Wednesday, November 28, 2007

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. :-)

50 comments:

  1. 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."

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/pillbury-thibodaux-boy-hee-hee.html

    Notice that Thibodaux is a Bible-denying heretic. He implicitly denies the translation of Elijah and the Ascension of Christ.

    BTW, I've addressed the apostasy passages in Hebrews on several occasions—long before Thibodaux issued his challenge, so he's way behind the curve.

    I believe that Gene recently reproduced some of my argumentation, as well as adding his own refinements.

    And, of course, Berny has responded to this challenge, too. So it's not as if the Tbloggers failed to rise to the challenge. The ball is back in Thibodaux's court.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello guys,

    Steve said:

    BTW, I've addressed the apostasy passages in Hebrews on several occasions—long before Thibodaux issued his challenge, so he's way behind the curve.

    I am currently doing a series on perseverance. I will be addressing the warnings of Heb. 6 and 10 in my next two posts on the subject. I have read quite a bit from the Reformed side on these passages, but I would like to get your take as well in case you have something new to add that I have not yet heard. Could you give me the links to your prior posts concerning the warning passages in Heb?

    Paul,

    I find your response to be problematic on many fronts. I will wait to see how JC responds but I wanted to address the syllogism you end with and ask JC to grapple with:

    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.


    I think anyone can see that the wording in [3] seems a bit strange.

    I think it is fairly plain that Paul is speaking of the influence forces outside of the believr himself being able to seperate said believer from Christ's love. To read verse 39 as "...nor any other created thing [including us] will be able to seperate us from the love of God" seems to me to be very strained.

    We may just have to disagree on this one, but I fail to see how you can presume that the language of verse 39 includes the believer himself, rather than things outside of the believer. Why does it have to be [including us] rather than [outside of us]? I think the context better supports the second possibility.

    A further difficulty with your interpretation lies in the passages in which believers are exhorted to "remain" in the love of Christ or God [John 15:9; Jude 21].

    It seems a little silly to me that God would call believers to remain in His love if your interpretation of Rom. 8 is correct. Would it not be senseless to tell a prisoner to "stay in your cell" if the cell were securely locked with no possible means of escape?

    I look forward to the sophistry you put forth to make such silly things seem so reasonable. You have so far proved very talented in that regard.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems silly to me that God would command me to be perfect, yet He does.

    How do we "remain" in Him? You say by faith, but does not faith come from Him in that He gives us a new heart? It always strikes me odd how the Arminian thinks that they can bear righteous fruit, such as faith and repentance, in their depraved state without first being reborn.

    So Ben would your position be that nothing created can keep us from attaining everlasting life EXCEPT us? Seems strange to put so much weight on such a fickle thing as our will. The Arminian must not only have libertarian free will, but it must be a superman strength will in order to keep yourself in Christ. It is always nice when we relegate Christ to be a cheerleader for us:)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bottom line (as I see it anyway) is that Thibodaux seems to be sort of stuck on "Why would God..." logic, which is a trap we all fall into from time to time in justifying our theological positions, presenting it as a rhetorical question to which the obvious answer is "He wouldn't."

    But for all the Bible's debatable points, one crystal clear fact is that God's reasons and God's logic are guaranteed to baffle us on a regular basis, because God's mind is infinitely beyond our own. Therefore, "Why would God..." arguments are never valid.

    Why would God warn people not to do something that they're ultimately incapable of doing? The answer -- the only right answer to pretty much any "Why would God..." question -- is simply, "Good question."

    ReplyDelete
  5. We may just have to disagree on this one, but I fail to see how you can presume that the language of verse 39 includes the believer himself, rather than things outside of the believer. Why does it have to be [including us] rather than [outside of us]? I think the context better supports the second possibility.

    1. This is unintentionally humorous insofar as its the Arminians who regularly assert that words like "any, all, and every" are generally equivalent. Suddenly "all" become "some."

    2. This statement comes at the end of a series of statements, one of which is that those called are justified and glorified. So, where is your argument regarding 8:29 - 30 that not all justified are glorified, for example? That passage articulates an unbreakable process.

    3. The irony here is that to say that there is a created thing, including us, that can defeat the purpose of God for the elect places you in the position of putting a charge against them. Yet the point of the passage relates to the perfection of the work of Christ, the effaciousness of the justification of God. This is all true, but, say you, it can be lost? So, you have Paul writing all of this, only to not mean that nothing can undo what God has done. Rather, it only applies to forces outside of the individual himself.

    4. The point he is making is that no charge can be laid at the feet of the elect on the eschatological day. Your view necessarily leads not only to election grounded in foreseen faith but election grounded in foreseen perserverance, or else you have God electing on foreseen faith, then dis-electing.

    5. Affliction, persecution, famine, death and such are all reasons that would cause a believer to renounce faith in Christ if he could, are they not? So, if these things cannot do it, then why does one person renounce his faith and not the other? Paul has canvasses the possible things that could cause a believer to apostatize, and he consequently rejects them all. The love of Christ is stronger than all of them.

    6. So, we're left with your assertion of LFW and the surd belief that choices have no sufficient causes. You'll have to argue that action theory from Scripture in order to assert it here. Where, pray tell, does the Bible articulate such an action theory?

    It seems a little silly to me that God would call believers to remain in His love if your interpretation of Rom. 8 is correct.

    "Silliness" is not an exegetical argument. Nothing can be deduced about the ability of a person from the presence of a command.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve Hays needs to repent of his sinful practice of declaring bible believing Christians who think differently, or interpret the bible differently than he does, to be Heretics. Declaring someone to be a heretic is a serious charge. We ought not to be declaring other believers with whom we disagree to be heretics.

    Steve Hays writes of J.C.: “Notice that Thibodaux is a Bible-denying heretic.”

    I have not seen him denying the bible. While I believe that he is mistaken about his interpretation of scripture and the conclusion that there is a possibility of genuine believers losing their salvation, or not persevering in their faith until the end, this is not sufficient to declare that he denies the bible and is a heretic. Some Christians, bible believing and affirming, do in fact believe that a person can lose their salvation.

    Steve you need to repent of your sin and apologize for your ungracious remarks towards another brother in Christ. If you refuse to repent of this sinful behavior then you bring great doubt upon your own profession of Christ. God is watching all of this and if you serve Jesus as one of His people, then you need to stop sinning in this way against other believers. As the well-known adage puts it: you need to learn to disagree agreeably.

    Epi Pele

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bernabe says: Epi, I would suggest that you discover the craft of subtle humor. Steve was obviously speaking in jest.

    Normally when making a humorous remark in this medium, we put smiley faces behind the statement or there is some other indication that the comment was meant to be humorous. Bernabe I hope that you are right, that it was just a humorous remark. I enjoy humor myself, but even when joking when I am having a disagreement with another believer in a serious discussion, who believes differently than I do, I do not call them heretics even in jest.

    And Bernabe there is a bigger problem with your theory. You seem to be new to this blog. I have been lurking for a while and I have seen Steve Hays declare other believers to be heretics on this blog in the past, and he was not joking.

    Epi Pele

    ReplyDelete
  9. Epi said:
    ---
    Normally when making a humorous remark in this medium, we put smiley faces behind the statement or there is some other indication that the comment was meant to be humorous.
    ---

    Or you could just pay attention to the context like everyone else did.

    Amazing what a little logic does.

    ReplyDelete
  10. By the way, for the record I don't believe Epi didn't already know Steve was speaking in jest (yes, that sentence contains a double negative; no, I don't care).

