Thursday, September 24, 2009

Barrel o' laughs

ARMINIANPERSPECTIVES SAID:

“My post in the combox of Steve’s second post suggesting that Arminians were Neo-Manicheans, and that Billy’s response was benign, was supposed to be more funny than anything. Quite frankly, I found Steve’s initial post to be funny, and so I was responding in kind. However, I do think that some of the ‘logical connections’ I drew are just as valid as any Steve drew in his initial post, despite Steve’s protests.”

Here is Ben hedging his bets. On the one hand he issues this disclaimer so that we’ll go easy on the quality of his reasoning, since it was just a “lighthearted parody.”

On the other hand, he sticks to claim that his comparisons were just as valid as mine.

“But Steve never explains why it is bad that in Arminianism, God does not cause evil. He assumes it, but does not explain it.”

Why is Manichean/Zoroastrian dualism bad? Why is it bad to have two autonomous principles: a force for good and a force for evil?

Of course, Arminianism can bite the bullet and admit that it’s not such a bad thing after all. But that would concede the comparison.

“But that evil is not caused by an opposing deity, so the comparison to Manichaeism falls flat.”

An opposing deity by another name. The question, once again, is whether Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism simply takes Arminian assumptions to their logical conclusion.

“And I can just as well state that it is bad that Calvinism shares in common with Manichaeism the doctrine of exhaustive determinism, since in both cases God is caused to be the author of all sin and evil (which I think is a bad thing, but maybe Steve would just say that it isn’t a bad thing to him).”

i) Actually, he hasn’t shown that Manichaeism teaches a doctrine of “exhaustive determinism.”

ii) And he hasn’t show what form of determinism it takes. Determinism comes in many different forms.

iii) And he also hasn’t specified the respective role of evil in both systems. For example, is it a means to a greater good in both systems?

iv) And he hasn’t defined “author of sin.”

If Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is the author of Prof. Moriarty, is that a bad thing? Moriarty is a villain. Does that make Doyle a villain as well?

v) Does this mean Ben has no objection to “exhaustive determinism,” per se, but only to exhaustive determinism in connection with evil? Would he be okay with exhaustive determinism in a sinless world?

“Why should I need to do this when Steve is not willing to explain the differences between dualism in Mane’s theology and what he imagines to be dualism in Arminianism? At the very least he must admit that it is a different ‘type’ of dualism, so his comparison falls flat by his own standards.”

I specified the level at which I was comparing them. Ben needs to do the same thing.

“Again, why should I need to show this? Why can’t I just assert it like Steve asserts so many things concerning the ‘logical connections’ between Manichaeism and Arminianism, with no documentation? Why can’t I just assert it like Steve asserts that, ‘All the various religions and philosophies past and present are variants on three basic worldviews: Calvinism, atheism, and Manichaeism’ with no documentation? (BTW, I find it ironic that so many Calvinists on this thread are complaining about documentation when Steve continually evaded the need to show documentation when challenged in the combox of his initial thread, though he did eventually mention some books he read on the subject of different Gnostic views, hardly the type of documentation one would expect to back up such assertions).”

No one has challenged the accuracy of my characterization vis-à-vis Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism.

Likewise, no one has challenged my contention that Arminians have a habit of assigning the good things to God and the bad things to finite agents. That dichotomy is a key feature of their case against Calvinism.

To the extent that they soften that distinction, they lose the polemical point of contrast.

Look at how they frame the issue in terms of “authorship.” Now authorship is a creative metaphor. So where does that lead?

While Zoroastrians have two opposing gods, Arminians have two opposing authors. Zoroastrians have a God of good along with a God of evil while Arminians have an author of good along with an author of evil. (Indeed, several authors of evil, e.g. Satan, Adam, sinners.)

For the Zoroastrians and the Manicheans, two different Gods cocreate the world. For the Arminians, two different authors coauthor the world.

Different authors, different books. God authors the heroes while Satan authors the villains. God authors the chapter on creation while Satan authors the chapter on the fall. God authors the Incarnation while Satan authors the Crucifixion. (You can add other authors of sin, but the underlying principle remains the same.)

Arminians supply the documentation by the way they position themselves in relation to Calvinism. They supply the documentation for me–on a regular basis.

“Still, Piper, a leading Calvinist apologist and scholar, advocates the two wills view.”

And you’re welcome to critique his position, if you like. But don’t act as if that’s isometric with the Reformed tradition.

