According to Arminianism (the majority Governmental theory), Christ didn't actually die for anyone in particular - whether it was every human in particular, or just the elect in particular.
Christ died as a substitute for the punishment people's sin deserved, but not for people, as such. (It is not clear why an innocent God-man was needed for this.)
Christ not dying for anyone seems, to me, to limit the atonement. But maybe I'm off on my math.
But why did he die for those nanosecond old fetuses that God knew would die the nanosecond they were conceived?
Since God knew they would die immediately, then there should be no need of atonement for them. How did they sin? Jesus' death, for them, seems superfluous. They never needed to take out the payment deposited for their sins since they never sinned.
So perhaps the atonement wasn't made for them (or their sin) in mind. But this is limited atonement.
But perhaps they deserved punishment and were guilty of for Adam's sin?
If so, then they are held morally responsible for something they had no control over. But this denies the libertarian's precious "ought-implies-can" principle foundational for an Arminian libertarian free-will theorist's conception of moral responsibility.
But what of infants who die in infancy? Some Arminians hold that they are innocent and so go to heaven. Thus they had no need of the atonement. Wasted suffering. Less money could have been put into the pot. These people never needed it. If I knew that my son would never need to pay off any debts, why would I leave money for him to do so? If they are not innocent, then they are guilty. Guilty of what? Adam's sin. We saw that this poses problems for libertarian conceptions of moral responsibility.
Perhaps nanosecond old fetuses are not human, and thus not in need of atonement? Is this a serious option? I think not.
Furthermore, what about those people in hell when Jesus made his atonement? What if they "wanted in" on the pot? Could they have grabbed some of that? If not, then it seems false that the atonement was made as an example of the punishment reserved for people, and they could take some of the action for themselves if they wanted it. The Arminian says that the atonement was for all people in the sense that it made it possible for anyone whoever to take the benefits for themselves. Okay, here's a test case: how was it "possible" for someone who was in hell to take the benefits of the atonement for themselves? The Arminian says that they rejected Christ's atonement for them in the sense that they rejected "the light" God provided for them. But this is Poltergeist theology. There are others in hell besides Carol Anne.
It looks like the Arminian view of atonement is on the horns of a quintlemma. Either (a) the atonement for nanosecond old fetuses who God knew would die in infancy is superfluous and not even technically for anyone - thus they limit the atonement for humans to 0, (b) is not made for them and thus the Arminian holds to limited atonement, (c) is for them to pay for the sin incurred from Adam which ends up posing problems for the treasured "ought-implies-can" principle, (d) nanosecond old fetuses are not humans, and (e) just what about all those people who were in hell already? Did Jesus die for them too? The Arminian often solves this little riddle with the argument that men can be saved by whatever light they have. But this poses another problem: (e1) Why bother with the gospel at all? Why not just leave them to the light of natural revelation?
But I’m sure the above will be challenged. Nailing down the Arminian free will theorist is like nailing jell-o to the wall. They are very confused when it comes to the issue of the atonement. This is the result of imposing tradition onto Scripture.
Enter Henry
ReplyDeleteRight from the get go, in The Acts of the Apostles 2:21 we have "and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on the name of the Lord".
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wished for validation against "limited atonement" that would provide enough proof.
However, as with many things throughout the entire bible there are points of contra-indicating thoughts. I think that the important thing is for us to look at the big picture in the message the author was trying to convey and not to get to worked up over one single passage.
Barry
Barry,
ReplyDeleteCould you please explain how Acts 2:21 is incompatible with limited atonement? The verse expresses the following conditional, which all Calvinists gladly affirm:
If P calls on the name of the Lord, then P will be saved.
As far as I can tell, this has no implications at all regarding the extent of the atonement.
Every non-universalist holds to an atonement that is limited in some respect. It's just a question of how the atonement is limited: whether in extent (Calvinism) or in efficacy (Arminianism).
Orthoducks continuies to violate the rules we have here. We have had to delete his post again. He has the integrity of O.J. Simpson. He's not a class act. Can't take his licks like a man. Low self-esteem.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, he left something that I'll respond to:
I said: Okay, here's a test case: how was it "possible" for someone who was in hell to take the benefits of the atonement for themselves?
He responds: "Maybe because they had choice when they were alive to take hold of it? I don't see the problem."
No, before Jesus came and made the atonement. The African head-hunter living in 2,000 b.c. dies and goes to hell. How did the atonement make it "possible" for him to take advantage of the benefits?
This is not a question for Orthodux, or an invitation to respond. This is using his comment as a chance to springboard off of and show the problem universalists have.
Right from the get go, in The Acts of the Apostles 2:21 we have "and it shall be that everyone shall be saved who calls on the name of the Lord".
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wished for validation against "limited atonement" that would provide enough proof.
However, as with many things throughout the entire bible there are points of contra-indicating thoughts. I think that the important thing is for us to look at the big picture in the message the author was trying to convey and not to get to worked up over one single passage.
Barry
Barry, earlier I told noted that it appeared that Robert was using the atonement as a "warrant to believe" the way an hyper-Calvinist uses election.
Here, you appear to be doing the same thing.
For your statement to be true, you have to be using the atonement as a warrant to believe, for if Acts 2:21 is a defeater for limited atonement, it could only be so on the notion that the conditional is false if Jesus did not die for them - but if Jesus did, in fact do so, the conditional is always true.
This, Barry, proves my earlier comment.
Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism turn on the same sort of thinking.
Consider:
1. The Arminian says "ability limits responsibility."
2. The Hyper-Calvinist often does the same thing by asserting one needs to find a "warrant to believe" in election, such that each person who hears the gospel does not have to believe it (thereby hypers deny "duty faith") unless s/he can somehow peer into the divine decree. (By the way, this is precisely the same thinking that goes into the "traditional" view of finding God's will as in Henry Blackaby and others - it's subjective to the core).
3. Finding a "warrant to believe" in election is just another way of saying "ability limits responsibility," only the locus is not in contracausal freedom, it's in subjective knowledge of one's election.
4. Amyraldians and Arminians also do this with the atonement, for their view goes hand in hand with the scope of the atonement. The warrant is not only in contracausal freedom but in knowing "Jesus died for you in particular, by dying for everybody without exception."
I deny (as I believe does Steve) the scope and even the "sufficiency" of the atonement is necessary to underwrite the "free offer," for the commands of God are their own warrant to obey - period. Never does Scripture say otherwise. Repenting of sin and turning to Christ carry the force of a command. Scripture is explicit on this, "God is commanding men everywhere to repent (Acts 17); This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us."
All men are responsible because sin generates its own warrant to repent, regardless of their ability or inability to do so, particularly since their inability stems from their love of their own sin and hatred toward God. Men intrinsically know the Law, whether explicitly revealed or on the heart (Romans 2). They therefore also know that they must repent of sin. Telling those in ignorance of the Law to repent only serves to more clearly reveal what they already know in their consciences. Ergo, the "warrant to believe" and thus the "sincerity" of the offer is found in the command itself - not outside the command in the moral ability or inability of men.
Now, consider this for a moment, because when talk about the "free offer" we're really talking about a "warrant to believe," that is, an epistemological warrant - a way they can know that the offer is sincere, valid, true, etc.
God commands men to believe and repent - period. We all agree.
But we disagree as to the warrant. The Arminian says the Calvinist belief makes God "insincere."
What we have here is a classic example of subjectivity (Arminians) vs. objectivity (Calvinists).
Consider what the Arminian is doing. He's looking for a warrant to believe not in the command itself - the objective Word of God - but in man's ability. That's what he thinks is necessary to make the command "sincere," and that's why he objects to the Calvinist view of providence and soteriology. That's a very subtle form of subjectivism, because it rests the warrant in man and his ability, not God's revelation in and of itself, objectively considered.
The hyper-Calvinist is more overt. The hyper-Calvinist is doing the same thing as Henry Blackaby who wants us to "line up the signs" and find "the dot;" only the hyper-Calvinist wants us to somehow figure out if we are "elect" and then he wants us to believe.
The person who believes in general atonement of some sort is doing the same thing, for, unless you can tell a man "Jesus died for you in particular," he has no warrant to believe. They just do it by saying, "Jesus died for everybody." If a man doesn't know this, why should he believe? That's not any different than the hyper-Calvinist and election or the Arminian and moral ability. In each case, some sort of subjective warrant is required in order to provide a gospel warrant of the person being commanded/invited.
So, what we have here is nothing more than a subjective epistemology vs. an objective one. Think about that. This, by the way, is why it sickens me no end for people who do these things to call those of us who hold this position "hyper-Calvinists." Err, no, they are the ones thinking in those terms. The hyper-Calvinist and the general redemptionist are right to look outside of themselves for a gospel warrant, but what they are doing is looking outside of themselves in name only - for really they are trying to find a subjective assurance of some sort, and that's precisely what lies behind the Arminian's assertion that ability limits responsibility. In each case, it all comes back to them having some sort of subjective warrant - in ability, election, or assurance Jesus died for them - in order to believe and for the offer to be "sincere."
Jiminy Crickets, Gene, you've given this alot of thought.
ReplyDeleteI have to digest what you've said (that could take me a while...I'm slow).
I only referenced Acts 2:21 to illustrate that the author of Acts (Luke?) made it quite plain that one's calling on the Lord was what lead to salvation (which brings another point of "choosing" into the picture). Could it be that his literal rendering shouldn't be taken so strictly? I don't know.
I'm certainly not taking sides and it is a complex subject. Some people feel that they are already saved because they believe. End of story. Some people think that even though they believe in Christ they are sure they will not go to heaven. I'm not even sure that people who are not even Christians don't go to heaven (keeping in mind of course that it says in the NT that salvation comes only through Christ).
Of course there is a fear factor which would have us believe that we all have a "chance" to be in heaven.
So many of us are in denial. Me included.
I'm often of the opinion that I've got a first-class ticket to the nether-world waiting for me when my day is done because I sometimes think heaven (and hell) are just metaphors.
Barry
PS. By the way, it's good to hear from you again Gene (even if it's for a scolding).
Barry,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that everyone who choses to be saved will be saved. And, the atonement was made for all of them, and only them. We still have no problems in Calvinist thought. Your verses do not contradict anything a Calvinist believes.
All who believe are and will be saved. But a *profession* isn't the biblical definition of *belief,* or, *faith.*
They then produce fruit in keeping with repentance. These are evidence-indicators of their unchangeable status. The good works are not causative of their ending in heaven. They are the ground that produces fruit, false professors never had fruit, they were always the stony and thorny ground.