    After all, Epi didn't quote the reason Steve gave, and had he quoted that simple line and, ya know, like thought about it and stuff, well...it's blatantly obvious Steve was cracking a joke.

    I suppose this means that I'm implicitly stating that Epi is a liar, and since Satan is the Father of lies, I'm calling him a heretic.

    And poor Epi won't be able to tell from the context if I'm serious. Especially because I'll end this like this :-(

    ReplyDelete
  11. Err, actually he's simply following the logical end of the argument. He's taking Thibodaux's argument in the way he framed it himself.

    "Things fall down, rather than up." If that's really an established and indisputable fact, then, yes,that is an implicit denial of the translation of Elijah and the Ascension of Christ.

    The point here is that his foil chose a set of naturalistic facts and then framed an argument about something that is supernatural, not natural, on that basis. If that's true, then that makes Thibodaux's Arminianism equivalent to atheism at most, theological liberalism or latitudinarianism at worst.

    By the way, I'd like to thank Henry-Robert-Epi for dropping by again...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kangeroodordt,

    "I find your response to be problematic on many fronts."

    I'll alert the media.

    "I will wait to see how JC responds but I wanted to address the syllogism you end with and ask JC to grapple with:

    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.

    I think anyone can see that the wording in [3] seems a bit strange."


    First off, much of the nway one phrases almost any Aristotelian premise should "seem a bit strange." Rather than say "Dogs don't like mailmen," you would say, "All dogs are mailman-hating animals," or something like that.
    Now, I didn't phrase my syllogism that way, but your point about "seems strange" would apply against many intro to logic texts.

    Second, the third proposition simply draws out what was contained in both [1] and [2]. The logic is still the same, regardless of your subjective opinions about grammar.

    "I think it is fairly plain that Paul is speaking of the influence forces outside of the believr himself being able to seperate said believer from Christ's love. To read verse 39 as "...nor any other created thing [including us] will be able to seperate us from the love of God" seems to me to be very strained."

    First, I took Thibodaux's premise. He's the one that said "no created thing."

    Second, Gene kind of showed your Arminian hypocrisy, didn't he?

    Third, Moo comments, "Lest a picky reader think that Paul has ommitted something that could threaten the believer's security in Chjrist, Paul concludes with the comprehensive 'Any created thing.' ...Others, however, argue that Paul, by implication, focuses only on those forces that lie outside the believer's own free and responsible choices; and that what Paul says here and in this paragraph does not, then, preclude the possibility that a believer might decide to separate himself from the Love of God in Christ. ... [On the contrary] we think that the broad 'who' in v. 35 and the phrase here more naturally would include even the believer herself withion the scope of those things that cannot separate us from Christ" (Moo, Romans, 546-47).

    So, it's not plain to me, to others here, nor to Moo (as well as many others).

    "A further difficulty with your interpretation lies in the passages in which believers are exhorted to "remain" in the love of Christ or God [John 15:9; Jude 21].

    It seems a little silly to me that God would call believers to remain in His love if your interpretation of Rom. 8 is correct. Would it not be senseless to tell a prisoner to "stay in your cell" if the cell were securely locked with no possible means of escape?"


    I've pointed out that your entire line of "it seems silly" has its ouwn problems. "it seems silly" to tell people who come to Jesus that he will raise them on the last day if they can ditch him. It seems silly to tell people that the holy spirit they have been given is a down payment and a guarantee that they will have ever lasting life, if they can just dismiss that life. It seems a little silly to tell believers that they will certainly never perish if they certainly can. Would you tell prisoners that they certainly couldn't escape the jail if the doors were cracked open!?!?

    Furthermore, only those who remain in Jesus will persevere to the end, so why wouldn't he command us to do that? You, like your biddy Thobodaux, interpret us as saying that believers persevere without any means. Go beat up on straw men elsewhere.

    "I look forward to the sophistry you put forth to make such silly things seem so reasonable. You have so far proved very talented in that regard."

    I highly doubt that anyone will read my response to Thibodaux and charge me with "sophistry." But if it helps you sleep at night to just dismiss mny arguments as mere sophistry, then go ahead and confort yourself that way.

    Anyway, thanks for playing. Now, if this is the best you Arminians have, just keep it to yourself. Wasting people's time with arguments from incredulity isn't very nice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Being new to most of this I was hoping to ask a quick question that may be off topic; when people say that the Calvinist God has determined everything and we do not do anything that He did not command to where we a mere puppets how does one answer that? I have read here something about the Calvinist argues for determinism because his opponent argues LFW, but how does it work in Calvinism? If you could point me to a source, book, person, website, etc. I would greatly appreciate it because I really want to learn about this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Magnus,

    It doesn't logically follow that because we were determined to do something we are puppets.

    Puppets don't do what they want to do, for reasons.

    We do.

    Therefore we are not puppets.

    If you'd like references on how to reconcile freedom with determinism, you could check out books by John M. Fischer.

    The calvinists argument is, first and foremost, an exegetical one. We read that God sovereignly decrees the end from the beginning. That he works all things together. That we have many plans, but God's council stands. And, we are responsible.

    For the humble Christian, that should be enough to settle it.

    But if one lets philosophy run roughshod over exegetical arguments, we can answer them on their own grounds by pointing out the philosophical problems with LFW and the philosophical support for (semi-)compatibilism.

    Again, to answer your question directly, you should halt the argument at the level of its assertion. It is a complex question, it employs question begging epithets. It's an argument from analogy, minus any relevant analogy between humans and puppets.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, thanks that was fast. I will look at Fischer to see if I can grasp it.

    I have been reading and learning about Calvinism and Arminianism and want to know how they both work and what they both imply. I have folloed this debate between you and Arminian Perspective and am learning a great deal. Of course being relatively new to this I will continue to sit in the background and learn from men far wiser than me.

    Thanks again for the reply and the info.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Magnus,

    This is short, and less sophisticated (bot more theological) that something by a Fischer.

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1993FreeWill.htm

    ReplyDelete
  17. EPI PELE SAID:

    "Normally when making a humorous remark in this medium, we put smiley faces behind the statement or there is some other indication that the comment was meant to be humorous."

    I don't talk down to my audience by labeling my satire as "satire." I respect the intelligence of my audience. No doubt Pele would also demand that Jonathan Swift repent of sin for inciting his readers to indulge in a morally suspect diet because he didn't illustrate his Modest Proposal with smiley faces on every page.

    "And Bernabe there is a bigger problem with your theory. You seem to be new to this blog. I have been lurking for a while and I have seen Steve Hays declare other believers to be heretics on this blog in the past, and he was not joking."

    There's an obvious difference between true believers and professing believers, who may either be true or false believers. The false teachers in the NT were professing believers.

    By Pele's standard (or lack thereof), one could never accuse anyone of heresy since heretics typically claim to be believers. Indeed, heretics typically claim to be the true believers.

    So, no, I don't accept the premise that someone has a right to hide behind the name of Christ to shield himself from moral or theological scrutiny. That's the oldest trick in the charlatan's book. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't confer spiritual immunity on the claimant. And I myself have never played the Christian card to deflect criticism of my own positions.

    I'd add that Pele's strictures against me are self-incriminating since he is now guilty of the very thing he faults me for.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Normally when making a humorous remark in this medium, we put smiley faces behind the statement or there is some other indication that the comment was meant to be humorous.

    This comment made me laugh.

    If Steve starts putting smiley faces on his comments I don't know what I will do.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I’m glad someone mentioned Moo. I took his class on Romans nearly 12 years ago, and he has all my respect.

