Gene has already responded to part of what Henry said, so I’ll confine myself to some of Henry’s other remarks:
“I do not begin with the AXIOMATIC POSTULATE that Hays **ascribes to me** either. I have never stated or suggested that God must do the most loving thing.”
Poor little Henry can’t follow his own argument. He tried to set up an invidious contrast between what is more loving and less loving. And he applied this a priori, comparative judgment to Calvinism. According to his argument, Calvinism is false because Calvinism is less loving than his Arminian alternative.
I’m merely answering him on his own terms. The fact that he instantly backtracks shows he that he can’t abide the implications of his own, pitiful argument—which is fine with me.
“Hays’ calvinistic theology is not derived from what the real God really does because the real God told us about His love for the WORLD.”
Henry believes in proof by capital letters, preferably in translation.
How did he ever get to be a seminary prof, anyway? Did he marry the daughter of the seminary president?
“Instead of the real God who has universal purposes when it comes to redemption.”
Yes, Henry believes in a God who has universal ineffectual purposes, which is so much better than a God who can actually accomplish what he set out to do.
“Calvinists intentionally limit the love and mercy of God to the “elect.” Hence a good term for them would be GRACE RESTRICTORS.”
Arminians intentionally limit the love and mercy of God to willing sinners. Hence a good term for them would be GRACE RESTRICTORS.
For them, God’s grace is unlimited in intent, but limited in effect.
“Again, the issue is not what is the most loving thing to do. Bringing in the universalists is a red herring.”
That’s precisely the issue when that’s the way that Henry chose to frame the issue. Once more, he can’t follow his own pitiful reasoning.
Let’s take you by the hand and walk you through your own argument, Henry. If what is more loving is better than what is less loving, then what is most loving is better than what is more loving.
Would you like me to repeat that three times until it sinks in?
You’re the one who chose to cast the alternatives along a relative continuum of what is more or less loving.
So, by your own yardstick, universalism is more loving than Arminianism. Universalism would be the most loving alternative (on Arminian assumptions). It takes that aspect of the Arminian argument to its logical extreme.
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.
“Regarding the ‘loving end’ of the theological spectrum, I just parrot or repeat, what God himself says about His redemptive plans for the WORLD. I am not the one who inspired John 3:16-17 and the other passages that speak of God’s love for more persons than just those who end up believing.”
And, of course, a universalist could just parrot or repeat Jn 3:16 too. But unfortunately for the both of you, there’s a difference between quoting and exegeting a verse of scripture.
“Divine love and human freedom are not contradictory.”
They stand in tension in Arminian theology since human freewill limits the impact of God’s love.
“And this claim that He can only be as loving as the sinner allows him to be is straight out false. How do finite limited creatures limit the attributes of the God of the Bible?”
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.
The question is not whether libertarian freewill limits the possession of a divine attribute, but the exercise of a divine attribute.
“God sending His own Son to die for the sins of the world and the Spirit leading the world to Christ by convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment IS STOPPING SHORT OF DOING ****ANYTHING***? Jesus’ death on the cross for the world was an act of love that was merely SHOWING RATHER THAN DOING. ***AN EMPTY GESTURE***?”
Yes, in Arminian theology it’s all an empty gesture, like one of those strongly worded, nonbinding UN resolutions.
In Arminian theology, the atonement doesn’t make a difference. In Arminian theology, God mails a set of wedding invitations to all the residents of the local cemetery. He invites all the corpses to attend the wedding.
“Hays advocates that God coerces us to be saved as He thinks that is **more loving**”
Two problems:
i) I’m not the one who framed the issue in terms of what is more loving. Henry did.
ii) Regeneration is like a psychotropic cure for mental illness. The lunatic cannot help himself, so you administer a drug without his consent. But the effect of the drug is to redress the chemical imbalance and restore his normal function.
“I have not said that God does the most loving thing for everyone always.”
And that’s because Henry lacks a logical mind. But this is what Henry does say:
“The issue here has been which conception, noncalvinism or calvinism, is more loving.”
So, once again, if more loving is better than less loving, then most loving is better than more loving.
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.
This is the implicit logic of your argument, Henry, even if you choose to stop artificially short of the superlatives:
Less loving is better than least loving
More loving is better than less loving
Most loving is better than more loving
Least loving>less loving>more loving>most loving
Got it?
“And I am not God so I don’t have to worry about determining what is best).”
This is disingenuous when he attacks Reformed theology on those very grounds.
“Hays also says that sometimes God does what is just rather than what is loving. We are discussing the issue of salvation where God is not acting on justice rather than love, but is acting in love.”
No, we’re discussing the question of whether God is obligated to do the most loving thing for the most people.
