The Pillsbury Thibodaux Boy - Hee Hee

{A note for ease of reading. I frequently quote J.C.'s use of my claims. These will appear in the indented "quote" format in unitalicized type. I will also make all of his comments in red.}


J.C. Thibodaux issued a "challenge to T-bloggers." He did so with all the gusto of Ravishing Rick Rude's midsection, yet upon inspection, his muscular challenge feels more like the Pillsbury Doughboy's midsection. His response to my answer to his challenge was even at the caliber of the response one gets from touching the Doughboy's tummy: "Hee-hee."

I'll just quote him and respond. If anyone wants the larger context, I'll provide the links:

* Thibodaux's challenge

* My answer

* His response

My rebuttal:

"And here I thought I was just some guy in front of a computer who liked to discuss theology. By the title conferred upon me by Triabloguer Paul Manata, I can only conjecture that he deems me some crazed Cajun Kung Fu master who can propagate such preponderous proportions of punishing polemical pwnage, that I'm now pushing the Triabloggers around despite being outnumbered 8 to 1. I think he's just trying to wage some kind of bizarre psychological warfare on me. But despite my 1-man ganging up on them, Paul to his credit still somehow managed to summon the courage to answer my challenge. So here we go,"

I would have thought with a name like Thibodaux he'd be familiar with the story of Cajun Joe, the man who would fight anyone, anywhere, in Bayou waters or on dry land. He ends up getting his teeth knocked out. Anyway, I'll try to not be so subtle.

Also, note that Thibodaux tries to appeal to the pity of his audience. He can't be a bully because he's outnumbered 8 to 1. Well, let's note that (a) I used to be a bully and I would frequently pick on large groups of people. None were strong enough to stand up to me. (b) This was Thibodaux's challenge! He's the one who challenged all of us. Now he tries to play that role of a martyr? I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who tried to mess with a bunch of bayou gators, I'd call him stupid.

Continuing....


Clearing things up

"Mr. Manata puts out not a few misconceptions, which I shall briefly clarify before I get to the meat of the matter.

'Before we begin, we can at least pause and point out the dubious nature of this claim. Apparently Thibodaux hasn't read much on the philosophy of science. Many times "the facts" are accepted and given their status by virtue of the dogmatic hypothesis ruling the day. There are paradigm shifts which allow certain "facts" to be accepted as facts. Or, the idea that there are no theory-independent observations. Perhaps this isn't the case, but it is hotly debated and Thibodaux just asserts one side of the story, without apologetic.'

Which is why I was careful to qualify them as "established and indisputable facts," (e.g. the earth is round, things fall down rather than up), not what some merely suppose to be facts, such as Darwinism."

I know what you said, I quoted you numerous times. I never mentioned Darwinism. I'm talking about things that were just as "established and indisputable" as a spherical earth. I'd read something like Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (or even Moreland's Christianity and the Nature of Science), for examples of what I'm talking about. Anyway, we'll see how this notion of "established and indisputable facts" serves to undermine your very argument. I was just correcting your ignorance on a subject with my opening comment.

Continuing...

"It's not hard to understand from the wording I employ, "believers falling away from God and into condemnation;" it would be somewhat hard for one who believes to fall away from God if he never were with God, or fall into condemnation were he already under such consigned."

One could "be with God" from the standpoint of man, from the standpoint of his profession of faith. Indeed, Hebrews says that the believers "stand" by their "profession" and so to "fall away" may very well be to "deny your profession." Phenomenological language may also be employed (cf. Schreiner, etc). So, it is not at all clear how you meant your phrase. It's clear to you, because your entire argument is, actually, one giant lesson on how to beg the question; as will be demonstrated more fully below.

Continuing....

"He also cites the fact that I don't present the other side completely,

'Three evidences (allegedly) against it are produced, none of the evidence for it is allowed to speak. Does this feel like an honest evaluation of a "hypothesis?" Like a fair trial? Or more like a Kangaroo court. A travesty of justice? We're obviously reading a biased report masquerading as honest and open inquiry.'

Which I don't recall being under any obligation to do. This was quite by design: I present my side (and preempt a few arguments from the other) then present it to the other side so they can show theirs. It's not like I'm not giving them a chance to defend their views; indeed, I invited them to, so I'm not sure what his beef here is."