    I do have to say, however, that Josh has the better explanation of Romans 8:35, imho. Moo suggests that the “who/what” of verse 35 includes those presently believing, but that’s hardly possible since all the other questions Paul asks focus on the fact that there really are external forces “against us” (v.31), but they will fail. Paul asks (1) who can be against us, (2) who will bring a charge, (3) who will condemn, (4) who will separate? No one “against us” can or will, even though there are those “against us” in creation that will try.

    Josh is right, therefore, to conclude that Paul envisions external threats, and although they may be against us, they do not have power over us. The suffering and persecution addressed in this section brings to a close what was said in 8:17: “…we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” This “suffering” takes place between now and the day that we finally share in his “glory,” and we must continue in faith.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It appears I confused someone named Ben with JCT in my last post. My apologies to the two of them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Merseame,

    I used one of their premises:

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

    So I guess ALL doesn't mean ALL anymore? I gues he didn't really mean what he said?

    Second, how would someone become separated from Christ? For no reason whatsoever? Just willy-nilly? Spur of the moment? Why don't you try to explain how it could happen WITHOUT MAKING REFERENCE TO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT IS EXTERNAL TO US. NO EXTERNAL CAUSES. Work it out. Let's inspect it. ;-)

    Third, I gues "ANY powers" doesn't include the power of your precious free will? v.38?

    Fourth, those who first believed Paul says that IT IS SO SURE THAT THEY WILL MAKE IT TO GLORY that he could speak of it in the past tense. But, flipping Josh's problem, it doesn't make sense to promise someone something when it is so volotile a thing.

    Fifth, the passage clearly teaches via repetative universal quantifiers that NOTHING WHATSOEVER can separate us from God's love.

    Sixth, thanks for admitting "love the world" doesn't mean every single person whoever. I'll trade you the meaning of Romans 8 for all your universal atonement passages. Deal? I can make my argument from other passages. No deal? Then you've been exposed as arbitrary. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey guys,

    Sorry for the delay but I have been away from the computer for a day or so. I don't have the internet at home so my posting and commenting is erratic.

    There is a ton to reply to here, so I will try to limit myself to the more significant gripes. If I miss your gripe, and you feel it is quite significant, just let me know and I will address it when I get the time.

    BTW, I noticed that JC replied to Paul again but I have not yet read the reply. If I repeat something that he has already covered, then please forgive me.

    Steve,

    Thanx for the posting again on the Hebrews passages. I haven't read all of it yet, but what I did read seems very helpful so far.

    Tim said:

    It seems silly to me that God would command me to be perfect, yet He does.

    I don't think this helps your position very much. I do not believe that Jesus is necessarily commanding an impossibility here. There are several ways to look at it:

    1) Jesus is referring to perfection in love in the context of loving one's enemies. We can certainly acheive that. Calvinist F.F. Bruce understands the passage this way and correlates it with the passage in Luke where Christ tells us to be merciful as God is merciful.

    2) It is reasonable to command perfection in that it will spur us on towards perfection. A football coach may demand perfection from his teammates in order to motivate them. Saying, "Just try you best" doesn't get the same results as "Be perfect". A team may not be able to acheive perfection on a consitent basis, but they may still be able to attain it on certain occasions. They could execute a perfect play. They could even execute a perfect series. They may even be able to have a "perfect" game. It may be impossible to be perfect all season, but the standard of perfection can be met at critical times.

    3) No man in his natural ability can attain perfection, but we can "do all things through Him who gives me strength". I dare not say that through the power of the Holy Spirit within me, that I am incapable of attaining perfection, even if only for a while or on specific occasions, etc.

    Indeed, the Bible seems to make it clear that believers can acheive perfection through the power of God [e. g. 2 Pet. 1:2, 3; 1 John 2:4-6; 1 Pet. 5:6-10].

    4) The command for perfection can point us to our need for a Savior. In this sense, though the command may be impossible, it still serves a purpose.

    The problem with your position is that warning against impossibilities can serve no reasonable purpose, at least none that I can see.

    Dusty,

    Why would God warn people not to do something that they're ultimately incapable of doing? The answer -- the only right answer to pretty much any "Why would God..." question -- is simply, "Good question."

    This would be true only if it were impossible to discover rational answers to those questions. Affirming the possibility of apostasy keeps us from having to throw our hands up in such a way.

    Gene,

    1. This is unintentionally humorous insofar as its the Arminians who regularly assert that words like "any, all, and every" are generally equivalent. Suddenly "all" become "some."

    I am not trying to limit "all". I am saying that the text is from the start talking about things outside of the person that cannot seperate that person from Christ. The believer is not being excluded from "all" because the believer was never included in "all" in the first place. So "all" means "all" though it is stated in the negative "nothing".

    As far as the exegesis of the rest of Romans 8, we will just have to disagree on that. The point I was making besides the use of grammer in Rom. 8 that I think forbids, your interpretation, was that if you exegesis holds true, then the it would render passages like John 15:9 and Jude 21 nonsensical [i.e. silly].

    Third, Moo comments, "Lest a picky reader think that Paul has ommitted something that could threaten the believer's security in Chjrist, Paul concludes with the comprehensive 'Any created thing.' ...Others, however, argue that Paul, by implication, focuses only on those forces that lie outside the believer's own free and responsible choices; and that what Paul says here and in this paragraph does not, then, preclude the possibility that a believer might decide to separate himself from the Love of God in Christ. ... [On the contrary] we think that the broad 'who' in v. 35 and the phrase here more naturally would include even the believer herself withion the scope of those things that cannot separate us from Christ" (Moo, Romans, 546-47).

    Moo is entitled to his wrong opinion. I can quote some scholars who disagree with Moo. Should I do so? Will this help my argument? Will it convince you that your exegesis is incorrect?

    Furthermore, only those who remain in Jesus will persevere to the end, so why wouldn't he command us to do that? You, like your biddy Thobodaux, interpret us as saying that believers persevere without any means. Go beat up on straw men elsewhere.

    I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

    Gene said,

    "Silliness" is not an exegetical argument. Nothing can be deduced about the ability of a person from the presence of a command.

    And later Paul said:

    I've pointed out that your entire line of "it seems silly" has its ouwn problems. "it seems silly" to tell people who come to Jesus that he will raise them on the last day if they can ditch him. It seems silly to tell people that the holy spirit they have been given is a down payment and a guarantee that they will have ever lasting life, if they can just dismiss that life. It seems a little silly to tell believers that they will certainly never perish if they certainly can. Would you tell prisoners that they certainly couldn't escape the jail if the doors were cracked open!?!?

    Both of you are hung up on the word "silly". I have a 21 month old daughter so "silly" has become a fixed part of my vocabulary. What I meant was that it is absurd, irrational, and pointless to exhort someone to do something that they cannot possibly help doing anyway. Is that better?

    Your last comment, "It seems a little silly to tell believers that they will certainly never perish if they certainly can. Would you tell prisoners that they certainly couldn't escape the jail if the doors were cracked open!?!?" assumes what is in dispute, the question of whether or not Rom. 8:38ff, John 10 and John 6 is giving an unconditional and irrevocable promise. I agree that such would be irrational which is why I reject those interpretations.

    What you are saying here seems to amount to: "You can't call my system irrational, because I think your system is irrational". If that is all we are going to say, then we are wasting each others time.

    There is a fundamental flaw in your method of apologetics/polemics:

    You assert that “other created things” includes the believer himself. You seem to think that it is silly [absurd] to think otherwise. You later find it quite appropriate to chastise me for pointing out that your view of Romans 8, if correct, would render the exhortations of John 15:9 and Jude 21 as useless and silly. You seem to assert that I am quite out of line to think it pointless to exhort someone to remain in something that they cannot possibly help but to remain in.

