In their opposition to the doctrines of grace, opponents often reveal how little they grasp the gospel. Here are twosobering examples:
VICTOR REPPERT SAID:
On another matter, this type of logic leads to the conclusion that my love for my wife would be greater than it is if she were to have an affair and I were to forgive her for it.
STEVE SAID:
Actually, the theme of God as the cuckold husband who takes his wife back is one of the master metaphors of Scripture. Reppert must regard the canonicity of Hosea as a major reason to reject the inerrancy of Scripture.
*******************************************************************************************
steve said...
"I have responded to the Calvinist counter-argument on John 3:16, which I find less than satisfactory simply because even if 'world' doesn't mean everybody, it seems to mean everyone who's alienated from God. I don't think the most natural reading of this is that given the depravity of man, we should just be amazed that God had enough love to save anyone. The object of that love is supposed to be the Kosmos, which is either the whole world or the world alienated from God. If that love just picks the elect out of that world, then the love doesn't extend to the whole world, but only to the elect within it."
You keep missing the point. John's "cosmic" language has reference, not to the scope of God's love, but to the counterintuitive nature of God's love, given the moral character of those for whom atonement is made.
And notice that Jn 3:16 limits the scope of the atonement to believers.
Josh said...
What counter-intuitive nature of God's love?
steve said...
In Scripture, it's counterintuitive that God would love the wicked.
Josh said...
Why is that counterintuitive? Can you explain what you mean?
steve said...
In Scripture, it is counterintuitive for a holy God to love the wicked. That's the point of passages like Rom 5:6-8.
Josh said...
Ok, I see why it would be counterintuitive for a Calvinist, but counterintuitive results are, generally, undesirable. It seems that we have a good defeater for Calvinism rather than a good reason for counterintuitive results.
steve said...
Since I quoted Romans, I take it from your response that you think Paul was a Calvinist, which is why he treats the notion as counterintuitive. I appreciate your concession to Biblical Calvinism. Of course, that will count as a defeater for your position.
Josh said...
Hrm? I don't think Romans points to anything counterintuitive in any real or deep sense. I deny that God's love is in any way counterintuitive. So no, I haven't conceded anything. All you've done is taken something I said, combined it with one of your assumptions and said this proves Calvinism. That kind of rhetoric stinks.
steve said...
Josh,
Does Paul, in the passage I quote, treat God's love for sinners as something predictable, or something we wouldn't normally expect?
Josh said...
He treats it as something supererogatory.
ETA: Actually, I don't know whether the passage indicates supererogation, but I do think that the passage is perfectly compatible with that interpretation.
steve said...
Well, here’s how Ben Witherington interprets the passage:
“The sense of v7 is brought out by Cranfield as ‘it is a rare thing for someone to lay down his life for a just person, much less for one who is his benefactor’ (see Ps 73:1 for this sense of ‘the [do]-gooder’). How much more surprising then is Christ’s death for the ungodly. It does not follow normal human behavior patterns or human logic…Paul’s logic runs counter to the normal conventions of the day,” Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 173.
So, as you would put it, “Ok, I see why it would be counterintuitive for an Arminian (e.g. Witherington), but counterintuitive results are, generally, undesirable. It seems that we have a good defeater for Arminianism rather than a good reason for counterintuitive results.”
Josh said...
Culturally defiant is not counterintuitive. There isn't something immoral or utterly unbelievable about God's love. Is it contrary to what most humans would do? Sure. But that doesn't touch on what would be counterintuitive for an omni-God to do, despite your clever rewording of my post.
steve said...
So what runs counter to human logic (Witherington's interpretation) isn't counterintuitive. Is that your last-ditch explanation?
And, of course, the question at issue is very much concerned with what is counterintuitive to human beings regarding their expectations of God. That is Paul's point, which you resist because you really don't care what the Bible says, even when it's interpreted for you by a major Arminian commentator.
And underlying that expectation is the fact that we'd expect a just God to condemn evil-doers, an expectation which the Bible frequently fosters.
Paul also underscores the counterintuitive nature of the Gospel in 1 Cor 1-3.
I don't see that it follows at all from the fact that John 3:16 makes a reference to the counterintuitive character of God's love, that it therefore says nothing about the scope of God's love. God's love is for the world, and the world seems to be either all persons, or all persons currently alienated from God. The alienation of the world from God makes God's love impressive in one sense, the scope of God's love makes it impressive in another.