And of course the missing context is that Thibodaux framed his argument as a "scientific investigation." I pointed out that a one-sided critique, with an already assumed conclusion, wasn't very "scientific." Thibodaux is picking and choosing the style of his debate. He opens with the idea that we're going to have something like a scientific inquiry, but he argues in the rest of the paper as one trying to persuade people already online with his conclusion. People in a science lab wouldn't go about "proving" conclusion like Thibodaux does. They wouldn't present a paper suppressing the evidence contrary to their position. (I'm assuming the stated approach claimed by scientists, obviously.)Thus my point, which was rather missed, and missed badly, is that Thibodaux can't even stay consistent with his own opening analogy.

Continuing....

'Putting us on is a question begging epithet.'

"Here he employs a decontextualization, as no insult was intended or implied, as it was merely an expression. The original quote was, 'All inherent problems aside, even if this were the case and God were simply 'putting us on,' so to speak, for the sake of our living righteously....'"

I didn't say that insult was intended or implied. But when characterizing another's position, one should try to use neutral terms. Thibodaux tells us that he thinks it is pointless to give warnings to people who cannot fall away given God's decree that they won't. To say that God is "putting us on" is to bias the jury towards a premise you rest on in your argument. Why is Thibodaux trying to escape fallacies he's made? Man up to it when caught.

Continuing...

I implied nothing of the sort. The wording of the challenge was such that it addressed both the cheap grace and lordship salvation views of eternal security, as both have the common denominator that it is not possible for one who was once saved to perish, but in no place do I equate the two.

Sure you did, and saying-so don't make it so, Thibodaux. For you had stated, "If God's purpose in giving such warnings was to make us live holy unto Him by indicating that if we walk away from Him, He will cast us away, yet you teach a doctrine that states He would never under any circumstance actually do such a thing, then have you not undone the holy fear which God's word was meant to instill in the hearts of His people and again made it of no effect?" To act in such a way, as you say our doctrine would require us to act, is to say that we should be presumptuous regarding our salvation. That we already have it "in the bag." But we are to "tremble at the threatenings." Indeed, Reformed theology has always taught that if you don't "tremble at the threatenings" then you don't have saving faith: "By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come" (WCF XIV:II). Therefore, not taking the threatenings seriously, but presumptuously thinking that we are set, that we have already taken hold of the prize, is an evidence-indicator (a fruit --> root inference) that we never had saving faith in the first place. The threatenings cause us to grab hold of Christ. Holding on to Jesus is the only way to heaven. Thus the threatenings are means of salvation (or, of reaching glorification).

Continuing....

Thibodaux lists my arguments under 6 headings. I'll follow his lead:

Argument from diversity of opinion

"Apparently, the fact that some scholars have different views on the interpretation of certain passages is supposed to be substantial evidence against my case.

[snip my quotes]

The third fact I listed was, "The scriptures provide multiple warnings against believers falling away from God and into condemnation." I welcome him to cite any solid scholarly evidence against this or the other points. Any debates from scholar or layman are welcome in reply, I simply ask that you cite the specifics of your evidence, not simply the fact that some scholars debate the subject. Good arguments require specifics, as opposed to what Mr. Manata has done in merely pointing out that there are differing opinions and insisting that reformed theology is indisputable."

Thibodaux can't follow his own strictures. His argument is that we need to "test the hypothesis of the reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints against the 'established and indisputable facts' found in Holy Scripture." What it means for a fact to be "established and indisputable" is for them to be at the level of "e.g. the earth is round, things fall down rather than up." Just here he cuts his argument's throat. No New Orleans Cajun Voodoo will bring it back to life. Now, it is no debate that there are warnings in Scripture. What is up for debate, and what is hotly disputed, is Thibodaux's interpretation of the warning passages.

I referenced him the book Four Views on The Warning Passages so that he could get a glimpse of how this issue is debated. I see no books on Four Views on the Shape of The Earth. I've read no book called Four Views on Whether Christians Believe in the Existence of God. Another book he might like to get is Four Views on Eternal Security.

I didn't merely "point out differences" and conclude that "I've won." I took Thibodaux's way of framing the debate and showed that he's not taking "undisputed Bible passages" and seeing if our "hypothesis" squares with these "undisputed facts." Thibodaux's argument is, actually, better stated this way: A Challenge to Reformed Theology's Inability to Cope With Thibodaux's Interpretation of the Warning Passages. But then you wouldn't need to issue something like that, because we all agree with you!

This will be brought out more below.

Continuing....

The Law and Sanctification

'If Jesus is giving the full (or correcting the abuse of) meaning of the law of God, then that law holds for believer and unbeliever alike. Thus Jesus would be giving an objective basis in terms of which God's judgment on the law-violator is carried out.'