    You want me to believe that your view of Rom. 8 is the most reasonable and that I am being unreasonable to disagree with you. Why? Is it not because you believe that your interpretation makes sense whereas mine apparently does not, and therefore my interpretation should be rejected?

    When you appeal to reason and consistency, I am supposed to submit to your logic and abandon my position on the grounds that it is inconsistent or irrational. When I appeal to reason and consistency I am criticized for being so foolish as to expect things to make sense.

    It is no wonder that Calvinists, like yourself, find your arguments to be irrefutable. Your system of apologetics renders your views incapable of falsification. If I point out inconsistencies you will just tell me that I need not concern myself with inconsistencies and just humbly submit to the word of God [i.e. Calvinism- see ]. In other words: “So what if doesn’t make sense; neither does the Bible!”

    So while the Calvinist is immune to falsification due to his ability to so piously affirm contradictions, he happily and relentlessly attacks opposing opinions on the grounds of inconsistency.

    You have so far done nothing but cloud the issues with smoke and mirrors, hoping that if you can use enough colorful language, and throw around enough insults, that nobody will notice that your arguments amount to nothing.

    Well I noticed my friend. If you want to say that someone else’s position is incoherent, then you better be willing to man up and demonstrate that your position does make sense.

    So I am asking you for some straight forward answers minus the evasions, deflections, verbal-smog and sophistry:

    1) What sense does it make to warn believers against impossibilities?

    2) What sense does it make to exhort believers to remain in God’s love when nothing, including anything that they may or may not do, can separate them from that love?

    3) How is it consistent for the believer to both find supreme assurance in the words of Rom. 8 and still “tremble at the threatenings and warnings”?

    If we have nothing at all to do with our own perseverance; if we cannot help but to continue in faith because faith is an irresistible gift of God that we have no control over; if nothing in all creation, including ourselves, can separate us from the love of God; then to admonish believers to continue in the faith or remain in God’s love is as senseless as admonishing a man hooked to a respirator to “keep breathing”.

    Please excuse JC and me for daring to challenge the coherence of Reformed doctrine because we feel uncomfortable assigning such nonsense to the inspired word of God. I know that you think you have met this challenge head on, but from where I am standing you have not yet begun to honestly address it.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  24. Does it not all go back to justification? If justification is a one time event, then are you saying, Ben & JC, that the believer has not been justified completely? It seems that when you add the- if you remain in him- that you should switch then to sanctification which I think both sides agree to be synergistic.

    Sorry to get in the middle, but I am learning a great deal by reading all of you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As a friend of Henry’s and a lurker on this blog, I saw how Steve condemned him (and I know Henry to be a mature Christian who has produced much fruit in his own life and the life of others) as a false teacher and said he was going to hell. Steve’s behavior then was sinful and he never showed any remorse or repentance. I have seen him post in a very harsh and unloving manner towards others repeatedly on this blog. Now as I watch him interacting with some Arminians, he writes another comment about someone he disagrees with being a heretic.

    Steve Hays responded with: I don't talk down to my audience by labeling my satire as "satire.".

    If I was mistaken this time, and it was just Steve’s attempt at satire, I apologize, there was no indication in Steve’s comment that he was intending to be humorous. Based on Hays track record, it seemed he was doing the same thing to J.C. that he did to Henry.

    Regarding the use of smiley faces or other intentional indications of humor. I have been on other discussion lists where Christians had completely unnecessary and negative or hostile interactions with each other because one was joking and the other did not know it to be humor. That is one of the drawbacks of this medium of communication and why giving an indication of intended humor helps eliminate potential and unnecessary problems.

    I also said:

    "And Bernabe there is a bigger problem with your theory. You seem to be new to this blog. I have been lurking for a while and I have seen Steve Hays declare other believers to be heretics on this blog in the past, and he was not joking."

    Steve’s comments in response were not that he was also joking in the past as well, but: There's an obvious difference between true believers and professing believers, who may either be true or false believers. The false teachers in the NT were professing believers.

    Hays appears to be attempting to justify his condemnation of other Christians as heretics. I recall that Hays brought up this same point trying to justify his condemnation of Henry, and his accusation against him was false and unsubstantiated. As he is an elder (who manifests the scriptural stipulations regarding elders), Steve was completely out of line in his words to him.

    Steve then said about accusing people of being heretics: By Pele's standard (or lack thereof), one could never accuse anyone of heresy since heretics typically claim to be believers. Indeed, heretics typically claim to be the true believers.

    There is a place for accusing persons who espouse doctrines contrary to essential Christian doctrines of being heretics. But this does not apply to condemning other Christians who disagree with you about Calvinism in internet blog discussions.

    Henry explicitly wrote about his beliefs in his posts, there was no doubt about his Christian beliefs. The place where he disagreed with Steve was about Calvinism.

    I was a lurker for a long time and said nothing, but Steve’s behavior has been consistent and has shown no evidence of remorse or repentance. His damning of other Christians as supposed heretics is sinful and unacceptable behavior. And he needs to repent of this.

    Steve continued with: So, no, I don't accept the premise that someone has a right to hide behind the name of Christ to shield himself from moral or theological scrutiny. That's the oldest trick in the charlatan's book. Claiming to be a Christian doesn't confer spiritual immunity on the claimant.”

    Henry and others unfairly and uncharitably attacked by Steve as heretics here on Triablogue were never hiding behind the name of Christ, posing as believers, nor are they charlatans. They are genuine believers who challenged Steve’s Calvinism and his response towards them was sinful and unacceptable.

    Steve ended with: I'd add that Pele's strictures against me are self-incriminating since he is now guilty of the very thing he faults me for.

    I never accused Steve of being a heretic or a false teacher or claimed Steve is hell bound, though Steve has done so with other Christians that I know to be mature and fruitful Christians. I have not accused mature Christians who disagree with me of being false teachers and heretics, and that they are hell bound, Steve has.

    All of us who engage in apologetics need to seek to present strong and forceful arguments while at the same time doing so with humility, love, kindness, compassion, etc. And those looking on ought to be able to see that even when we disagree with other Christians, the world still knows we are His by our love for each other. The arguments really don’t matter much if the love for other persons isn’t there. Nonbelievers can debate and argue and present arguments, however, as Christians we have a higher standard and are called to do more (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24-25).

    Epi Pele

    ReplyDelete
  26. Magnus,

    The short answer is that I believe the Bible teaches that all spiritual blessings [life, justification, and all other benefits of the atonement] are found in Christ Jesus. This is emphasized strongly in Pauline theology. Therefore, one is justified so long as he or she remains in faith union with Jesus Christ. If we are in Christ, we are regenerated, justified, and we are being sanctified.

    None of this is possible outside of union and identification with Christ by faith. No faith= no union= no justification.

    Hope that helps,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  27. Would you say then that someone can loose his/her justification by not remaining in Christ?

    If I understand you correctly are you saying that justification is an ongoing process?

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  28. Maybe I am missing it, I often do, but could one then fall out of justification and then fall back into it?

    IOW, can I be justified at one time in my life by being in Christ and then fall away to no longer being justified? Would that then also mean that I could become justified again if I come to be in Christ again?

    I am having a hard time to see how justification can then be a one time event? I know that I am missing something and I hope that you could help me to see this.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Magnus,

    You said,

    Would you say then that someone can loose his/her justification by not remaining in Christ?

    I am not sure I would phrase it like that, but I would say that they would come again under condemnation [Rom. 8:1; John 3:16-18, 36].