ReplyDeleteThe more interesting Calvinist position is one that says God does love the whole world, but that love does not imply a universal salvific intent. God has a complex will, which includes a desire to save all persons but also a duty to express his wrath, and depending on whether or not you are elect, God actualizes his desire to save or his desire to show his wrath. (I'd truly like to save you, but I've got to actualize all my attributes, which includes both mercy and wrath. And I'm afraid your number has come up for wrath. Besides, the blessed need to be impressed by the graciousness of their salvation, and the best way I can do that is to fry you forever, which, of course, is exactly what you deserve).
Yes, of course God commanded Hosea to marry a hooker. But to make this something that applies generally, on pain of rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture if I don't make such an application, is absurd.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course God commanded Hosea to marry a hooker. But to make this something that applies generally, on pain of rejecting the inerrancy of Scripture if I don't make such an application, is absurd.
ReplyDeleteSurely you are not suggesting that Hosea is the only place in which the "faithless wife" analogy appears in Scripture.
In Johannine usage, the word "kosmos" isn't synonymous with "everyone." That ought to be evident to you if you bothered to study its various occurrences in the Johannine corpus. For example, the "world" is often set in contrast to Christians. It that setting, it's hardly synonymous with "everyone," since it's treated as antithetical to Christian identity.
ReplyDeleteAnd regardless of the usage of kosmos, the verse ~itself~ does not speak to the extent of the love apart from the surrounding context. To suggest that "world" must mean "each and every person who ever lived" flies in the face of the immediate context of judgment and wrath poured out on sinners who do not have faith in Christ. The fact is that v16 is describing the nature of God's love ~for the world~ in general, that is, God's love for the world is shown in that He sent His Son to redeem... all those believing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the exact extent of atonement (in case the question comes up) isn't mentioned anywhere in John 3.
To say that "God has a complex will, which includes a desire to save all persons but also a duty to express his wrath" is nothing more than a denial of the fact that God has the ability to hate, and in fact does hate sinners. (Psalm 5:5 says as much.) God is not conflicted, schizophrenic or confused. Rather he has "declared the end from the beginning" and says "My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure... ruly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it."
While I don't deny that God hates sinners, I find it irritating when Calvinists caricature the notion that he could have complex intentions as "conflictedness" or "schizophrenia". As if God is so much less mentally capable than we are, who entertain complex intentions and desires all the time.
ReplyDeleteI find it irritating when Calvinists caricature the notion that he could have complex intentions as "conflictedness" or "schizophrenia".
ReplyDeleteOk, let's use "contradiction" instead. Whereas Scripture states that God gets whatever He desires (Isa 46:9-11 et al) and apparently (according to the Arminian) wants to save "each and every person who ever lived" (I put this in quotes because although most Arminians suggest this is the case, they rarely defend it). Thus God has apparently CONTRADICTORY wills/abilities.
So if you don't like the term "schizophrenia", call it simple inability to make a decision... I would hesitate to say that God has either.
As if God is so much less mentally capable than we are, who entertain complex intentions and desires all the time.
The problem is, Dominic, that explicitly tells us in Scripture that He gets everything He desires, and nothing comes to pass apart from His will. Thus, as the apostle states in Acts 4, everything is going according to the predetermined plan of God, including the evil deeds of the Pharisees, Herod and the Gentiles.
Isa 46:9-11
9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it."
Now, tell me again... if God desires that each and every person be saved, how does he fail?
There is only a contradiction if God desires two opposing things in the same way. If, however, his desire for the salvation of all is contingent upon the circumstances he has brought about in order to service his ultimate intention to glorify his wrath, then no such contradiction exists. I'm afraid I don't have time to interact with this more here, so I'd instead point you to where I have already done so in the past: http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/on-the-atonement-part-4/ and http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/a-simple-argument-against-gods-universal-salvific-intent/
ReplyDeleteSimply put, your argument is too simply put.
Victor, you said: I don't see that it follows at all from the fact that John 3:16 makes a reference to the counterintuitive character of God's love, that it therefore says nothing about the scope of God's love.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may not be seen in Jn 3:16, if you look at v17, it seems to be noteworthy enough for Jesus to mention that He didn't come to condemn the world, but save it. Why mention this if it's exactly what people expected? Simply, the Jews were very much aware of the very Holy God who will judge everyone; for that God to appear on earth means judgement is at hand. Jesus, however, did not come the first time to condemn.