I only referenced Acts 2:21 to illustrate that the author of Acts (Luke?) made it quite plain that one's calling on the Lord was what lead to salvation (which brings another point of "choosing" into the picture). Could it be that his literal rendering shouldn't be taken so strictly? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteWell, you did say, "if anyone wished for validation against "limited atonement" that would provide enough.
So, if a conditional statement is to be taken as an invalidation of limited atonement, it would be on the basis that an unlimited atonement provides some sort of foundation for the warrant to believe, that is to say, that the conditional is true and universal for all people who hear the gospel.
However, just as nothing about ability can be deduced from a command, nothing about the scope of the atonement can be made from a conditional statement.
Who is saved? Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord.
These are two separate questions:
1. What must I do to be saved?
2. For whom did Jesus die?
2 is irrelevant to the "sincerity" of 1, for the warrant to believe is found in the truth of 1 not the the scope of 2.
In fact, the Calvinist would say one or more of these is true:
1. Jesus died for the elect in a way He did not for the reprobate, eg. as Savior for the former, Judge for the latter.
2. The sufficiency of the atonement is such that it is fit for any person, regardless of the intent of its design. Thus is can be inferred it in some way underwrites the "free offer." However, sufficiency and "efficiency" are also two separate epistemic questions. This is an argument largely from tradition, but is, generally, the argument of Dort.
3. The sufficiency of the atonement, as in the theology of Tom Nettles and John L. Dagg, is irrelevant to the free offer. The atonement is purely objective.
4. What all three share in common, although differing materially in certain respects, is that the atonement sets up a series of covenantal "obligations" in the Godhead, such that if the Father does not send the Spirit to apply the benefits of the atonement to the elect, He will be unjust, for the elect are given to the Son to redeem. The Spirit, if He fails the Father and Son is also seen to be unfaithful. This is because, as Charles Hodge says, at a certain point all of these views are the same, for the atonement takes on the characteristics of a ransom. It isn't just about, as Paul says, "punishment" but "persons."
So, the atonement is not simply directed @ man, but to the Godhead. It is this relationship that makes the difference between redemption accomplished and applied.
The person who exercises saving faith in Christ does so because Christ died for him/her. Likewise, as Bucer said, the person who does not persevere to the end does so because Christ did not die for her/him. So, even if we say the sufficiency of the atonement somehow underwrites the free offer (as Hodge also says), we can also say the atonement underwrites regeneration, saving faith, and perseverance in the faith - for it underwrites saving graces in a way it does not for the reprobate.
What makes the offer "free" is that it is made to all people indiscriminately when they hear the gospel. There is not (as inferred in hyper-Calvinism) a separate set of instructions (or in hyperism's case a need for a subjective "warrant to believe") for the elect and reprobate, or, as in Arminianism and Amyraldianism, anything in Scripture saying "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, because Jesus died for you/everybody without exception." What makes it "universal" is the fact the Law assumes that repentance is necessary when one sins, regardless of ability or inability, and the proclamation of the gospel is, as in 1 John 3:23 expressed not merely as an invitation, but an express command. The commandments of God are their own intrinsic warrants.
Paul is not representing Arminians correctly when he states:
ReplyDelete“According to Arminianism (the majority Governmental theory), Christ didn't actually die for anyone in particular - whether it was every human in particular, or just the elect in particular.”
The majority of non-calvinists do not believe in the Governmental theory of the atonement. They believe that Christ died for believers, believers whom God foreknew would be believers and so elected them. So this statement that “Christ didn’t actually die for anyone in particular” is completely false. The folks that I know do not hold to the governmental theory of the atonement. For the Arminian folks that I know, Jesus was not merely providing an example; he was dying in their place on the cross.
”Christ died as a substitute for the punishment people's sin deserved, but not for people, as such. (It is not clear why an innocent God-man was needed for this.)”
The innocent God-man had to die in the place of sinful men because that is part of God’s plan of salvation. While the cross is provided for all, it only applies to those who are saved. The Arminian believes that God foreknows who will respond in faith to the gospel message and saves those people, and they are very specific people not mere possibilities.
”Christ not dying for anyone seems, to me, to limit the atonement. But maybe I'm off on my math.”
I think you meant to say here “Christ not dying for everyone . . . to limit the atonement.” Or you may just be engaging in sarcasm here, which will be ignored. The Arminian view is that Jesus died so that all could be saved: if they chose to believe. But the atonement will only be applied to those who actually do believe. Arminians do not espouse universalism though calvinists often attempt to caricature them that way claiming their position is universalism or entails universalism (it does not entail universalism as belief is a necessary part of it and if you do not believe your sins will not be atoned for).
”But why did he die for those nanosecond old fetuses that God knew would die the nanosecond they were conceived?”
Some folks believe that since fetuses and the mentally incapable cannot exercise faith, God will be merciful on them, saving them by applying the benefits of the cross to them. And I am one of those folks, believing that God wants to be merciful to all, because He says He wants to have mercy on all (cf. Rom. 11:32)
Paul do you believe that all infants, all the mentally incapable and all of those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel message are all going to Hell?
And if you don’t believe that they all automatically go to hell, then at least in some cases human persons can be saved by having the atonement applied to them though they did not have a faith response to the gospel. Doesn’t this become an issue of God’s sovereignty? Is it possible that he demands a faith response from those capable of one, but that He has mercy on those incapable of doing so and saves them by applying the atonement to them?
”Since God knew they would die immediately, then there should be no need of atonement for them. How did they sin? Jesus' death, for them, seems superfluous. They never needed to take out the payment deposited for their sins since they never sinned.”
Arminians take Romans 5 seriously so they believe that all are born separated from God with a sin nature and so in need of forgiveness of sins (and that would include fetuses would it not?). You need to read someone like Picarelli to see what they really believe.
”So perhaps the atonement wasn't made for them (or their sin) in mind. But this is limited atonement.”
If Romans 5 is valid and if God desires to save fetuses, then the atonement was for them as well if God wants to save them.
”But perhaps they deserved punishment and were guilty of for Adam's sin?”
Again, you must be ignorant of the Arminian view on Romans 5. Picarelli, a good representative of Arminianism, believes the same things about Rom. 5 that you do.
”If so, then they are held morally responsible for something they had no control over. But this denies the libertarian's precious "ought-implies-can" principle foundational for an Arminian libertarian free-will theorist's conception of moral responsibility.”
All human persons being born in Adam and thus being sinners separated from God is the teaching of Romans 5. Some of you folks even argue that if any of us were in the garden we would have done the same thing (so does not that principle apply to babies as well?). One can affirm the teaching of Rom. 5 without denying the “ought implies can” principle. The “ought implies can” principle applies to commands (if a person makes a command to another person ordinarily the one person assumes the other person has the ability to obey the command or he would not issue the command). The consequence of Adam’s sin which is discussed in Rom. 5 is a different issue then whether or not the “ought implies can’ principle applies when someone is commanded to do something.
God commands Christians to do certain things, doesn’t the “ought implies can” principle apply in the case of believers? Or does God give us commands knowing that we cannot ever obey them? And if we disobey His commands can we just say that we did not have the ability to obey them?
Besides, who said that the “ought implies can” principle has to always be true, in every situation? Could it be true in some instances and not in others? And if it is not in force in some situations can you then conclude that it is not in force in any other situations? How can you rule out that possibility? You cannot.
And again, bringing up particular cases where the principle does not apply is not sufficient to establish that it never (i.e., universal negative) applies (which is what you apparently want to believe).
Paul can you establish a universal negative from some particular instances? Can you infer a universal from particular instances?
”But what of infants who die in infancy? Some Arminians hold that they are innocent and so go to heaven. Thus they had no need of the atonement. Wasted suffering. Less money could have been put into the pot. These people never needed it. If I knew that my son would never need to pay off any debts, why would I leave money for him to do so? If they are not innocent, then they are guilty. Guilty of what? Adam's sin. We saw that this poses problems for libertarian conceptions of moral responsibility.”
The Arminian view is not that they are “innocent” and so go to Heaven, but that the atonement of Christ is applied to them and so their sins are covered and they can go to Heaven.
“Less money put into the pot” is a misunderstanding of the atonement as well. It is not like God had to figure out the precise amount to pay the debt, say 6.5 million dollars and then the cross of Christ was worth exactly 6.5 million dollars. No, the cross of Christ is of infinite worth and so is sufficient to pay for all to whom it will be applied.
“If I knew that my son would never need to pay off any debts, why would I leave money for him to do so?”
You assume that God had to figure out the exact amount of “ransom money” to pay, and so He paid that amount, no more no less by means of the cross of Christ. So if God knows everything why pay the money for those whom he knows will never believe? Again, this assumes this exact amount of money atonement theory. What if rather than figuring out an exact amount, God instead comes up with a provision of atonement that is of sufficient worth, say infinite worth, that He provides that atonement and then He has the sovereign right to apply the money to whomever He chooses? In this way, He would pay the “debt”, it would be a sufficient payment for all whom He will save. And yet since only those who have their debts forgiven/who have the atonement applied to them, will be saved, only believers (and the fetuses and mentally incompetent) will be atoned for and saved.
This brings up a key difference between the Calvinist and the noncalvinist. According to you, God does not want to save all people, He only has a redemptive love for the ones He preselected for salvation. According to scripture God does want to save all people, He has a redemptive love for the world (which is more than just those who eventually come to faith). Your view that the provision of the atonement is given only for the preselected few comes out of your unconditional election, not the biblical texts. Your view is contradicted by the universalistic texts, which is why most other Christians reject your view of the atonement (as being limited in provision to only the elect) including the four pointers like Bruce Ware, Amyraldians, and all of the other Christians who are not Calvinists.
”Perhaps nanosecond old fetuses are not human, and thus not in need of atonement? Is this a serious option? I think not.”
Why do you even bring this up, aren’t we talking about Christian’s views on the atonement?
”Furthermore, what about those people in hell when Jesus made his atonement? What if they "wanted in" on the pot? Could they have grabbed some of that?”
Jesus made a provision on the cross for all people, but that provision is only applied to believers (both OT and NT era). Compare with the Day of Atonement which was a provision for all of the Israelites and yet not all of them were saved, only those with faith like Abraham were saved out of that group. Compare with the death of Christ on the cross which was a provision for the world and yet not all of the world is saved, only those who have faith become believers and are saved out of the world. If someone is in hell it is because they repeatedly rejected God’s gracious offer of salvation (in the OT era it would have been rejecting God and His word, rejecting His prescribed sacrifices not having faith; in the NT era it is rejecting Christ as the only way of salvation and not having faith). It is my understanding that your only opportunity to be saved (assuming you are able bodied) is during this life (no postmortem salvation evidence in scripture as far as I can see). “Today is the day of salvation” (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1-2).
