like bad rumors. No matter how far out that rumor may be, it will be spread and even believed by folks who should know better or, worse yet, by those who don't know any better. It is folks like these in this latter group for whom I dirty myself. These are the folks who have never been exposed to the doctrines of grace and thus are the most susceptible to being duped by rabid anti-Calvinists. Then there are the "fence sitters". These are the folks that are almost convinced of the truthfulness of the doctrines of grace and are waiting for someone to confront and refute something they may have read by an anti-Calvinist. Thus, I roll up my sleeves, don my oxygen tank, and wade in. But fear not my loyal readers (both real and imagined), I have no intentions of abandoning my blog as so many others do these days. I will continue to post here and, God willing, more frequently than in recent weeks.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Simple Math
"Sola gratia", or "grace alone" is a doctrine that is affirmed by the vast majority of protestant Christianity. But it has been my experience that protestants outside of the reformed traditions only pay lip service to this doctrine. That is, they will affirm sola gratia on the one hand, while emptying the term of all meaning on the other. Case in point:
We believe in salvation by "Grace" plus nothing and minus nothing. The conditions to salvation are repentance and faith in Jesus the Christ:
This statement comes from Covington Seminary's statement of faith. Immediatly, the Calvinist sees a very basic problem. It is here stated that salvation is by grace plus nothing and minus nothing. Leaving the "minus" out, we can put it another way:
Grace + Nothing = Salvation
or
G + N = S
Now, this would be in accordance with Sola Gratia if the statement stopped here. But it doesn't. The statement goes on to say that salvation is conditioned on two other things. That is, two conditions are added to the above formula so that now we have:
Grace + Faith + Repentance = Salvation
or
G + F + R = S
As just stated, the problem is obvious to a Calvinist. The statement started with positing that salvation came by grace plus or minus nothing only to turn around and say that salvation came by grace, repentance, and faith. In the above formulas, nothing (N) cannot be equivalent to faith (F) and repentance (R) because to suggest this would be to deny the reality of faith and repentance in Christian doctrine. Thus, for the Christian, it is one or the other and not both. And while I'm sure that Covington Theological Seminary is a fine institution of Christian learning, someone over there needs some classes in remedial math.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Visitors From The Blogosphere
This Labor Day, I would like to give a shout-out to all the reformed bloggers who have taken the time to post their thoughts here at Conversations.
Mike Ratliff of Possessing the Treasure - Mike was the first to link my blog on his site (many thanks Mike!). One of Mike's most recent posts discusses the crucial doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Bob Ladwig of The Puritan's Sword - Bob has recently drawn attention to the fact that Joel Osteen has released a board game version of his "Best Life Now" book (oh brother).
Thomas W.S. of Doctrine Matters - Tom's latest post is an excerpt from John Newton's "Evil Long I Took Delight". Check it out!
Bartimaeus of The Five Points of Calvinism Defended - Bartimaeus' most recent entry highlights an excerpt from the August 2006 issue of Tabletalk written by RC Sproul.
J.D. of Did You Hear What You Just Said? - J.D.'s most recent entry is 3 months old but is still an eye-opening testimony to the lengths that non-Calvinists will go to in arguing against the doctrines of grace. In my opinion, J.D. should post more often because, as my previous entry shows, there are plenty of "Arminian sayings" on the web to draw attention to.
Jason Robertson of Fide-O - Yeah I know, as if this guy needs a plug from me! Anyway Jason's most recent post concerns the covenant of works and is, as always, an interesting read.
Pilgrim of Slaves of Righteousness - Pilgrim's latest is a light-hearted comparison between himself and Charles Spurgeon.
David McCrory of Covenant Corner - David recently linked to an eye-opening article that discusses Wal-Mart's involvment with homosexual activism.
Lady Raven of The Reforming of the Raven - Now, "Lady Raven" has several different blogs that appear to be dedicated to several of her many (and unusual) interests. From what I can tell, the one I've linked to here is where she blogs on her views as a reformed Christian. This entry is particuliarly interesting as she discusses what it means to be offended in our day.
