Sunday, April 08, 2007

For God so loved the world

“One of my problems with calvinist compatibilists is that they do verbal magic tricks. Rather than being forthright about their views, they cover up what they believe with words like compatibilism, free agency, soft determinism, etc. What they believe is that everything is predetermined by God and so “choices” as normally understood do not occur, cannot occur. I would appreciate it if rather than redefining words away from their standard meaning and usage, they could simply acknowledge that their view eliminates the possibility of “choices” as ordinarily understood.”

Two problems:

i) Henry, in his semantic naiveté, doesn’t know the difference between the meaning of words and the meaning of concepts. He acts as if you could learn all about the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity by just looking up the words “evolution” or “relativity” in Webster’s.

This is a debate over the concept of freedom, the concept of choice, not a debate over the dictionary definition of this or that word.

ii) He also pays us the unintended compliment of alleging that we made up these words. But Peter, Manata, and I employ standard philosophical usage. Henry should spend a little time with the Oxford Handbook of Free Will.

Calvinism didn’t invent these categories. And the terminology is standard philosophical jargon.

“They also do the same with bible verses. John 3:16 says God loves the world enough to send His Son . . . But the calvinist compatibilists come along and the passage needs to be modified a bit. For example bring in a distinction between ‘without exception’ versus ‘without distinction’, and poof the verse loses its meaning since we now **know** that it doesn’t really mean everybody (without exception) but it must mean all types of elect people in the world (without distinction). So rather that being a clear verse on the love of God for mankind, it is really a verse telling us how he loves the elect throughout the world.”

Henry is now advertising his ignorance of Biblical lexicography. “Kosmos” doesn’t have a single meaning in NT usage generally or Johannine usage in particular. Rather, it has wide semantic domain. For example, Peter Cottrell & Max Turner list seven different senses (among others) for kosmos, including “the beings (human and supernatural) in rebellion against God, together with the systems under their control, viewed as opposed to God,” Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (1989), 176.

Which meaning is appropriate depends on the given context as well as overall theology of the author.

Likewise, Horst Balz defines kosmos in such ways as: “in the Johannine theology one finds again the basic elements of the Pauline understanding of kosmos in the extreme and intensified radicality of the estrangement and ungodliness of the kosmos…the concern is with the nature of the world that has fallen away from God and is ruled by the evil one,” EDNT 2:312.

And as Andrew Lincoln, in his recent commentary on John, explains, “Some argue that the term ‘world’ here simply has neutral connotations—the created human world. But the characteristic use of ‘the world’ (ho kosmos) elsewhere in the narrative is with negative overtones—the world in its alienation from and hostility to its creator’s purposes. It makes better sense in a soteriological context to see the latter notion as in view. God loves that which has become hostile to God. The force is not, then, that the world is so vast that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it, but rather that the world has become so alienated from God that it takes an exceedingly great kind of love to love it at all,” The Gospel According to St. John (Henrickson 2005), 154.

Henry pays lip service to Scripture, but he’s too lazy to consult the standard commentaries, lexicons, or monographs on lexical semantics. In Johannine usage, “kosmos” does not mean “everyone.” Rather, it’s a loaded word with a qualitative rather than quantitative connotation.

But even if you don’t know Greek, or read the standard exegetical and lexical literature, you could figure out for yourself that “kosmos” can’t mean “everyone” in general Johannine usage, by spending a little time with an English concordance. Just try substituting “everyone” for “world” in the following verses and see how much sense it makes:

“The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (Jn 14:17).

Note the contrast between those who receive the Spirit and those who don’t. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then no one receives the Spirit.

“If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (Jn 15:19).

Note the contrast between those whom the “world” loves and those whom it hates. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then no such dichotomy is possible.

“I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world” (Jn 17:14).

Same disjunction as we saw under Jn 15:19.

“The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 Jn 2:17).

Note the contrast between the fleeting world and eternal life. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then the existence of the believer is just as transient as the existence of the unbeliever.

“For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (1 Jn 5:4).

Notice the antithesis between the regenerate who overcome the world, and the state of the unregenerate. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then no one overcomes the world.

“We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19).

Observe the contrast between the children of God and all those who lie under Satan’s dominion. But if the “world” means “everyone,” then everyone is a Satanist.

“On the other hand most christians believe that God loves people enough to send Jesus to the world to make salvation possible to all people and that people’s eternal destinies are not set before they are born, but depend how they respond as individuals to the work of God in revealing Himself to them.”

i) Is loving sinners just enough to make salvation merely *possible* for everyone while leaving everyone vulnerable to eternal damnation the most loving thing that God could do?

Which is more loving—to throw a drowning man a life preserver and say to him: “now you have a chance to save yourself–take it or leave it!” Or jumping in and actually pulling him to safety?

An Arminian lifeguard never rescues a drowning man since that would violate his freewill. Instead, the Arminian lifeguard throws him a life preserver, then goes on a lunch break.

ii) In what sense does Henry think that everyone has a shot at salvation? Everyone hasn’t heard the gospel. So Henry must take the position that you don’t have to believe in Jesus to be saved. Yet, in opposing universalism, he says that you do have to believe in Jesus to be saved. Or does Henry subscribe to postmortem evangelism?

“In theological determinism, the damned are damned ‘and there was nothing THEY could do about it, if they weren’t CHOSEN.’ In the other view of non-calvinists, God makes it possible for all to be saved so all have the opportunity to be saved and those not saved are those who freely rejected God’s gracious working in their lives.”

An in classical Arminianism, to which Henry evidently subscribes, God foreknew who would freely spurn his grace and spend eternity in hell, and yet God went ahead and created the damned in full knowledge of their infernal fate. How is that the most loving thing that God could do for them?

“One of the reasons that Calvinists have attempted to go to atheist philosophers to find arguments for their view is that they don’t have a strong philosophical argument to overcome people’s innumerable experiences of free will and choices.”

Several problems:

i) As I recall, Henry doesn’t hesitate to cite Searle and Kant in his favor. So he appeals to secular philosophers when they agree with him. And what about Stewart Goetz, whom he also cites? Is Goetz a Christian philosopher or a secular philosopher?

Henry also makes favorable appeal to Moreland, Plantinga, Craig, Flint, Freddoso, and the Thomists. But while they are Christian philosophers, they are also Christian philosophers who make extensive use of secular philosophers to defend their Christian faith.

Such is Henry’s forked-tongued rhetoric on secular philosophy.

ii) Everyone has a philosophy. The only question is whether you have a thoughtful, consistent philosophy, or a half-baked philosophy.

iii) Henry is appealing to “experience.” And he’s appealing to universal human experience (as he construes it).

So unbelievers have the same experience. Secular philosophers have the same experience. Secular philosophers who are soft determinists, hard determinists, compatibilists, and semicompatibilists have the same experience.

It is therefore duplicitous of Henry to appeal to human experience and then disqualify the analysis of human experience by secular philosophers.

iv) An appeal to experience to prove something is a philosophical appeal. It is therefore subject to rational scrutiny.

“And Jesus says that the drawing involves Him being lifted up on the cross and this drawing involves all men (“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” Jn. 12:32).”

Henry also doesn’t know the difference between sense and reference. He acts as if a universal quantifier (“all”) specifies the referent. But it doesn’t. Its denotation must be supplied by context. In context, Jn 12:32 has reference to the multiethnic scope of the gospel—which sweeps in Gentiles as well as Jews (cf. 12:20).

“People can and do resist the work of the Spirit. Stephen in the midst of an evangelistic message in which the Spirit was certainly working explicitly states that people do (which means they can) resist the Holy Spirit: “You men who are stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did" (Acts 7:51, just as their fathers did, means that this resisting of the Holy Spirit was not a one time occurrence or exception, but occurred repeatedly, it occurred in the Old Testament, in the New Testament [e.g. the Pharisees committing the unpardonable sin in response to the Ministry of Jesus] and it occurs today as well).”

Henry is ignorant of the doctrine he’s opposing. In Calvinism, “irresistible” grace denotes regeneration. Regeneration is irresistible.

Acts 7:51 isn’t talking about the work of the Spirit in regeneration. Rather, it’s talking about the work of the Spirit in prophetic preaching. These are further examples of how Henry quotes Scripture instead of exegeting Scripture. He simply indulges in acontextual prooftexting.

“Though if the Spirit works on a person, that does not **necessitate** salvation as people do in fact resist the Spirit. If you want lots of evidence of resistance of the Spirit, just examine the Old Testament and see how many times God’s people resisted the Lord.”

No, they didn’t resist the Lord. Rather, they resisted the word of the Lord. And they resisted the preaching of the prophets because they were *hardened* by God (Isa 6).

“Third, the possibility which you leave out is someone being drawn by God and yet resisting the Holy Spirit, responding in unbelief.”

So unbelievers respond in unbelief. If that is Henry’s tautology of grace, then no one would ever be saved.

“The cross of Christ is a provision for all but only applied to those who believe. Just because the provision is sufficient for all does not automatically lead to universalism with everyone being saved.”

But, for Henry, the cross is insufficient to save anyone. So, for him, the cross is, at most, a necessary, but insufficient, condition of salvation. Same thing with Henry’s diluted pneumatology.

“So the Spirit must draw a person and that person must respond with faith or they will not be saved.”

So an unbeliever must respond in faith. But the Spirit cannot make an unbeliever a believer. Faith is not a gift of God. How, then, does an unbeliever ever become a believer?

“Merely stating your assumption. No where in the text of John 6 or anywhere else for that matter does it state that only the elect are drawn. Also where in the text of John 6 does it say “he must chose who to draw” with the meaning that He only draws the elect? It says No one comes unless drawn, it says that if they respond in faith to this drawing they will be believers and will be raised up (throughout John 6 the point is made repeatedly that if you do not **partake** of Christ you cannot be saved; and in the context it is not talking about cannibalism but about having faith in Christ; if you have faith in Jesus you will be saved and raised, if you do not partake of His flesh/have faith in Jesus you cannot be saved). Calvinists tend to prooftext from isolated verses in John 6 without also emphasizing the other verses about the importance of faith to salvation which are actually more frequent in John 6 than the Calvinist “prooftexts”.”

I already pointed Henry to Carson’s commentary on John, which exegetes these Reformed prooftexts in context, just as I referred him to Schreiner’s online article on the priority of regeneration, just as I referred him to Warfield’s online article on predestination, just as I referred him to Beale’s online article on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart—not to mention Baugh’s online article on Rom 9. Not to mention Schreiner’s commentary on Romans. Has Henry bothered to interact with a single one of these exegetical arguments for Calvinism? No.

“When those biblical instructions are ignored or put aside so that people can merely be argumentative, condescending, verbally combative, then the philosophizing that ought to be taking place is impeded and obstructed and can become quite evil.”

Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms.

I would be prepared to cut Henry some slack if he were an honest man. But he prevaricates. He raises objections. When we answer him on his own grounds, he then chooses to ignore the counterarguments, change the subject, or repeat himself ad nauseum.

So Henry isn’t even true to his own objections.

19 comments:

  1. Henry said, "No where in the text of John 6 or anywhere else for that matter does it state that only the elect are drawn."