“In Hays’ monergistic scheme since God alone acts freely, and human persons are depraved to the point that they cannot embrace Christ for salvation unless they are regenerated first, God can, does, and must UNILATERALLY intervene in order for someone to be saved. I say UNILATERALLY because Calvinists do not believe that human persons do anything in the salvation process. In such a scheme unless God intervenes UNILATERALLY, the human person cannot be saved and will die in their sins.”
This is inaccurate. Reformed soteriology is not exclusively monergistic. God must unilaterally intervene to regenerate a sinner. But once regenerated, the born-again believer can employ the means of grace. Sanctification has a cooperative aspect, although it’s not cooperative in the libertarian sense.
“In the synergistic theology of noncalvinists since salvation is a relationship involving God and man, both persons contribute actions to the relationship so that one person alone acting UNILATERALLY does not make the relationship occur.”
Once again, Henry is setting up a specious contrast. In Calvinism, there is also a relationship between God and his people. But God is responsible for bringing sinners into a vital relationship with himself. Let to their own resources, fallen sinners will reject God.
“If salvation is seen relationally and hence synergistically,”
A false dichotomy. A relationship does not entail synergism.
Henry is equivocating. “Synergism” is a technical term in theology. In that specialized sense, it means a good deal more than “mutuality between two persons.”
“If Hays were accurately representing the noncalvinist view then he would be speaking about salvation in terms of relationship and the different actions of the two parties involved in the relationship.”
Must a lifeguard have a relationship with a drowning swimmer? Is a lifeguard only allowed to save his girlfriend? Or does this only apply to Arminian lifeguards?
Reformed lifeguards are prepared to rescue perfect strangers. A Reformed lifeguard is allowed to save a drowning five-year-old he never met before, but an Arminian lifeguard will let the boy become shark bait since they don’t have a mutual relationship.
So that makes Reformed theology more loving than Arminian theology.
“In the ‘different situations’ which Hays brings up, none of them involve mutuality; all of them involve situations where a UNILATERAL intervention saves a person from death. So Hays says he is taking my view to other situations but then slips in his view of salvation being a UNILATERAL intervention by one person (he is thus begging the question by injecting his own monergism and then claiming that he is representing synergism).”
This is a very confused summary.
On my view, these situations do involve unilateral intervention. That’s the purpose of the illustration. To drive the point home.
Are there any circumstances under which Henry would approve of unilateral intervention to save someone from death? Even against their will or without informed consent?
If so, then why does he think it’s acceptable to unilaterally intervene in order to save someone from death, but not from damnation? Isn’t damnation worse than death?
But even on his own view, he has tried to give a synergist spin to the lifeguard analogy. On his view, the lifeguard is only allowed to save a drowning swimmer if the swimmer gives his consent.
So Henry doesn’t think that this situation demands unilateral action. To the contrary, he leaves it up to the drowning swimmer rather than the lifeguard. As usual, he can’t keep track of his own argument.
“Consider the examples. One is of a person in the position to prevent a suicide by intervening UNILATERALLY by taking the gun out of someone’s hand to prevent the person from shooting himself.”
And what does Henry think a good samaritan should do in that situation? Should he unilaterally intervene to prevent his best friend or brother from killing himself?
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?
“One is of a person heading towards a cliff so another person in the position to prevent from falling off the cliff to his death can intervene by tackling him.”
Not falling off a cliff (or bridge, or skyscraper), but jumping off. Another case of suicide.
And Henry can recast that in synergist terms if he wants to. Do you wait for your suicidal brother to cooperate with your efforts to save him? Do you merely offer to intervene? Ask him if he’d like a helping hand? And if he refuses, walk away?
Once again, what would Henry do in that situation? Would he pull his brother back from the ledge and forcibly hold him down until he came to his senses? Or would he let him jump to his death, and say to himself, “Serves him right! I gave him a chance!”
“Hays is also committing the fallacy of appeal to emotion (he constructs examples in which we are to get emotional about “Henry’s” position that since God allows people free will that God would just watch as a guilty bystander as a suicidal person or careless person dies right in front of them [“As I watch his brain splatter the pavement”).”
i) To begin with, Henry is the one who chose to frame the issue in emotive terms. What is more loving or not.
He’s the one who constantly resorts to ad populum appeals about how most people find Calvinism repugnant.
I simply answer him on his own grounds. And whenever I answer him on his own grows, he acts offended.
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.
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.
ii) Beyond that, I’ll still waiting for an answer. What would he do with a suicidal friend or brother—or even a perfect stranger?
The question clearly makes him squirm, which is why he’s trying to wiggle out of it.