And lastly, Gene Bridges of Triablogue and Strange Baptist Fire - Gene reportedly had a rough time of it this past week so everyone is encouraged to pray for him. Also, I would like to thank Gene for letting all us Star Trek fans know about the new SFX in upcoming episodes of the original Star Trek!
Mike Ratliff of Possessing the Treasure - Mike was the first to link my blog on his site (many thanks Mike!). One of Mike's most recent posts discusses the crucial doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Bob Ladwig of The Puritan's Sword - Bob has recently drawn attention to the fact that Joel Osteen has released a board game version of his "Best Life Now" book (oh brother).
Thomas W.S. of Doctrine Matters - Tom's latest post is an excerpt from John Newton's "Evil Long I Took Delight". Check it out!
Bartimaeus of The Five Points of Calvinism Defended - Bartimaeus' most recent entry highlights an excerpt from the August 2006 issue of Tabletalk written by RC Sproul.
J.D. of Did You Hear What You Just Said? - J.D.'s most recent entry is 3 months old but is still an eye-opening testimony to the lengths that non-Calvinists will go to in arguing against the doctrines of grace. In my opinion, J.D. should post more often because, as my previous entry shows, there are plenty of "Arminian sayings" on the web to draw attention to.
Jason Robertson of Fide-O - Yeah I know, as if this guy needs a plug from me! Anyway Jason's most recent post concerns the covenant of works and is, as always, an interesting read.
Pilgrim of Slaves of Righteousness - Pilgrim's latest is a light-hearted comparison between himself and Charles Spurgeon.
David McCrory of Covenant Corner - David recently linked to an eye-opening article that discusses Wal-Mart's involvment with homosexual activism.
Lady Raven of The Reforming of the Raven - Now, "Lady Raven" has several different blogs that appear to be dedicated to several of her many (and unusual) interests. From what I can tell, the one I've linked to here is where she blogs on her views as a reformed Christian. This entry is particuliarly interesting as she discusses what it means to be offended in our day.
And lastly, Gene Bridges of Triablogue and Strange Baptist Fire - Gene reportedly had a rough time of it this past week so everyone is encouraged to pray for him. Also, I would like to thank Gene for letting all us Star Trek fans know about the new SFX in upcoming episodes of the original Star Trek!
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Anti-Calvinism Quote Of The Day
A long-time poster over at Zola Levitt's message board who goes by the screen-name "Littlesooz", has posted a comment in response to a quote from Loraine Boettner. I've looked at this quote all morning trying to figure out how it relates to the quote from Boettner and I can't make heads nor tails of it. Anyway, here is the quote:
Well, I would say that is true if one serves a Ku Klux Clan god.
As I said, I don't see how this relates to Boettner's statements and even if it did, how does this really answer what Boettner was saying? A one-liner like this isn't going to refute anything and only calls into question the credibility of the person posting it. And as I've previously pointed out in reference to similiar statements, this person may very well have to answer for it.
Well, I would say that is true if one serves a Ku Klux Clan god.
As I said, I don't see how this relates to Boettner's statements and even if it did, how does this really answer what Boettner was saying? A one-liner like this isn't going to refute anything and only calls into question the credibility of the person posting it. And as I've previously pointed out in reference to similiar statements, this person may very well have to answer for it.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Dave Hunt: The Man, The Myth, The Dishonesty
In the reformed communities, Dave Hunt's name has become synonymous with such terms and phrases as, misrepresentation, ad hominem, charicature, poor research, and dishonesty. This concensus stems largely from Dave Hunt's polemical work entitled, "What Love Is This?". This work hit the bookshelves in 2002 and almost immediately, James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries began the tedious task of documenting the errors that permeated the pages of "What Love Is This?" (hereafter referred to as WLIT). It wasn't long before Dave Hunt's own ministry began to lose revenue due to WLIT and eventually was forced into publishing the work himself thru his own ministry due to his publisher refusing to put out the second edition. Amazingly, Hunt has recently released a third edition of WLIT despite the fact that he is still being forced to self-publish the book.