    "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me ***draws him***; and I will raise ***him*** up on the last day." (John 6:44)

    The "him" in both parts of the sentence refer to the same person (since there is no other "him" other than the Father to refer to). Thus, all that are drawn by the Father will come to Christ and be risen to eternal life on the last day.

    Those who are drawn = those who are risen unto eternal life, i.e. the elect. The elect = those drawn by the Father.

    "But there are some of you who do not believe...For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:64-65)

    For what reason did Christ say that no one could have faith without the Father's drawing? Answer: For the reason of unbelief.

    Obviously, the implied reason for their unbelief was that they had not been drawn by the Father.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My response to Henry can be found in the combox where his comments here were taken from:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/contemporary-compatibilism.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know how many verses you two have argued over. I've been skipping over these posts since philosophical Calvinism isn't really my forte, but I love exegetical Calvinism. So, here's a few more:

    "***For this reason they could not believe***, for Isaiah said again, "**HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART**, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."" (John 12:39-40)

    Why did the Jews not believe in Jesus?
    Answer: Because God had hardened their hearts (probably through the use of secondary means, of course).

    "***You did not choose Me but I chose you***, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." (John 15:16)

    What is the standard non-Calvinist saying regarding election? God elected you because you elected Him.

    But this verse states the exact opposite. One choses Christ only because Christ first chose them. The only non-Calvinist response that I've seen is simply to read the verse backwards (just like Acts 13:48).

    "What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, ***but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened***; just as it is written, "***GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR***, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."" (Romans 11:7-8)

    A chosen group within Israel was saved and the rest were hardened. Who hardened them to disbelief? God did through secondary means.

    ReplyDelete
  4. S&S,

    I analyzed John 6:44 as well as the 30's.

    I responded to John 12:32.

    I responded to Acts 7:51.

    So, the last post took a more exegetical turn.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve Hays wrote:

    “Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms.”

    I have been in leadership in various local churches for over thirty years, taught at all levels including seminary, high school, various Sunday school levels, spoken at academic conferences, retreats, evangelized in prisons, rescue missions, with gang members, bikers, etc. etc.

    These are some of the doctrinal beliefs that I affirm and believe: The Trinity (I deny tritheism and modalism), The Deity of Christ, Jesus was/is fully God and fully human, Jesus rose physically from the grave, Jesus is the only way of salvation, salvation is by faith alone, that God is good, loving, merciful, just, omnipresent, omniscient (including having exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events including the free choices of human persons); God is sovereign meaning He has the right and power to do as He pleases with whomever and whatever and whenever in any and all situations, that people sometimes have free will but that God does on occasion override it (ask Nebuchadnezzar when he was eating grass about “free will”; exnihilo creation of everything out of nothing; that all life forms are a result of God’s creative effort not a slow gradual process of accidental events; that God is a Spirit; substance dualism; the orthodox views of Heaven and Hell as eternal destinies for believers and unbelievers (only two types of people sheep and goats), the Bible is a revelation from God and as such is inerrant, inspired, and completely trustworthy; genuine Christians can never lose their salvation (though some who profess to be Christians were never saved in the first place (cf. “Lord, Lord, people” of Matt. 7); works do not save us but if we are saved we will do works not to get justified but because of obedience to God and love for our Heavenly Father and people; the plurality of elders as the best model of local church leadership; that all of the miracles recorded in scripture occurred just as they are described; that there will be a final judgement in which all human persons will be raised for judgment, etc. Etc.

    My favorite exegetes are: F. F.Bruce, I. H. Marshall, D. A. Carson, and Douglas Moo. My favorite apologists are Van Til, Bahnsen, John Warwick Montgomery, Walter Martin, Ravi Zacharias, C.S. Lewis, and Greg Koukl. My favorite christian philosophers are Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Mortimer Adler. My favorite Christian musicians are Keith Green, Phil Keaggy, Randy Stonehill, Steve Taylor (“I want to be a clone, cloneliness is next to godliness right")”and Bob Dylan (yes I do believe he is a Christian).

    I believe that as finite sinful persons none of us has a theology without any errors. This means that I believe one can be saved and hold to mistaken beliefs (e.g. Pentecostals and Dispensationalists). I believe that great bible teachers can be and are sometimes mistaken (e.g. John MacArthur’s eschatology, R.C. Sproul’s infant baptism). I also believe there are differing versions of various theological systems. For example an acquainatance of mine, Greg Koukl from “Stand to Reason” believes in TULIP, but He also believes that not all events are predetermined and that we sometimes have free will in the libertarian sense. This means that I believe that good men can be Christians and have and do disagree on doctrine. Most importantly a person needs to have a personal and saving relationship with Jesus Christ in order to be saved. We are saved because we are in this saving relationship with the Lord not because all of our beliefs are right.

    Recently Phil Johnson did a series called “Why I am a Calvinist?”. I agree with many of Phil Johnson’s comments about Calvinists and Arminians. Here are some pertinent comments from the first article in the series:

    "Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)
    But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.

    I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.
    Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians.

    That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.

    That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.
    Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”
    But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do.

    But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let also me say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.
    Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet.

    And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all.

    They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.

    That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance.

    Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.

    Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.iety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.” (cited from part one of the series "Why I am a Calvinist")

    Steve Hays’ claims that I am a false teacher going to hell for eternal punishment. What have I done? I have challenged Calvinism claiming it to be mistaken.

    Henry

    ReplyDelete
  6. saint and sinner said

    "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me ***draws him***; and I will raise ***him*** up on the last day." (John 6:44)

    The "him" in both parts of the sentence refer to the same person (since there is no other "him" other than the Father to refer to). Thus, all that are drawn by the Father will come to Christ and be risen to eternal life on the last day.

    >>I am an undecided Christian about election, predestination, and the mechanics of salvation. I read Geisler's Chosen But Free and found that it mischaracterized Calvinism in many places. I am in the process of reading the Potter's Freedom by James White. I am a regular Dividing Line listener and I have carefully read and heard James' exegesis of John 6 many times. I called his program to ask about the 'him' in John 6:44. When I read it I can see how the 'coming one' could be the subject and then both 'hims' refer back to the one who comes. James said that it is not possible in Greek because the phrase "No one can come" is an infinitive and can't be the subject of the sentence. This went over my head since I have no Greek training besides some personal study of beginning material. Can anyone here shed light on this?

    When I read John 6:44 this is how it appears to me: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him (the coming one); and I will raise him (the coming one) up on the last day," Thus the ones who come are raised. We know that if anyone comes God first drew them and if they come God will raise them up (eternal security). God gets all the glory in salvation because men are helpless without God's drawing. The next verses explain that the Father draws men through the Word and therefore it seems sensible to conclude that all who hear the Word are subject to drawing though many reject the message.

    ReplyDelete
  7. henry said:

    "Steve Hays’ claims that I am a false teacher going to hell for eternal punishment."

    Which, of course, I didn't say. Henry suffers from a persecution complex. He's looking for a pretext to back out of a losing argument.

    "What have I done? I have challenged Calvinism claiming it to be mistaken."

    Another palpable characterization of this thread. His problem (among others) is that he is not an honest disputant or truth-seeker.

    He gives reasons for what he believes and gives reasons for what he opposes.

    When we answer him on his own grounds, he either changes the subject or else repeats his original contentions without engaging the counterargument.

    An honest and honorable man would withdraw his initial objections if he's been answered on his own grounds, and can show no flaw in the counterargument.

    That, however, is not what Henry does. He thinks that he's entitled to unconditional respect when he conducts himself in an intellectually disreputable fashion.

    I hold professing Christians (as well an unbelievers) to a minimal standard of intellectual honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kyle:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/draws-himraise-him.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all.

    They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.

    That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance.

    A. While it's true there are hypers on the internet, I think Henry is overstating his position here.

    B. Is Arminianism works salvation? Well, if you make your election to salvation dependent on your faith, then, yes, it's nothing less than salvation by merit, if, that is, the Arminian was remotely consistent.

    3. Speaking of the word "Arminian" I'm using it broadly here as those who refer to libertarian action theory, like Henry. He's not a pure Arminian, but he's made election itself, not justification, and regeneration, not justification, dependent on faith. He's put election and regeneration outside the scope of God's active work. God must wait on man. He's therefore a functional Unitarian.

    4. Henry is now telegraphing his ignorance of Arminian theology to us. Arminianism itself does, in point of fact, deny the atonement, if by that you mean penal substitution. Arminianism favors the moral influence theory not penal substitution. Sure, some Arminians, like the ones in the SBC affirm penal substitution, but that's a holdover from Calvinism, not Arminianism.

    5. He's also telegraphing his ignorance of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics and the way error was construed while telling us about historical ignorance.

    It's true, Reformed theologians as a whole have not and did not historically view Arminianism as a damnable error, but Henry does not tell us why.

    i. It is not damnable due to the inconsistency of the Arminian system itself.

    ii. It is not damnable do the acceptance of the gist of the gospel and Sola Fide.

    However, this isn't to say that our theologians have not laid out the reasons they few Arminianism as suspect. I've already alluded to the first, that is, it amounts to Romanism without sacraments if consistently applied.

    There are two types of error: objective error and subjective error. The Reformed Orthodox recognize this as axiomatic. It is one thing to discern an article or error on an objective level, a truth or error as such; it is quite another to identify and define faith and error subjectively, as these may arise out of disposition or condition of disbelieving (or unbelieving ignorance); and it is yet another to grasp the patterns, manner, and degrees of judgment or tolerance, moderation, reception, or reconciliation, possible in cased of belief and error (Muller, PRRD1, 419).
    1. We must distinguish between that which is necessary to the being of the church and that which is necessary to the salvation of believers under Category 1 (Objective error).
    2. Subjective errors must be distinguished between those arising from ignorance and those arising from unbelief. Also, here too, the condition of the church and that of believers themselves must be distinguished. (Subjective Error)
    3. Here, in this third level we must distinguish between patterns, manner, and degrees of judgment and tolerance, so that a difference must be recognized between the rules and judgment of particular churches and the general assent of the church, universal and invisible. Moderation is required in the first case, and firm judgment is necessary in the latter, so far as those who deny universal truths of the church are excluded from heaven (Voetius, in PRRD1, 419). In other words, there is a difference between a difference of opinion, a schism, and outright heresy. (Principles of Distinction)
    Also, there is a difference between those doctrines which immediate arise from Scripture’s reading (Trinity, Christology, justification by faith alone) and are primary and those arising by derivation (the exact relationship of the 2 natures; the ordu salutis). To what extent then are can the doctrines in this latter category be considered fundamental?
    1. If a doctrine is present and explicit in Scripture it is fundamental and foundational, ergo necessary.
    2. The implicit or virtually present doctrine attains a fundamental or normative status when its formulation becomes an issue of debate between orthodox and heterodox Christians.
    3. When the heterodox formulation leads to an erroneous and soteriologically dangerous understanding of the explicit and formal or primary doctrines.
    4. This argument extends to cover doctrines developed as logical conclusions from primary dogmas. Here, we must caution. Hyper-Calvinists (and I would say the defenders of the IMB’s baptism policy) are a prime example of the abuse of this fourth principle, when they assert that no Arminian is saved (or that the failure to believe in eternal security constitutes a denial of Sola Fide), because of the way Arminians construe election, atonement, perseverance, etc. That is, because it is “dangerous” if pressed in a particular direction we should reject them and hold our own doctrines as “fundamental.” We can see this in Landmarkism and administrator baptism. In fact, this is often the error of virtually every genuinely “extreme” position within Protestantism.
    5. Positive articles include the doctrines previously noted as primary and consist mainly in affirmations of saving truth. For example, “Christ is the Son of God; Christ is the ransom for our sins,” are positive affirmations. Negative articles within a confession identify errors of two sorts: immediate errors and indirect or secondary errors resulting from application of incorrect logic in doctrinal matters.
    Blatant heresies, like Arianism or justification by merit fall into this first category of error. In the second category, a doctrine may controvert an error in the first if it is consistently followed. For example, the Reformed Orthodox of High Orthodox era dealt with an Arminianism that was friendly with Socinianism and which tended to conflate justification and sanctification, depending on its “flavor.” Ergo, negative articles might name Arminian errors. In our own context, negative articles might name administrator baptism – not because it is blatantly heretical, but because it lends to errors in ecclesiology and sacramentology that are necessary for the health of the church.
    Those persons in the first class are all infidels and unbelievers. Those in the second class are schismatics and should be treated on a case by case basis.