Of course, one always has to be careful with analogies, parables, and the like... not every aspect of every parable, parallel, or analogy actually translates into the core issue being discussed. (Some odd theology comes out of people tracking down a parallel to every aspect of some of Christ's parables, for example.) So, this is of limited utility, but I find it salient to point out that people who are in the process of drowning are hardly the most rational. Never mind the more correct example, IMO, of the dead swimmer being brought back to life... the drowning swimmer is plenty likely to do things that will hamper his probability of survival unless the rescuer gives him a swift kick in the junk (or face, more likely) and -coercively- saves him.
ReplyDeleteI've never actually seen Protestants, Arminian or otherwise, favorably use the term synergism with respect to salvation. Even Arminians usually dodge it to avoid the taint of Pelagianism. Interesting.
Steve Hays writes:
ReplyDelete“Poor little Henry can’t follow his own argument. He tried to set up an invidious contrast between what is more loving and less loving. And he applied this a priori, comparative judgment to Calvinism. According to his argument, Calvinism is false because Calvinism is less loving than his Arminian alternative.”
And later in this same post He repeats it again:
“i) To begin with, Henry is the one who chose to frame the issue in emotive terms. What is more loving or not.”
These statements that I had initiated the lifeguard analogies and attempted to frame things in an emotive fashion with the lifeguard analogies is not accurate. I had not said anything about lifeguards or lifeguard analogies whatsoever up until Steve Hays started using a lifeguard analogy in his Triablogue lead article posting on Sunday 5/4/07. Anyone can check this out for himself/herself because the posts are public for all to see. Note here is my initial words in response to STEVE HAYS BRINGING UP THE LIFEGUARD ANALOGY. Here I quote his words and my initial response:
===========================================
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.” . . . . . ( Sunday, 4/8/07, thread titled: FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD)
=============================================================================================================
Steve Hays was attempting to mock and ridicule the noncalvinist view. Hays is the one who first speaks of “the most loving thing that God could do?” Hays is the one who first launches into a lifeguard and attempts to contrast his calvinism (which he represents as “Or jumping in and actually pulling him to safety?”), with noncalvinism (which he presents as “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! . . . .Instead, the Arminian life guard throws him a life preserver and then goes on a lunch break.”)
Who was first trying to set up AN INVIDIOUS CONTRAST BETWEEN WHAT IS MORE LOVING (according to Hays his calvinism) versus WHAT IS LESS LOVING (according to Hays it is Arminianism)?
Check the public record. (4/8/7, FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD)
Who was first setting things up in an emotive fashion using the lifeguard analogy?
Check the public record. (4/8/7, FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD))
So Hays starts the discussion of lifeguard analogies. I responded by showing problems with his analogy and showed that when properly seen the noncalvinist view is more loving than the Calvinist view. Now Hays comes back claiming that I started the whole thing by setting up an invidious contrast between what is more loving and less loving.
Anyone can look at the public posts for themselves to see who first brought up the lifeguard analogy, who was setting things up emotively and setting up an “invidious contrast”.
Henry
The problem with Henry is that he can't follow his own argumentation.
ReplyDeleteWhen Steve cast the lifeguard analogy, Henry pursued the analogy, and not only did he pursue the analogy, he explicitly reframed the analogy, casting it in the terms to which Steve responded last.
Henry then responded to Steve, and Steve responded in the terms Henry used when recasting the analogy, and Henry's casting of the analogy from a thread that Henry invaded to discuss 1 Peter 1:2. That was NOT a recapitulation of the thread on April 8. So, no, Henry, YOU are the one who decided to bring up this issue and it was THAT incident to which Steve is referring. His last response was catered to your desire to cast the argument in those terms, and when you responded in objecting, you were responding to Steve's responses to the way you specifically chose to cast the argument afresh.
I'm not sure whether the following has already been mentioned in one of the threads, as I haven't followed every comment in the comboxes, but even if it has I thought it'd be worth repeating.
ReplyDeleteIn Henry's remodification of the drowning swimmers example, he appears to gloss over one significant fact: the drowning swimmers are sinners.
It's not as if they are innocent beach-goers enjoying a day in the sun, sand, and surf, but were suddenly and unexpectedly swept out to sea by a riptide. For his example to be more consistent with the Bible, he'd have to further modify it so that the lifeguard is rescuing drowning pirates whose ship ran aground when they were celebrating in their drunkenness after having raped and pillaged a coastal town, or something to that effect.
In other words, God is under no moral obligation to save a single sinner in the first place. On the contrary, justice would require he condemn all of us, since we are all sinners.
About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].
ReplyDeletePeace Be With You
Micky
Uh, thanks Micky. I'm not so sure you're out of your "psychological prison" though, as I've seen you post this before on other threads that have nothing to do with your comments. But hey...glad you're happy and feel like sharing.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to take your meds though. VERY IMPORTANT
Steve Hays presents yet another misrepresentation of the noncalvinist view and engages in the logical fallacy of false dilemma:
ReplyDelete“Yes, Henry believes in a God who has universal ineffectual purposes, which is so much better than a God who can actually accomplish what he set out to do.”