Now, as mentioned above, James White has documented many gross errors contained within WLIT (both first and second editions) and others that have sprang from Dave Hunt's ministry and writing. Some examples of White's documentation are:
- Hunt's statement that Charles Spurgeon "unequivocally" denied limited atonement (see here)
- Hunt's endorsement of the New World Translation's rendering of Acts 13:48 (see here)
- Hunt's exegetical error on 1John 5:1 and the subsequent retraction of his statements in regards to the same in the second edition of WLIT (see here)
- Hunt blaming the refusal of his publisher to print the second edition of WLIT on some great "Calvinistic conspiracy" (see here)
- The now infamous "Hebrew original" of Acts 1-15 (see here)
After reading thru these examples coupled with listening to White's audio files, one wonders how anyone in their right mind could endorse Dave Hunt's work. Indeed, I was surprised to find an individual recently who not only bought WLIT, but was aggressively defending both Hunt and his book. And what's sad is that no matter how many times Hunt's errors are demonstrated, this individual believes Hunt to be right and everyone else to be wrong including Laurence Vance whose criticism on parts of WLIT was written off by this individual as being biased.
Also, this person at one point linked to a Q & A section of Hunt's site in which I found this interesting tidbit:
Sadly, with few exceptions, most of the Calvinists who write to me make similar unsupported charges. For example, see James White's response to my book, What Love Is This? -Dave Hunt
This statement was made in response to a letter Hunt receieved that was critical of his work in regards to Calvinism. The charges made against Hunt are similiar, if not identical to many of White's own criticisms of Hunt. Yet, Hunt says that not only are the charges unsupported, but White's charges are equally unsupported. Undoubtedly, Hunt is referring to White's open letter that was written and posted to White's site soon after WLIT was released. And as anyone can see, White's open letter (which is also linked above) is lengthy and full of documentation of White's charges. In light of this, I dare say that Hunt's statement above is a bold-faced lie. There simply is no other way of looking at it. For Hunt to dismiss White's open letter as "unsupported charges", is outright dishonesty on Hunt's part. It is precisely this, coupled with the documentation on James White's site, that justifies and strengthens the reformed community's opinion of Hunt and his work. And it is this sort of thing that is ignored and/or explained away by ardent supporters of Hunt such as the aforementioned individual. Indeed, since White's documentation shows Hunt to be immune to correction, can we really expect Hunt's supporters to be any different?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Servetus Maneuver
I love Star Trek. Specifically, I love the "Next Generation". I remember one of the earlier episodes in which Captain Picard, while on board his previous ship, the Stargazer, had been brainwashed into believing that he was re-living a past battle in which he was forced to destroy an attacking ship. During that battle, Picard came up with an unorthadox maneuver that would eventually be labeled, the "Picard Maneuver", a tactic that had no known defense. So while brainwashed and still aboard the Stargazer, Picard believed that the Enterprise was the attacking ship from the past and was preparing to repeat his patented maneuver. But as one may guess, the crew of the Enterprise did figure a way out of the whole situation and they went on to explore the galaxy happily ever after.
In like manner, non-Calvinists and unbelievers alike will employ the "Servetus Maneuver" whenever they are faced with Calvinist opposition. This tactic is often used as a last ditch effort when confronted with superior argumentation or, in place of an argument to begin with because everyone knows the "Servetus Maneuver" cannot be defended. Or, so the non-Calvinist assumes. The problem with the "Servetus Maneuver" is that those who employ it have great difficulty answering the question of just why the burning of Servetus automatically falsifies Calvin's theological viewpoints. The main thrust of this tactic is to paint Calvin as being as tyrannical and blood-thirsty as Vlad the Impaler himself, so that anything and everything about the man was just wrong. But even if it be granted that Calvin was a religous Hitler, the logical fallacy remains. The one employing this tactic is still left with refuting Calvin's views biblically. At any rate, both Steve Hays and Gene Bridges of Triablogue have recently addressed the issue of Servetus and everyone is encouraged to peruse their handling of this issue.