    6. Varieties of fundamental error include three types:
    A. Against fundamentals – Direct Error
    B. Against fundamentals – Indirect Error
    C. Against fundamentals – Beyond the matter
    The first is a direct attack. The Socinians directly attacked the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Many Anabaptists, along with the Catholics attacked justification by faith alone directly. The second would be a doctrine that is subversive of a fundamental. Open theism denies God’s providence by denying infallible future foreknowledge. The attack is indirect, by way of libertarian freedom. Libertarianism itself denies no fundamental if it is construed in relation to prevenient grace, but, in this instance, it is the way it is employed by Open Theists that makes its use an indirect attack on a fundamental, for it is, in Pinnock’s case not only attacking the doctrine of God, but also introducing a post-mortem universalism. The third class involves faith in problematic and curious questions that do not arise from the Word of God plainly, like PPL or “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” or dogmatic statements about supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, which even Twisse, the supralapsarian at the Westminster Assembly said was probably a question that was better not to have been asked.
    In their own day, this played out in the way the Orthodox viewed naturalists. By assuming reason alone is sufficient for salvation, they were said to controvert primary doctrine and be infidels. By denying Sola Fide, Romanists denied a fundamental article; ergo Stafer called them heretics, for they accepted the merit system and the supremacy of the Pope, resting the foundation of the whole Church on an institution and not Christ’s Lordship (Stafer, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, IV.xiv.§ 6).
    The Lutherans were said to err to beyond the Fundamentals. They denied double predestination but accept Sola Gratia, so they are not heretics; rather their specific formulation of predestination at the conceptual level differed with the Reformed. Functionally, it was no different. However, their doctrine of the Lord’s Super depends on a particular Christology that is implicitly Monophysitic and their doctrine of baptism could lead to a denial of Sola Fide if pressed in a particular direction. Thus, they erred in falling into Christological speculation and losing Sola Gratia like the Arminians. Arminianism thus falls in the realm of an indirect attack, depending on the way it is construed.

    Turretin lists five criteria in his Institutes (I.xiv.9):
    1. Catholic or universal as necessary to salvation.
    2. Necessary to salvation in such a way ignorance of it brings damnation; doubt brings danger; negation of it lead to impiety and heresy.’
    3. All the faithful must consent without dissent over interpretation, under pain of Galatians 1:8. This was a restriction on the fundamentals as non-negotiables yet not to the error of excess of the Lutherans, in which all articles were non-negotiable.
    4. All dogmas of the faith hark back to them as basic rules of truth are the basis for the analogy of faith.
    5. The must be primary fundamentals or principal truths on which all other fundamentals rest and without which salvation would be subverted.
    Witsius, in his Exercitationes (II.v.ii) added:
    6. It must be of such nature that neither faith in Christ nor true repentance can exist without it (Heb. 11:6, 12:14). Thus, he adds the doctrine of grace; faith, repentance and conversion. Faith presupposes knowledge and knowledge of Christ is necessary to salvation. (I would add that this is also a denial of the meritocracy of Rome, since justification by faith alone is what he means when he speaks in these terms). This rests on His equality and dignity and identity of substance with the Father. Ergo, the doctrine of Christ, contrary to the Socinians is fundamental. In other words, he works from a teleology of salvation to work out what must be true if that is true. He is deducing his articles from what is known easily to what lies behind them.
    Explicit articles, for the Orthodox, included: The Trinity, the doctrine of sin, Christ’s person, nature, and work, the doctrines of the gospel, Sola Fide, justification, sanctification, true worship, resurrection, eternal life (PRRD, 426). They all list Scriptures with these, the exegesis of which has been done elsewhere and with which they assume the reader is familiar – they do not simply prooftext even in a Confession. The actual exegesis of these texts is assumed to be understood (a fact many seem to overlook today when considering confessional documents).
    They also note the Apostle’s Creed. - In our own context, we must caution on the use of this. This would not be a violation of their own principles as their list is not fixed. In our day, Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity (as well as deny Sola Fide) and appeal to the Apostle’s Creed to defend their orthodoxy. The problem here is that the Apostle’s Creed antedates refutations of modalism. – Finally, if any article is stated as necessary to be known which cannot be understood, unless some other article shall have been previously understood and believed; that other article must also rank among those which are necessary. Witsius (Ibid) notes that we know, for example, by express declaration of Scripture that salvation by grace alone in Christ is a necessary or fundamental doctrine. But the doctrine of salvation by grace alone cannot be understood “unless we know that sin has plunged us into so deep an abyss of misery, that our deliverance surpassed our own power, and even the united exertions of all creatures.” Ergo, the doctrine of universal sinfulness is also a fundamental article of faith.
    There is no doctrinal rigidity here. Why? Because any list is apt to be developed in the context of polemics. (We must agree, for this was the case for The Fundamentals of old. What is named today may not be named tomorrow, insofar as we often name our lists in a polemic context and peg them to the objections of opponents. We must, therefore, be very careful not to make our lists definitional for all generations, for this leads to the error of excess. New heresies appear and old ones cycle through history, so what is a problem today may not be an issue tomorrow and vice versa. This is, for example, why the issue in the 16th century regarding the atonement was the nature of satisfaction itself (the “isness” of the atonement) and a later generation of the scope (the “intent” of the satisfaction) are often conflated in modern polemics. For the Reformed, these are two separate epistemic questions, arising in two generations against two backgrounds. It is anachronistic to read modern discussions back into those eras, and it is equally problematic to use the “prooftext method” of historical theology (viz. “Calvin vs. the Calvinists), without accounting for the full genetic trajectory of the doctrine of atonement in each thinker invoked. Often, the conclusions offered by the Calvin vs. the Calvinists crowd prove untenable when placed under the microscope for that reason. Likewise, the same applies in discerning the meaning of the BFM. The BFM is an iteration of the NHC. Ergo, we need to do a better job in understanding the trajectory of the development of thought behind the BFM to truly know what it means. We do biblical theology and exegetical theology largely the same way. This should not be a problem, but apparently, for some, it is.
    It is also clear that the Reformed Orthodox left us with a position that attempts to find a mediating path between Socinian and Arminian reductionism on one side and Catholic and Lutheran multiplication to excess on the other. Here lies the danger in drawing the circle too wide or too narrow. Who are today’s “Socinians?” Who are today’s “Lutherans?”

    Let's also not forget the actual history of Arminianism, which Henry conveniently omits. Arminianism and Socinianism went hand in hand VERY early in their mutual history. Socinianism destroyed the General Baptists, and were it not for the New Connexion, they would have been utterly destroyed. In fact, when you look @ historical theology, we find that the slide toward liberalism and apostasy has often begun, within Protestantism, with the slide toward Arminianism. Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism even turn on the same basic principles. The Barthians left their orthodox Calvinism behind for Neo-Orthodoxy. So, if Henry wishes to talk about historical theology in this regard, then by all means let us be very plain about it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gene Bridges makes an incredible error which makes his entire post a very misguided attempt at interacting with things that I have said. After mistakenly quoting some words of **Phil Johnson**, a very respectable Calvinist, Gene writes:

    ”A. While it's true there are hypers on the internet, I think Henry is overstating his position here.”

    HENRY OVERSTATING HIS POSITION HERE?

    I had quoted Phil Johnson as a calvinist who knows his theology and does not automatically consign noncalvinists to Hell. I quoted Johnson to show that a reasonable minded Calvinist does not make the kind of judgments that Steve Hays makes. I find it interesting that no one from the Triablogue group made any attempt to correct Steve’s claim that I am a false teacher who is going to hell. The silence suggests the others agree with Hays’ assessment and condemnatory judgment.

    Fortunately, for me and other noncalvinists Hays is in no place to make such an eternal judgment: the last I checked he is not the one and only true God. At most, he is merely a servant of the most High God, so he is in no place to make eternal judgments on other christians. It is interesting that Patrick Chan wrote in defining idolatry:

    “What is idolatry? As I understand it, it is both reducing God into something which he is not as well as placing something -- anything, including oneself -- in the place of the true God.”

    Steve Hays by assuming the position of the one who has the right and authority to consign people to Hell (which only God has) did put himself “in the place of the true God”.

    Gene virtually your whole post is a waste of words directed at Phil Johnson’s words, not me. And by the way, I trust Phil Johnson on theological issues more than I trust many other calvinists. While I may disagree with Johnson on his Calvinism, he does manifest Christian character and does not automatically consign those who disagree with him to hell.
    This is what I wrote and then I quoted Phil Johnson whose words are worth repeating. See if you can see the words that Gene quotes and then attacks:
    =================================================
    Recently Phil Johnson did a series called “Why I am a Calvinist?”. I agree with many of Phil Johnson’s comments about Calvinists and Arminians. Here are some pertinent comments from the first article in the series:

    "Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)
    But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.

    I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.
    Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians.

    That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.

    That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.
    Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”
    But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do.

    But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let also me say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.
    Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet.

    And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all.

    They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.

    That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance.

    Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.

    Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.iety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.” (cited from part one of the series "Why I am a Calvinist")
    =====================================================================
    Gene’s post then is an attack directed at quotations from Phil Johnson, not my words.

    I am going to disregard much of Bridges post as it misses the mark by attacking Phil Johnson’s words instead of my own. Bridges did however, make another comment that merits some attention as it manifests some serious error typical of many calvinists.

    Gene wrote:
    “B. Is Arminianism works salvation? Well, if you make your election to salvation dependent on your faith, then, yes, it's nothing less than salvation by merit, if, that is, the Arminian was remotely consistent.”

    I am not an Armininian but this is an outrageous and false claim. If the Arminians are teaching a gospel of **works salvation** then they are teaching a major heresy (and are not different than the cults which also teach “works salvation”). In reality those who are truly born again Christians preach a gospel of justification by faith alone. Many calvinists started out hearing the gospel presented by Arminians at the beginning of their Christian walk, are we to assume they were unsaved until they became calvinists? Were these calvinists who began as Arminians people who held to “works salvation” before they became calvinists?