"Yes, but he also speaks of doing so in terms of escaping hell fire or suffering it, hence this passage's relevance to the discussion."

The context here was that Thibodaux said that Jesus wasn't speaking to unbelievers. He now says that "Yes," my response was correct.

This passage simply tells us how we are to battle sin. We wage violent war against it. If you don't cut off an eye, then you're not willing battle your sin in any serious way. If you're not willing to do that, then you are not a believer. "How can we who have died to sin continue to live in it," asks Paul. So, if one didn't do these things, then this is an evidence-indicator (fruit --> root inference), that one was never saved in the first place. That's the Reformed interpretation. You're not going to convince anyone with an argument that uses dubious premises that assume an Arminian understanding.

Continuing....

'A "believer" escaping corruption by battling sin is called "sanctification." The Bible implies that those being sanctified will be sanctified. That if they're battling sin, truly, then they will end in heaven, with Christ:'

"True, those battling sin will end in heaven with Christ -- provided they remain in Christ and thus continue battling sin. My point is that if they cease to do so, then they will not inherit eternal life, which none of the passages he cites speak against."

The Calvinist says that too. But the Calvinist adds that if someone who made a profession of faith ceases to profess faith, he was never saved in the first place. So, (a) it is true (since the conditional has a true truth value) that if a true believer does not remain in Christ he will go to hell, and (b) we affirm that if someone appears to have been a believer, and they go to hell, they were never salvifically joined with Christ in the first place, and (c) though it is true that IF a true believer apostatized he would be severed from Christ in a salvific way, but we maintain that this will not happen because "he who began a good work in you will be faithful to bring it to completion."

Salvation is 100% of God. We maintain that the denial of the perseverance of the saints is due to holding to a synergistic model of salvation. We maintain that those who have once been united with Christ, will always remain united. Your argument must assume an Arminian theory of the atonement, which we reject. You thus have disputed and hotly debated hidden premises upon which your argument rests. We hold that if Jesus died for a person, then he took their punishment. He was punished in their stead. For them. They received his righteousness and have been declared innocent by the Father. On a daily basis they have a high priest who intercedes for them, this intercessionary work of Christ cannot fail. We don't have a failure Jesus. We hold that the Spirit's regenerating work cannot be reversed, just as I cannot revert to an infant, and then a conceptus. Salvation is of grace, and we cannot out-sin grace.

Continuing....

His response to my citing Ephesians 2"1-7 is mind numbing. Thibodaux says,

"Which says nothing about the possibility or impossibility of ceasing to continue in the process of sanctification."

Ephesians actually brings up the reverse of Thibodaux's problem. Read what the Spirit, through Paul, says to those who have been saved: "But God, who is rich in mercy because of His great love with which His loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:1-7)." He "made us sit in the heavenly places" and that "in the ages to come" he would show us all the riches of His grace. But how could God say this if it was possible that each and every single person saved could (contrary to the decree) all deny him? This text appears to teach that those "made alive" will all "be with Jesus in the ages to come." Furthermore, if you were made alive, then do you die, and become alive again, and then die, and then become alive again, and then die, and then alive again, and then die, and then be made alive again, and then die, and then be made alive again, ad nauseum. This seems absurd.

Continuing...

'Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.' (Heb. 10:13-14).

"This text is often misinterpreted as saying that once sanctification is done, it cannot be undone because we've been made 'perfect forever.' This was not what the author was saying, he was indicating that Christ's sacrifice only needed to be performed once as opposed to the yearly sacrifices made under the old covenant (see the preceding context, note verses 3 and 11)."

This is extremely simplistic. It is true that the author is referring to the one-time sacrifice of Christ as opposed to the yearly sacrifices by the OT high priests, but what do we draw from this? The OT sacrifices could never save, "because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (v.4). This is contrasted with Christ's. For, "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (vv. 12-14). Thus we see that the death of Christ took away the sin of those it was made for. He therefore continues, "The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."

And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."

What, does God write his law on their minds, and then erase it, and then write it, and then erase it, and then write it, and then erase it, ad nauseum. This is where Thibodaux's position leads.