“More than that I explained why the contradictory wills view is a necessary implication in my comments with regards to panentheism.”

Even if, for the sake of argument, Calvinism were panentheistic, this would hardly show that God’s will is contradictory.

“No need to, since Calvinists believe that any such insights are given by God alone unconditionally and irresistibly.”

The fact that God unconditionally elects some people to salvation doesn’t mean belief in election is unconditionally given. We are saved by election, not by believing in election–although we have a moral obligation to believe that revealed truth.

“Otherwise, Calvinists might boast in the fact that they were smart enough to discover these doctrines on their own, while others were not.”

Arminians don’t reject the doctrines of grace because they aren’t smart enough. They reject the doctrines of grace because predestination offends their delicate moral sensibilities. They tell us that all the time.

“Furthermore, even Calvinists generally admit that all Christians start out with an Arminian view point until they are privileged enough to discover (by way of irresistible divine illumination) the ‘doctrines of grace’. Here is a quote from Calvin to that effect...”

i) Was Calvin talking about how all Christians start out? Or about how all unbelievers start out–some of whom become Christians?

ii) Do you want us to say that Arminians are damned?

iii) You also have a habit of using “irresistible” out of context. In TULIP, “irresistible” stands for regeneration. Regeneration is monergistic. This doesn’t mean that everything in Calvinism is monergistic. For example, Calvinism doesn’t define sanctification in monergistic terms.

“But before he can draw that comparison, he first needs to strip away everything that’s distinctive to Manichean dualism.’ (and everything that is distinctive to Arminianism as well).”

Once again, I was quite specific about the level at which I compared the two–unlike you.

“Oh, and as far as some other similarities between Calvinism and Hinduism (though they may be ‘dissimilar’ in other ways), Bob, in the combox of the initial post astutely observes, ‘For example, I could suggest that since Steve has suggested that God sources all things, suggesting that ‘evil’ is ultimately ‘good’, then we could correlated his view to Hinduism, which proposes that the Brahman is the final source of all that exists.”

Hinduism is a highly syncretistic and pluralistic tradition. There’s no one Hindu view of anything. It’s the very antithesis of a monolithic outlook.

“Yes, I do know the difference between literary forms of comedy. I thought it was obvious that I was being less than serious here.”

Yes, it’s so humorous to impute to Calvinists the view that hell is “funny.”

“However, the point still stands regardless of which view of comedy we take.”

Since you merely asserted a “spiritual caste system,” you’re point has nothing to stand on.

“Which misses the point entirely since there never was any ‘real danger’ to be shielded from, since they were chosen only for salvation from before the creation of the universe, remember? How then were they ever in any ‘real danger’ of damnation? Quite the red-herring here.”

You’re arguing in circles. Does the fact that guardrails prevent some cars from going over the cliff mean there was no real danger in the first place?

i) You’re equivocating over what makes something dangerous. Something can be inherently dangerous, but not be dangerous to me if something else shields me from the danger. The fact that I’m not in danger doesn’t mean there is no real danger.

ii) And you have yet to explain why you seem to think it’s a bad thing that some people were never in danger of hell. Do you think God would be wronging us unless everyone were in peril of going to hell? If, say, a five-year-old who dies of cancer was never at risk of damnation, do you think that reflects poorly on God’s character?

“The better question would be: why do Calvinists continue to use such lame counter arguments and expect Arminians to concede to them?”

A better question would be: why do Arminians ask question-begging questions?

“Really, the elect are not a 'chosen race' (1 Peter 2:9)?…The same is true here. The elect are a chosen race favored above all else in Calvinism, even if the basis for that favor is different (i.e. not based on skin color, etc.).”

i) Peter is using genos as a metaphor. The fact that the chosen “race” includes gentile believers should make that clear. He’s taking an OT reference to the Jewish people, and deliberately extending it to those who do not share a common lineage with Abraham.

ii) In that case, they’re not literally a chosen “race.” So if the basis is different, then what does Ben’s comparison amount to? What do they have in common?

iii) Ben said Calvinists reflect a “master race” mentality. That, of course, alludes to the “Aryan” outlook of the Nazis. So what does Calvinism share in common with Nazi racism? Having eliminated the racial component of racism, explain what is left?

“As Steve points out in his initial post, ‘And life in a fallen world is a place in which some of us are also favored to learn what it feels like to be redeemed. Delivered. Forgiven.’ (but most are not uncomditionally favored in such a way).”

i) Once again, how is that comparable to Nazi racism?