So according to Hays our only options are (1) God has universal INEFFECTUAL purposes (which presumably Hays thinks is true of noncalvinism), and (2) a God who can actually accomplish what he set out to do/God has EFFECTUAL purposes?
The noncalvinist believes that one of God’s effectual purposes was to create human persons capable of making a choice, doing their own actions, and hence of having a personal relationship with their Creator. Another of God’s effectual purposes was to design a redemptive plan in which human persons would retain their capacity to make choices and do their own actions. A redemptive plan that would be capable of saving all human persons who choose to be in a personal relationship with their Creator. The noncalvinists see these purposes as having been successfully accomplished. So we have access to a redemptive plan which though sufficient to save all human persons, is offered in good faith to human persons capable of hearing, understanding and responding to the gracious offer, and yet results in only those who freely choose to have a personal relationship with God having this relationship. God desires a people who will love and trust Him. Those who reject His gracious offer then face an eternity of separation from this loving God by their own doing.
So the third option is (3) God has universal EFFECTUAL purposes, that He has successfully accomplished.
God does successfully accomplish what He sets out to do. He set out to create us with the capacity to make choices and perform our own actions. This was successful. He set out to provide a redemptive plan that would be sufficient to save all and yet would save only those who trust Him. This was successful. He says Himself that without faith it is impossible to please Him so He constantly seeks to have a personal relationship of love and trust with human persons who freely choose to be in such a relationship. He does not need any of us, is perfectly sufficient in Himself and yet He seeks relationships with human persons who have sinned repeatedly against Him. He makes this relationship possible for human persons through the cross of Christ. But as the loving and gentle and kind and good and merciful person that He is, He does not force human persons into a personal relationship with Himself. He draws them by the work of the Holy Spirit who instructs people about the way of salvation and shows people their sinfulness and their need for Jesus as their savior. And once people enter into such a personal relationship with God they then manifest similar character as their Heavenly Father in that they love each other and seek to see others come to know Him in such a personal relationship of love and trust.
Henry
henry said...
ReplyDelete"So we have access to a redemptive plan which though sufficient to save all human persons."
No, it's insufficient to save anyone, much less everyone. Poor little Henry needs to master the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition.
Arminian prevenient grace is, at best, a necessary condition for the salvation of any, but it's insufficient to satisfy that condition.
"God desires a people who will love and trust Him...God does successfully accomplish what He sets out to do."
Notice the implicit contradiction. In Arminian theology, God wills that everyone be saved. But everyone shall not be saved. Yet God wills the salvation of the hellbound as much as the salvation of the heavenbound.
Hence, the will of God is frustrated. It's an ineffectual will, thwarted by man's libertarian power of contrary choice.
"He set out to provide a redemptive plan that would be sufficient to save all and yet would save only those who trust Him."
Observe, once more, the insufficiency of this provision. It is insufficient to ensure that anyone will, in fact, trust in him. Prevenient grace is a bridge that terminates halfway across a crocodile infested river.
"But as the loving and gentle and kind and good and merciful person that He is..."
Remember that according to Henry's theology, it's more loving if everyone goes to hell as long as everyone had a "chance" to be saved than if only some people go to hell while the others go to heaven.
For Henry, Arminian universal damnation would be more loving than Reformed election.
Patrick wrote:
ReplyDelete”In Henry's remodification of the drowning swimmers example, he appears to gloss over one significant fact: the drowning swimmers are sinners.”
In my analogy that is one of the reasons I have the people as paraplegics. As paraplegics if the boat goes down and they start drowning, they have no way to save themselves. Someone else (hence the lifeguards) must come to rescue them. In our own case, due to the universality of sin and the consequences of sin, we are all drowning with no chance to save ourselves. We need divine intervention or we won’t make it.
”It's not as if they are innocent beach-goers enjoying a day in the sun, sand, and surf, but were suddenly and unexpectedly swept out to sea by a riptide. For his example to be more consistent with the Bible, he'd have to further modify it so that the lifeguard is rescuing drowning pirates whose ship ran aground when they were celebrating in their drunkenness after having raped and pillaged a coastal town, or something to that effect.”
I never said they were innocent: the penalty for sin is death. And all have sinned . . .
You bring up pirates as an illustration of what you see as really bad people, but according to God’s standards breaking one of his commandments makes it as if you had broken them all (James 2:20). It is humans who compare levels of sin and see some as worse than others. From the perspective of perfect justice all deserve death for our sins whether they are few (or one) or many.
When you realize how sinful human persons are that is what makes Jn. 3:16 so amazing. That God loves a rebellious world that sins against Him so much that He gave His only Son for that world clearly demonstrates the love of God for human persons (both those who eventually come out of the world and those who never do so).