In like manner, non-Calvinists and unbelievers alike will employ the "Servetus Maneuver" whenever they are faced with Calvinist opposition. This tactic is often used as a last ditch effort when confronted with superior argumentation or, in place of an argument to begin with because everyone knows the "Servetus Maneuver" cannot be defended. Or, so the non-Calvinist assumes. The problem with the "Servetus Maneuver" is that those who employ it have great difficulty answering the question of just why the burning of Servetus automatically falsifies Calvin's theological viewpoints. The main thrust of this tactic is to paint Calvin as being as tyrannical and blood-thirsty as Vlad the Impaler himself, so that anything and everything about the man was just wrong. But even if it be granted that Calvin was a religous Hitler, the logical fallacy remains. The one employing this tactic is still left with refuting Calvin's views biblically. At any rate, both Steve Hays and Gene Bridges of Triablogue have recently addressed the issue of Servetus and everyone is encouraged to peruse their handling of this issue.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Pelagius Wannabe
An anonymous commenter going by the name "Pelagius", visited my blog recently and posted his thoughts on a particuliar entry of mine, and on Calvinism in general. Here is what he said (with my comments interspersed):
I laud you for your intellectual honesty even though I am a Finney Presbyterian and disagree with your theology.
A Finney Presbyterian? Didn't that used to be an oxymoron?
As you point out in your post, most Calvinists deny that under their system of theology; which is predicated on the Eternal Decree; God is according to Reformed theology - the author of sin.
Pelagius seems to think that I believe God to be the author of evil whereas, most Calvinists do not. But what I stated was that, while Calvinists deny that God is the author of evil, they will admit to God being the ultimate cause of all things and that nothing occurs but by His will. As I pointed out in my last blog entry, Calvinists use the term "author" differently in theological contexts. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes tatken away, but rather established...
I, and every Calvinist author I have read affirm these words. So what Pelagius fails to do is to address how the Calvinist defines the term "author" in theological contexts, and also fails to address the distinction between *primary* and *secondary* causation. Since Pelagius offers no argumentation to these distinctions, nothing further need be said here.
Calvinism is a system of necessity and precludes any liberty, free will, free agency or second causes.
Yes, Calvinism is a system of necessity but it does not preclude liberty, free-will, or free-agency. What Pelagius is doing here is smuggling in his views of Libertarianism and human autonomy under the guise of these terms. He fails to mention the competing theories of man's will such as Compatiblism. Like most non-Calvinists, Pelagius assumes his particuliar theory of man's will without benefit of argument.
When theologians attempt to get around this logical truth, they create a host of philosophical and logical problems and inconsistencies.
Notice how Pelagius proceeds to criticize Calvinism based on his unsupported assumptions of how free-will and liberty are properly defined. This is the fallacy known as "question begging".
Surprisingly Hodge's Systematic Theology is full of contradictions and errors - all because he wants to maintain the concept of free agency and free will;
Notice again how Pelagius does not offer us any examples of Hodge's supposed contradictions and errors. Though I haven't read Hodge's Systematic Theology, I assume that Hodge at some point affirms free-will and free-agency but defines these terms according to deterministic/compatiblistic thinking. If so, then Pelagius is still begging the question because he hasn't bothered to demonstrate just why Libertarian free-will is correct and why compatiblistic free-will is in error.
"I must admit, the scriptures that you have quoted do not charge God with sin."
Nor did I mean for them to. The verses I briefly examined address God's relationship to evil. I have never claimed that God sins nor do I know of any Calvinist who has. Undoubtedly, Pelagius means to say that he disagrees with my assesment of the verses covered in my article. But again, he offers no argument which causes me to wonder what this fellow's purpose was in posting this response since without supporting argumentation to the assertions made, it is pointless.