You know that, of course, I'm just pointing out how that passage in John indicates that God's love for the world is counterintuitive.
Is it your position that the Calvinist phrase "doctrines of Grace" (used as a descriptive of particular Calvinist dogma) is what constitutes the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
ReplyDeleteHi A.M. Mallett,
ReplyDeleteJust as a side note, you might be interested in checking out this article (PDF) from John Frame.
Domimic,
ReplyDeleteCan you deal with Isaiah before casting the issue in philosophical terms without Scriptural basis?
God says everything He desires comes to pass. Do you agree?
If so, how does He desire the salvation of each and every individual and yet 1) fail to provide the Gospel to each and every, and 2) fail to save each and every.
Simply stating "free will" isn't enough to explain away this contradiction.
Mr. Patrick,
ReplyDeleteMy inquiry was to the question of how the OP defines the Gospel of Jesus and whether it should be concluded that he defines the Gospel of Christ as merely his dogmatic expression (knowing that such a position is rejected by most of the body of Christ).
I am well acquainted with the Calvinist distinctives, modern as well as founding, and I do not find Mr. Frame to be particularly enlightening.
Is it your position that the Calvinist dogma often referred to as the "doctrines of Grace" are those beliefs constituting the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Saying the doctrines of grace ARE the Gospel is like saying the fuel pump IS a Ferrari.
ReplyDeleteA.M. Mallett said:
ReplyDeleteMy inquiry was to the question of how the OP defines the Gospel of Jesus and whether it should be concluded that he defines the Gospel of Christ as merely his dogmatic expression (knowing that such a position is rejected by most of the body of Christ).
1. I'll note your use of the word "dogmatic" here doesn't sound like you're referring to a doctrine or teaching which is derived from Scripture. Rather it sounds like you mean an imperious assertion bereft of argumentation. But why the tendentious suggestion in the first place?
Let's turn the tables around for a second. For instance, we could ask you the same question: how do you define the Gospel of Jesus, and should it be concluded that you define the Gospel of Christ as merely your dogmatic expression (knowing that such a position is rejected by most of the body of Christ)?
2. Which brings me to the next point. Obviously, you're free to ask whatever questions you'd like to ask. But let's remember the context of the post is Steve's response to Reppert. And there's an entire history behind this too.
3. Quantity alone isn't necessarily an arbiter for truth. Whether a position is rejected or accepted by the most number of people doesn't necessarily relate to its truth. For e.g., it could be argued that "most of the body of Christ" was Arian during Athanasius' day but this doesn't mean Arianism is Biblical. Quite the contrary!
I am well acquainted with the Calvinist distinctives, modern as well as founding, and I do not find Mr. Frame to be particularly enlightening.
Well, you could've fooled me that you're "well acquainted" with Reformed theology! :-) Granted, I'm basing this judgment on what I've seen of your drive-by replies in our various threads, but these replies seemed rather revealing to me (e.g. see here, here, and here). But since it didn't appear to me that you understood the basics of Reformed theology, I thought the Frame article might be a good starting point for you if you were interested in learning more.
In any case, what I perceive you do or don't understand about Reformed theology is neither here nor there. Let's move on.
Is it your position that the Calvinist dogma often referred to as the "doctrines of Grace" are those beliefs constituting the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Again, let me turn around and ask you a similar question. Is it your position the Arminian dogma often referred to as "the Five Articles of the Remonstrance" are those beliefs constituting the Gospel of Jesus Christ? How would you answer this question?
This is more or less asking how much of one's theology is bound up and/or central to the Gospel. It's a big question. It's easy to ask but harder to answer. It just takes a second to ask, as you can see, but to do justice to your question would require a longer response.
One could answer on practical and personal grounds. We could say the Gospel is recognizing that one is a sinner who stands condemned for his sins before a holy God, but who, if he repents from his sins and sinful life and trusts in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, God promises to save. This doesn't necessarily imply that one needs to affirm and accept the doctrines of grace to be saved. But an understanding of the doctrines of grace does cause one to more fully appreciate what God has done for him in Jesus Christ.