    People like Bridges are so intent on proving their calvinism that they feel forced to resort to caricaturing noncalvinists as teaching **works salvation**. They do so as Bridges does, by claiming that if someone claims that they are saved by faith, that this claim is a claim of **works salvation**. Bridges’ attempt, like other calvinists who make this same argument is misunderstanding some important truths.

    According to the Bible we **are** saved by faith alone (Romans and Galatians make this point very clear), and also according to the Bible, faith is not a work (“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believers in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works . . . For this reason it is by faith tht it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, Rom. 4:4-6, 16). The New Testament clearly distinguishes between faith and works,hence biblical faith is not works).

    A common argument made by people like Gene goes like this: that noncalvinist over there claims that he was saved by faith, and that faith is something he **did** on his own, therefore, he saved himself. And if he saved himself then he can then **boast** that his salvation was his own doing. In this way the noncalvinist is supposedly painted into a corner where supposedly he can’t get out and then of course the calvinist believes that therefore calvinism is proved to be true. This is taken to be another “clincher” argument against those “misguided noncalvinists”.

    Major problems with Gene’s words and this commonly used argument of calvinist. First, all genuine Christians whether they are noncalvinists like myself or calvinsts, went through a process in which the Holy Spirit worked in our lives to bring us to a point in which we could decide to trust in Christ alone for our salvation. Without that work of the Spirit we never could have found ourselves in a place where faith was even possible. So the work of the Spirit is a necessary condition in order for someone to be saved. Jesus expressed it as “no one can come to Me unless my Father draws him . . .” There is in fact universal inability to have faith in Jesus **on our own**, without the Spirit working in us. So to claim that the noncalvinist believes that we can have faith **on our own** without God is a major false misrepresentation. Even the classical Arminians (like Arminius in the past and Picarilli at present) believed that no one could save themselves by their own works, or have faith **on their own** apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a straw man constructed by zealous calvinists in order to argue against their noncalvinist “opponents.”

    So nobody gets in the position to trust Jesus for salvation unless the Spirit has done some powerful work in their life. Noncalvinists believe in this work of the Spirit and some calvinists regularly overlook this fact in constructing their straw man.

    Now should the individual respond with faith in Christ as a result of hearing the gospel, a desire to trust Jesus alone for his/her salvation, that person will be saved. The Bible is absolutely clear that we are saved by faith alone not by works. For Bridges to claim otherwise is a major mistake and a false caricature of noncalvinist thought.

    When noncalvinists point this out, the calvinist then argues: well if you have faith **on your own**, or by your own ability, then you will be able to boast that you saved yourself, and your salvation is really a form of **works salvation**.

    This reasoning makes some major mistakes. First, we have to have a faith response to the work of the Spirit, and it **is** our faith, God does not have faith for us, or in our place. Second, the Bible clearly says that a biblical and saving faith by its very nature **excludes boasting**. Rom. 3:27-28 “Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Paul explicitly and clearly says here that biblical saving faith ***excludes boasting***. So when the calvinist comes along and argues that those who believe they are saved by faith are susceptible to boasting, the calvinists are arguing directly contrary to what scripture says.

    And those of use who have been saved realize that it was nothing great about us or superior about us, that distinguished us from others. The faith we have, could not have been possible unless the Spirit had illuminated scripture for us, showed us our need for a saviour, showed us Jesus to be that saviour, showed us our need for forgiveness of sins, showed us that through what Jesus did on the cross we could be saved, etc. Etc.
    Calvinists will sometimes argue that if salvation is really by faith, then the person is the **ultimate cause** of their own salvation. **Ultimate** cause? God alone is ultimate, every other being is a created being, a contingent being. We could not even have our next breath unless God kept the creation going and provides the conditions by which we could even be alive. Paul talks about the **contingency** of how faith develops in Rom. 10:14 -How will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” If we do not hear the message of the gospel and understand it (which can only occur as the Spirit works), then we cannot be saved. So our coming to faith in Jesus is based upon contingent events, many of which are completely out of our control (like the work of the Spirit).

    Imagine a couple that develops a plan for their two children (twins) to go to college. So the parents work for years, make many sacrifices, so that when the time comes their children can go to school if they choose to do so. When the time comes and the children must decide whether or not to go to college (assume that one decides to got to college and the other decides not to go to college), anyone knowing the facts of the situation does not say anything like: “well you know the child was ultimately responsible for the fact they went to college.” The child “ultimately responsible”? No, without the work of the parents (the preconditions that made college even possible), the child would never have been in the place to choose college anyway. Salvation by faith is similar, you are not prideful about it or boast about it if you really understand how you never could have believed apart from the work of the Spirit. Actually, if you truly understand, your response is not one of boasting but one of thankfulness and gratitude for the grace of God, a grace you certainly did not deserve nor did you earn or merit it in any way. And God had no obligation to do that work in your life, you did not deserve it, you did not work for it in anyway, God did all of the work to make it even possible for you to believe. This calvinist canard that claiming we are saved by faith is a work of merit needs to be challenged and shown to be false. In scripture faith is contrasted with works and not considered a work. If some Christian claims that biblical faith ***is*** a work, like some other religions believe in salvation by works, they are ignoring their own experience of salvation as well as what the Bible explicitly says about the nature of saving faith (i.e., the Bible says faith is not a work and contrasts faith with works, especially in Romans).

    Gene added another comment that merits refutation. He wrote:
    “. Speaking of the word "Arminian" I'm using it broadly here as those who refer to libertarian action theory, like Henry. He's not a pure Arminian, but he's made election itself, not justification, and regeneration, not justification, dependent on faith. He's put election and regeneration outside the scope of God's active work. God must wait on man. He's therefore a functional Unitarian.”
    God waiting on man?

    Gene has got the picture reversed. The biblical picture is that God so loved the world that He took the iniative by sending His Son, Jesus into the world to die on the cross for the world. If God had **waited** none of us would be saved. Instead, God took the initiative, He did the hard work to make salvation even possible. He made the sacrifice of His own Son to make it even possible for someone to be saved. Scripture refers to His initiating salvation when it speaks about “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The whole incarnation was God taking the intitive, seeking that which was lost. The shepherd leaving the ninety nine sheep to seek the one which was lost. God did not wait on us, He took the iniative.

    And when we become Christians it was not because we sought him apart from the work of the Spirit, “on our own.” “No one comes to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” Who initiates this **drawing**, God does. And for those who have responded in faith to this **drawing**, we do not boast in our salvation. Rather we boast in who the Lord is and what He has done for sinners like us. We exult in the grace, mercy, and love of God for us. And we **know** that our own works did not save us, it was Jesus’ works that save us as we trust Him.

    Henry

    ReplyDelete
  11. I had written:

    “They also do the same with bible verses. John 3:16 says God loves the world enough to send His Son . . . But the calvinist compatibilists come along and the passage needs to be modified a bit. For example bring in a distinction between ‘without exception’ versus ‘without distinction’, and poof the verse loses its meaning since we now **know** that it doesn’t really mean everybody (without exception) but it must mean all types of elect people in the world (without distinction). So rather that being a clear verse on the love of God for mankind, it is really a verse telling us how he loves the elect throughout the world.”

    And Steve Hays responded:

    ”Henry is now advertising his ignorance of Biblical lexicography. “Kosmos” doesn’t have a single meaning in NT usage generally or Johannine usage in particular. Rather, it has wide semantic domain. For example, Peter Cottrell & Max Turner list seven different senses (among others) for kosmos, including “the beings (human and supernatural) in rebellion against God, together with the systems under their control, viewed as opposed to God,” Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (1989), 176.

    Which meaning is appropriate depends on the given context as well as overall theology of the author.”

    I am quite aware of the various lexicographical meanings for “world” in the apostle John’s writings. My favorite commentary on John, which in my opinion is the best commentary on John: is D.A. Carson’s commentary. It was unavailable to me for a time, at a friend’s house, and I just got it back. I like the way Carson lays out the various meanings for “world” in his commentary. When preaching and teaching I have repeatedly used **his** definition of “world” to make my points when evangelizing.

    For those who do not have access to this commentary here are some statements showing the meaning of “world” that is critical to the proper interpretation of the word in John 3:16-17:
    ============================================
    Quotes:

    John 1:9-

    Because John has insisted that the Word was the agent of creation, it might be thought that when he now describes that Word as coming into the world he means nothing more than that the Word has invaded the created order he himself made. But world for John has more specific overtones. Although some have argued that for John the word kosmos (‘world’) sometimes has positive overtones (‘God so loved the world’, 3:16), sometimes neutral overtones (as here; cf. also 21:24-25, where the ‘world’ is a big place that can hold a lot of books), and frequently negative overtones (‘the world did not recognize him’, 1:10), closer inspection shows that although a handful of passages preserve a neutral emphasis the vast majority are decidedly negative. There are no unambiguously positive occurrences. The ‘world’, or frequently ‘this world’ (e.g., 8:23; 9:39; 11:9; 18:36), is not the universe, but the created order especially of human beings and human affairs) in rebellion against its Maker (e.g., 1:10; 7:7; 14:7, 22, 27, 30; 15:18-19; 16:8, 20, 33; 17:6, 9, 14). Therefore when John tells us that God loves the world (3:16), far from being an endorsement of the world, it is a testimony to the character of God. God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big, but because the world is so bad. Barrett (pp. 161-162) thinks that in 3:16 the world can be ‘split up into its components’, those who believe and those who do not. In fact, the ‘world’ in John’s usage comprises no believers at all. Those who come to faith are no longer of this world; they have been chosen out of this world (15:19). If Jesus is the Savior of the world (4:42),that says a great deal about Jesus, but nothing positive about the world. In fact, it tells us the world is in need of a Savior. (p.122-123)

    John 3:16 –

    All believers have been chosen out of the world (15:19), they are not something other than ‘world’ when the gospel first comes to them. They would not have become true disciples apart from the love of God for the world. Even after the circle of believers is formed and the resurrection has taken place, these Christians are mandated to continue their witness, aided by the Spirit, in hopes of winning others from the world (15:26-27; 20:21). In other words, God maintains the same stance toward the world after the resurrection that he had before: he pronounces terrifying condemnation on the grounds of the world’s sin, while still loving the world so much that the gift he gave to the world, the gift of his Son, remains the world’s only hope. (p. 205)

    John 15:18-19 –

    The purpose of these verses is to eliminate the surprise factor when persecution does break out, i.e., to accomplish what John more prosaically accomplishes elsewhere by a simple warning: ‘Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you’ (1 Jn. 3:13). If the world hates you – and the assumption is that it will – keep in mind it hated me first. The world (kosmos; cf. notes on 1:9), as commonly in John, refers to the created moral order in active rebellion against God. The ultimate reason for the world’s hatred of Jesus is that he testifies that its deeds are evil (7:7). Christ’s followers will be hated by the same world, partly because they are associated with the one who is supremely hated, and partly because, as they increase in the intimacy, love, obedience and fruitfulness depicted in the preceding verses, they will have the same effect on the world as their Master. They, too, will appear alien. The world loves its own: this is not a sociological remark about inborn suspicion of strangers, but a moral condemnation. The world is a society of rebels, and therefore finds it hard to tolerate those who are in joyful allegiance to the king to whom all loyalty is due. Christians do not belong to the world, not because they never belonged, but because, Jesus avers, I have chosen you out of the world (cf. notes on 6:70-71; 15:16). Former rebels who have by the grace of the king been won back to loving allegiance to their rightful monarch are not likely to prove popular with those who persist in rebellion. Christians cannot think of themselves as intrinsically superior. They are ever conscious that by nature they are, with all others, ‘objects of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3). But having been chosen out of the world, having been drawn by the Messiah’s love into the group referred to as the Messiah’s ‘own’ who are still in the world (13:1), their newly found alien statue makes them pariahs in that world, the world of rebels. (p. 525)

    End quotes:

    I had said about Jn. 3:16 that it was “a clear verse on the love of God for mankind.” And what is the biblical term for mankind apart from God, in rebellion against God? THE WORLD. As Carson makes clear, the term referring to this rebellious group is consistently negative not neutral (“although a handful of passages preserve a neutral emphasis the vast majority are decidedly negative”). And this group is “in rebellion against its Maker”. I especially like Carson’s line: “God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big, but because the world is so bad.”