    If I understand you correctly are you saying that justification is an ongoing process?

    Justification is grounded in the atonement and the application of Christ's blood to the believer [Rom. 3:21-26]. As long as we are in faith union with Christ, His blood cleanses us.

    "but if we walk in the Light [by faith] as He Himself is in the Light [implying our union with Him], we have fellowship one with another [i.e. we have fellowship with God], and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." [1 Jn. 1:7]

    Hope this will help to answer your other questions as well.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  30. Epi Pele,

    You wrote:

    All of us who engage in apologetics need to seek to present strong and forceful arguments while at the same time doing so with humility, love, kindness, compassion, etc. And those looking on ought to be able to see that even when we disagree with other Christians, the world still knows we are His by our love for each other. The arguments really don’t matter much if the love for other persons isn’t there. Nonbelievers can debate and argue and present arguments, however, as Christians we have a higher standard and are called to do more (cf. 2 Tim. 2:24-25).

    Thanks for the admonition. This may be a challenge in debate but if we can overcome our egos then we should be able to disagree in love. I have tried very hard to do this but admit that I still sometimes fall short. Thanks for the reminder.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  31. Help me to see how you would phrase it then, if one is in Christ it means that the person is justified and if he decides to not be in Christ then he no longer is justified.

    If justification is a one time event which I thought that both sides agree too then I am having a hard time seeing what you are saying.

    Unless you are saying that all of those blessings being in Christ then they do not apply to a particular individual. Since the blessings belong to Christ and are found only in Christ then one never does have these blessings individually, rather these blessings are all in Christ. I guess you would then be for the corporate view of election rather than the individual view of election?

    I hope that I am not misunderstanding your position, but it would make sense if we did not hold to individual election. If one held to individual election then I would have a hard time understanding your position.

    Probably the hardest part for a newbie is in seeing that all people have some presuppositions that are in their position and if you do not understand those then you have a hard time coming to grips with someone's ideas or positions. Thanks again for the interaction and for helping a newbie out on some of this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Magnus said: "If justification is a one time event which I thought that both sides agree too then I am having a hard time seeing what you are saying."

    **Magnus, I am having a hard time understanding why the "one time eventness" of justification, which is by faith and which is in Christ, would suggest that it cannot be nullified through unbelief and as a result of forsaking faith-union with Christ. A marriage is a one time event. But that can be broken by divorce. An adoption is a one time even but that can be undone. Justification is a one time event (at least in an already and not yet way), but if one forsakes Christ, then his justification is overturned and he enters back into a state of condemnation. So one does not need corporate election for this. However, I am a strong supporter of corporate election, which strengthens this position all the more.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Arminian,

    Would it then be possible to be re-married to the same person, divorced, remarried, divorced, and so on and so forth?

    i guess that is what I am looking to answer, if we loose our justification can we get it back and how would that work. If we are justified and reborn then how would it work, our spirit would die again and we would be enemies of God all over again. So Christ can start a good work in us, but can not complete it unless we stay in Him. I fear that my will is to changeable to stay in Christ. One minute I can be a good Christian and the next i am as evil as the guy on death row.

    anyways, thanks for your input.

    P.S. Seems we agree that in a corporate election this flows better:)
    My problem is I do not see that kind of election being the dominate one.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Speaking personally, I'm tired of the "satire" excuse. I'm sorry, but even when it is satire (too often not), it's shameful, especially the type that appears on this site. The intent of the owners of this blog is to to bully, make false associations and the like. I'll let God be the judge, but I'll look forward to that day.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Magnus said, "Would it then be possible to be re-married to the same person, divorced, remarried, divorced, and so on and so forth?"

    **Well, we know this is possible in the physical realm theoretically though it hardly ever happens. Very rarely a couple might divorce and later re-marry. But it must be virtually non-existant that it would happen again. But of course, the question is not really whether this can happen in the physical realm, but the spiritual, as your later comments show. I was not looking to the examples I gave you to prove that people can become condemned after having been justified if they forske their faith in Christ. I was just addressing your difficulty with the idea that something that is a once time event could later be nullified. There is nothing inherent in the concept of a one time event that makes it inviolable. Further it might be helpful to understand that justification is a one time event that results in a state of justification. It is that state, which is in Christ, that may be abandoned if one abandons Christ.

    Magnus said, "i guess that is what I am looking to answer, if we loose our justification can we get it back and how would that work."

    **Well, Arminians have different views on that. Many would say no, that if someone definitively renounces Christ, then he cannot be renewed again to repentance. Some think this is possible. Generally, Arminians do not see this as something that can happen over and over again. It is very much akin to the marriage example I gave you (again, not arguing from that, but illustrating). It is such a momentous thing that one does not repeatedly fall in and out of it. It is a matter of all-encompassing true commitment to the Lord versus renouncing of him.

    Magnus said, "If we are justified and reborn then how would it work, our spirit would die again and we would be enemies of God all over again."

    **Yes. It's all about whether we have Jesus or not. "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:12; NASB)

    Magnus said, "So Christ can start a good work in us, but can not complete it unless we stay in Him."

    **Well, it is not that Christ cannot, but that he chooses to make enjoyment of his salvation and all it entails contingent on faith, for without faith it is impossible to please him, and by faith we are in him and united to him and justified and every other blessing that is for the Lord's people. As Scripture says, "If we deny Him, He also will deny us" (1 Tim 2:12), a truth stated in various ways in many places in God's word.

    Magnus said, "I fear that my will is to changeable to stay in Christ. One minute I can be a good Christian and the next i am as evil as the guy on death row."

    **There are several things to consider here. First, it is not a matter of how good or bad you are at any given moment. It is about relationship with the Lord. He does not cast you aside because you're bad at this point or that point. As long as you believe in him and walk in relationship with him, you are his and his blood covers you. But if you forsake him decisively and permanently, then Scripture warns, you will be cut off.

    But second, God promises, "God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. (1 Cor 10:13). You don't have to worry that you are going to be overcome. That does not mean you don't have the choice. That Scripture reveals that you certainly do. But God is for you and will empower you to persevere in him. Yet you still must freely choose to do so. He won't make you. But he will enable you. The previous verse is worth taking note of: "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." (1 Cor 10:12-13; NASB) Note that Paul exhorts them to beware falling, and promises God will enable them, a promise that applies to individual sins but also to forsaking Christ. But it is clear that we must take care to not fall, something that the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints renders ludicrous when applied to persevering faith in Christ, since it maintains that a believer cannot fall from this.

    Third, you sound as if you might be approaching this a little from the angle of what you would like to believe or what you would find most comforting. But the real issue is what Scripture says (and I know you are seeking that out; I just want to caution you here). Does Scripture warn us that if we forsake Christ then we will be damned? Even Reformed believers have to admit that it does. But they want to say that this is only warning us against something that can never happen. Honestly, that sounds preposterous. There is no reason to warn someone against something that they know can never happen (and the Calvinist position is that Scripture also clearly affirms this can never happen). Does it not make much more sense to recognize that Scripture warns us against something that is a real possibility and danger? And does it not want us to treat it like a real possibility and danger? Yes. And so we should, for it is a real possibility and danger. And how tragic would it be if Scripture so clearly warns against forsaking Christ, and you did not take this warning seriously because of a false security? Having comfort from a false security is a very dangerous thing indeed. If there is potential danger ahead, it is far better to know about it so one can avoid it than to think one cannot fall to it, rendering oneself far more at risk of falling to it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh yeah, I forgot about this:

    Magnus said, "P.S. Seems we agree that in a corporate election this flows better:)
    My problem is I do not see that kind of election being the dominate one."