I laud you for your intellectual honesty even though I am a Finney Presbyterian and disagree with your theology.
A Finney Presbyterian? Didn't that used to be an oxymoron?
As you point out in your post, most Calvinists deny that under their system of theology; which is predicated on the Eternal Decree; God is according to Reformed theology - the author of sin.
Pelagius seems to think that I believe God to be the author of evil whereas, most Calvinists do not. But what I stated was that, while Calvinists deny that God is the author of evil, they will admit to God being the ultimate cause of all things and that nothing occurs but by His will. As I pointed out in my last blog entry, Calvinists use the term "author" differently in theological contexts. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes tatken away, but rather established...
I, and every Calvinist author I have read affirm these words. So what Pelagius fails to do is to address how the Calvinist defines the term "author" in theological contexts, and also fails to address the distinction between *primary* and *secondary* causation. Since Pelagius offers no argumentation to these distinctions, nothing further need be said here.
Calvinism is a system of necessity and precludes any liberty, free will, free agency or second causes.
Yes, Calvinism is a system of necessity but it does not preclude liberty, free-will, or free-agency. What Pelagius is doing here is smuggling in his views of Libertarianism and human autonomy under the guise of these terms. He fails to mention the competing theories of man's will such as Compatiblism. Like most non-Calvinists, Pelagius assumes his particuliar theory of man's will without benefit of argument.
When theologians attempt to get around this logical truth, they create a host of philosophical and logical problems and inconsistencies.
Notice how Pelagius proceeds to criticize Calvinism based on his unsupported assumptions of how free-will and liberty are properly defined. This is the fallacy known as "question begging".
Surprisingly Hodge's Systematic Theology is full of contradictions and errors - all because he wants to maintain the concept of free agency and free will;
Notice again how Pelagius does not offer us any examples of Hodge's supposed contradictions and errors. Though I haven't read Hodge's Systematic Theology, I assume that Hodge at some point affirms free-will and free-agency but defines these terms according to deterministic/compatiblistic thinking. If so, then Pelagius is still begging the question because he hasn't bothered to demonstrate just why Libertarian free-will is correct and why compatiblistic free-will is in error.
"I must admit, the scriptures that you have quoted do not charge God with sin."
Nor did I mean for them to. The verses I briefly examined address God's relationship to evil. I have never claimed that God sins nor do I know of any Calvinist who has. Undoubtedly, Pelagius means to say that he disagrees with my assesment of the verses covered in my article. But again, he offers no argument which causes me to wonder what this fellow's purpose was in posting this response since without supporting argumentation to the assertions made, it is pointless.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
The Face of Evil
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... Romans 1:18-22 NIV
These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful...For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. Revelation 17:14 & 17 NASB
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Response To "Alpha"
"Alpha" had this to say in response to my earlier post titled, "God's Relationship to Evil":
Thank you for allowing me to respond to your post. I am not a Calvinist or Reformed Doctrine follower but perhaps we both can learn from one another.
And thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts on what I have written. But before we go any further, I would like to clarify that I do not "follow" anything or anyone other than Christ. I mention this so as to hopefully avoid any accusations that I follow Calvin instead of Christ. As long as this canard is avoided, I believe that we may indeed be able to learn something here. Moving on:
I list below a very clear section of scripture from the Lord in Jeremiah 19. Verse 5 clearly refutes the reformed position and the following claim within your earlier post-“However, the Calvinist at some point must admit that Reformed theology affirms God as the ultimate cause of all things and thatnothing occurs but by His will”.
Jeremiah 19:5 reads:
and have built the hight places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; NASB
In Jeremiah 19, the LORD is rebuking Israel for turning to heathen gods (in this case Baal) and for offering their sons as burnt offerings. Verse 5 states that God did not command or speak these things to the Israelites. The LORD further states that these things the Israelites were doing did not "enter His mind". Alpha's contention seems to be focused on this last phrase. Apparantly, these things not "entering" the mind of God refutes the notion that God decrees all things that take place. But why should we accept this? Alpha doesn't present an argument for why Jeremiah 19:5 contradicts Calvinism. Alpha simply says it does. As it is, the verse is recording God's assurance that He did not in any way command or approve the actions of the Israelites. Alpha needs to demonstrate a contradiction between what is written in v. 5 with the Calvinistic notions of God's preceptive will and decretal will.