“If not, then it seems false that the atonement was made as an example of the punishment reserved for people, and they could take some of the action for themselves if they wanted it.”
I know a lot of people who are Christians, and not calvinists and not one of them believes that the cross was just an example. No, they believe that Jesus died for their sins, died in their place on the cross (check out even their tracts which speak of Jesus dying in the place of the sinner). To present them as believing something else is again your attempt at creating an easy to beat up straw man.
Regarding taking “some of the action for themselves” who wants to be crucified for their own sins, do you? Name one non-calvinist who wants some of that “action”? And if you can’t then shred your own straw man for us. And do us all a favor and stop erecting them in the future.
“The Arminian says that the atonement was for all people in the sense that it made it possible for anyone whoever to take the benefits for themselves.”
Provided for everybody, but people can only receive its benefits if they believe. And they cannot believe unless the Holy Spirit has worked in them to lead them to a place where they can respond in faith, if they choose to do so.
“Okay, here's a test case: how was it "possible" for someone who was in hell to take the benefits of the atonement for themselves?”
It was “possible” during their lifetimes if they believed the gospel, if they trusted in the Lord for salvation. Also, we do not take the benefits of the atonement for ourselves, rather, God applies those benefits to us as an act of grace towards those who believe.
“The Arminian says that they rejected Christ's atonement for them in the sense that they rejected "the light" God provided for them. But this is Poltergeist theology. There are others in hell besides Carol Anne.”
Again, from your words here, you do not know or understand the Arminian view. In the OT the people were given certain revelation, which God expected them to respond in faith and obedience to. Those who believed and trusted in the Lord, based upon the information that they had (i.e., the “light they received”), were saved. In the NT era we have more revelation, and now people are accountable for their response to that “light”. The principle is that God deals with people based upon the information or “light” which they received (that is why scripture says “to whom much is given much is required” and why Hebrews asks if they faced judgment under the old covenant, what will happen to those during the new covenant era who reject Christ?).
”It looks like the Arminian view of atonement is on the horns of a quintlemma. Either (a) the atonement for nanosecond old fetuses who God knew would die in infancy is superfluous and not even technically for anyone - thus they limit the atonement for humans to 0,”
I think I showed how (a) is not their view. If God actually saves fetuses (which I believe) then since Rom. 5 is true, God can only save them if the atonement is applied to them. And God can sovereignly apply the atonement to whomever He wants (we know that He applies it to those who trust Him, we are not sure about fetuses, mentally incompetent, and those who have never heard the gospel message).
Paul do you believe that God can save whomever He wants to save by means of the atonement of Christ?
“(b) is not made for them and thus the Arminian holds to limited atonement,”
If you mean that the atonement is limited in its application, Arminians would agree. But if you mean limited in its provision (that it was provided only for the elect, or that God only wants to save preselected people, then you are wrong).
“(c) is for them to pay for the sin incurred from Adam which ends up posing problems for the treasured "ought-implies-can" principle,”
Dealt with that, who argues that the “ought implies can” principle is always in force? And who can establish that it is never in force? You can’t.
“(d) nanosecond old fetuses are not humans,”
Still not sure why you brought that up. Most Christians would see the fetuses as human persons. That is what I am going to assume here, that they are. So (d) is irrelevant.
“and (e) just what about all those people who were in hell already? Did Jesus die for them too?”
Jesus died for them as He was the provision for the sins of the world, and they had the opportunity in their lifetime to repent and believe, but they did not choose to do so. Since they did not believe, the atonement was never applied to them, they have no covering for their sins.
“The Arminian often solves this little riddle with the argument that men can be saved by whatever light they have. But this poses another problem: (e1) Why bother with the gospel at all? Why not just leave them to the light of natural revelation?”
Apparently God has certain purposes that He wants to carry out when saving people by means of the gospel (for example: I believe that it is a joyful experience for believers to be part of the process in which another person gets saved and God wants His people to have that joyful experience). For those who can believe He commands them to believe the gospel. For those incapable of believing due to lack of mental capacity (whether babies or the mentally incompetent) or lack of opportunity, if He wants to save them, then he will have to apply the atonement to them apart from faith. Regarding those who never hear the message, there are differing views on this. But we do know that for those capable of understanding the gospel they are commanded to believe it, and if they do not then the atonement will not be applied to them, the atonement will not cover their sins, and they will not be saved. Just try to get into the eschatological wedding party without the right wedding clothes/ a covering for your sin/ an atonement (cf. Matt. 22:1-14)!
Robert
James Anderson said:
ReplyDelete“Every non-universalist holds to an atonement that is limited in some respect. It's just a question of how the atonement is limited: whether in extent (Calvinism) or in efficacy (Arminianism).”
This first part is correct, any “non-universalist”, whether non-calvinist or calvinist rejects universalism (the idea that everyone will in some way or another be saved with no one suffering in hell for eternity). This being said, Christians who are non-universalists do limit the atonement in some respect.
The last line however, is a common caricature of the non-calvinist view and is wrong. The Arminian believes that God foreknows who the elect will be and chooses them and saves them by means of the atonement. So in Arminian thinking the atonement has actual efficacy (cf. “how the atonement is limited . . . or in efficacy [Arminianism]”) contrary to what Anderson claims. And because it is applied to the elect it is efficacious. Both sides would agree, I think, that redemption was accomplished on the cross, but it must then be applied to believing individuals. In both views then the atonement is efficacious. And I am firmly convinced that to properly talk about the atonement one must keep in mind and talk about both the accomplishment (provision) and the application of it to individuals (i.e. both elements of the atonement).
Some arguments try to play off one element against the other (e.g. # 1 since noncalvinists believe it is for the world, then why doesn’t it apply to people already in hell? The provision was for the world including those who may have rejected it and are now in hell, but the application was always and only for believers; e. g., # 2 the non-calvinist view leads to universalism! No, the provision is universal, but the application is only to those who believe, thus universalism which sees both the provision and application being for all people is false because not all people believe and so not all people will have the atonement applied to them).
The real difference between non-calvinist and calvinist is: for whom is the atonement provided? The calvinist limits the provision of the atonement to only the elect (cf., except for amyraldyians and “four pointers” who see the provision for the world but the application only to the elect).
The non-calvinist says the provision of the atonement is for the world, though it will only be applied to, only be efficacious for those who believe (hence they are not universalists another common caricature made by some calvinists).
A helpful way to distinguish the two views is to use the terms provision and application and see what each side says about it.
The calvinist says both the provision and the application are only for believers. The noncalvinist says that the provision is for the world, but the application is only for believers.
In terms of arguing for one’s position, both sides agree that the application of the atonement is only for believers. So what each side needs to show is that its view on the provision is correct. That means the burden of proof for the non-calvinist is to show that the provision is for more than just those who eventually believe. I believe that this burden is easily met with the so-called universalistic passages. The burden of proof for the calvinist is to show that the provision is restricted to, only those who will eventually believe. The so-called particularistic passages are insufficient to prove that the provision is exclusively for, or restricted to the elect.
Robert
Again, this assumes this exact amount of money atonement theory.
ReplyDeleteNo, that theory would involve the atonement being for punishment not the atonement as a ransom. It constantly amazes me that those who accuse those who affirm particular redemption cannot get this basic concept.
So, it seems somebody will have to spell it out:
Calvinists affirm two basic theories of the atonement: penal substitution or pecuniary substitution.
Charles Hodge is an example of the former. John L. Dagg is an example of the latter. Your argument, Robert wold, if valid, apply only to the latter, and Dagg would also say that your entire argument is a nonsequitur.
You're taking Hodge's position on sufficiency and forgetting what he says about efficiency, but these are two separate issues, which you seem to conflate.
As the satisfaction of Christ was not pecuniary, but penal or forensic; a satisfaction for sinners, and not for those who owed a certain amount of money, it follows, —
1. That it does not consist in an exact quid pro quo, so much for so much. This, as just remarked, is not the case even among men. The penalty for theft is not the restitution of the thing stolen, or its exact pecuniary value. It is generally something of an entirely different nature. It may be stripes or imprisonment. The punishment for an assault is not the infliction of the same degree of injury on the person of the offender. So of slander, breach of trust, treason, and all other criminal offences. The punishment, for the offence is something different from the evil which the offender himself inflicted. All that justice demands in penal satisfaction is that it should be a real satisfaction, and not merely something graciously accepted as such. It must bear an adequate proportion to the crime committed. It may be different in kind, but it must have inherent value. To fine a man a few pence for wanton homicide would be a mockery; but death or imprisonment for life would be a real satisfaction to justice. All, therefore, that the Church teaches when it says that Christ satisfied divine justice for the sins of men, is that what He did and suffered was a real adequate compensation for the penalty remitted and the benefits conferred. His sufferings and death were adequate to accomplish all the ends designed by the punishment of the sins of men. He satisfied justice. He rendered it consistent with the justice of God that the sinner should be justified. But He did not suffer either in kind or degree what sinners would have suffered. In value, his sufferings infinitely transcended theirs. The death of an eminently good man would outweigh the annihilation of a universe of insects. So the humiliation, sufferings, and death of the eternal Son of God immeasurably transcended in worth and power the penalty which a world of sinners would have endured.
2. The satisfaction of Christ was a matter of grace. The Father was not bound to provide a substitute for fallen men, nor was the Son bound to assume that office. It was an act of pure grace that God arrested the execution of the penalty of the law, and consented to accept the vicarious sufferings and death of his only begotten Son. And it was an act of unparalleled love that the Son consented to assume our nature, bear our sins, and die, the just for the unjust, to bring us near to God. All the benefits, therefore, which accrue to sinners in consequence of the satisfaction of Christ are to them pure gratuities; blessings to which in themselves they have no claim. They call for gratitude, and exclude boasting.