”In other words, God is under no moral obligation to save a single sinner in the first place. On the contrary, justice would require he condemn all of us, since we are all sinners.”
Regarding this issue of justice I already dealt with this on another thread, but if you had not read it, here it is:
===================================
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.
===============================
Henry
I am choosing to respond to some of Steve Hays comments here.
ReplyDelete“Let’s take you by the hand and walk you through your own argument, Henry. If what is more loving is better than what is less loving, then what is most loving is better than what is more loving.
Would you like me to repeat that three times until it sinks in?
You’re the one who chose to cast the alternatives along a relative continuum of what is more or less loving.”
As I pointed out in another post, it is Steve Hays who tried to turn it into a contest of determining which view was more loving. Concerning what is most loving as I said before I do not know what is most loving in many cases and that is not the issue here.
I had stated:
“Divine love and human freedom are not contradictory.”
Hays responded:
“They stand in tension in Arminian theology since human freewill limits the impact of God’s love.”
If that is the way you are going to frame it: that our sinful actions (which would include the unbeliever rejecting the gospel message and the believer sinning) will LIMIT THE IMPACT OF GOD’S LOVE. Then this will be a “problem” for both the noncalvinist and the Calvinist. When Christians sin we grieve the Holy Spirit/God, so by your way of framing things that would mean that we are LIMITING THE IMPACT OF GOD’S LOVE every time that we sin. Because if we had not sinned, then God’s love would have had more of an impact. But since we sinned then God’s love has less impact. I do not believe that your way of framing things in this way is very helpful. God’s love, especially for His own is more like the Sun whose rays of light are always heading our way, though through cloud cover, or fog, or other weather conditions the sun light may be more or less obscured. God’s nature is love and while we sense it less when we sin, His love nevertheless is always directed at us and coming at us.
“The question is not whether libertarian freewill limits the possession of a divine attribute, but the exercise of a divine attribute.”
Again, if our sinful actions in some way lessen the **impact** of God’s love, then that occurs whether you are a noncalvinist or a Calvinist. I am not convinced that we should talk about our actions as in some way limiting the exercise of a divine attribute. When we sin are we also limiting the exercise of divine sovereignty which is a divine attribute? And if not, then how is that we are able to limit the exercise of the attribute of divine love but not the attribute of divine sovereignty?
“Yes, in Arminian theology it’s all an empty gesture, like one of those strongly worded, nonbinding UN resolutions.”
Steve Hays does not seem to understand or appreciate the nature of loving relationships very well. In the context of a relationship, acts of love by one of the parties can make a lot of difference regardless of how the other party sometimes reacts or responds to these acts of love. In the OT the book of Hosea shows this very well. Perhaps Hays should read it to be reminded again about how loving acts in the context of relationship operate and can break through rebellious hearts. In the NT Christians with nonbelieving spouses are told to win them over with actions more than words. And many Christians who have seen their unbelieving spouses come to the Lord can tell you about how at first the loving acts may have bounced off like water off a duck’s back. And yet with persistent acts of love positive changes in the relationship were effected. The power of loving acts should never be underestimated, especially when those loving acts are flowing from a loving God.
Looking at our own coming to the Lord, some will be able to tell a story of how God started reaching out to them in love and at first they ignored or rejected these overtures by the Lord. But with time their resistance broke down and they realized how much the Lord loved them. Some will tell how at first the cross seemed like an empty gesture but as time went on they began to see the love of God expressed in this “empty gesture.”
“In Arminian theology, the atonement doesn’t make a difference. In Arminian theology, God mails a set of wedding invitations to all the residents of the local cemetery. He invites all the corpses to attend the wedding.”
It is ironic that Hays once again completely misrepresents things here. Jesus himself even spoke in parables about how God sends out the invitations to the world. And in these parables it does not speak of the people being unable to even respond to the invitation because they were **corpses**. Instead it says they understood the invitation but rejected it and made excuses. The same thing sometimes happens when we evangelize. It is not that the person does not understand what we are saying (especially when the Spirit is working on them or has been working on them). Rather, they get the message, but then start making excuses as to why they are rejecting it. Corpses last time I checked cannot dialogue with you, nor can they give you reasons why they are rejecting Jesus.
Steve Hays, like Gene Bridges, wants to have me saying or arguing that God always does the most loving thing for everyone always. I have never said this nor do I believe it yet they keep trying to put words in my mouth. Here is yet another attempt to force the creation of a straw man (not what I do say or believe but what they want me to say or believe so they can attack it). Consider this attempt by Steve Hays (set apart by lines):
============================================
“I have not said that God does the most loving thing for everyone always.” [Henry}
And that’s because Henry lacks a logical mind. But this is what Henry does say:
“The issue here has been which conception, noncalvinism or calvinism, is more loving.”