    **Why do you not see corporate election as the dominant one? Scholars are largely agreed that it is the type of election of God's people found in the OT, and the NT language does not change this, but actually shows this being fuflilled in the NT in Christ. There is not one hint in the NT that the conception of election has changed with respect to the corporate nature of it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Let me clarify that I believe that there is such a thing as corporate election, I just do not see it as the dominate one that apparently you do.

    To me it seems very logical to say that you can not have corporate election without individual election. The two are inseparable in my mind, kind of like faith and repentance.

    The big problem I have with the idea of corporate election being the dominate one is that it is not election at all. It is up to the individual to elect himself rather than God electing the individual. It would be like God made a big boat and invited all onboard, if you got on the boat and stayed for the duration of the voyage in the boat then you are saved, if you did not get on the boat or jumped of during the voyage then you are damned.

    I do not agree with that view of election at this time and i believe that my reading of Scripture supports me on this.

    ReplyDelete
  38. As a friend of Henry’s and a lurker on this blog, I saw how Steve condemned him (and I know Henry to be a mature Christian who has produced much fruit in his own life and the life of others) as a false teacher and said he was going to hell.

    That's because you are either Robert or Henry or another of their pseudonyms. You see, you just made the mistake of giving an almost verbatim quote of another post made some weeks ago by another person. You just shot your wad on integrity with that one. Add to that the identical style, substance, and the farrago of words. I find it hard to believe that three separate persons have that much in common, unless you aren't persons and are, in fact, robots.

    You also shot it when you stated that Steve said Henry was going to hell. Of course, this isn't what he stated at all. This is what Robert said Steve said. Thanks, Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am saying that the text is from the start talking about things outside of the person that cannot seperate that person from Christ. The believer is not being excluded from "all" because the believer was never included in "all" in the first place. So "all" means "all" though it is stated in the negative "nothing".

    1. At the functional level this is no different than redefining "all."

    2, "Nothing" is a universal negative. So, now you're defining a word by its extension. That's fine. Where is the supporting argument?

    The point I was making besides the use of grammer in Rom. 8 that I think forbids, your interpretation, was that if you exegesis holds true, then the it would render passages like John 15:9 and Jude 21 nonsensical [i.e. silly].

    Paul is not determinative for John or Jude. Now you're committing semantic incest.

    Both of you are hung up on the word "silly".

    You're the one who used the term.

    What I meant was that it is absurd, irrational, and pointless to exhort someone to do something that they cannot possibly help doing anyway. Is that better?

    1. Question begging.

    2. Assertion not an argument.

    3. This is still not an exegetical argument.

    4. The presence of a command says nothing about the ability of the recipient.

    5. So, we're left with your (rationalistic) premise that ability limits responsibility being used as a grid. Where is the supporting argument for this principle from Scripture?

    You assert that “other created things” includes the believer himself.

    Speaking for myself, I actually made a brief exegetical argument.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Magnus said, "Let me clarify that I believe that there is such a thing as corporate election, I just do not see it as the dominate one that apparently you do.

    To me it seems very logical to say that you can not have corporate election without individual election. The two are inseparable in my mind, kind of like faith and repentance."

    **It is true that one cannot have corporate election (CE) without individual election (IE), but it is a question of which is dependent on the other. Either one can be the cause of the other. An individual can be chosen because he is in a group that is chosen. And a group can be chosen because each member of the group was individually chosen and then grouped together. CE refers to the group being chosen as bringing about the election of the individuals in the group. It is clear that this is the type of election of God's people spoken of in the OT (as I said, scholars are largely agreed on this), and then, as I said in my previous post, the NT language does not change this, but actually shows this being fuflilled in the NT in Christ. There is not one hint in the NT that the conception of election has changed with respect to the corporate nature of it.

    Magnus said, "The big problem I have with the idea of corporate election being the dominate one is that it is not election at all. It is up to the individual to elect himself rather than God electing the individual. It would be like God made a big boat and invited all onboard, if you got on the boat and stayed for the duration of the voyage in the boat then you are saved, if you did not get on the boat or jumped of during the voyage then you are damned."

    **This would mean that the election of God's people in the OT was not election at all. Non-Israelites were able to join God's people and become part of the elect. Was that electing themselves? The boat illustration you give is actually a good one, especially if viewing Christ as the boat; I have used something similar, but using a train instaed of a boat, to illustrate this in the past. But I don't see how that would be the people electing themselves. The boat (Christ) is elected (he is the Chosen One after all, and the true Israel) and anyone who enters into him comes to share in his election just as Israel shared in the election of Jacob/Israel and anyone joining Israel also came to share in that election. It is a matter of simply accepting what the Bible says rather than the way we think things have to be. It is a matter of a different way of thinking (corporately) than we are used to (individualistically) because it is God's way of thinking in this matter and of the culture in which he chose to reveal the concept of election to salvation. Moreover, how is it that it could be electing oneself rather than God electing when election is utterly dependent on God's free and sovereign decision regarding who his people are by his choice of the covenant head (Jesus in the New Covenant) and by any conditions he freely lays down for participation in his people?

    Let me give you an analogy from a modern instance of individual election (I am not trying to illustrate corporate election here, but show how an election conditioned on response to it is not properly thought of as electing oneself): If a sports player (say football or baseball) is chosen in the draft, this is equivalent to individual election. Now the player has the choice to accept that team's offer for being part of the team and playing for them or not. But no one ever speaks of that player as choosing the team or choosing himself. We always speak of it as the team drafting the player. The only thing that is typically thought to matter in the situation is the team's choice of the player, even though the player has to agree. Why? Because the player is receiving a great benefit. His ability to play in the league at that time is wholly dependent on the team's offer. He is utterly at their mercy if he wants to play in the league at that time. Now this is just an analogy, and various points of difference could be found. But the point is that a choice by one who is greater that must be ratified by the lesser is not properly thought of as the individual electing himself.

    What's more, this analogy or a similar type of one could be expanded to apply to corporate election and fit the biblical picture even better.

    Magnus said, "I do not agree with that view of election at this time and i believe that my reading of Scripture supports me on this."

    **I wonder if you have looked into CE enough. There are many misrepresentations out there.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Arminian,

    Here is the way I look at it and if I am wrong I pray that I am shown the error of my ways by a fellow brother in Christ.

    The boat example does not help me at all with corporate election at all. We have a clear example of this in Scripture already when we read about the Ark. Now who put Noah in the Ark? It is my understanding that God chose Noah, not that Noah chose God. The problem I have with corporate election it is more like I selected therefore I am elected kind of belief system and at this time I believe that God chooses the individual. In order for there to even be a corporate body there must first be individual's.

    As for corporate election in the OT, I agree to a certain extent. If I am reading you correctly then what you are saying is that in OT times people could join the Israelites and become part of the elect group. I see it differently, I see that Israel was chosen, but that not all Israelites were "in" or elected. What I am reading you saying is that all Israelites were "in" due to the corporate nature of election. To me, when I read I see many Israelites did not have circumcised hearts and therefore were not part of the elect. The difference that I see in the OT as it relates to the NT is that in the NT there is no longer a group that you can point to because we are told that all the ones chosen by God are "in" the group.

    Anyways, thanks so much for your patience and kindness when dealing with my crude remarks. If I am in error I truly want to be shown where I am and from Scripture and I will happily change course

    ReplyDelete
  42. Magnus said, "Here is the way I look at it and if I am wrong I pray that I am shown the error of my ways by a fellow brother in Christ."