Mat 23:37, Acts 7:49-52, and Proverbs 1:22-31 are additional scriptures to support that not all things are authored by the Lord.
I do not see anything in Acts 7 or Proverbs 1 that speaks directly to the issues at hand. As for Matthew 23:37, much can be (and has been) said here. Calvinists have written extensively on this verse and have effectively removed it from the arsenal of the non-Calvinist. For a thorough exegetical discussion of Matthew 23, click here.
I maintain that GOD permits all things for HIS ultimate GLORY.
And I would say that God "works all things after the counsel of His will". I see no reason to maintain that God merely permits things to happen in light of the fact that none of the verses I covered stated anything about God merely "permitting" evil. Further, this would be a double-standard. That is, folks who hold the view that God permits evil that He knew about before hand but did nothing to stop it, is guilty of inconsistency in that these same folks would hold any person accountable for the same thing. For example, a lifeguard that "permitted" a child to drown because he simply didn't feel like getting wet on that particuliar day, would be held accountable for the child's death (and probably buried under the jail to boot). So the obvious question is, since God isn't being held accountable, why is man?
Moving on:
The Bible says he changes not:
And I agree. It was never my argument that He does.
Now to address the verses in question.
Yes, lets. But, for the sake of brevity and simplicity, I am going to address one commentary at a time. In other words, if Alpha wishes to interact with this post, we can discuss the verses in question and Alpha's comments on those verses one post at a time in either the comments section of this post or the home page.
The first verse I would like to address in regards to Alpha's comments is Acts 4:28. Alpha said:
My reply to this is statement is to turn your Bible to Acts 2:23 and see emphatically where through GODS foreknowledge the cast of characters you listed earlier would crucify our beloved Jesus.
In order to answer what Acts 4:28 states, Alpha takes us to Acts 2:23 where the term "foreknowledge" is mentioned (incidentally, this is what I originally said would be done by a non-Calvinist). The problem here is that Alpha assumes that the term "foreknowledge" means what he thinks it means but provides no supporting argument. In other words, Alpha fails to demonstrate that God determines because He foreknows instead of God foreknowing because He determines. The text of Acts 2 does not lay out the "simple foreknowledge" view that Alpha apparantly endorses. So in order for Alpha to succeed in refuting my comments on Acts 4, he would need to demonstrate the simple foreknowledge view (mere prescience) from the text of scripture.
I also wish to thank you for allowing me to post on your blog. I realize that it may stretch very long but it was necessary to clarify and perhaps enlighten others in the future. It is my hope that what I have offered is of help.
And, again, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. Now, as to your comments on clarifying and enlightening myself or any other Calvinists who may read what you have posted, I must say that you will need to present arguments for all that you contend since much of what you posted was assertive in nature. That is, many of the scriptures you posted or cited to counter what I originally discussed in my article was not accompanied by argumentation (such as Mat. 23:37). As I said above, if you wish to continue to dialogue on the verses in dispute, we can begin at Acts 4.
God Bless You... alpha
And may God bless you as well.
Thank you for allowing me to respond to your post. I am not a Calvinist or Reformed Doctrine follower but perhaps we both can learn from one another.
And thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts on what I have written. But before we go any further, I would like to clarify that I do not "follow" anything or anyone other than Christ. I mention this so as to hopefully avoid any accusations that I follow Calvin instead of Christ. As long as this canard is avoided, I believe that we may indeed be able to learn something here. Moving on:
I list below a very clear section of scripture from the Lord in Jeremiah 19. Verse 5 clearly refutes the reformed position and the following claim within your earlier post-“However, the Calvinist at some point must admit that Reformed theology affirms God as the ultimate cause of all things and thatnothing occurs but by His will”.