Those who "have been made perfect" is in the perfect tense, the present passive participle is used. Thus the status of God's people (this is the covenant I will make with THEM) is expressed in timeless terms (see France, 247). The "emphasis is being laid on the fact that by the same sacrifice those who have been cleansed and 'perfected' are now eternally constituted God's holy people" (ibid). What we have here is the fulfilling of Jeremiah's prophecy. The bringing about of the Covenant of Redemption. God's plan to save his people, who He foreknew and loved from the foundation of the world. Those who the lamb was slain for from the foundation of the world. The OT law and sacrifice was a "reminder of sin," this sacrifice is the "removal of sin." He remembers their lawless acts "NO MORE." This is why there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

Continuing....

'being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.' (Phi. 1:6)

"I agree, I actually cited this in my challenge. God is faithful to His covenant to continue His work in us until we are as Christ by writing His law on our hearts, but this does not imply that such working is unconditional or that it's impossible to turn away from God, especially considering the warnings given against doing so. Scripture cannot be interpreted by the cancellation method. God is faithful, yet remaining in His covenant is conditional; so if we remain in grace, God continues to sanctify us. If one has broken covenant with God, then the promises of the thereof no longer apply to him or her."

Perhaps if you're a synergist. But it is God who brings this to completion. He (not us) began the work and He (not us) will bring the work to completion. The Calvinist can have assurance, not the libertarian.

The warning passages don't say "the falling away of one of God's elect can be actualized." This is an assumption you're adding to the Bible. You were supposed to show how the doctrine of perseverance contradicts the warning passages. The only way you can do so is by the unbiblical premise: if one gives a warning to someone, the warned must be capable of instantiating what was warned against. Where is this philosophical assumption to be found in the Bible? II Opinions 3:15? Your crucial premise is nothing but an extra-biblical stricture. But you wanted to hold our doctrine up to the "undisputed facts of Scripture." Well, I dispute your assumption and ask for its meat to be derived from the cow, Holy Scripture.

Remaining in the covenant is conditioned on the extra nos faith we have in the object of our faith, Jesus Christ. This faith is not of ourselves, it too is given. God makes sure that we continue to express faith, and this is how He is able to "bring what He started to completion." Thus the confession:

Chapter XIV

Of Saving Faith

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.

And so we see that, again, you simply assume non-reformed categories. You must deny our conception of covenant, atonement, regeneration, faith, justification, God's sovereignty, etc., for your argument to work. But if those assumed premises are the case, you don't need your critique! If what you need to assume where the case, were undisputed biblical facts, there'd be no Reformed theology. Thus your argument only works if we assume a whole host of premises we're not willing to grant. This is like the evolutionist asking us to just grant him that life got started from non-life just once, and then he'll show us how the entire package follows. Your critique is nothing but one giant petitio principii.

Continuing...

'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.' (Romans 6)

"Um, again I agree. How this is supposed to guarantee that sanctification is irrevocable is never explained."

Um, by putting your little thinking cap on. Try it again with the bolded portion. I just reverse your problem. It would be absurd to tell people that they will CERTAINLY be resurrected unto glory if they can just denounce their new life!

Continuing...

The Hypothetical Argument

"Mr. Manata also tries to establish the possibility that Jesus was merely speaking His warning in Matthew 5 hypothetically.

'As a hypothetical, this can be said to believers and be a true statement, yet nevertheless fail to undercut perseverance of the saints. Thibodaux tries to say Jesus' claims would be pointless if this could not actually happen to an elect Christian. I take it as undisputed that: if you tell someone the truth, you've been sincere or genuine with them.'

After giving a brief discourse on if-then statements, he argues,

'Therefore, going back to the issue at hand, it is true that IF the true believer does such and such, he will go to hell. This can be a true statement qua conditional statement, and this can be true even though no elect person would ever do such and such.

1) If you tell someone the truth, you have been sincere with them.

2) When Jesus says what will happen to someone IF they do such and such, he is telling the truth.

3) Therefore, When Jesus says what will happen to someone IF they do such and such, he has been sincere with them.

4) If you've been sincere with someone what you've said isn't pointless.

5) Jesus was sincere.

6) Therefore what Jesus said wasn't pointless.'

There's a problem with premise 4, if one impossibility based upon another is sincerely stated, it's still pointless. One could sincerely (albeit absurdly) and truly warn another that if he were to hit the ground hard enough with a hammer, the very globe could be split asunder. While such a statement is technically logically sound, it is devoid of any worthwhile signification as such a condition is impossible for a human being to fulfill. For Christ to be sincere, accurate, and meaningful, the warnings He gives must be possible to violate."