3. Nevertheless, it is a matter of justice that the blessings which Christ intended to secure for his people should be actually bestowed upon them. This follows, for two reasons: first, they were promised to Him as the reward of his obedience and sufferings. God covenanted with Christ that if He fulfilled the conditions imposed, if He made satisfaction for the sins of his people, they should be saved. It follows, secondly, from the nature of a satisfaction. If the claims of justice are satisfied they cannot be again enforced. This is the analogy between the work of Christ and the payment of a debt. The point of agreement between the two cases is not the nature of the satisfaction rendered, but one aspect of the effect produced. In both cases the persons for whom the satisfaction is made are certainly freed. Their exemption or deliverance is in both cases, and equally in both, a matter of justice. This is what the Scriptures teach when they say that Christ gave Himself for a ransom. When a ransom is paid and accepted, the deliverance of the captive is a matter of justice. It does not, however, thereby cease to be to the captives a matter of grace. They owe a debt of gratitude to him who paid the ransom, and that debt is the greater when the ransom is the life of their deliverer. So in the case of the satisfaction of Christ. Justice demands the salvation of his people. That is his reward. It is He who has acquired this claim on the. justice of God; his people have no such claim except through Him. Besides, it is of the nature of a satisfaction that it answers all the ends of punishment. What reason can there be for the infliction of the penalty for which satisfaction has been rendered?
According to scripture God does want to save all people, He has a redemptive love for the world (which is more than just those who eventually come to faith).
Pray tell, where is your exegetical argument?
Your view that the provision of the atonement is given only for the preselected few comes out of your unconditional election, not the biblical texts.M
Is it your contention that the Bible does not teach "unconditional election"? If so, where is the supporting argument?
Your view is contradicted by the universalistic texts, which is why most other Christians reject your view of the atonement (as being limited in provision to only the elect) including the four pointers like Bruce Ware, Amyraldians, and all of the other Christians who are not Calvinists.
Ah yes, Amyraldianism. Robert Reymond has noted its problems, and here's another one for Robert to ponder: One of the obvious problems with Amyraldianism is that the decree to elect/reprobate falls after the decree to atone - not to mention the utter lack of justification for the Covenant Hypotheticum. On this view then, the atonement represents a real desire of God to atone for all sins, but a decree that stifles the former one from instantiation. So, it, not Calvinism, rightly falls prey to the Arminian contention that men are not saved because of a decree, since the decree itself stands in the relation it does.
And where, Robert is your exegetical argumentation for this?
All the while demanding exegetical demands of us, Robert, who lacks any capacity for self-criticism produces a string of assertions and no exegetical arguments. No, he just repeats himself, even after we've already answered.
Compare with the Day of Atonement which was a provision for all of the Israelites and yet not all of them were saved, only those with faith like Abraham were saved out of that group.
And where it the exegetical argument that the OT Day of Atonement is rightly the view of the NT? I do believe I myself have addressed this with Robert, so Robert is just repeating himself without bothering to interact with anything stated elsewhere.
Since they did not believe, the atonement was never applied to them, they have no covering for their sins.
So, according to Robert, the Holy Spirit does not apply the atonement to them via regeneration, resulting in their faith and then their justification, but the Holy Spirit applies the atonement to them as a result of saving faith?
So what each side needs to show is that its view on the provision is correct. That means the burden of proof for the non-calvinist is to show that the provision is for more than just those who eventually believe. I believe that this burden is easily met with the so-called universalistic passages. The burden of proof for the calvinist is to show that the provision is restricted to, only those who will eventually believe. The so-called particularistic passages are insufficient to prove that the provision is exclusively for, or restricted to the elect.
Yes, and we've actually presented exegetical arguments for our position. Where are Robert's?
The Arminian believes that God foreknows who the elect will be and chooses them and saves them by means of the atonement. So in Arminian thinking the atonement has actual efficacy (cf. “how the atonement is limited . . . or in efficacy [Arminianism]”) contrary to what Anderson claims
ReplyDeleteNo, in Arminianism, election is based on foreseen faith. The atonement is only "potential." It has no intrinsic efficacy apart from the faith of the person. The work of the Spirit in regeneration is also placed outside a chain of sufficient grace.
In Calvinism, the atonement is intrinsically efficacious first in the Godhead and then upon man, via the application of its benefits by the Holy Spirit, which triggers saving faith in the objects of redemption.
Continuing with Hodge:
4. The satisfaction of Christ being a matter of covenant between the Father and the Son, the distribution of its benefits is determined by the terms of that covenant. It does not ipso facto liberate. The people of God are not justified from eternity. They do not come into the world in a justified state They remain (if adults) in a state of condemnation until they believe. And even the benefits of redemption are granted gradually. The believer receives more and more of them in this life, but the full plenitude of blessings is reserved for the life to come. All these are facts of Scripture and of experience, and they are all explained by the nature of the satisfaction rendered. It is not the payment of a debt, but a matter of agreement or covenant. It seemed good to the parties to the covenant of redemption that matters should be so arranged.
I would also add that Arminians do not generally affirm penal substitution. It is well known that it occupies, at best, a secondary place in their atonement theology.
In the words of Shelton: The Arminian and Wesleyan theologians tended to follow Grotius' governmental theory with some changes. Curcellaeus emphasized he idea of sacrifice rather than satisfaction of wrath through punishment, thus describing the priestly work of Christ as propitiatory, but not penal.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/16-20/19-09.htm
Wesley himself seems presented as an exception to the rule.
His quotes from Miley are particular revealing as well.
ROBERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Paul is not representing Arminians correctly when he states:
’According to Arminianism (the majority Governmental theory), Christ didn't actually die for anyone in particular - whether it was every human in particular, or just the elect in particular.’
The majority of non-calvinists do not believe in the Governmental theory of the atonement.”
This is unintentionally comical. Robert accuses Manata of misrepresenting Arminianism, yet Robert misrepresents Manata in the very act of accusing Manata of misrepresentation.
Manata was discussing “Arminianism,” right? Robert even says so. But Robert then says that “the majority of non-calvinists do not believe in the Governmental theory of the atonement,” in contrast to Manata’s statement, as if non-calvinism were synonymous with Arminianism.
Needless to say, non-Calvinism is not synonymous with Arminianism. A non-Calvinist can be a Catholic, or Orthodox, or universalist, or Anabaptist, or Lutheran, or Socinian, &c.
Manata never said the governmental theory was the majority theory among “non-calvinists,” now did he?
This is the problem with a knee-jerk opponent like Robert. He doesn’t even think through what he is about to say before he opens his mouth.
“They believe that Christ died for believers.”
Well, if that’s what Arminians believe, then Arminians believe in limited atonement, don’t they?
Speaking of which—Jn 3:16 is a prooftext for limited atonement. Christ died, not for everyone, but only for believers.
“For the Arminian folks that I know.”
Notice that he doesn’t name any Arminian theologians, here. And on the occasions when he does, Picirilli is the only name that pops up. BTW, I reviewed Picirilli a long time ago.
“Jesus was not merely providing an example; he was dying in their place on the cross.”
A vicarious atonement? And what does that amount to exactly?
i) Does Robert mean penal substitution? Did Jesus die to *redeem* everyone (in the strict, piacular sense of “redemption”)? But Arminians deny penal substitution. And if they were to affirm penal substitution, this would implicate them in the double-jeopardy argument (a la John Owen).
ii) Or does Robert mean that Jesus died to save everyone? In what sense? Everyone will not be saved. And Jesus foreknows that everyone will not be saved. So it would be “insincere” of Jesus to die for everyone in the sense of dying to save everyone in the foreknowledge that everyone will not be saved as a result of his death.
Jesus cannot die with the intention of saving everyone if he knows in advance of the fact that everyone will not be saved. Not only would that be untrue, but it would be “insincere,” which would also make it “sadistic” and “cruel.”
So Robert is toying with equivocal abbreviations. As soon as you try to spell it out, it’s false.
“The innocent God-man had to die in the place of sinful men because that is part of God’s plan of salvation.”
Notice that Robert is using forensic categories (“innocence,” “sinful”). Does this mean he believes in penal substitution? But if Christ died pay the penalty for everyone’s sin, then how can anyone be damned? Do they still *deserve* to go to hell? What are they *guilty* of if Jesus died for them?
“While the cross is provided for all, it only applies to those who are saved.”
So the provision of the cross doesn’t save anyone. Rather, it only applies to those who “are” saved. So are they saved apart from the cross?
“Arminians do not espouse universalism though calvinists often attempt to caricature them that way claiming their position is universalism or entails universalism (it does not entail universalism as belief is a necessary part of it and if you do not believe your sins will not be atoned for).”
Is that what Calvinists do? Speaking for myself, what I point out is that Arminianism is an incoherent compromise position. There is a contradiction in Arminianism between God’s universal love and man’s libertarian freedom.
“The ‘ought implies can’ principle applies to commands (if a person makes a command to another person ordinarily the one person assumes the other person has the ability to obey the command or he would not issue the command).”
Really? Do we have laws against rape and murder under the assumption that a compulsive criminal—like a serial rapist or psychopathic killer—can successfully repress his urges? Would we not have laws against rape and murder if we knew that some criminals are addicted to vice?
“God commands Christians to do certain things, doesn’t the ‘ought implies can’ principle apply in the case of believers?”
Is Robert a perfectionist? Is Robert a Pelagian? Is Robert sinless?
“Or does God give us commands knowing that we cannot ever obey them?”
He’s now indulging in hyperbole, as if this is an all-or-nothing proposition.
“And if we disobey His commands can we just say that we did not have the ability to obey them?”
Simple-minded. Some forms of inability are culpable or inculpatory, while others are exculpatory. Take someone who is so evil that he can no longer tell the difference between good and evil. Isn’t his lack of conscience culpable in and of itself? It is wrong not to know the difference between right and wrong.
“Besides, who said that the “ought implies can” principle has to always be true, in every situation? Could it be true in some instances and not in others? And if it is not in force in some situations can you then conclude that it is not in force in any other situations? How can you rule out that possibility? You cannot. Paul can you establish a universal negative from some particular instances? Can you infer a universal from particular instances?”
An empty challenge. It’s sufficient for Manata to cite Scriptural examples and counterexamples.
“You assume that God had to figure out the exact amount of ‘ransom money’ to pay, and so He paid that amount, no more no less by means of the cross of Christ. So if God knows everything why pay the money for those whom he knows will never believe? Again, this assumes this exact amount of money atonement theory. What if rather than figuring out an exact amount, God instead comes up with a provision of atonement that is of sufficient worth, say infinite worth, that He provides that atonement and then He has the sovereign right to apply the money to whomever He chooses?”
i) But a universal atonement is insufficient to save anyone since, according to Arminians, Christ also died for the damned.
ii) Where do we find the concept of an “infinitely” valuable atonement in Scripture? Infinity is a pretty specialized concept. What kind of infinite is Robert talking about? Potential infinite? Actual infinite? Transfinite?