Jeremiah 19:5 reads:
and have built the hight places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; NASB
In Jeremiah 19, the LORD is rebuking Israel for turning to heathen gods (in this case Baal) and for offering their sons as burnt offerings. Verse 5 states that God did not command or speak these things to the Israelites. The LORD further states that these things the Israelites were doing did not "enter His mind". Alpha's contention seems to be focused on this last phrase. Apparantly, these things not "entering" the mind of God refutes the notion that God decrees all things that take place. But why should we accept this? Alpha doesn't present an argument for why Jeremiah 19:5 contradicts Calvinism. Alpha simply says it does. As it is, the verse is recording God's assurance that He did not in any way command or approve the actions of the Israelites. Alpha needs to demonstrate a contradiction between what is written in v. 5 with the Calvinistic notions of God's preceptive will and decretal will.
Mat 23:37, Acts 7:49-52, and Proverbs 1:22-31 are additional scriptures to support that not all things are authored by the Lord.
I do not see anything in Acts 7 or Proverbs 1 that speaks directly to the issues at hand. As for Matthew 23:37, much can be (and has been) said here. Calvinists have written extensively on this verse and have effectively removed it from the arsenal of the non-Calvinist. For a thorough exegetical discussion of Matthew 23, click here.
I maintain that GOD permits all things for HIS ultimate GLORY.
And I would say that God "works all things after the counsel of His will". I see no reason to maintain that God merely permits things to happen in light of the fact that none of the verses I covered stated anything about God merely "permitting" evil. Further, this would be a double-standard. That is, folks who hold the view that God permits evil that He knew about before hand but did nothing to stop it, is guilty of inconsistency in that these same folks would hold any person accountable for the same thing. For example, a lifeguard that "permitted" a child to drown because he simply didn't feel like getting wet on that particuliar day, would be held accountable for the child's death (and probably buried under the jail to boot). So the obvious question is, since God isn't being held accountable, why is man?
Moving on:
The Bible says he changes not:
And I agree. It was never my argument that He does.
Now to address the verses in question.
Yes, lets. But, for the sake of brevity and simplicity, I am going to address one commentary at a time. In other words, if Alpha wishes to interact with this post, we can discuss the verses in question and Alpha's comments on those verses one post at a time in either the comments section of this post or the home page.
The first verse I would like to address in regards to Alpha's comments is Acts 4:28. Alpha said:
My reply to this is statement is to turn your Bible to Acts 2:23 and see emphatically where through GODS foreknowledge the cast of characters you listed earlier would crucify our beloved Jesus.
In order to answer what Acts 4:28 states, Alpha takes us to Acts 2:23 where the term "foreknowledge" is mentioned (incidentally, this is what I originally said would be done by a non-Calvinist). The problem here is that Alpha assumes that the term "foreknowledge" means what he thinks it means but provides no supporting argument. In other words, Alpha fails to demonstrate that God determines because He foreknows instead of God foreknowing because He determines. The text of Acts 2 does not lay out the "simple foreknowledge" view that Alpha apparantly endorses. So in order for Alpha to succeed in refuting my comments on Acts 4, he would need to demonstrate the simple foreknowledge view (mere prescience) from the text of scripture.
I also wish to thank you for allowing me to post on your blog. I realize that it may stretch very long but it was necessary to clarify and perhaps enlighten others in the future. It is my hope that what I have offered is of help.
And, again, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. Now, as to your comments on clarifying and enlightening myself or any other Calvinists who may read what you have posted, I must say that you will need to present arguments for all that you contend since much of what you posted was assertive in nature. That is, many of the scriptures you posted or cited to counter what I originally discussed in my article was not accompanied by argumentation (such as Mat. 23:37). As I said above, if you wish to continue to dialogue on the verses in dispute, we can begin at Acts 4.
God Bless You... alpha
And may God bless you as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)