    When I speak on this I tweak it a bit and say things like: “when it says God loves the world, it is not saying He loves the world because the people are so good, or because they are living lives that please Him, or because we are just so loveable, or because the world deserves it, actually if we got what we deserve we would all instantly get hell. No, the amazing thing is that God gave His Son to the world of people who are totally in rebellion against Him, who break his commandments and enjoy doing so. The amazing thing then is that God loves this world that is ***so*** bad!”

    Another point that I regularly make is that ***at one point all of us are part of the world***. We are either still in the world, or, if we have become believers we came out of the world by the grace and mercy of God. My way of saying this is: everyone at some point was part of the world, but not everyone is now part of the world. So does the “world” mean every human person? Well Jesus was never part of the world, Adam and Eve before they fell were not part of the world, and an argument can be made that John the Baptist was regenerate from birth and so was not part of the world. With these exceptions in mind, the rest of us, both those who are now believers and unbelievers were/are part of the “world”. Believers are those who thought they were of the world at one time, if we have come to believe then we have come out of the world to serve the one and only true God.

    The noncalvinists need not show that “world” refers to all human persons without exception. Rather what needs to be shown is that the “world” includes people who will never become Christians. What is critical and strongly attacks the Calvinist view is this. While some persons come out of this rebellious world and become Christians, others do not, they never come out of the world, they remain in their unbelief and rebellion. But the text of John 3:16-17 says that God so loved THE WORLD that he gave His Son, Jesus, to die for THAT WORLD. So this means that God has a redemptive love for THE WORLD, and that means that God has a redemptive love even for those who never come to be believers (i.e. God loves what the Calvinists calls the “nonelect,” the “reprobate” with a redemptive love). John 3:16-17 then when properly interpreted (i.e., in line with Carson’s suggested meaning of “world” as the group of unbelieving rebellious sinful mankind who are not saved) negates the Hays’ calvinist doctrine of “limited atonement”. Because instead of God **only** having a redemptive love for the “elect” (believers who come out of the world) as Calvinists such as Hays suggest. He has a redemptive love for nonbelievers, some of whom will never turn to him in faith and trust Him for salvation. Will **all** of the “world” be saved? No. So this means that God has a redemptive love, gives His Son Jesus, as an atonement for people who will not respond in faith to the gospel offer. This point refutes calvinism which claims that God has a redemptive love ***only*** for people who are believers, who come out of the world (what they call the elect).

    Steve Hays seeking to enlighten me about the meaning of “world” in Jn. 3:16 cited some commentators. Check them out and ask yourself: do any of them challenge Carson’s meaning of “world” in Jn. 3:16?


    ”Likewise, Horst Balz defines kosmos in such ways as: “in the Johannine theology one finds again the basic elements of the Pauline understanding of kosmos in the extreme and intensified radicality of the estrangement and ungodliness of the kosmos…the concern is with the nature of the world that has fallen away from God and is ruled by the evil one,” EDNT 2:312.”

    Hmm, “the concern is with the nature of the world that has fallen away from God and is ruled by the evil one.” That supports the Carson meaning.


    ”And as Andrew Lincoln, in his recent commentary on John, explains, “Some argue that the term ‘world’ here simply has neutral connotations—the created human world. But the characteristic use of ‘the world’ (ho kosmos) elsewhere in the narrative is with negative overtones—the world in its alienation from and hostility to its creator’s purposes. It makes better sense in a soteriological context to see the latter notion as in view. God loves that which has become hostile to God. The force is not, then, that the world is so vast that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it, but rather that the world has become so alienated from God that it takes an exceedingly great kind of love to love it at all,” The Gospel According to St. John (Henrickson 2005), 154.”

    Hmm, “with negative overtones – the world in its alienation from and hostility to its creator’s purposes.” Further confirmation of Carson.

    And “the world has become so alienated from God that it takes an exceedingly great kind of love to love it at all.” Wow, so Jn. 3:16 is telling us that God has this incredible love for total rebels, so the focus is not upon anything good about the world but about the awesome redemptive love of God for **this world**?

    Hays continues to attempt to enlighten me about the meaning of “world”:


    ”Henry pays lip service to Scripture, but he’s too lazy to consult the standard commentaries, lexicons, or monographs on lexical semantics. In Johannine usage, “kosmos” does not mean “everyone.” Rather, it’s a loaded word with a qualitative rather than quantitative connotation.

    But even if you don’t know Greek, or read the standard exegetical and lexical literature, you could figure out for yourself that “kosmos” can’t mean “everyone” in general Johannine usage, by spending a little time with an English concordance. Just try substituting “everyone” for “world” in the following verses and see how much sense it makes:”

    I repeat my principle again: **everyone** (with the exception of Jesus, Adam/Eve prefall, and possibly John the Baptist) at some point was part of the world, but **not everyone** (without exception)is now part of the world. I think my principle handles all the verses that Hays then brought up so I will ignore his further “instruction.” I **do** understand what “world” means in Jn. 3:16-17 and it goes against the Calvinist system precisely because it means that GOD HAS A REDEMPTIVE LOVE for some human persons who will never become Christians.

    Jn. 3:17 is also **devastating** for the Calvinist view: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.” God has such a love for the “world”/the rebellious persons/unbelievers under Satan, that he sent His Son that THE WORLD SHOULD BE SAVED THROUGH HIM. Will all of the world be saved? From other passages we know the answer to be No. And yet this verse as explicitly and clearly as can be said, says that God has a redemptive love for unbelievers some of whom will never become Christians. Calvinism cannot allow for this truth and as the Bible is true, Calvinism must be false. Many people faced with the clear teaching of John 3:16-17 versus the system of calvinism, have rejected calvinism because it directly contradicts biblical texts such as this one.

    Steve Hays brings up a another major problem for Calvinism when he writes:

    ”i) Is loving sinners just enough to make salvation merely *possible* for everyone while leaving everyone vulnerable to eternal damnation the most loving thing that God could do?

    Which is more loving—to throw a drowning man a life preserver and say to him: “now you have a chance to save yourself–take it or leave it!” Or jumping in and actually pulling him to safety?

    An Arminian lifeguard never rescues a drowning man since that would violate his freewill. Instead, the Arminian lifeguard throws him a life preserver, then goes on a lunch break.”

    This analogy is so off base that I wanted everyone to see it again in its entirety. Hays opens up a “can of worms” that his Calvinism cannot handle. And he does so by his own choice to bring it up and caricature the noncalvinists view. Note his question: “Is loving sinners just enough to make salvation merely **possible** . . . the most loving thing that God could do?”

    So Hays wants to discuss which conception is **more loving**. Surely he must know that his Calvinism will come out on the short end of the stick in this one. But I am glad that he brought it up so I can show the contrast between the Calvinist and noncalvinist conceptions of the love of God with respect to the salvation of sinners/the “world” of John 3:16-17.

    Notice how he describes the noncalvinist view as God being like a lifeguard who **merely** throws the drowning man a life preserver, then goes on a lunch break. He goes on to say that the noncalvinist believes the “lifeguard” just throws the life preserver towards the drowning man and says “now you have a chance TO SAVE YOURSELF, take it or leave it” (emphasis mine).

    Hays is obviously **mocking** the view he disagrees with. But is his analogy here what noncalvinists really believe? No.

    Allow me to rework the analogy a bit to make it more accurate so that we can see which conception is “more loving.”

    Imagine a beach, with a lifeguard leader (Mr. G. Clark) with 10 lifeguards under his authority. These 10 other lifeguards do whatever the lead lifeguard tells them to do. A little ways off shore, a boat with a captain and 10 sightseeing visitors on board develops a problem and begins to sink. The captain radios for help and the lead lifeguard, Mr. Clark, finds out about the situation. He also finds out that all 10 people are paraplegics in wheelchairs unable to swim, completely unable to save themselves. Mr. Clark has the ability to save all 10 paraplegics, if he sends all 10 lifeguards to attempt the rescue. According to Calvinism he intentionally sends only two lifeguards to save only two persons and he intentionally allows the others to drown making no effort to save them whatsoever (though he is fully able to save all 10 of them). Mr. Clark had some sort of secret decision so that if this event would arise he would save only two and intentionally leave the rest to drown. How loving is Mr. Clark in this situation?

    In the noncalvinist conception, the Lead lifeguard sends all 10 lifeguards who dive into the water and head for the drowning persons. Upon arriving at each person, each person is asked “do you want help or not?” So all have the possibility of being saved. And if they are saved it was not by their strength that they are saved but by the efforts of the lifeguards to save them. All have the opportunity to be saved. Those who reject the offer of the lifeguards drown by their own choice and have no one to blame but themselves. Those who accept the offer are saved by the efforts of the lifeguards alone and so have no reason to boast.

    Now which is the **more loving** thing to do? To have the ability to save all ten, but to intentionally save only two and to intentionally let the others drown when you were perfectly capable of saving them all? Or to make life possible for all, with those rejecting the offer of life being solely responsible for their drowning?

    Most people understand this difference between the two conceptions. And because they do so, they are repulsed by the Calvinist view, and they understand that Calvinism is the less loving conception. And not only is it less loving in this analogy.

    Scriptures such as Jn. 3:16 make it abundantly clear that the lead lifeguard (the Father) sent sufficient lifeguards to save all(the Son). But Calvinism has to reject scriptures such as Jn. 3:16 and has to argue for a God who desires to save only some, though He is perfectly capable of saving them all, but intentionally damns most to eternal punishment. Which conception is more loving? Which conception fits what scripture says? IT IS NOT CALVINISM, but noncalvinism that presents a God who truly **loves** the “world” with a redemptive love. Just as Jn. 3:16 clearly and explicitly states.

    We also know some things about the lifeguard who comes to save us. He did not just throw a life preserver at us and go off to lunch. He dove into a sinful world, a world in total rebellion against Him. And He gave up His life to save us. To mischaracterize his efforts as merely throwing out a life preserver and going out to lunch, mocks the gospel message and the true lifeguard the true good shepherd. The gospel message is of a God who so loves THE WORLD that he sends His own Son, who then is mistreated, tortured and killed by the very world for which He came to save.

    Steve Hays continued:

    ”ii) In what sense does Henry think that everyone has a shot at salvation? Everyone hasn’t heard the gospel. So Henry must take the position that you don’t have to believe in Jesus to be saved. Yet, in opposing universalism, he says that you do have to believe in Jesus to be saved. Or does Henry subscribe to postmortem evangelism?”