“This brings up a key difference between the Calvinist and the noncalvinist. According to you, God does not want to save all people, He only has a redemptive love for the ones He preselected for salvation. According to scripture God does want to save all people, He has a redemptive love for the world (which is more than just those who eventually come to faith).”
Notice that Robert doesn’t bother to exegete kosmos in Johannine or Pauline usage.
“Your view that the provision of the atonement is given only for the preselected few comes out of your unconditional election, not the biblical texts.”
The “few”? Calvinism has no official position on the relative proportion of the redeemed.
“Your view is contradicted by the universalistic texts.”
If that’s the case, then Arminianism is also contradicted by the universalistic texts, for the universalistic texts don’t distinguish between universal *atonement* and universal *salvation*.
“It is my understanding that your only opportunity to be saved (assuming you are able bodied) is during this life (no postmortem salvation evidence in scripture as far as I can see).”
i) Which is inconsistent with his commitment to libertarian freedom and universal atonement. If human beings have been endowed with libertarian freedom, then they should be at liberty to repent and exercise faith at any point in their unending existence, whether in this life or the next. Or does Robert believe that human beings become “puppets” and “robots” when they die?
And if Christ died in everyone’s stead, then if the damned repent and believe in Christ, why wouldn’t they be transferred from hell to heaven? Isn’t his death “sufficient”—indeed, “infinitely” sufficient—for each and every sinner?
Robert’s theology is just a patchwork quit of miscellaneous rags which he’s torn from a variety of soteriological systems and stitched together. But the pieces are coming apart at the seams. You rip what you sew.
“I know a lot of people who are Christians, and not calvinists and not one of them believes that the cross was just an example. No, they believe that Jesus died for their sins, died in their place on the cross (check out even their tracts which speak of Jesus dying in the place of the sinner). To present them as believing something else is again your attempt at creating an easy to beat up straw man.”
Apparently, Robert doesn’t know any Anabaptists, who focus on the exemplary aspect of the atonement. So Robert is beating up a straw man by accusing Manata of beating up a strawman. Robert is a pure, Pavlovian reactionary, so he doesn’t think about what he’s going to say before he opens his mouth.
“Provided for everybody, but people can only receive its benefits if they believe.”
In which event, faith is not, itself, a benefit of the atonement. Rather, one must be a believer in order to benefit from the atonement—in which case the atonement is *insufficient* to save anyone.
“And they cannot believe unless the Holy Spirit has worked in them to lead them to a place where they can respond in faith, if they choose to do so.”
i) Where does the Bible say that they cannot believe unless the Holy Spirit has worked in them to lead them “to a place where they can respond” in faith, if they choose to do so?
ii) And how does one “choose” to believe something anyway? How could they believe it unless they think it’s true? And if they think it’s true, then don’t they already believe it? They believe it’s true, yet they don’t believe it?
To be sure, there’s more to saving faith than mental assent, but is there less?
“In the NT era we have more revelation, and now people are accountable for their response to that ‘light’. The principle is that God deals with people based upon the information or ‘light’ which they received (that is why scripture says ‘to whom much is given much is required’ and why Hebrews asks if they faced judgment under the old covenant, what will happen to those during the new covenant era who reject Christ?).”
What about the principle that God deprives many people of the light by causing them to be born in darkness. To be outside the pale of gospel? What about the pagans who were born to live and die with no knowledge of the Abrahamic covenant or Mosaic covenant or Davidic covenant—much less the new?
Or maybe, according to Robert, God doesn’t plan who will be born where. Many every pregnancy is an unplanned pregnancy from God’s perspective.
Notice that Robert now says that people can be held morally accountable, blameless or praiseworthy, even if they could not do what they "ought to do."
ReplyDeleteI thank Robert for accepting my traps (of which I wish I had more time to offer responses). He just conceeded the Calvinist position. he just lost all right to critique Calvinists.
Robert and fellowArminians argue that God cannot tell people to believe in him, to repent, etc., if he didn't predestine them to do so. If God didn't predestine them, then they *can't* believe. it is wrong to tell them that they *should.*
Furthermore, Robert had said this elsewhere:
"“Actually, God operates by this same axiomatic belief, see Ezekiel 18 in particular but there are other passages as well where **God holds people responsible for their actions and blames them because they could have and should have done otherwise**.”
Now he's saying that in *some* cases God holds people responsible and blames then even if they couldn't have done otherwise!!!
That's how you get a libertarian to contradict himself. :-)
Furthermore, the "ought-implies-can" is a *necessary* underwriter for moral responsibility, says the libertarian. My argument has forced Robert to deny mainstream libertarian argumentation.
I then asked about those in hell who were born before Jesus. How did they have a chance to grab some of the atoement for themselves.
Robert talks about people in the OT. He says, "that is why scripture says “to whom much is given much is required” and why Hebrews asks if they faced judgment under the old covenant, what will happen to those during the new covenant era who reject Christ?)." But *this is talking about JEWS!* What about the African head-hunter who lived in 3,000 b.c.? How was it "possible" for him to grab the benefits of Jesus' atonement for himself?
And, where is his exegetical argument for this "light" that could save people?
Also, he says he accepts Romans 5 and says that all men received Adam's trasgression. Those in Adam receive it *necessarily.* Now, if the "all" or "many" represented by Christ are the same group as those represented by Adam, how was everyone in the world whoever made "righteous?" Robert doesn't hold to Romans 5 in a consistent way.
In fact, his entire post is a jumble of conceptual headaches and rhetorical gymnastics. I just thank Steve and Gene for dealing with so much and saving me the time.
on the hell issue:
ReplyDeleteRobert - the atonement makes it possible for any person whoever, S1 - Sn to take advantage of the saving power of the atonement.
S30 is an Amazonian head-hunter who lived 3,000 years before Christ. By the time Christ came, he was in hell.
How did the atonement make it possible for S30 to take advatage of the saving power of the atonement.
The "light" (whatever that is) is not identical to Christ's atonement. So, any answer about the "light" is to avoid the question. The Arminian says that the atonement made it possible for anyone whoever to be saved by it.
Can Robert offer a consistent Arminain and libertarian theory?
Above he said something about God "just appplying it to them if he wanted them to be saved." But, the problem is that the Amazonian head hunter didn't want to be saved. Thus God would violate his free will by saving someone who didn't want to be saved.
How can Robert answer this and stay a consistent Arminain/libertarian free will theorist?
Robert's admission was damning...
ReplyDeleteIf PAP and "ought-implies-can" wasn't a necessary underwriter for moral responsibility, and the appropriateness of blaming or praising im/moral actions, why would Frankfurt have ever bothered to come ujp with counter-examples? Counter-examples are used to refute what people claim is a *necessary* feature of something.
Here's a snip of something I wrote to a correspondant inquiring about libertarianism and PAP and OIC:
********
I've never heard of an libertarian denying it. Can you find any references of libertarians denying OIC underwriting moral responsibility? Perhaps you know of a few laymen who don't understand what their position entails, but they would be inconsistent with the mainstream of libertarian scholarship. PAP is another underwriter for moral responsibility given libertarianism. For example, see the Oxford Companion to free Will: "An agent is morally responsible for performing a given act only if he could have avoided performing it" (p.323). And, "we have the power to act freely only if at some time we are able to act otherwise than we do" (321). Libertarians take PAP to be a basic axiom of libertarian free will. Since only free agents are morally blameworthy, then to say that S ought to, or ought not to, do A is to say that S *can/can refrain from* A-ing.
This is so basic and important an argument for libertarian conceptions of free will and moral responsibility, John Martin Fischer, the most intelligent defender of semi-compatibilism (Calvinist position) around today, devotes a chapter to it in his "My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility." He admits the force of the libertarian argument found in this argument:
1. Suppose some individual, John, does something morally wrong.
2. If John's Xing was wrong, then he ought to have done something else instead.
3. If John out to have done something else instead, then he could have done something else instead.
4. So John could have done something else instead.
5. But if causal determinism is true, then John could not have done anything other than he actually did.
6. So, if causal determinism is true, it cannot be the case that John's Xing was wrong.
And so I take it that I am attacking the best, most robust, and strongest Arminian-Libertarian assumptions. It may be the case that some unsophisticated and inconsistent Arminian-libertarians do not argue thusly, but my argument does not aim to refute the most unsophisticated and ill-informed versions of Arminian-libertarianism.
Having said that, I don't think many, if any, Arminian-libertarians deny the above. Indeed, almost *every* Arminian-libertarian I have ever met says things like: "How can God punish people for what he predestined them to do? They can't do otherwise." Or, "How can you tell people that they *should* believe in Jesus when you say that not all people *can* believe in Jesus? That's like telling a fireman that he should have saved a baby in a burning building 100 miles away. If he can't do it, why hold him morally accountable for not doing it?"
**********
Anyway, I'm glad for the reproachment between the Arminian and the Calvinist. Robert is slowly joining us...even if it's against his will :-)
Robert, you've gotten demolished several times already. We are waiting for a recognition of ignorance on your part. An admission of defeat will do.
ReplyDeleteA simple, "Ok, I guess I didn't know what I was talking about" will do.
Or will you simply coward out of the thread and do what you always do, leave the discussion once your arguments are torn apart only to reappear with the same thing all over again?
Has Robert even answered the high priest argument you guys brought up in the last thread? I thought Robert was finished then. He shouldn't be allowed to comment until he digs up another ad hoc answer....
ReplyDeletePaul Manata in his latest post has asked me some more questions. But before I do so, I’ve got a couple of questions of my own for Manata.
ReplyDeleteIn one of his most recent posts he wrote to someone:
“This is so basic and important an argument for libertarian conceptions of free will and moral responsibility, John Martin Fischer, the most intelligent defender of semi-compatibilism (Calvinist position) around today, devotes a chapter to it in his "My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility."”
According to these statements, Manata believes that John Martin Fischer is the most intelligent defender of the Calvinist position around today.
Paul seeing as you believe that Fischer is the ***most intelligent defender of Calvinism around today***.
Paul what bible verse(s) does Fischer use in his defense of Calvinism?
I also repeat a question that I had asked earlier that Paul has not answered:
Paul do you believe that all infants, all the mentally incapable and all of those who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel message are all going to Hell?