One could answer on historical grounds. But speaking for myself I'm not interested in the historical development of Calvinism or Arminianism.
[Cont.]
ReplyDeleteOne could answer on current exegetical and theological grounds. I think this is where the focus should be.
Don Carson has a good sermon which actually does respond to your question, albeit indirectly. You can listen to it, watch it, and/or read the transcribed text of it here.
As for me, I'll crib off of the Don to answer your question. I'll briefly cite his core eight points but refer to the sermon itself for the details as well as other relevant points. Then you can decide for yourself how much of the doctrines of grace are bound up with and/or central to the Gospel (particularly given that you're already well acquainted with them).
Eight Summarizing Words
1. The gospel is Christological.
2. The gospel is theological.
3. The gospel is biblical.
4. The gospel is apostolic.
5. The gospel is historical.
6. The gospel is personal.
7. The gospel is universal.
8. The gospel is eschatological.
Mr. Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYour reply seems to go to great lengths to avoid what others will readily affirm, that being that set of teachings and beliefs collectively referred to by Calvinists as the doctrines of Grace is what constitutes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, either you do not fully understand what is meant by the Calvinist phrase or you are hesitant to commit yourself to it. Of course one could pen tomes on end about the subject but it has been my experience for several years that your fellows are quick to summarize their beliefs by such phrases and just as quick to condemn others who reject what is clearly their dogmatic theology. Along with your hesitancy to identify your Calvinist gospel, you are also somewhat confused over the term dogma. I suggest a review of the term. We all have a dogmatic set of beliefs, certainly Calvinists perhaps more than others, however the term is not derogatory.
As for your further references, I am not particularly interested otherwise I would ask them directly. Instead my inquiry was to you, your turning around the questions notwithstanding.
Mallett,
ReplyDeleteThis is a bogus issue. Every adherent of every theological tradition regards his own tradition as the true faith while he regards opposing traditions as, at best, defective–if not worse.
For example, the Arminians I've encountered regard their understanding of the gospel as the gospel truth, whereas they regard Reformed theism as diabolical.
So don't pretend to be offended at the exclusive claims that Reformed theology makes about its own fidelity to revealed truth. Everyone does that–yourself included. That's why you're an Arminian rather than a Calvinist.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI rarely encounter anybody who views the tenets of Arminianism, that make it distinct from the Calvinist sects, who regard such teachings as the gospel of Jesus Christ. You seem to be confused with regard to the distinction between the ecumenical faith shared among all lovers of Christ and the dogma promoted by sectarians with an agenda of their own.
My inquiry is simple. Do you regard the dogma you adhere to, namely the Calvinist doctrines of Grace, to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is not a hard question nor a trick.
A.M. Mallett said...
ReplyDelete"I rarely encounter anybody who views the tenets of Arminianism, that make it distinct from the Calvinist sects, who regard such teachings as the gospel of Jesus Christ. You seem to be confused with regard to the distinction between the ecumenical faith shared among all lovers of Christ and the dogma promoted by sectarians with an agenda of their own."
Considering the fact that Roger Olsen finds it hard to tell the difference between Calvinism and Satanism, while Charles Wesley regards Calvinism as blasphemous, and his brother John regards the God of Calvinism as worse than Moloch and Satan combined, I'd say that unless you think God and Satan have more in common than is generally reputed to be the case, then I'm not the one who's confusing sectarian distinctives with ecumenical essentials.
A.M. Mallett said...
ReplyDelete"My inquiry is simple. Do you regard the dogma you adhere to, namely the Calvinist doctrines of Grace, to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is not a hard question nor a trick."
I regard Calvinism as the most accurate interpretation of Scripture. Nothing else is more accurate or equally accurate. Everything else is less accurate to a lesser or greater degree.
Mr Steve,
ReplyDeleteA simple no would suffice if that is your position otherwise you seem to be taking great pains to avoid answering the inquiry. Nonetheless, thank you for the reply.
A.M. Mallett said...
ReplyDelete"A simple no would suffice..."
It would suffice if it's a simple question. It would not suffice if it's a deceptively simple question.
"Otherwise you seem to be taking great pains to avoid answering the inquiry."
That's very ironic coming from you, considering your penchant for peppering us with questions while you studiously avoid answering ours.