    In what sense does everyone get a chance at salvation? I make a distinction between the able bodied/minded and those who are not. Infants and the mentally diminished do not have the capacity to exercise saving faith in response to the gospel. While the bible does not tell us a lot about this issue, I believe we can trust that God will be merciful to them and save those who are incapable of exercising faith.

    Regarding those who are able bodied/minded and “never hear the gospel”, I am not sure about the answer to that, and I will not speculate on that issue here. But I do **know** that the bible teaches that for those who able bodied/minded and they hear the gospel message (those who accept the gospel and respond with faith are saved; those who reject the gospel and keep rejecting the gospel throughout their lives will be separated from God for eternity).

    When Hays writes: “So Henry must take the position that you don’t have to believe in Jesus to be saved”. That is intentionally misleading, as I would say you don’t have to believe in Jesus to be saved if you are an infant or mentally diminished (and perhaps those who have never heard the gospel, though scripture does not speak about that). But if you hear the gospel message then you have to believe it or you cannot be saved.

    And I also do not believe in postmordem evangelism and made no reference to this false idea. So why does Hays bring it up and attempt to attribute this concept to me? Just another one of his personal attacks against me. Hays simply cannot have a civil and rational and biblical discussion, he **has to** attack anyone who thinks or believes differently than he does (this is abundantly demonstrated by perusing his posts and interactions with both Christians and nonchristians).

    Hays then tries to bring up a problem for me as an “Arminian” (note- I am not Arminian). I will end by addressing another version of Hays’ “what is more loving” argument:

    ”An in classical Arminianism, to which Henry evidently subscribes, God foreknew who would freely spurn his grace and spend eternity in hell, and yet God went ahead and created the damned in full knowledge of their infernal fate. How is that the most loving thing that God could do for them?”

    Let’s start with the Calvinist view. The Calvinist believes that God foreknows everything because He predetermined every detail of a completely prescripted play. And in this view, God intentionally preselected only a few to be saved and intentionally created the rest knowing full well that they had no chance to be saved, no opportunity to be saved. Although if He had wanted to, he could have saved them all. This lifeguard knew all 10 were drowning (actually since he predetermines all events he intentionally ensured for the boat to start sinking so that they would be drowning) and he saved two and intentionally let the other 8 paraplegics drown. And those 8 who drowned, never had a chance to survive. Some Calvinist writers (e.g. Clark, Cheung) will even speak of how God relished the drowning of these 8, that God **caused** them to drown for his own **good pleasure**. This conception of God does not present him as being very loving and it definitely does not fit the way scripture presents our lifeguard, Jesus. The God of this conception is actually quite sadistic and cruel even hateful towards those He damned without any chance to be saved.

    On the other hand, in the noncalvinist view. God desired to create human beings capable of worshipping Him and enjoying Him forever. God did not want automatons or puppets whose every string was pulled so they “loved” the puppet master. No, God desired creatures that were similar to him, creatures with self awareness, rationality, the ability to do their own actions for reasons (including having a personal relationship with God and worshipping God as He deserves to be worshipped).

    Since God knew via his foreknowledge that these creatures would freely sin and so would need an atonement for their sins. God also knew that he could provide an atonement sufficient for all, but which would be efficient only for those who trusted Him. God knew that some would reject Him and the gospel offer and that some would accept Him and the gospel offer. And He knew who would be who before they accepted or rejected the offer of the gospel. Was He loving? Yes, the fact that some would respond in faith and have a loving and eternal relationship with their creator is the greatest blessing any person could experience. And what of those who freely rejected the gospel and the God behind the offer? Had God been unloving to them? No, He offered His Son Jesus for them, what **more loving** thing could be done for them? Did they have the opportunity to be saved? Yes. Did God force them to accept Him? No. Did God foreknow that some would reject Him and the gospel offer? Yes. Is God in any way unjust or unloving to those who reject the message when given the opportunity? No.

    Further, as the creator, God had both the right and the power to decide what human nature would be like and for humans to be capable of free choices and performing their own actions. If anyone has a problem with the way things were set up in regard to human nature, their problem is with God and his design.

    So compare the two conceptions again, which is move loving? Cleary the answer is noncalvinism. Which conception better fits what the biblical texts present about such things as God **loving THE WORLD(Jn. 3:16-17)? Noncalvinism.

    If Steve Hays wants to compare the Calvinist and noncalvinist conceptions of God’s love, in a competition to see in which conception God **is more loving**, the answer is crystal clear. And it is not Calvinism. Calvinism loses this one rather badly. Which is why Calvinism will never be the majority view among Christians who take their bibles seriously.

    Henry

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gene’s post then is an attack directed at quotations from Phil Johnson, not my words.

    Actually, they are your words, Henry, since you posted them to bolster your own position.

    I had quoted Phil Johnson as a calvinist who knows his theology and does not automatically consign noncalvinists to Hell. I quoted Johnson to show that a reasonable minded Calvinist does not make the kind of judgments that Steve Hays makes. I find it interesting that no one from the Triablogue group made any attempt to correct Steve’s claim that I am a false teacher who is going to hell.

    Where did he say you are false teacher who is going to hell? You added that little appellation to his words.

    He said, "Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms."

    The "going to hell" bit is your own conclusion. You're mad at us for not chastising Steve for something he did not state.

    I am not an Armininian but this is an outrageous and false claim.

    You believe the first four points of Arminianism and accept eternal security. This trades on a systematic equivocation of terms.

    Further, I specifically stated my own usage of the term, which you conveniently overlooked.

    You're a four point Arminian. You are not a moderate Calvinist. You are no Amyraldian.

    If the Arminians are teaching a gospel of **works salvation** then they are teaching a major heresy (and are not different than the cults which also teach “works salvation”)

    Notice how Henry doesn't bother to interact with anything I actually stated. He lops off the part, "if they were remotely consistent," and then I listed the reasons why and discussed what is error and what isn't directly from historical theology.

    In fact, there are Arminians who can be construed to teach just that, like those who teach that election itself is dependent not on faith, but on perseverance to the end. Further, what I said was that if election is based on faith, then what is being implicitly stated is that faith merits justification. It causes God to save you. You have committed a work in order to be justified, and not only justified, elected. Arminians, as a rule, however, are simply not consistent. We thank them for that.

    People like Bridges are so intent on proving their calvinism that they feel forced to resort to caricaturing noncalvinists as teaching **works salvation**. They do so as Bridges does, by claiming that if someone claims that they are saved by faith, that this claim is a claim of **works salvation**. Bridges’ attempt, like other calvinists who make this same argument is misunderstanding some important truths.

    Except I never said that Arminians teach works salvation or that somebody claiming to have been saved by faith is works salvation. Henry has a nasty and dishonest habit of stating things that others do not or have never stated. I have consistently argued in my writing that Arminians hold to Sola Fide, and I even gave a host of reasons above. I have argued directly in the SBC for the acceptance of Free Will Baptist baptism as valid. If I was teaching that Arminians are saved by works, then why would I publicly say otherwise?

    According to the Bible we **are** saved by faith alone (Romans and Galatians make this point very clear)

    No, they teach we are justified by faith alone. Justification and salvation are not the same. Henry has a nasty habit of equating the word "justify" and "save" or "justified" and "saved." Henry says he taught in a seminary. I pity his students.

    A common argument made by people like Gene goes like this: that noncalvinist over there claims that he was saved by faith, and that faith is something he **did** on his own, therefore, he saved himself.

    Really? Did I make that argument?

    Why did A believe but not B? Does Henry have a doctrine of prevenient grace?

    Henry talks about "people like Gene," but he displays utter ignorance of what I've actually stated in public discourse.

    There is in fact universal inability to have faith in Jesus **on our own**, without the Spirit working in us. So to claim that the noncalvinist believes that we can have faith **on our own** without God is a major false misrepresentation. Even the classical Arminians (like Arminius in the past and Picarilli at present) believed that no one could save themselves by their own works, or have faith **on their own** apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.

    It's called prevenient grace, but the will is still left to respond without being regenerate, so why does X believe and not Y?

    the biblical picture is that God so loved the world that He took the iniative by sending His Son, Jesus into the world to die on the cross for the world. If God had **waited** none of us would be saved. (snip)

    Henry is apparently illiterate, as his words here are irrelevant to what I actually stated. I specifically stated that, on his view, with respect to election, regeneration, et.al. God is left to "wait". I stated: “. Speaking of the word "Arminian" I'm using it broadly here as those who refer to libertarian action theory, like Henry. He's not a pure Arminian, but he's made election itself, not justification, and regeneration, not justification, dependent on faith. He's put election and regeneration outside the scope of God's active work. God must wait on man. He's therefore a functional Unitarian.” Yes, Henry, you have admitted to making election and regeneration dependent on the faith of man. God is "waiting" on man to respond. You've put election (the work of the Father) and regeneration (the work of the Spirit) outside the chain of grace. Henry is a functional Unitarian.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Now which is the **more loving** thing to do? To have the ability to save all ten, but to intentionally save only two and to intentionally let the others drown when you were perfectly capable of saving them all? Or to make life possible for all, with those rejecting the offer of life being solely responsible for their drowning?

    It would be the most loving if all of them were saved.

    But the analogy you gave is false because not everybody is given a chance to hear the gospel and believe.

    Further those persons drowning have also killed the captain's family and burned his house down.

    God owes them nothing. In your view, if God does not offer everybody salvation, he is unjust, but who has a just claim on God's mercy.

    No, you have successfully moved salvation from the category of mercy to the category of remunerative justice.

    Henry is a supreme rationalist. He begins with particular ideas about God's love and then deduces his theology from those ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  14. On the other hand, in the noncalvinist view. God desired to create human beings capable of worshipping Him and enjoying Him forever. God did not want automatons or puppets whose every string was pulled so they “loved” the puppet master. No, God desired creatures that were similar to him, creatures with self awareness, rationality, the ability to do their own actions for reasons (including having a personal relationship with God and worshipping God as He deserves to be worshipped).

    >>Henry also speaks with forked tongue. He accuses us of using caricatures and then engages in them himself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Since God knew via his foreknowledge that these creatures would freely sin and so would need an atonement for their sins. God also knew that he could provide an atonement sufficient for all, but which would be efficient only for those who trusted Him. God knew that some would reject Him and the gospel offer and that some would accept Him and the gospel offer. And He knew who would be who before they accepted or rejected the offer of the gospel. Was He loving? Yes, the fact that some would respond in faith and have a loving and eternal relationship with their creator is the greatest blessing any person could experience.

    >>What you missed is that not everybody has this chance, Henry.

    >>And what of those who freely rejected the gospel and the God behind the offer? Had God been unloving to them? No, He offered His Son Jesus for them, what **more loving** thing could be done for them?

    Um, how about not creating them in the first place. Your objection is that God creates those who He will only condemn, but this objection applies to your position too.

    >>Did they have the opportunity to be saved? Yes.

    Nobody denies this.

    >>Did God force them to accept Him? No.

    And no Calvinist argues otherwise. Henry uses the word "force" but this implies that a person is made to do something unwillingly. Which Calvinist teaches that people are "forced?" This is just another "caricature," which Henry derides from us, but in which he freely and frequently indulges himself.