Robert
Uh, Robert, he is the most intelligent defender of semi-compatibilism.....*which is,* says I, the Calvinst position on this matter. The paranthetical statement was an *aside.* I was not saying that Fischer defended Calvinism. And, btw, Gene bridges addressed this question in his "when all means some" post. See the combox. Your getting all heated makes you look stupid and like you're simply pushing a personal agenda.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the infants, handicapped &c well, I don't *know.* Where the Bible is silent, so am I. Any who are elect, will certainly go to heaven. And Christ died *for them.*
Steve has blogged on this before - you should check the archives:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/01/once-more-with-feeling.html
Furthermore, why are you, Henry, now posting as Robert? This doesn't bode well for you. You came here as "Robert" to defend "Henry." No one else would, so you had to manufacture another "Christian" to "defend" "Henry." This is suspect behavior. it is again an indication of your "agenda" getting in the way of your ability to have a discussion. You fly into emotional outbursts when your treasured tradition is attacked and end up inserting foot into mouth.
As you all know, we have many pieces of evidence leading to the conclusion that Henry is Robert and Robert is Henry. They both frequently emphasize their words "**like this**" or "LIKE THIS." They both, frequently, reply with voluminous responses, probably cutting and pasting prior responses on discussion board forums or email exchanges. They both are hard-core libertarian free-will theorists and Arminians. Robert seems obsessed in defending Henry's good name. etc....
As I was looking at an archived post for some reason, I read some comments by Henry. I noted the way he quoted his interlocutors. Here are some examples:
***********BEGIN HENRY*************
”I want to close by explaining why van Inwagen thinks one important group of incompatibilists, those who appeal to what is called agent-causation, do not appreciate the depth and difficulty of the problem of free will. Many philosophers would agree with this judgment for the simple reason that they think that the concept of agent-causation is incoherent, or think that agent-causation is metaphysically impossible.”
And,
”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.
And
”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."
**************END HENRY***********
Okay, notice that when Henry quotes people the first quotation mark is reversed. I can cite examples like this ad nauseum.
Let's look at some of Robert's posts:
*************BEGIN ROBERT**********
”Anyway, the "one bible verse" business is a little lame. Shoe me "one bible verse" that says God is one is being, three in person."”
And,
”Bottom line, the Bible only says Jesus died for the sheep, not for wolves.”
And,
”If Jesus died for you, then he is your high priest. If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you. Therefore if Jesus died for you, he makes intercession for you.”
************END ROBERT********
I can keep going here too! Notice that *they both* reverse their quotation marks quite frequently when quoting interlocutors.
I think we can apply this formula to Robert-Henry
(x) (y) [x=y] --> (P) [Px <--> Py]
Robert is the dullest commenter in the morning, Henry is the dullest one in the evening, but the names both pick out the same referent.
Henry is Robert. Robert is Henry.
That's it! That's IT! Einhorn is Finkle! FINKLE is EINHORN! EINHORN is a MAN!...Oh, my! Einhorn is a MAN!!!
I said"
ReplyDelete"*which is,* says I, the Calvinst position on this matter"
Or, perhaps, I should say that I think it expresses the best way to interpret the matter for the Calvinist; rather than *the* Calvinist position.
Nevertheless, the Bible says we are responsible, that *we* are the actors, and that God is sovereign over all, and predetermiens all that comes to pass. When people have questions about how that works out, or how the language can be made analytically precise, or whatver, that's when the Calvinist is free to express himself using the language of philosophers. But, say we don't use the language of action theory. Fine. As long as Roberthenrytheanonymous affirms the above, I'm happy. And, *the above* can easily be shown in Scripture. We did so in the last thread...Robert never bothered to respond to us.
Paul thanks for answering my questions:
ReplyDelete“Uh, Robert, he is the most intelligent defender of semi-compatibilism.....*which is,* says I, the Calvinst position on this matter. The paranthetical statement was an *aside.* I was not saying that Fischer defended Calvinism. And, btw, Gene bridges addressed this question in his "when all means some" post. See the combox. Your getting all heated makes you look stupid and like you're simply pushing a personal agenda.”
I asked my question about Fischer, specifically what verses does he use in defending calvinism, because I know that he does not use any verses. In fact, I know John personally and he is not a christian. So I find it interesting that you would claim that he is the most intelligent defender of semi-compatibilism which you take to be the calvinist position. It is interesting because Bridges keeps claiming that Calvinism is established exegetically when I believe that it is a philosophical position (global determinism) which is read into scripture. The reason that you can use Fischer to “prove” your position is that he is using only philosophy to argue for determinism. You evaded this point by claiming that Fischer had not defended calvinism. You are right he had not defended calvinism per se, he defends determinism. Which goes to show that Calvinism is determinism, a non-christian philosophy read into scripture by persons like yourself. If you knew the response of others to Fischer’s semi-compatibilism you would know that it is seen as a quaint and unconvincing position. If you knew the present state of Christian philosophy you would also know that most of the competent Christian philosophers (e.g., Plantinga, Craig, Hunt, Timpe, etc. etc.) are libertarians. So your position, semi-compatibilism, in the Christian philosophy community is not considered to be the strong position worth defending at this time. And my friend Kevin Timpe is coming out with a book soon that will further strengthen the libertarian view.
”Regarding the infants, handicapped &c well, I don't *know.* Where the Bible is silent, so am I. Any who are elect, will certainly go to heaven. And Christ died *for them.*”
I asked this question because you keep bringing up this hypothetical headhunter example. So you are arguing about this philosophically not exegetically, nor according to your Calvinism. If God predetermines everything as you believe, and if the bible teaches that someone is only saved through faith in Christ, and if the infants, handicapped and those who have never heard had no opportunity to hear the message, then if follows that all of these folks are predetermined not to hear, not to believe and so they are all hell bound. Gene Bridges in another place said as much, you want to plead ignorance, but your system of Calvinism leads to the gruesome conclusion. According to Calvinism everything that happens is exactly what God wants to happen in every detail. If this is true then God did not want the infants, mentally incompetent, and “pagans” to ever have an opportunity to be saved. That is how your system works out. When I speak about people being saved according to their response to the light given them, I am suggesting that God can save whomever He pleases based upon the cross of Christ. And that would include people who never heard of Jesus whether due to mentally incapacity (infants and mentally incompetent) or lack of opportunity. So my position is not to appeal to ignorance but to the Sovereignty of God, He does as He pleases and He saves whom He pleases.
“Your getting all heated makes you look stupid and like you're simply pushing a personal agenda.””
I have not gotten emotional with you at all, it is you and the others who must repeatedly make personal attacks and insults. I have attacked your calvinism but not you (the reverse is not true on your part). For example Hays says I am not a Christian and a blasphemer because I attack the calvinistic conception of God. Any one is free to look at the posts and see who is “heated” and “looks stupid”.
Regarding pushing agenda’s you are extremely naïve if you do not know that every body has got agendas, no one is neutral. You ought to know that if you are aware of presuppositional apologetics. I am not neutral about Calvinism and neither are you. One of my agenda’s is to test certain claims by friends of mine (including Henry, “Lurker” and others who have not posted) with Calvinists that I consider to be intelligent representatives of Calvinism. What we are all seeing is people who get very hostile when challenged, who cannot not engage in insults and personal attacks when dialoging with non-calvinists. To quote, “Lurker” who has much more experience in this kind of thing then I do: their emotional and hostile responses show they have a very weak position. Henry started it, then “Lurker” wrote in, and now I am taking a turn challenging your Calvinist theology.
Now if you really want to discuss things in a civil manner without the personal attacks and insults, I am open for that. I would especially like to discuss more scripture with you folks (but that takes time and I don’t want to be wasting my limited time here). But if you continue these personal attacks and unnecessary insults, then I will stop posting just like Henry did. I really don’t need to be wasting time with people who really do not want to discuss the truth in a way that honors the Lord. I have too many other things that demand my time. Nothing wrong with disagreement among brothers and sisters in Christ, but that disagreement has got to be handled in a biblical way.
Robert
Robert,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the rant, again.
I explained what I meant by using philosophical categories. If you want to stick strictly with Scripture, let's do so. But when *you* raise *philosophical* objections against my position, i answer in kind.
I know the responses to Fischer et al. And? I don't find them persuasive, at all? And, many up and comers in the Christian community are semi-compatibilists. Take Sean Choi, for example. He just finished his dissertation under Tony Brueckner &c, writing a devastating critique of libertarian free-will theory - which is a *philosophy* too, mind you. There are Oxford educated philosophers, like Michael Sudduth and Greg Welty, who are also compatibilists. These are the young guys in the field. They don't find compatibilsm to be "not worth defending." There are many Ph.D. students at Notre Dame who are compatibilists, they're coming into the arena soon. So, your statements are slanderous of the facts.
That's right, I'll plunder the Egyptians. I'll take insights from Frankfurt, Fischer, Strawson, etc., to put my exegetical theology into the language of the philosopher, when guys like you ask me to. But, at the end of the day, the position is drawn from Scripture. God predetermines all things, call that determinism if you want. Doesn't bother me. Man is morally responsible, and he is the actor, this is also found in Scripture. Give that a name too. Okay, semi-compatibilism. You don't like the name. Fine. Doesn't bother me.
But, let's not pretend that I don't use Scripture. If I recall, back in the Jerry Springer thread, I laid out an argument....you left. My argument was made from Hebrews....you left. I gave other arguments from Scripture....you run. You lay under the delusion that you can talk a bunch about how we just use philosophy, but the facts betray your interpretation.
I then bring up examples because of your position on the atonement. You don't answer them too. I answered just as Gene did. If any of those in the class you mention are non-elect, they will go to hell. And? Guess what, it could be the entire class of infants who die in infancy, mentally-handicap peoples &c. So what? Your argument against that was *emotional.* Then, to the extent that you want to make the atonement provide the *possibility* that *anyone whoever* can be saved, I ask questions which seem to dispute this. What do you do? You fail to answer the questions. The difference between us is: you don't *like* my answers, and you don't *have* answers.