    **A great attitude.

    Magnus said: "The boat example does not help me at all with corporate election at all. We have a clear example of this in Scripture already when we read about the Ark. Now who put Noah in the Ark? It is my understanding that God chose Noah, not that Noah chose God.

    **God did indeed choose Noah, but we are told that it is because Noah was righteous. Now I would argue that he was righteous by faith, but this does not support Calvinistic election at all. Even more impotantly related to the boat illustration is that Scripture does not say that God put Noah on the ark. God chose Noah, but Noah has to trust him and obey him in building the ark and getting on it. Now this is not completely analogous to election in Christ because it is the point of faith that unites us with Christ and brings us to be in him and therefore elect. But the ussie of getting into the boat, getting into Christ, does not show God putting Noah on the boat, but Noah obeying God to get on. He could have not gotten on, and perished. He could have jumped out of the boat and perished. God chose Noah to be saved, but Noah had to believe and continue in faith to experience God's salvation. Another consideration of CE in relation to Noah would be the fact that Noah was chosen, and his family was chosen as a result of his election. It is that way with us and Christ. Jesus was chosen because of his righteousness. And we get chosen because we are rleated to him by faith.

    Magnus said: "The problem I have with corporate election it is more like I selected therefore I am elected kind of belief system and at this time I believe that God chooses the individual. In order for there to even be a corporate body there must first be individual's.

    **But my challenge, as articulated in my previous posts, is to establish this in the Bible. As I said in an earlier post, CE refers to the group being chosen as bringing about the election of the individuals in the group. It is clear that this is the type of election of God's people spoken of in the OT (as I said, scholars are largely agreed on this), and then, as I said in my previous post, the NT language does not change this, but actually shows this being fuflilled in the NT in Christ. There is not one hint in the NT that the conception of election has changed with respect to the corporate nature of it." I think it is really a matter of coming to grips with how Scripture actually presents and depicts election rather than what we might assume in a highly individualistic society.


    Magnus said: "As for corporate election in the OT, I agree to a certain extent. If I am reading you correctly then what you are saying is that in OT times people could join the Israelites and become part of the elect group. I see it differently, I see that Israel was chosen, but that not all Israelites were "in" or elected. What I am reading you saying is that all Israelites were "in" due to the corporate nature of election. To me, when I read I see many Israelites did not have circumcised hearts and therefore were not part of the elect. The difference that I see in the OT as it relates to the NT is that in the NT there is no longer a group that you can point to because we are told that all the ones chosen by God are "in" the group."

    **You have some good thoughts here. But I don't think that they are related rightly with the biblcial data. Scripture does not really indicate an election unto salvation within a larger CE of Israel. Rather, it shows Israel elected as a people, but possession of the covenant promises to be by faith. There is no tying of election to circumcised hearts within the covenant in the OT. Instead we see enjoyment of the covenant blessings made conditional on faith which produces obedience. Then, God decided to make the New Covenant open only to those who believe, ejecting any Jews from covenant relationship with God who did not believe in Jesus and taking any Gentiles or formerly unbelieving Jews who believe into covenant relationship with God, and for all in the covenant to possess its blessings (for an obvious reason, everyone in it believes). Can you deny that all Israelites were part of the elect people in the OT? Even in the OT, unfaithfulness to the Lord could bring about cutting off from the covenant and election. Part of the issue is that the New Covenant differs from the Old on this point of who is part of the Covenant. But the covenant election remains tied to the covenant head, Christ. Thus, justification and every other spiritual blessing is said to be in Christ. And, the NT does not speak of individuals being chosen to be in the group. But we see it speaking of God's people being chosen, the Chursh, us, etc. In fact, we see it speaking of the Church being chosen in Christ, which ties specifically inmto the OT conceot of corporate election in which God's people were chosen in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel.

    Magnus said: "Anyways, thanks so much for your patience and kindness when dealing with my crude remarks. If I am in error I truly want to be shown where I am and from Scripture and I will happily change course "

    **Again, great attitude. I hope that I have convcinced you to change course and embrace corporate election.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Arminian,

    Thank you for the time, but I have to disappoint you in that I still can not see corporate election. Again I keep going back to the simple logic of it if individuals are not elected then it does not follow that you can have a group. What I believe corporate election says is that God creates a group before anyone is ever in the group. Now I understand that we come to be placed in the group by faith, but until that event happens the group is empty. What it says is that God chooses a group, but saves no one in particular. In corporate election it is not God that chooses the person, but rather the person is the one that chooses. By doing that you have removed election, because God does not elect anyone rather it is the person that elects and I find that view un-Scriptural.

    Going back to the OT, we can say that many Israelis were part of the nation per se, but were not one of God’s spiritual people. Or as I stated in my previous post, not all Israelites had a circumcised heart that made them one of God’s elect. I also see that God will write His law on the hearts of His people and that is to me the main difference in the OT and NT covenants. It is in the new covenant that we see that God will give his people a new spirit and a new heart. He gives that to individuals, not some corporate group. Also, I think that it is safe to say that Abraham, Jacob, Isaac … were all individuals that were elected by God. I also see individual election in the NT, but I will leave it at that for now.

    Again, I have no problem with the idea of corporate election as I see it in Scripture. I do think that you try to separate the corporate and individual and do not fully see that they are joined together and that the truly are two peas in a pod.

    Anyways, I thank you for your kindness and for your presenting your view in a most gracious way. For now though I will stick with my view and pray that if I am wrong that eventually the Lord will reveal it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Of course, Calvinists don't deny corporate election. What they deny is the Arminian attempt to substitute corporate election with individual election. Cf.

    http://ccc138.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=423

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200606/ai_n17176281

    ReplyDelete
  45. Magnus said, "Thank you for the time, but I have to disappoint you in that I still can not see corporate election. Again I keep going back to the simple logic of it if individuals are not elected then it does not follow that you can have a group."

    **But that is not the view in the Bible. And I do not mean to sya that to claim my position is obviously right, but to draw attention to the different type of worldview presented in the Bible, which was far more group oriented than in modern individualistic culture. And I believe this can be shown clearly. Do you agree that Israel was elected as God's people as a result of the election of Abraham, Isaac, and especially Jacob/Israel? If you do, then that is CE. The NT reveals that Christ is now the corporate head instead of Jacob. And we are elected becasue we are in him. Examples from everyday life can be provided as well in which a group is chosen because of the choice of an individual. But most importantly, this is clearly the case with the elction of God's people in the OT. Do you agree with that at least?

    Magnus said, "What I believe corporate election says is that God creates a group before anyone is ever in the group. Now I understand that we come to be placed in the group by faith, but until that event happens the group is empty.

    Two points: (1) Why would this be a problem if it was what Scripture shows? But (2) more importantly, this is not what CE is. For CE has an individual person elected as representing the group. He is in essence the group (this is where we run up against a different way of perceiving the relationship between the individual and the group; the idea of corporate solidarity in which the individual and the group were seen as one is a pretty well recognized phenomenon in the Bible; but this did not envision any individuals in particular except for the corporate head; everybody else's election depended on connection to him). So the group is not empty. It is encompassed in the corporate head just as Israel was chosen in and because of Jacob's/Israel's election.

    Magnus said, "What it says is that God chooses a group, but saves no one in particular."

    **Well, he saves the corporate head, and then all in him. In the case of Christ, God raised him from the dead; saved him from death for example. But what you are probably getting at is that technically there could have been no one else in the group if no one trusted in the Lord. But that seems so artificial to me. For that is not how it in fact is. And God knew how it would be. We know that many in fact do believe in him and he does in fact save many. It seems to be an objection based on how you think things should be rather than any scriptural principle. Scripture reveals clearly that God saves his people and that he chooses his people for salvation. CE fully comports with this.