So, once again, if more loving is better than less loving, then most loving is better than more loving.
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.
This is the implicit logic of your argument, Henry, even if you choose to stop artificially short of the superlatives:
Less loving is better than least loving
More loving is better than less loving
Most loving is better than more loving
Least loving>less loving>more loving>most loving
Got it?”
===============================================
Steve Hays brought up the issue of which is more loving Calvinism or noncalvinism. The concept of what is **most loving** was not the issue. I addressed the issue of what is more loving, arguing that noncalvinism is more loving than Calvinism. If the argument is which is **more loving** (Calvinism or noncalvinism) then I am under no burden or necessity to argue for what is **most loving**.
I had written:
“In Hays’ monergistic scheme since God alone acts freely, and human persons are depraved to the point that they cannot embrace Christ for salvation unless they are regenerated first, God can, does, and must UNILATERALLY intervene in order for someone to be saved. I say UNILATERALLY because Calvinists do not believe that human persons do anything in the salvation process. In such a scheme unless God intervenes UNILATERALLY, the human person cannot be saved and will die in their sins.”
Hays responded:
“This is inaccurate. Reformed soteriology is not exclusively monergistic. God must unilaterally intervene to regenerate a sinner. But once regenerated, the born-again believer can employ the means of grace. Sanctification has a cooperative aspect, although it’s not cooperative in the libertarian sense.”
When people use the terms monergism and synergism they are primarily focusing on how a person becomes a Christian. The synergist because the synergist understands that salvation is a relationship, argues that the coming of a person to faith in Jesus Christ is a cooperative effort between both persons involved in the relationship (both God and man do certain actions which bring the relationship into existence). Monergists because they believe in exhaustive determinism and deny the existence of free will, explain the coming of a person to faith in Jesus Christ as being TOTALLY AND UNILATERALLY A WORK OF GOD. In Synergism the human person must exercise a faith response to the gospel offer in order to be saved. In Monergism the person is first regenerated and it is regeneration that then produces or causes the faith response. Scripture seems to suggest that we are **saved** when we respond in faith and are regenerated. So in the monergistic scheme the person is saved first without any actions on his part, and then regeneration causes faith to occur. In synergism the whole thing is relational with both sides freely choosing to enter into the relationship. In monergism only one side is developing the relationship because supposedly the human side is incapable of relating to God in any positive way unless first regenerated.
Consider the metaphor often invoked by Calvinists themselves. The monergist believes that God chooses to have a relationship with what is initially a corpse. The corpse being dead can in no way relate to God whatsoever. So the corpse must first be made alive, then a relationship can occur (Calvinists often use the story of Lazarus being raised to support this notion).
For the synergist, while we are tragically and severely impacted by sin in every aspect of our being, we are not corpses that must first be made alive in order to have a relationship with God. Instead, we are in a condition of being lost or separated or out of relationship with God and God takes steps to develop the relationship and we respond to this work of God until we get to the point where we want to be in a personal and eternal and saving relationship with God. At that point the Spirit will have been working on us, bringing us into conviction for sin, showing us the work of Christ, showing us the way of salvation through Christ, illuminating scripture in our minds, etc. Etc. We then find ourselves in a place where we can enter into this personal relationship with the Lord. If we are willing to humble ourselves by admitting our sinfulness (humbling ourselves/confession), asking for forgiveness, desiring to be reconciled to God (reconciliation) committing to turning away from sin (repentance), committing to having Jesus as Lord over us (submission to Jesus’ authority), and admitting that we cannot save ourselves but must throw ourselves completely upon the mercy of God in order to be saved (faith).
Steve Hays also admits that part of salvation is synergistic: “Sanctification has a cooperative aspect, although it’s not in the libertarian sense.” Salvation includes justification, sanctification and glorification. Everyone agrees that glorification is a unilateral act of God. There is disagreement about whether or not justification is a unilateral act of God (I personally take it to be a unilateral act of God). And the process involved in initially coming to the Lord, entering into a relationship with Him is synergistic. And the process of sanctification **is** also cooperative and synergistic.
And it is also in the libertarian sense as Christians are constantly facing choices in which they really can do one thing (follow the Spirit) or the other (follow the flesh), do righteousness or sin, give in to temptation or resist temptation, obey God’s commands or disobey God’s commands. One of the most precious freedoms of the Christian is that we are now free to present our members for righteousness rather than for sin. But in that same context Paul says that we can also present our members for sin. So it is our choice as to whether or not we present our members to righteousness or sin. Anyone who teaches or preaches on a regular basis knows that we can instruct and explain, we can urge people to be obedient, we can explain and model God’s commands. But unless the people freely choose to obey, choose to submit, choose to do the right thing, it will not happen.