Now, certainly everyone has a bias. That is not the sense in which I was calling you out. My point is that you are not here to learn, interact, or profit from discussion. You frequently misconstrue what people write, mischaracterize them, and post hundreds of words about how "mean" the whole world is to you. You get your position beat, you run, then you resurface with the same defeated objections in another thread. This is do to your *agenda.* You are not here to *dialogue* but to *push an agenda.*
Lastly, frankly I don't care if you leave. I'm sure you're going to get the same treatment you always have. So, robert/lurker/henry can dissapear for all I care. You have not been treated bad. You have been treated according to how you interact. Agenda pushers have to accept a certain amount of ridicule. Honest questioners do not. So, I don't think you have any reason to complain, and I think you have dished as much as you have taken, so I'd stop with the three-year old attitude. trying to push the discussion into the real of "woe-is-me" is just a debate tactic intended to gain sympathy. Stiffen your upper lip, expect the sarcasm (or change the personal agenda pusher attitude), and engage in the debate. If you're going to whine and complain, then you might as well hit the road because I'd expect more of the same. I mean, you pretend to be multiple posters so as to give the appearance that other people are on your side. You have been caught red handed (unless you and lurker and Henry all *accidentally* (wink, wink) reverse the first quotation mark when you quote an interlocutor??) playing your own game. You play yours, we'll play ours. So, save the drama for your momma. If you want to keep debating, we're all here. If you can't handle the heat, though, get out of the kitchen. But don't you try to act holier than thou, as if you have no part in how we respond to you.
Robert hasn't answered Bridges', Hays', or Manata's posts. He is wasting combox space.
ReplyDeleteI asked my question about Fischer, specifically what verses does he use in defending calvinism, because I know that he does not use any verses. In fact, I know John personally and he is not a christian. So I find it interesting that you would claim that he is the most intelligent defender of semi-compatibilism which you take to be the calvinist position. It is interesting because Bridges keeps claiming that Calvinism is established exegetically when I believe that it is a philosophical position (global determinism) which is read into scripture.
ReplyDeleteA. RobertHenronymous is now advertising his ignorance of historical theology by repeating the old "central dogma" thesis of Heppe regarding Calvinism. That'a 19th century thesis that got some retread by the Barthian project in the 20th. If he thinks that "global determinism" (eg. the sovereignty of God) is being "read into Scripture," then where is the supporting argument to show it?
Along the way, I look forward to his interaction with the work of Richard Muller in Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics and After Calvin in which he says:
"those scholars who have argued that the doctrine of the attributes provides, together with the doctrine of the eternal decree, the initial point of departure for a purely deductive system of theology have thoroughly misunderstood the Protestant orthodox system. Neither the doctrine of God nor any other locus in the Reformed orthod theology was logically deduced - rather all the loci were elicited from Scripture in the context of a long tradition of biblical interpretation that had, for centuries, worked in alliance with theological formulation."
What's more, he goes on to describe not the debt that Reformed theology owes to Augustine, but to the eclectic nature of the use of philosophical arguments and their explicit use as ancillary arguments.
In short, he's trying to lay the charge of rationalism at our feet - contructing a system of theology around a single organizing principle, like "global determinism." The problem for Robert is that the record of written theological works has been proven not to support that thesis for Reformed theology or Lutheranism, and historians today, many of whom are not even Calvinists, have shown this. If Robert feels otherwise, let him take it up with Muller, Klauber, Trueman, Clark, and others. By way of contrast, Miley has admitted that libertarianism functions this way for Arminians - I even provided the direct quotes for him.
2. Compare this to Roberthenronymous who has consistent and demonstrably read libertarian freedom into the Scriptures, only to contradict himself many times. Nowhere has he provided exegetical support for this.
3. Compatibilism is not the essence of Calvinism; we only invoke it to answer men like Roberthenryomous on their own grounds. Since Manata did not invoke Fischer to defend Calvinism but to defend compatibilism, Manata has done nothing that requires him to cite a scholar using exegetical arguments.
Compatibilism is not the sole purview of Calvinism; and libertarianism is not the sole property of Arminianism. Since Calvinism does not depend on compatibilism, we are free to invoke any philosopher we wish to talk about compatibilism. The only burden of proof we absolutely must discharge is the exegesis of the doctrines of grace from Scripture.
By the way, Robert is conflating two distinct questions: the foreordination of all things and the doctrines of grace. He needs to make up his mind which one he wishes to dispute. His objections to the former are a diversary tactic to keep, IMO, from discussing the latter.
This thread is about the atonement, not foreordination.
And notice that Robert's objections to foreordination are not and never have been presented in exegetical terms. They have all been philosophical and ethical - another example of his double standard.
4. And, Robert, unprincipled person that he is, chastizes us for allegedly reading "global determinism" into Scripture - but he's perfectly alright with the Arminian doing the same thing with libertarianism, and where are Arminians' exegetical arguments for libertarianism to be found? Notice that Robert consistently operates with a double standard, demanding exegetical responses from us without providing any himself, demanding even the scholars we cite do the same for compatibilism, but not bothering to acknowledge what representative Arminians like Walls and Dongell have to say about the exegetical foundation of libertarianism.
Instead, Robert brings up arguments he has offered and which we have already answered, not only by pointing the archives, but by actually answering him. He then bows out of that conversation, only to reappear later with the same arguments. This was dishonest on the part of those we banned a few weeks ago, and it's dishonest now.
This is hopelessly jejune. We just banned Jon Curry, Orthodox, and Touchstone for this same behavior. Robert either needs to start providing some exegetical arguments, including rebuttals to the ones already offered, or he needs to move on and stop abusing this blog to air out his problems with Reformed theology. It isn't as if you have to pay to start a blog on blogger.
We banned for the sake of our other readers, and there are at least two posts in this thread that express the sentiment that he is wasting combox space.
5. And if he'd like to lay "global determinism" at the feet of Augustine and those afterwards, then, pray tell, where does he believe libertarian freedom comes from? Scripture? If so, where are his Bible verses demonstrating it. When asked, he falls strangely silent. Robert is highly selective with his appeals to tradition.
6. And if Robert wants to lay the charge of deriving our doctrine of God from pagan philosophy at our feet, I look forward to his detailed history of that doctrine documenting that claim.
Historically, the prevailing view of the Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle was that of libertarian free will. The Stoics were the only fatalists in Greek society, and their “god” was impersonal and pantheistic. The Refomers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers rejected the Stoics, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers were heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle...toward libertarian free will. Luther specifically rejected Stoic philosophy; and Augustine rejected much of the Stoicism of his day; and Arminius used Greek philosophy greatly in his own work. In calling attention to the relationship between Greek philosophy and modern theology, the objector is actually calling attention to Arminianism, not Calvinism.
When pressed Arminians simply repeat this, but they never follow through on their objection with evidence. There are a number of conditions to meet before the charge can be made to stick.
First, what parts of Neo-Platonism are unbiblical and which are not? Second, since Neo-Platonism shows up in the creeds through their words on the nature of God and Christ, the objection could prove too much or too little. At least Open Theists are being somewhat consistent, in that they deny more than Calvinist soteriology, but rather all orthodox Theology Proper with respect to God's decrees and knowledge.
Historically, there are several links in the chain from Neo-Platonism to Calvin. What is the Platonic doctrine of God with direct quotes from Plato? What is Philo's doctrine of God, since Philo was a pre-Christian Jew? Did Philo keep his Judaism intact? If not, how? Is his Platonism also colored by his Judaism, not merely his Judaism by Platonism?
Then there's Plotinus. What was his doctrine of God? He was a post-Christian philosopher who studied under Ammonius of Saccas. Then he needs to summarize the doctrine of God in Origen, Pseudo-Dionyus, Athanasius, and the Cappadocian Fathers, preferrably with counter-exegetical arguments. This is just the Eastern Church.
The West has a doctrine of God too, and it interacted with the Eastern Church. One would have to trace the doctrine of God through Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, and Aquinas. That gets us to Maimonides and Avicenna. This feeds into the Middle Ages and Scholasticism. From there, we get to Calvin and the Reformers and their doctrine of God and then Reformed Scholasticism.
The product would be the documentation of an evolution with direct quotes that show direct dependence. So, unless the Arminian can show this work, the claim should be dismissed.
So your position, semi-compatibilism, in the Christian philosophy community is not considered to be the strong position worth defending at this time. And my friend Kevin Timpe is coming out with a book soon that will further strengthen the libertarian view.
Ah, so, let's see, Robert's rule of faith is now majoritarian and not exegetical?
Well, if that's the case, then I suppose Robert would have sided with the Arians after Nicea.
Robert, writing to Athanasius:
So your position, trintarianism, in the Christian philosophy community is not considered to be the strong position worth defending at this time. And my friend Aetius is coming out with a book soon that will further strengthen the Arian view.
And, Robert, it seems not only seems to write and blockquote like "Henry," he is also advertising, it seems, so academic credentials - just like Henry. It is far more likely that Robert, Henry, and Lurker are one and the same person.
To post as "Robert" and not "Henry" the way he has done advertises, if true, another level of deception on his part. Before calling other Christians to a higher standard, Robert, if he is truly Henry, needs to (a) admit his true identity and (b) repent of his dishonesty.
I have a question for Robert, if I may. Admittedly I am a (fairly) recent Calvinist and so I find this blog instructive.
ReplyDeleteMy question is this: Do you have an answer to the last post in the "Sincere Offer Polemics" thread? The reason I ask is that so far I have not ever heard a legitimate, Biblical answer to the issues raised in that thread, and when you had a chance you walked away?
Should I believe what I have already concluded, that the reason no non-Calvinist can answer that is because there is no non-Calvinist answer? Take a chance, answer this Biblically. I'd like to read you answer.
(Triablogers...if this is going to far afield delete it. I'm fine with that.)
Daryl said:
ReplyDelete“I have a question for Robert, if I may. Admittedly I am a (fairly) recent Calvinist and so I find this blog instructive.
My question is this: Do you have an answer to the last post in the "Sincere Offer Polemics" thread? The reason I ask is that so far I have not ever heard a legitimate, Biblical answer to the issues raised in that thread, and when you had a chance you walked away?”
Daryl I have not yet walked away from that thread. But I must say that I am very close to walking away from this blog. If you are referring to the long post that Steve Hays wrote I have been reluctant to respond because I do not appreciate insults and personal attacks from professing Christians. Could you be a bit more specific; was there one specific question/issue that you had in mind?
”Should I believe what I have already concluded, that the reason no non-Calvinist can answer that is because there is no non-Calvinist answer? Take a chance, answer this Biblically. I'd like to read you answer.”
I will admit that I do not have answers to every question, but if I know the specific question that you have in mind I will try to answer it biblically, providing one condition is met.
In the last few posts on this thread I am seeing a lot of hostility and insults coming from the Triablogers (including a cyberspace conspiracy charge that my friends are me and I am them which is false). Gene wants me to discuss exegetical problems with Calvinism which I would be interested in doing, if the insults stop now. I am very much interested in discussion if it is carried out without the insults and personal attacks in a way that is consistent with the bible. If not, then I will stop posting here, (Henry stopped posting in the past, as did Lurker). It’s your choice gentlemen, do you want rational and biblical discussion of subjects without the personal insults or not?