    >>Did God foreknow that some would reject Him and the gospel offer? Yes. Is God in any way unjust or unloving to those who reject the message when given the opportunity? No.

    And neither is He unjust not to give them the opportunity at all. Henry begins with a particular idea about justice that is not derived from Scripture and then constructs his theology around it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gene Bridges wrote:

    “I have consistently argued in my writing that Arminians hold to Sola Fide, and I even gave a host of reasons above. I have argued directly in the SBC for the acceptance of Free Will Baptist baptism as valid. If I was teaching that Arminians are saved by works, then why would I publicly say otherwise?”

    Thanks for that clarification Gene. So then you do not believe that Arminians who believe that we are saved by faith, are teaching salvation by their own efforts, their own works?

    Gene wrote:

    ”No, they teach we are justified by faith alone. Justification and salvation are not the same. Henry has a nasty habit of equating the word "justify" and "save" or "justified" and "saved."”

    I do speak of being justified and being saved as being overlapping terms. Justification is one aspect of salvation and salvation is a broader term than justification. But I use the terms interchangeably because if a person is saved they are justified and if they are justified they must be saved. There is no such thing as people who are saved but not justified, or justified but not saved. In my thinking a person is saved the instant that they are justified.

    Gene wrote:

    “He's not a pure Arminian, but he's made election itself, not justification, and regeneration, not justification, dependent on faith. He's put election and regeneration outside the scope of God's active work. God must wait on man. He's therefore a functional Unitarian.” Yes, Henry, you have admitted to making election and regeneration dependent on the faith of man. God is "waiting" on man to respond. You've put election (the work of the Father) and regeneration (the work of the Spirit) outside the chain of grace. Henry is a functional Unitarian.”

    In my thinking salvation IS A RELATIONSHIP in which both parties do different actions as part of the relationship. The main actions that are our part are faith and obedience.

    On the god ward side, God is the one and only person who justifies sinners, forgives sinners, elects who will be His people (those who trust Him are the ones He chooses) regenerates persons, resurrects persons from the dead/glorifies persons. We do not do any of these things, nor do any of our actions **cause** these things to occur.

    The Calvinist is wrong to claim that regeneration produces our faith. The Arminian is wrong to claim that our faith produces regeneration. In my thinking we have faith, and God regenerates us, God does not have our faith for us or instead of us, nor do we produce regeneration. If regeneration is a miraculous act then we do not do it, nor does our faith produce it.

    Regarding being a functional Unitarian. I believe that the Father sends the Son, the Son dies for the world and the Spirit reveals the Son to the world and leads the world to Christ. I also believe that the members of the trinity always work together and always work simultaneously. How is that being a “functional Unitarian”?

    Gene wrote:

    ”It would be the most loving if all of them were saved.

    But the analogy you gave is false because not everybody is given a chance to hear the gospel and believe.”

    The issue is not what the most loving action would be. Steve Hays brought up the issue of WHICH IS MORE LOVING, CALVINISM OR NONCALVINISM, not what is the **most loving thing to do**. Recall Hays words here to see this.

    Hays wrote:


    “Which is more loving—to throw a drowning man a life preserver and say to him: “now you have a chance to save yourself–take it or leave it!” Or jumping in and actually pulling him to safety?

    An Arminian lifeguard never rescues a drowning man since that would violate his freewill. Instead, the Arminian lifeguard throws him a life preserver, then goes on a lunch break.”

    I responded to this false analogy because he intentionally misrepresented the noncalvinist view as God throwing a life preserver and then going on a lunch break (that suggests a rather cavalier attitude and lack of both love and mercy). He also falsely tried to portray **calvinism as more loving** by claiming that the noncalvinist believes that God just throws a life preserver to him and saying now save yourself, versus the Calvinist believing that the lifeguard actually jumps in the water and pulls the person to safety. The noncalvinists does in fact believe that the lifeguard, Jesus, did dive into the water to save the sinners by means of His death on the cross. Jesus doing this is much more than throwing a life preserver and going on a lunch break. So I created my own analogy to show the real contrasts between the two views.

    Regarding not everybody being given a chance to be saved, how do you know that to be true? The bible does not say that there are some who never get an opportunity to be saved. The bible does not directly speak to the subject of the salvation of infants, the mentally disabled or “those who have never heard the gospel”. So we are left with developing our conclusions on this based upon what the Bible does say about God and His desire for the salvation of people.

    Gene wrote”

    ”Further those persons drowning have also killed the captain's family and burned his house down.

    God owes them nothing. In your view, if God does not offer everybody salvation, he is unjust, but who has a just claim on God's mercy.

    No, you have successfully moved salvation from the category of mercy to the category of remunerative justice.”

    Actually, the Bible says those drowning persons have killed His only Son. And yet out of love and mercy God sends His Son for the salvation of the very people who end up murdering His Son. Jesus’ death demonstrates the love of God for the WORLD. And it is an amazing love, a love for enemies, a love for the most sinful persons as well as the “nice good people”.

    You are right, God owes us nothing because of our sin. As one of my friends puts it: ask for justice and you will get Hell, ask for mercy and you may get saved.” I ***never*** said that unless God offers salvation to every person that He would then be **unjust**. If it were merely an issue of justice we would all go to Hell for our sins. But it is also an issue of God’s love, God’s mercy, God being a good person who seeks to bless human persons.

    The reason that I believe that he offers His Son to every person is because (1) He makes statements to that effect in His Word (e.g. Jn. 3:16-17), and (2) because of the kind of person that He is, the character that He has and has displayed in both scripture and in our own experience. He is the kind of person who leaves the 99 sheep to go for the one that is lost. The kind of person who rejoices when His son who has lived a sinful and rebellious lifestyle comes back and is heading towards Him. So His Word and His character are my basis for thinking as I do about the extent of the gospel offer.

    Gene writes:

    ”Henry is a supreme rationalist. He begins with particular ideas about God's love and then deduces his theology from those ideas.

    No, I believe it **is** rational to deduce our ideas about God’s love and mercy and forgiveness and goodness and . . . from what He reveals about Himself in His Word.

    I had written:

    ”Since God knew via his foreknowledge that these creatures would freely sin and so would need an atonement for their sins. God also knew that he could provide an atonement sufficient for all, but which would be efficient only for those who trusted Him. God knew that some would reject Him and the gospel offer and that some would accept Him and the gospel offer. And He knew who would be who before they accepted or rejected the offer of the gospel. Was He loving? Yes, the fact that some would respond in faith and have a loving and eternal relationship with their creator is the greatest blessing any person could experience.”

    To which Gene replied:

    ”What you missed is that not everybody has this chance, Henry.”

    HOW DO YOU KNOW GENE THAT NOT EVERYBODY HAS THIS CHANCE?

    You may declare it, and rejoice about it since you want the grace of God and love of God to be restricted, but upon basis do you make this declaration? Do you believe based on His Word and His character that he intentionally creates multitudes of people who will never have a chance to be saved?

    Gene wrote:

    ”Um, how about not creating them in the first place. Your objection is that God creates those who He will only condemn, but this objection applies to your position too.”

    Actually the objection does apply to your calvinism and not my noncalvinism. In your view God is able to save them all, but intentionally only saves a few. With those not being saved being the “reprobates” whom God predestined for their fate and who never had any chance to be saved. As a lady said to me recently: if the Calvinists believe **that** why didn’t God just create elect people who would all be saved?

    My view on the other hand says that the nature of man (including his ability to make choices and perform his own actions)is God’s design. God designed us to be free creatures. God also designed the way of salvation (which includes the provision of Jesus on the cross and a faith response to the gospel message). And in my view God gives everybody an opportunity to be saved (not out of justice, but out of love and mercy and goodness). In my view He is not going to coerce you into salvation, it is your choice to respond in faith or not.

    Most people readily understand the differences as one view has God intentionally damning people before they ever exist with absolutely no chance to be saved, while in the other view He does give even those who end up as unbelievers a chance to be saved. In one view God is loving, and merciful and good. In the other view He does not seem to be loving, is merciful only to a few, and does not seem to be a good person.

    I had written:

    ”Did God foreknow that some would reject Him and the gospel offer? Yes. Is God in any way unjust or unloving to those who reject the message when given the opportunity? No.”

    And Gene replied:

    ”And neither is He unjust not to give them the opportunity at all. Henry begins with a particular idea about justice that is not derived from Scripture and then constructs his theology around it.”

    Gene is trying to get it into the category of justice versus injustice (i.e. if God were just Henry believes then God would have to give them a chance to be saved, if God did not give this chance then according to Henry God would be unjust)and so he creates a STRAW MAN. I ***NEVER*** said that if God were just then He would have to give everybody a chance to be saved.

    I do say that:

    “For God so loved the WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the WORLD to judge the WORLD, but that THE WORLD SHOULD BE SAVED THROUGH HIM.” (Jn. 3:16-17) because that is what God says Himself.

    He also says: “For God has shut up all in disobedience THAT HE MIGHT SHOW MERCY TO ALL.” Rom. 11:32

    So based upon this love and mercy for all which He declares in His Word, I believe that He does give everybody a chance to be saved. My theology is not based upon extrabibilical ideas not derived from scripture but from what God Himself has revealed in scripture.

    Henry

    ReplyDelete
  17. HOW DO YOU KNOW GENE THAT NOT EVERYBODY HAS THIS CHANCE?

    I know this, because its a fact that the people in China in 59 Ad had no chance to be saved. You have yourself stated that the only way to be saved is via the gospel.

    Regarding being a functional Unitarian. I believe that the Father sends the Son, the Son dies for the world and the Spirit reveals the Son to the world and leads the world to Christ. I also believe that the members of the trinity always work together and always work simultaneously. How is that being a “functional Unitarian”?

    You put election and regeneration outside the chain of grace. That's functional Unitarianism. You pay lip service to the Spirit and the Father.

    he bible does not directly speak to the subject of the salvation of infants, the mentally disabled or “those who have never heard the gospel”. So we are left with developing our conclusions on this based upon what the Bible does say about God and His desire for the salvation of people.

    John L. Dagg addresses this issue. That's not the issue. The issue is people living in North America in 87AD.

    The reason that I believe that he offers His Son to every person is because (1) He makes statements to that effect in His Word (e.g. Jn. 3:16-17),

    John 3:16 says nothing about "offering" his Son to the world. Where is the word "offer" or the concept?

    No, I believe it **is** rational to deduce our ideas about God’s love and mercy and forgiveness and goodness and . . . from what He reveals about Himself in His Word.

    Henry does not know the difference between rational and rationalism.

    My theology is not based upon extrabibilical ideas not derived from scripture

    Really? Then show us where election is based on foreseen faith, Henry.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I had asked Gene Bridges:

    “HOW DO YOU KNOW GENE THAT NOT EVERYBODY HAS THIS CHANCE?”
    Bridges responded:

    ”I know this, because its a fact that the people in China in 59 Ad had no chance to be saved. You have yourself stated that the only way to be saved is via the gospel.”

    Interesting, Bridges is not God and claims to know the eternal destinies of people he never met, and he claims to know this as a fact. It seems to me that only God knows exactly what eternal destinies every person will experience.