I had written:
“In the synergistic theology of noncalvinists since salvation is a relationship involving God and man, both persons contribute actions to the relationship so that one person alone acting UNILATERALLY does not make the relationship occur.”
Hays responded:
“Once again, Henry is setting up a specious contrast. In Calvinism, there is also a relationship between God and his people. But God is responsible for bringing sinners into a vital relationship with himself. Left to their own resources, fallen sinners will reject God.”
In Calvinism the “relationship” between God and his people is not a relationship involving freely performed actions by both parties. In a freely chosen and loving relationship both parties make uncoerced nonconstrained choices which make the relationship a good and healthy one. If everything is predetermined and free will and choices do not make up the relationship. Then the relationship between God and man (assuming that God predetermines everything, that free will does not exist, that we can never do otherwise than in fact we were predetermined to do in any and every set of affairs) is then like a puppet master and his puppet or a computer programmer and his computer.
If every action of a puppet is controlled by the puppet master, every aspect of the puppet’s being is controlled by the puppet master (which would include their consciousness, mental states, desires, beliefs, memories, thinking, deliberating, etc. Etc. Etc. And the puppet master predetermines every action done by the puppet. Then the actions of the puppet are not coerced (because its will as well as every other aspect of its being is controlled directly by the puppet master) but are precisely and always only what the puppet master desired for the puppet to do. While these actions by the puppet would **not** properly be described as coerced, these actions are all constrained by the puppet master. The relationship is not one involving persons freely choosing their actions towards each other. Or it would be like a computer programmer who was able to preprogram a conscious and intelligent computer robot to do whatever the programmer had preprogrammed it to do. Again, the robot’s actions would not be coerced but they would be completely controlled and constrained by the programmer. In either case whether it is the conscious puppet or conscious robot completely controlled and predetermined, I would not consider these to be real relationships of freely chosen love and trust as is true in the saving relationship between God and human persons. A healthy relationship involving freely chosen loving acts by both persons would require real freedom in the libertarian sense.
Hays says that left to our own resources fallen sinners will reject God. But that is just the point, God does not leave us to ourselves. God does not leave us to come to Him on our own solely by our own efforts. Instead, He sends His Son to do the work of redemption. He sends the Spirit to work on people and lead them to Himself. Left to our own resources we cannot understand scripture. But the Spirit comes along and illuminates scripture, shows us our need for Christ, shows us Christ as the way of salvation, etc. Etc. And this work of the Spirit is a supernatural and sovereign work that overcomes our ignorance leading us to a place where we can choose to respond in faith or choose to reject Him.
I wrote:
“If salvation is seen relationally and hence synergistically,”
Hays responded:
“A false dichotomy. A relationship does not entail synergism.
Henry is equivocating. “Synergism” is a technical term in theology. In that specialized sense, it means a good deal more than “mutuality between two persons.””
I define synergism as requiring the actions of both persons, monergism as requiring the actions of only one person. So defined, noncalvinism sees people coming to the Lord and being saved as requiring the actions of both persons. Calvinism requires the actions of only one person for the person to be saved/regenerated.
RELATIONSHIPS DO ENTAIL SYNERGISM as I have defined it.
And salvation ***is*** a relationship so it will necessarily involve synergism/actions by both persons. Since I define synergism as requiring the actions of both persons, it will also require “mutuality between two persons.”
I had written:
“If Hays were accurately representing the noncalvinist view then he would be speaking about salvation in terms of relationship and the different actions of the two parties involved in the relationship.”
Hays responded:
“Must a lifeguard have a relationship with a drowning swimmer? Is a lifeguard only allowed to save his girlfriend? Or does this only apply to Arminian lifeguards?
Reformed lifeguards are prepared to rescue perfect strangers. A Reformed lifeguard is allowed to save a drowning five-year-old he never met before, but an Arminian lifeguard will let the boy become shark bait since they don’t have a mutual relationship.
So that makes Reformed theology more loving than Arminian theology.”
The love of God is shown in that “while we were yet sinners”, in other words when we were in the condition of being lost, being separated from God, being rebellious to Him and His commandments, not being in relationship with God. God nevertheless took the initiative in developing the relationship with us by sending Jesus to die for our sins before we ever had any relationship with Him. And sending the Spirit to work on us as well. Hays asks all of these questions about the lifeguard and the answer is that Jesus the ultimate life guard sacrificed himself on the cross for people who were part of the WORLD. Some of whom will come out of the world and follow Him and others who will reject Him and die in unbelief. So the lifeguard dies for people He initially HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH in order to develop a loving and trusting relationship with them.
The lifeguard is not just prepared to save perfect strangers but people who have committed incredible acts of sin, have murdered, have committed unspeakable acts of sin. EVEN IF THEY REJECT HIS HELP AND REFUSE TO BE SAVED.