Let's note that his first sentence isn't a verse in the Bible, so it's unclear how he's using "the clear and undisputed facts of Scripture." Also, what is the problem with 4? Is it a false premise? That seems odd. Perhaps it is only false when the antecedent and the condition are both impossible. But that is not clear, at all. Part of his counter-analogy gains its force from the fact that we know the earth will not split asunder. Thus we can go ahead hit it with a hammer. But if we do so, and the consequent doesn't happen, then it is FALSE. It will not have a true truth value if the antecedent is true while the consequent is false. But we cannot truly denounce Jesus Christ and make it to heaven. Thus his counter argument was an argument from analogy, minus the analogy. He thus hasn't responded to my argument. Not only that, his assumption isn't based on the Bible. Lastly, the purpose of the warnings for believers is that they are means to keep them in the faith. Keep them trusting in Jesus. Take them in a nonchalant way, provide and evidence-indicator that you're not saved. Saved people trust in Christ. Saved people believe that if we do X, then Y will happen. So we don't do X, thanks be to God.

Continuing...

"He also goes off into some familiar territory,

'God uses verses like this as a means to bring believers to their end, life everlasting.'

and,

'One could make the case that Jesus is providing instruction that will keep the believer out of hell. Keep him from continuing in a life of sin.'

and,

'The warnings are means God uses to bring his elect into his eschatological kingdom.'

Which was already addressed in the challenge, in that if the purpose of God is to give us a warning with the practical effect of 'making us fear' (or similar effect) so that we endure to the end, then a doctrine that teaches that such a warning is impossible to violate and its consequences impossible to suffer negates any such fear or caution which God's word was meant to instill, making it of no practical effect either."

And I answered this "already addressing" of his. Also, note again his appeal to a proposition that is not found in Scripture. Thibodaux is supposed to judge us by the "facts of Scripture," not the "facts in Thibodaux's head." Lastly, the doctrine is that the saints will persevere until the end. It is possible that we, individually, could be fooling ourselves. It is possible that we may not be saints. Thus we do not "mess around." We do not "take things lightly." We "cling to Jesus Christ." We pray that he will keep us in the faith. That we would not deny him. That our profession would be genuine.

Continuing...

"I never said that it "makes no sense to say that IF someone S does an action A then X will result, if S cannot [perform] A." Logically it would mean that result X would never be achieved. The logic does indeed parse out, but in terms of inherent net meaning it's useless."

He never said it in that way, but that is his position nevertheless. Furthermore, he still misunderstands the nature of conditionals (and I don't care if he's a 'computer programmer'). It's "meaning" is wrapped up in the conditional expression of the proposition. For example, God can tell us: "If you are perfect, I will grant you everlasting life." This is perfectly intelligible, yet it is impossible for humans to achieve! Also, if Thibodaux denies perfectionism, then what does he make of the commands: Do not ever sin once. Be perfect. ? We cannot do this in this lifetime. Only when we are glorified. But on Thibodaux's assumptions, it is pointless to command these things since it is impossible for us to obey them! Might as well talk to a rock.

Continuing...

'This is absurd since no Calvinist has denied that believers cannot be warned. Being warned doesn't imply that you won't persevere.'

"Of course not. We're all warned, which by that logic would imply that no one would persevere. Rather, a sincere warning addressed to the saints does indicate that it is possible to not persevere."

'Since we've never denied the warning of the saints" then there's no doctrine we have to bring in line with Scripture.'

"Indeed, he's not denied the warnings, simply any real possibility of their consequences occurring to whom they were delivered, hence making them void."

The first quote is his regurgitating his opening assumption. Remember, it's an extra-biblical one. Thus he cannot prove that we are at odds with Scripture.

His second claim commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi and the fallacy of false dichotomy. I've already answered his "no purpose" argument by bring up means. Also, to assume that the warnings have only the purpose of showing that it is possible for an elect to fall, or nothing, he leaves out a third possibility - that of a means to bring us to salvation.

Continuing...

Appeal to Lack of Example

"I never claimed to show such an example here, all I have demonstrated, and all I need demonstrate, is the possibility. One does not need an example to demonstrate possibility if said possibility has already been established."

He "demonstrates" the "possibility" by appeal to an extra-biblical assumption, recall.

He cannot demonstrate the possibility of an elect, regenerate Christian falling away since the Bible says this won't happen:

John 6:38-40, 44 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Jesus says everyone who comes to him, who believes on him, will have eternal life. if you come to Jesus, you are his. You belong to him, like a coin. He won't lose any of his. No loose change in the cushions. No loose change under the car seats.