    Gene as you claim to know the facts of “the people in China in 59 AD” who had no chance to be saved: what is the eternal destiny of babies/children who die before they ever get a chance to hear the gospel and be saved, the mentally disabled (who live and die never having had the mental capacity to hear, understand and believe the gospel), and those in different parts of the world (who have never heard the gospel during their lifetime and died so they never had a chance to hear, understand, and believe the gospel)?

    From what you have said so far it seems that you have consigned them all to hell. Is that an accurate depiction of your view, that they are all going to hell?

    What are the facts about these people’s eternal destinies Gene?

    Henry

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve Hays’ verbal ridicule and hateful speech towards people is completely unacceptable and sinful according to scripture. There is no evidence of him attempting to live out what the Bible says we ought to be choosing to do in regards to how we are to interact with people both believers and unbelievers. The unacceptable speech can be documented as He has made repeated hateful, sarcastic, condescending, abrasive, belittling comments towards both unbelievers and believers with whom he disagrees theologically.

    I wrote to him just today (6-14-07) and asked:

    “Steve when will you cease engaging in the constant abusive and sinful comments towards me?”

    I added:

    “You know what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with one another: you need to do a better job of doing these things in your interactions with me. I want to engage in a civil and rational discussion so there is no need for your repeated belittling comments and personal attacks.”

    And Steve Hays immediate response to my words contained no apology, no hint of remorse, no attempt to cut out the sinful manner of speaking with me. Instead he writes the following words, again reiterating his false accusation that I am a false teacher (and if we know our bible we know that accusing someone about being a false teacher exhibiting the traits discussed in the NT regarding false teachers is tantamount to saying that they are going to hell) and continuing his sinful abusive speech. Here is Steve Hays response to my appeal to being civil and rational and cutting out the unnecessary personal insults and personal attacks:
    ======================================================================

    “I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”

    “You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.

    ”For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.”

    ”Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”

    “You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.”

    ”Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.”

    ”BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part.” (6-14-07)
    ======================================================================

    I am now going to contrast what Steve Hays has been saying towards me, with what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with and speak with one another. I will share two sets of statements here. First the public comments on Triablogue by Steve Hays directed towards me (and this is not an exhaustive listing of them), second Bible verses about how we ought to be acting towards one another. A friend of mine suggested providing this contrast if Steve Hays continued in his sinful abusive speech towards me.

    ======================================================================

    Set 1 = public statements by Steve Hays towards Henry:

    Henry seems to have a problem thinking outside his own little box. (3/22/07)

    Sigh. Someone else who can’t follow his own line of reasoning. (3/22/07)


    The most charitable interpretation of Henry’s statement is that he’s very young, naïve, and inexperienced. But for those who haven’t led such a charmed life or sheltered existence, the source of bitter regret is not that we could have done otherwise, but that we couldn’t bring ourselves to do otherwise. (3/23/07)

    This is a purely emotional appeal, which is the last resort of the scoundrel. You reject the witness of Scripture because you dislike the consequences. (3/23/07)

    It's a pity that Henry is so forgetful. (4/1/07)

    As usual, Henry can't follow his own argument (4/1/07)

    Henry never fails to miss the point. (4/1/07)

    No, the major reasons are as follows:

    i) Many people are just as illogical as Henry. (4/1/07)

    Henry is now advertising his ignorance of Biblical lexicography.(4/8/07)

    Henry pays lip service to Scripture, but he’s too lazy to consult the standard commentaries, lexicons, or monographs on lexical semantics. (4/8/07)

    Such is Henry’s forked-tongued rhetoric on secular philosophy. (4/8/07)

    Henry also doesn’t know the difference between sense and reference.(4/8/07)

    Henry is ignorant of the doctrine he’s opposing. (4/8/07)

    Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms. (4/8/07)

    I would be prepared to cut Henry some slack if he were an honest man. But he prevaricates. He raises objections. When we answer him on his own grounds, he then chooses to ignore the counterarguments, change the subject, or repeat himself ad nauseum. (4/8/07)

    I said:

    ”Steve Hays’ claims that I am a false teacher going to hell for eternal punishment.”

    Which, of course, I didn't say. Henry suffers from a persecution complex. He's looking for a pretext to back out of a losing argument. (4/10/07)

    Another palpable characterization of this thread. His problem (among others) is that he is not an honest disputant or truth-seeker. (4/10/07)

    An honest and honorable man would withdraw his initial objections if he's been answered on his own grounds, and can show no flaw in the counterargument. (4/10/07)

    That, however, is not what Henry does. He thinks that he's entitled to unconditional respect when he conducts himself in an intellectually disreputable fashion. (4/10/07)

    I hold professing Christians (as well an unbelievers) to a minimal standard of intellectual honestly. (4/10/07)

    If Henry doesn't know this, then Henry doesn't know very much. But, of course, we've already established his ignorance in past exchanges. (6-1-07)

    Henry keeps reminding us that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. (6-1-07)

    I hate to break the news to the impoverished little mind of Henry, but words frequently have more than one meaning. (6-4-07)

    Perhaps, though, Henry is a closet homosexual activist who would use the same line of reasoning with reference to the sense of yada in Gen 19. (6-4-07)

    Henry, could you try, just for once in your life, to be less of a dimwit? (6-4-07)

    Henry is a chronic liar. If I had a brick for every inch that his nose grows, I could build a road from Alaska to Argentina. (6-4-07)

    This is a splendid example of Henry’s Biblical illiteracy. (6-4-07)

    Observe how Henry keeps using singular nouns with plural pronouns. His addiction to transgender usage is further evidence that he must be a closet homosexual activist. The Arminian chapter of ACT UP. (6-4-07)

    ii) BTW, Henry must believe that all children who die before the age of discretion are damned. Same with all Christians who die in a state of senile dementia. Same with all adults below a certain IQ. (6-4-07)

    How did he ever get to be a seminary prof, anyway? Did he marry the daughter of the seminary president? (6-7-07)

    I know it makes your widdle head hoit to think logically, but with daily practice, a few baby steps at a time, you may just get the hang of it. (6-7-07)

    Henry has a real problem thinking through the ramifications of his own position. He needs to work off all those layers of intellectual baby-fat. (6-7-07)

    I realize that Henry finds it difficult to grasp the obvious, but maybe a little light will suddenly switch on if we keeping drawing his attention to the obvious. (6-7-07)

    Or is his commitment to Arminian freewill so fanatical that he would let his own brother blow his brains out without making an effort to wrest the gun from his hands? (6-7-07)

    He's like the parody of the spoiled, only child, who's used to receiving uncondition approval from his doting parents for whatever he says. (6-7-07)

    No wonder he’s an Arminian. It’s the theological projection of an overgrown child. The theology of the middle-aged brat. Henry remains the center of his theological universe—ever compliant to his petulant whims. (6-7-07)


    Because Henry lacks the intellectual honesty to accurately represent the implications of his own position, someone else will have to do it for him. (6-10-07)

    Is Henry dense? “More loving” is a wedge issue. One may introduce the comparative to then leverage the superlative. (6-10-07)

    Henry suffers from reading incomprehension. (6-10-07)

    Henry, in his linguistic naiveté, doesn’t appreciate the difference between the etymology and meaning. (6-10-07)

    Another one of Henry’s problems is that he doesn’t even know the meaning of English words. (6-10-07)


    Robots are people, too! Clearly they need to add I, Robot to the curriculum at Henry’s backwoods seminary. (6-10-07)

    How is it that Arminians know so little about human nature, especially in matters of the heart? Did Henry grow up within a Shaker community? (6-10-07)

    How is it that Henry, like other Arminians, is so obvious to social psychology? So clueless about the world around them? (6-10-07)

    Henry is now arguing with MG as well as me. That's an imprudent move on his part since MG has a far more agile mind that Henry. But, by all means, Henry—take on yet another, superior opponent. (6-12-07)
    I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”

    You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.

    For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.

    Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”

    You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.

    Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.

    BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part. (6-14-07)


    ============================================


    Set 2 = Bible verses on how Christians are to interact with and speak to other Christians:

    “and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.” Eph. 4:24-25

    “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” Eph. 4:29-32 (unwholesome words, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, malice, are not acceptable; instead kind, tender-hearted, forgiving ought to be done)

    “for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.” (Eph. 5:8-10) (children of light do not talk to each other as the children of darkness do to each other)

    “Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:14-15) (blameless, innocent, light in a dark world)

    “so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10) (our actions ought to be done in a manner worthy of the Lord; we are to be good witnesses manifesting Jesus’ character to both unbelievers and especially believers = “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” Gal. 6:10)

    “For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.” (Col. 3:6-8) (Christians may have experienced anger, wrath, malice, slander, abusive speech, in the past as nonbelievers, but it should no longer characterize them, or be practiced by believers, as saved persons these things are to be put aside and replaced by love, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc. etc.)

    “And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.” (Col. 3:12-14) (we are to be compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, patience, bearing with one another, forgiving)

    “Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; for indeed you do practice it toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, to excel still more” (1 Thess. 4:9-10)(love other Christians and **excel** in it)

    “And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Tim: 2:24-26 – Note while this is spoken about how we are to act towards nonbelievers, if these things are true of that interaction how should our interaction be with other believers??? Even when the unbeliever wrongs us we are to be patient when wronged, correcting them with gentleness realizing that God is the one who has to change their heart)

    “To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Pet. 3:8-12)(are to be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, humble, not returning evil for evil or insults when insulted)

    “Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” (1 Pet. 4:8-9) (above all love ought to characterize the interactions between Christians)

    “You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the might hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time” (1 Pet. 5:5-6) (God hates pride and opposes the proud but gives grace to and relates better with people who are humble)

    “An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:2-7, presents the character traits Christian leaders/elders are to have, shows what Christian maturity looks like, if you do not manifest these traits you are not a mature Christian no matter how smart you may be; examine the posts and see if they manifest these character traits or not)

    “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1 Jn. 3:15-16)(the posts have repeatedly manifested hatred rather than love)

    “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 Jn. 4:7-8) (a genuine believer will consistently be manifesting love towards other believers irrespective of whether or not they hold the same doctrinal beliefs)

    “If someone says, “I love God”, and hates his brother, he is a liar, for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” (1 Jn. 4:20-21)(we have a right to ask of a professing Christian: where is the love? If you hate other Christians, that suggests you are not one of His people)

    “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (Jn. 13:34-35). (Jesus said it himself, love of one another, not intellect or contentious arguing, is what shows people belong to Him, intellect without love is no different than the nonbelievers, just as anything without love is worthless, cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3)

    “Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly, it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7, if a person loves other believers and unbelievers, we ought to see what is described here in their posts on the internet as well)

    Now having seen some of the sinful things which Steve Hays has said towards me. And comparing his statements with the biblical admonitions of how Christians are to speak and treat one another. Hays needs to change his manner of interacting and speaking towards me. He needs to better practice what the Bible says about the manner in which Christians are to interact with one another. If he claims to be a Christian then he needs to live out what the Bible says, obey the exhortations and commands of scripture in regards to how to interact with other people. And if he has problems with the Bible verses mentioned here, or refuses to practice them, then he needs to have some interaction with the God who expects His people to be living these things out in every area of their lives.

    Henry

    ReplyDelete