“On my view, these situations do involve unilateral intervention. That’s the purpose of the illustration. To drive the point home.
Are there any circumstances under which Henry would approve of unilateral intervention to save someone from death? Even against their will or without informed consent?”
Yes, we should do whatever we can to save people from life threatening circumstances involving suicide. I personally believe that if someone is seriously considering suicide that they are not in a rational state, are not in a right state of mind, but are “out of their minds”, so I would have no hesitation in intervening “against their will” or without informed consent”.
It must be understood however that this is a very different context than the actions which make for developing a loving relationship. I do not coerce my wife or do things to her “against her will” or “without her consent” in the context of loving her and pleasing her. However if a loved one or even a stranger was in a place seriously considering suicide or in the act of doing so, I would have no hesitation in intervening to prevent them from carrying out their intention.
In the case of salvation, God as already intervened in the incarnation, death, and resurrection. He has also intervened in the work of the Spirit in leading human persons to Christ. And in the case of salvation God neither coerces us nor constrains us into a saving relationship with Him against our wills. God developing a saving relationship with us and intervening to prevent a person’s suicide are two very different contexts. God developing a saving relationship is more like the actions we do when dating our future spouses. When we are dating, do we, and is it considered appropriate or loving, to force, coerce or constrain the relationship into existence?
“If so, then why does he think it’s acceptable to unilaterally intervene in order to save someone from death, but not from damnation? Isn’t damnation worse than death?”
As I just explained intervening to prevent a suicide and God developing a saving relationship of love and trust with us are two very different situations and contexts. Damnation only occurs after a series of loving attempts has already been made. God’s mercy endures forever, he has incredible patience not wishing that any should perish. Damnation occurs only after God has repeatedly reached out towards a person and that person has repeatedly rejected God’s love. It is similar to the unforgivable sin (which is repeated rejection of the work of the Spirit in leading people to Christ).
“But even on his own view, he has tried to give a synergist spin to the lifeguard analogy. On his view, the lifeguard is only allowed to save a drowning swimmer if the swimmer gives his consent.”
I worked in the synergistic elements to purposefully make the point that salvation is relational and not coerced. God does not coerce us or constrain or manipulate or trick or con us into a personal relationship with us. He loves us and speaks to us and desires for us to reciprocate his love. We can see the importance of relationships to God in that He speaks of loving Him and loving each other. Jesus said the world would know us by our love for one another. John made it clear that one of the strongest evidences that we are saved/regenerated is that we love the brethren. God does not speak about love so much because He is wimpy and sentimental but because He desires us to have quality relationships with Him and others. Persons who are into love are into “informed consent”, persons who are into selfish control and power are into coercion. A coerced and forced relationship of love is an oxymoron.
“So Henry doesn’t think that this situation demands unilateral action. To the contrary, he leaves it up to the drowning swimmer rather than the lifeguard. As usual, he can’t keep track of his own argument.”
In my analogy of the lifeguard since I am talking about salvation and God developing a loving relationship in such a context, informed consent is important and necessary. In a situation where a person is in the act of suicide the context is different and informed consent may be suspended.
“And what does Henry think a good samaritan should do in that situation? Should he unilaterally intervene to prevent his best friend or brother from killing himself?”
A “good Samaritan” should do what they can to help a person who is in need. In the context of an attempted suicide should we unilaterally intervene? Yes. I have done precisely that in real world situations.
“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?”
I think you know the answer now.
“Not falling off a cliff (or bridge, or skyscraper), but jumping off. Another case of suicide.”
I misunderstood your illustrations and did not know that both were attempting suicide. I would intervene in either one if I had the opportunity.
“And Henry can recast that in synergist terms if he wants to. Do you wait for your suicidal brother to cooperate with your efforts to save him? Do you merely offer to intervene? Ask him if he’d like a helping hand? And if he refuses, walk away?”
In that situation and context I would directly intervene. In fact that is precisely what I have done in the past.
“Once again, what would Henry do in that situation? Would he pull his brother back from the ledge and forcibly hold him down until he came to his senses? Or would he let him jump to his death, and say to himself, “Serves him right! I gave him a chance!”
You ought to know my answers by now.
“ii) Beyond that, I’ll still waiting for an answer. What would he do with a suicidal friend or brother—or even a perfect stranger?
The question clearly makes him squirm, which is why he’s trying to wiggle out of it.”
I have clearly given the answer to your question and have in fact in the past done exactly what I say I would do here. The question did not make me squirm at all, it is easy to answer.
I will continue to maintain that God is loving, merciful, kind, compassionate, gentle, patient, etc. Etc. Etc. And it is precisely because He **is** these things towards those who will eventually come to be His people and those who will never come, that your theology and soteriology appears to be false.
Henry
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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