John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Jesus gives his sheep eternal life, and they will never perish. But Thibodaux thinks it is possible that they could perish. Thibodaux has the reverse problem: It seems meaningless to tell sheep that they will never perish if they very well may. Since "they shall never perish" is a Greek Construction (ou me plus aorist subjunctive) is may be translated more explicitly "and they shall certainly not perish forever" (Grudem, ST, 789).

Believers have the Holy Spirit. Therefore:

Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

We thus have a guarantee of eternal life. How could God guarantee us eternal life if it rested upon such a shaky ground as our libertarian will?

Even though I'm reversing Thibodaux's extra-biblical arguments from incredulity, I have provided an answer as to the purpose of the warnings for believers. To that answer all Thibodaux did was to repeat himself - "then it would be pointless!". I then negated his assumption. How can he consistently answer me is the real question? Given his argument from "that just wouldn't make sense" he must remove the rug he's standing on. For, "it just doesn't make sense" that someone would guarantee someone something he couldn't guarantee. Of, that he would say that they will certainly never perish, if indeed they may!

Continuing....


Thoughts on Hebrews

'Where is the idea in Hebrews that those who "fall away" are ever of the same kind as those who "truly" believe? Heb. 6 draws the contrast: "7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned." We therefore see that there are two kinds of soil, not one kind. The latter never produced crops. It's of a different nature.'

"I wasn't expressing such an idea, simply the fact that those who are sincerely following Christ are warned against failing to enter into His rest. The implication he draws from Hebrews 6 is interesting, but the differing land illustration may also represent men who choose differing paths once they receive the word; though whether chapter 6 specifically is talking about the formerly saved or the almost saved is irrelevant to the current discussion."

He apparently can't follow arguments too well. I, as well as other reformed thinkers, argue that those who do in fact leave were never true believers in the first place. I gave an argument showing that the two types of people, those who would fall away vs. those who stay, are different kinds of people, not just a single lump of "believers." His assumption that they are "sincerely following Christ" is vague. People can be sincerely wrong. But, if he means that they have genuine saving faith, let him show it, not assert it. And, we believe people can "receive the word" but it is only those who BEAR FRUIT that have truly received it in a saving way:

Matthew 13:3-10, 18-23 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear."

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

The reformed argument is that the soil that produces fruit perseveres. Call our doctrine, The Perseverance of The Fertile Ground.

Continuing...

'Who enters that rest? "We who have (past tense) believed" (v.3). How do you enter the rest? "For anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (v.10). How does one "rest from his work?" He trusts in Christ's work. The work of another person. So, those who have truly put their faith in Christ are not trusting in works, they have believed and thus entered his rest.'

"Here his exegesis breaks down, for we who have believed 'do enter' (present tense), not 'have entered' that rest. The rest it speaks of is not temporal, nor enjoyed in this present life, but speaks of the eternal rest when we pass from this world to be with Christ. Hence it warns us to be diligent to enter it, for what purpose would it serve to tell we who believe ('we who have believed') to strive to enter into His rest if we who have believed have already arrived? Additionally, entering God's rest is not presently achieved, but left to us as a promise that we are warned against falling short of (Hebrews 4:1)."

To be sure, there is an already/not yet aspect to "the rest." But if we have believed, then we have trusted in the work of Christ, and no longer rely on our work, hence we are resting in Him. It is interesting to note that those who worked on the OT days of atonement were put to death. Only those who "drew near" to the priest and "rested" from their work were saved. The parallel is unmistakable. Those who believe WILL take hold of that final rest. The only ones who failed to enter were people who heard the good news. There is no argument that a true believer could fail to enter forthcoming.

Continuing...

Other Arguments

'Paul said,

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. 31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died more than that, who was raised to life is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Thibodaux needs to square his doctrine with Scripture. After all, I'm just squaring his hypothesis with the indisputable and clearly established facts of Scripture.'

"Of course no created thing can separate us from Christ.

Thibodaux can't follow out his syllogism:

[1] No created thing can keep us from attaining everlasting life as found in being united to Christ.

[2] True believers are created things.

[3] Therefore, true believers cannot keep us (themselves) from everlasting life as found in being united to Christ.

QED

"Thanks Paul for your reply, and bestowing upon me such an awesome nickname! Now about that lunch money..."

You're welcome. And, I'll pass the hat around at our next T-blogger meeting seeing as you're going to need it for the dental bill considering all those teeth I kicked in. :-)