Robert
PS – when that issue gets resolved I will be glad to address your specific issue Daryl; whatever that may be.
ROBERT SAID:
ReplyDelete"For example Hays says I am not a Christian."
No, what I said is that at this point he lacks a credible profession of faith, which is different from a saving profession of faith. When you can't tell the difference between God and Ted Bundy, you thereby forfeit a credible profession of faith.
Sure, Robert will say he believes in the God of the Bible, but where's the exegesis? All he appealed to in response to me was open theist exegesis ("God is frustrated...") and an acontextual reference to Ezk 18.
"But if you continue these personal attacks and unnecessary insults, then I will stop posting just like Henry did."
What a loss to the world.
"I really don’t need to be wasting time with people who really do not want to discuss the truth in a way that honors the Lord. I have too many other things that demand my time. Nothing wrong with disagreement among brothers and sisters in Christ, but that disagreement has got to be handled in a biblical way."
Such as the biblical way in which Scripture handles false teachers.
What I see are men like Henry and Robert who misuse their Christian profession of faith as a shield to absolve them from unethical behavior. This is on a par with charlatan prosperity preachers who quote Ps 105:15 ("Touch not mine anointed!") to shield themselves from criticism of their lifestyle.
You don't get to hide behind the holy name of Christ to excuse your prevarication. I don't hold professing Christians to a lower standard. I don't regard a Christian profession of faith as a get-out-of-jail-free-card. Don't wave that in my face as if that gives you diplomatic immunity when you are caught dissembling—time and again.
"The reason that you can use Fischer to 'prove' your position is that he is using only philosophy to argue for determinism. You evaded this point by claiming that Fischer had not defended calvinism. You are right he had not defended calvinism per se, he defends determinism. Which goes to show that Calvinism is determinism, a non-christian philosophy read into scripture by persons like yourself."
As I've explained on more than one occasion, we answer exegetical arguments with exegetical counterarguments, and we answer philosophical arguments with philosophical counterarguments.
I should also point out that Roberthenrytheaonymouslurker has accused me of things while not taking my context into account. before I mentioned Fischer I said,
ReplyDelete" Here's a snip of something I wrote to a correspondant inquiring about libertarianism and PAP and OIC:"
Roberthenrytheaonymouslurker has no idea of the context of my discussion with my correspondant. The discussion wasn't even about "Calvinism" or "deriving Calvinism" from Scripture.
Roberthenrytheaonymouslurker then takes my statements out of contextm and then dishonestly tries to pin on my autonomous and anti-exegetical motives!
And, furthermore, the context of my response to Henry was in regards to his denial of the "ought-implies-can" principle. I was showing how basic that assumption was to libertarianism.
So, Roberthenrytheaonymouslurker has played Jeffry Dahmer with the facts. He has butchered them, and left them lying in a bloody mess on the floor. He then tries to place his crimes on my head. He tries to impute improper motives to myself. Why does he do this/ Why can't he read and understand context? It is because he is blinded by his personal agenda pushing. His soap box rhetoric. Truly sad, Roberthenrytheaonymouslurker
besides the above noted blunders, here's a note for Robert on his personal agenda pushing:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/personal-agenda-pushing.html
Gene wants me to discuss exegetical problems with Calvinism which I would be interested in doing, if the insults stop now
ReplyDeleteRobert,
I addressed an entire thread to you asking for exegetical arguments. In fact, for half a dozen interactions or so, I recall having asked you for your arguments and rebutted two, a grand total of two - which were simply quoting verses or concepts not exegeting the text, which I did for you - you failed to do so.
Here we have a prime example of your schizophrenic logic. On the one hand, you say you'll address exegetical arguments when the alleged insults stop but
a. You continually lob insults all your own (which we have documented numerous times) and
b. Apparently the insults aren't great enough for you to reply to either defend your honor (you can't tarnish a rusted blade, Robert) or level philosophical, emotive, and ethical objections.
On top of this, when we do start talking exegesis, you turn tail and run. So, pardon me if I don't find your latest excuse at all convincing. In fact, I find it nothing more than a blocking maneuver to keep you from talking about the exegetical issues.
By the way, I'm not simply asking you to discuss the exegetical issues - I am asking you to live up to your own standards. You are the one that called out for exegetical argumentation, and you have consistently and repeatedly failed to support your own position when asked. You cry about Owen, for example, using logical arguments as a substitute for exegesis, and then when pressed quickly disappear when we start addressing exegesis, all the while doing the very thing yourself you say that Owen does. I even asked you to take the time, since you objected to being called "Arminian" to help us out here by briefly sketching out your own soteriology on the relevant issues - but you disappeared. This is getting tiresome, Robert. It is not we who failed to step up to the plate. It is you.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteOn the "Polemics" post the following snippet was posted as a partial Calvinist response to the question of God's predestination of everything...
"Does an offer of choice imply the freedom and ability to choose contracausally, that is does command to do a thing prove the ability to do it? E.g. God would not command us to do what we cannot do? Frequently Arminians will appeal to Deuteronomy where Moses says, "choose life in order that you may live,..." to say that this proves men must have contracausal freedom, but Moses said that the reason the Israelites were a stiff-necked people who refused to stop sinning was because, “to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear” (Deut. 29:4). The answer is, "No," nothing can be deduced about ability from such statements.
“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things” (Isa. 45:7). The darkness of night and plague is from God. And the wealth and peace of the nations is in his hands. It is easy to suppose that men are somehow exempt from the sphere of God’s sovereign control. But this is not the case. If Isaiah can say that God controls birds, it is just as certain that he controls men: “From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose” (Isa. 46:11).
Proverbs 21 declares, "The heart of the king is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wishes." God even causes a man to say every word that comes from his mouth: “from the Lord comes the reply of [a person’s] tongue” (Prov. 16:1). And the Lord ordains every course of action a man takes for Scripture says, “the Lord determines [a man’s] steps” (Prov. 16:9). David said, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Ps. 139:16).
Proverbs declares, “The Lord works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster” (Prov. 16:4). Paul asserts, like Isaiah, that, “God has bound all men over to disobedience” (Rom. 11:32). This teaching pervades all of Scripture. The Psalmist declared, “The Lord made his people very fruitful; he made them too numerous for their foes, whose hearts he turned to hate his people, to conspire against his servants” (Ps. 105:24-25).We could go on and on and on with these declarations in Scripture."
I'm wondering how you would Scripturally respond to the verses given. I ask because I've seen so little Scripture from you in all your answers and it seems that in order to reach a conclusion about God's determination of events and causes of events, one should be able to point to Scripture.
You seem like an intelligent guy and, as I mentioned before all non-Calvinist answers to the question avoid Scripture diligently.
So let's have it. I'm ready to listen.
I should have said "all non-Calvinist answers THAT I HAVE HEARD avoid Scripture..."
ReplyDeleteCould someone explain to me (as Robert has phrased it here) how it is that God's election of some unto salvation is based upon His foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel? So, God looks into the future and sees someone putting their faith in Christ, and upon this basis He elects them? Wowee, that kinda makes me feel special. I made God elect me. What sovereign power I have. And I thought I was just a depraved worm...
ReplyDeleteYes, HT, you got it. God looks into his crystal ball, and "predestines" people who he foresaw would believe in Jesus, to believe in Jesus!
ReplyDeleteIs Bob going to answer, or what?
ReplyDeleteTwinky says:
ReplyDelete“Could someone explain to me (as Robert has phrased it here) how it is that God's election of some unto salvation is based upon His foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel? So, God looks into the future and sees someone putting their faith in Christ, and upon this basis He elects them? Wowee, that kinda makes me feel special. I made God elect me. What sovereign power I have. And I thought I was just a depraved worm...”
I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian and I still find some of what you suggest here to be wrong. If God wants those who trust Him to be His people is that not his prerogative to save whomever He wants to save? And if He himself sets things up so that His gracious offer of salvation may be received by us or rejected by us, again, why isn’t it His right to save those who respond favorably to His offer?
Your comment “Wowee, that kinda makes me feel special” appears to be sarcastic. I believe that if God elects us, sinners that we are, then we ought to feel very special and very loved. If God operated with us solely and strictly according to justice, we would all get hell. But God has mercy and so some us can be saved. And the biblical truth that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners, ought to make us feel very special, loved, and hopeful that God does in fact have mercy on sinners rather than giving us what we actually deserve.
I also have problems with your line that “I made God elect me”. We do not make God do anything. He is under no obligations to us (except for promises He has made and will keep) and if we all went to hell and there never was a provision of the cross God would have been perfectly righteous. God freely chooses whomever He desires to choose/elect, does He not? God is not obligated to save any of us, that being true, nothing we do makes him elect us.
Your sarcasm continued with “What sovereign power I have.” I believe this line shows why your thinking is off here. You are making a “category mistake”. You are looking at election as a power category when it is a relationship category, a choice category. What if someone were to say following your example, in reference to their spouse:
“Wowee, that kinda makes me feel special. I made her/him choose me, choose to be my spouse. What sovereign power I have.”
We do not make our spouses choose us, we do not coerce them, or force them, or manipulate them, or do anything that forces them to choose us. You calvinists do not believe that that happens when someone comes to believe in Jesus. You believe that because they are regenerated first, they then willingly choose to embrace Christ, that no coercion or force or manipulation or overpowering of the will is involved (you call that irresistible grace). So if even in your own system force is not involved on our side, why would you imagine that God is forced to be in relationship with us because of the “sovereign power I have”?
Was God Himself predetermined to choose whom He chooses or does He do so freely?
In a healthy relationship of love and trust, whether it involves spouses or friends or God and human persons, both parties make choices to be in the relationship, no overpowering of the will is involved whatsoever. So looked at from the categories of relationship and choice, when God elects us there is nothing that we do that forces Him to choose us (we can’t make him do it, and no power we have causes or forces it to happen).
And finally your line about “And I thought I was just a depraved worm . . .” Again, you appear to be sarcastic. We are not “worms” when we are not believers, rather we are creatures created in the image of God, who have gone like sheep and gone astray each to his own way. We are so important that Christ came in the flesh to die on a cross for our sins. Jesus does not do that for worms. Yes in our lost condition we do sins worthy of condemnation and eternal death. And Yes we rebel against our creator and worship the creation rather than the creator. But “worms” is not the way He looks at us, even when we are sinners rebelling against Him. Of course if you see folks as “worms” why evangelize them? Twinky do you do much evangelism?
Robert