    Magnus said, "In corporate election it is not God that chooses the person, but rather the person is the one that chooses."

    **This is not so. God chooses the person as part of his people. The person gets salvation and every blessing of God, and is chosen for this as part of the people chosen for all this; concrete examples of such choosing can be found in the Bible and in everyday life. It does not mean the person is not chosen. It just means that he is chosen conditionally. That does not erase God's choice nor does it make the person's primary. Their's is wholly dependent on God's initiative and choice of the group. What you are alleging would be like saying if a group were chosen for some benefit that each member of the group receives, that the person is not chosen to receive the benefit. But this is obviously not the case. It is just that the person is not chosen as an individual on his own. This may not sit well with the individualistic mindset of our culture (though as I have said, we clearly have such situations in our culture too; it's just not part of our overall thinking as it was for the group oriented culture of the Bible), but it's right at home in the Bible. As for an example from our culture, say some group that anyone could join at any time, say the Rotary club. So say this group is picked (elected) by some charitable organization to receive a benefit that is to be given to each member of the group (perhaps a gift certificate for some educational materials). If you were to ask an individual member of the group, "how did you get that educational material?", it would be perfectly natural for him to say, "Oh, I'm part of the Rotary club and we were chosen by such and such philanthropic group to receive them." Was the person chosen to receive the materials? Yes he was, as part of the group. I am not sure how that can be legitimately denied. Were foreigners who joined Israel chosen as part of God's people? Yes, I don't think that can legitimately be denied either.

    Magnus said, "By doing that you have removed election, because God does not elect anyone rather it is the person that elects and I find that view un-Scriptural."

    **Again, this is not the case. It removes election of the individual on his own, but not the election of the individual as part of a group. And that is the type of election of the people of God that Scripture reveals. As I have said more than once, it is widely recognized by scholars as the election of God's people in the OT, and then the NT language gives no hint of a change, but actually presents Christ as the fulfillment of the OT election of God's people.

    Magnus said, "Going back to the OT, we can say that many Israelis were part of the nation per se, but were not one of God’s spiritual people. Or as I stated in my previous post, not all Israelites had a circumcised heart that made them one of God’s elect."

    **But this is not how the OT or NT speaks of election. That is a pre-conceived concept being placed on the text..

    Magnus said, "I also see that God will write His law on the hearts of His people and that is to me the main difference in the OT and NT covenants. It is in the new covenant that we see that God will give his people a new spirit and a new heart.

    **The interesting thing about that is that is those in the Covenant that get the new hearts. And it is only through faith that one becomes part of the covenant. Those who are in Christ/in the New Covenant receive that blessing of the a new heart and spirit.

    Magnus said, "He gives that to individuals, not some corporate group."

    **But look at what you are doing, separating the group and the individual very sharply. He does give it to the group, and as members of the group, the individuals of the group get those blessings. It could be the other way areound, that he gives it to individuals and then the group gets them because the individuals get it. But the question is which way does the Bible see it as happening. I really think the evidence is clear that it is because the group gets it, so do its members. Again, clear in the OT, and then the NT continues this way of thinking wit hthe fulfillment in Christ.

    Magnus said, "Also, I think that it is safe to say that Abraham, Jacob, Isaac … were all individuals that were elected by God."

    **Yes, but don't you see, they were chosen as corporate representatives. The people of God were chosen in them, as a result of connection to them. Their election is unique. The election of the rest of God's people depends on their election and, again, connection to them, and ultimately, to Christ, the seed of Abraham to whom all the promises were made. And what is more, Abraham's election, on whom all the rest depend, appears conditional in the OT. He could have rejected God's call and turned away from it.

    Magnus said, "I also see individual election in the NT, but I will leave it at that for now.

    Again, I have no problem with the idea of corporate election as I see it in Scripture. I do think that you try to separate the corporate and individual and do not fully see that they are joined together and that the truly are two peas in a pod."

    **I have tried to show that I do see them as joined together as you, but that the corporate is the more fundamental and that the individual depends on it, while you see it the other way around. But I continue to urge that we look to the Bible for this, which is steeped in a group-oriented culture and clearly evidences a profound reliance upon the concept of corporate solidarity, which can be seen in various ways including speaking of someone being "in" someone else.

    Magnus said, "Anyways, I thank you for your kindness and for your presenting your view in a most gracious way. For now though I will stick with my view and pray that if I am wrong that eventually the Lord will reveal it to me."

    **I can only hope that this post might be used by the Lord to reveal it to you. You might be sick of me by now. So I understand if you've had enough of me! God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Arminian,

    Thank you again for your response and no I am sick of you. I enjoy discussing these things and am always eager to see if the Lord wants to teach me something new or reveal to me that my view is wrong. At this time I do not have much time to address what you have posted, but I did have a question that I want to pose to you that will perhaps help me understand your view. I am thinking of your Rotary Club analogy when this came to me, if corporate election were as pivotal as you claim then we should all experience the same blessings and yet I read many times that fellow brothers & sisters in Christ will have different gifts than me and in some cases even more/stronger gifts. How can that be given the way you have defined CE?

    I will think of what you wrote more and will try to respond. If it takes some time I will go to your blog, if you have one, or email you my thoughts. This way we will not hijack this thread any longer than we have already.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I am NOT sick of you

    LOL

    please forgive me as that would have been very rude to write. i did not proof read before I posted.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Magnus said, "Thank you again for your response and no I am sick of you. I enjoy discussing these things and am always eager to see if the Lord wants to teach me something new or reveal to me that my view is wrong. At this time I do not have much time to address what you have posted, but I did have a question that I want to pose to you that will perhaps help me understand your view. I am thinking of your Rotary Club analogy when this came to me, if corporate election were as pivotal as you claim then we should all experience the same blessings and yet I read many times that fellow brothers & sisters in Christ will have different gifts than me and in some cases even more/stronger gifts. How can that be given the way you have defined CE?"

    **I don't think that things have to be the exact same for those members of the group in CE. And I think that this can be explained on a number of levels actually. First, when we talk about election unto salvation, then the thing in view is salvation, and everyone in the New Covenant gets salvation. So there is no difference there. Second, the blessing that gives us spiritual gifts is actually the Holy Spirit, who then bestows gifts as he wills. It is because the Holy Spirit is a dynamic and living gift that the gifts that come from him can differ from person to person within the body of Christ (ah, the body of Christ, a CE conceot for sure), yet all have received the same fundamental gift--the Spirit! But beyond that, there is no reason why everyone's blessing would be the same in the CE perspective. As I have tried to show you, the blessings of election still come to individuals; there is no reason why God cannot dela individually with people within the chosen group, the Church. To use the Rotary Club example, it could easily be posited that each package given to the group for distribution actually contains different educational materials, and that each package distributed in the group is specifically picked out for what best suits each member's interests, specifically tailored to that individual. This individualized gift still comes to them as a result of their membership in the group. And it is still true that all members received the same basic benefit--educational materials, even if there was some difference in the exact materials enjoyed.

    Magnus said, "I will think of what you wrote more and will try to respond. If it takes some time I will go to your blog, if you have one, or email you my thoughts. This way we will not hijack this thread any longer than we have already."

    **I don't have an active blog. But please send me an email at societyofevangelicalarminians@gmail.com.

    Magnus said, "I am NOT sick of you

    LOL

    please forgive me as that would have been very rude to write. i did not proof read before I posted."

    **No problem! I assumed that was what you meant. But it would be ok if you are sick of me! God bless!

    ReplyDelete