Racism isn’t based on unconditional favoritism. Rather, it has very decided conditions. It’s predicated on theories of racial superiority and racial purity. You must meet the conditions to be so favored.

ii) Or is Ben saying that any form of favoritism is morally equivalent to racism?

So if a man does something for his wife or son that he wouldn’t do for Osama bin Laden, does Ben think that makes him a quasi-racist?

“I think some do, but regardless…”

No, not “regardless.” You don’t get to indulge in drive-by smears. Quote some representative Reformed theologians who equate all and only Calvinists with the elect.

“Calvinists do see themselves as the unconditionally elect of God, favored above all else from all eternity.”

They don’t consider themselves to be elect to the exclusion of Lutherans or Moravians or Anabaptists, &c. They don’t think God has favored them above everyone else. That’s just another scurrilous attack.

81 comments:

  1. Good morning Steve Hays,

    You complained that he hasn’t defined “author of sin.”

    Definition: The author of sin is the potter of dishonorable vessels.

    Alternative definition: The author of sin is the sower of tares.

    It's really not that difficult.

    Concerning “exhaustive determinism,”:

    The problem is, this philosophical concept isn't found in the bible.

    By the way, where do you think we'll end up if we go down the road and take calvinism to its logical conclusion?

    For the Zoroastrians and the Manicheans, two different Gods cocreate the world. For the Arminians, two different authors coauthor the world.

    And what does the bible say?

    For instance:

    "The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning." (1 John 3,8)

    "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8,44)

    "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots."(Mat. 15,13)

    The holy One does NOT plant poisonous plants!

    The holy One is NOT the father of lies!

    The holy One is NOT the sower of weeds!

    The holy One is NOT the father of those who do what is sinful!

    The holy One is NOT the potter of dishonorable vessels!

    Steve, you should abolish calvinism!

    “More than that I explained why the contradictory wills view is a necessary implication in my comments with regards to panentheism.”

    Yes, calvinism is a form of pantheism.

    Even if, for the sake of argument, Calvinism were panentheistic, this would hardly show that God’s will is contradictory.

    God's will isn't contradictory -- calvinism is!

    Arminians don’t reject the doctrines of grace because they aren’t smart enough. They reject the doctrines of grace because predestination offends their delicate moral sensibilities.

    I'm not an arminian, however I also reject the doctrines of grace, because they are both unscriptural and betray common sense.

    Please abandon the doctrines of grace!

    -Kehrhelm "a helmet" Kröger

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, prooftexting! I wanna play!

    Job 1:12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

    Job 2:3 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” 4 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. 5 But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” 6 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.”

    A helmet, you must abolish your belief that Satan acts independently of God's sovereignty!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonah,

    is this a tacit admission that your god is the author of sin?

    ReplyDelete
  4. A Helmet said:
    ---
    Definition: The author of sin is the potter of dishonorable vessels.
    ---

    Romans 9:20 - 24.

    There is only one potter in the passage: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

    The potter makes both vessels for honorable and dishonorable use.

    A Helmet must either believe that Satan makes honorable vessels, or that God makes dishonorable vessels.

    Since we can probably rule that Satan would not make honorable vessels, then by his own logic (such that it is) A Helmet believes God is the author of sin.

    Yet he also quotes "The author of sin is the sower of tares." The passage shows that was the enemy.

    Therefore, A Helmet logically must believe God is Satan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. a helmet,

    Is your comment a tacit admission that you are an open theist, and thus a heretic? The answer is no, of course. Both questions are silly, because they throw around Biblically undefined terms that twist the other's position and make it sound bad. I agree with you, we should let Scripture speak, and attempt to interpret it properly.

    You prooftexted, I quoted Scripture that contradicts your statement. So the ball is back in your court. It's now your turn to reconcile Job with your position. While you're at it, do the same with Romans 9.

    OTOH, I can easily reconcile Jesus' statements you quoted with my position. Jesus is speaking to unregenerate members of the Jewish leadership. Being reprobate, they have been handed over to Satan for their unbelief. So, spiritually, Satan is their "father".

    As for John, when he says "the one who does what is sinful", he means those who make a practice of sinning unrepentantly, signifying their likely unbelief. Otherwise, he would be saying that anyone who sins at all is of the devil, which would also include believers. So that can't be the right interpretation.

    In the Matthew passage, Jesus is simply using a "plant metaphor" which He often employed when speaking to the disciples. He means reprobate Pharisees.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Romans 9:20 - 24.There is only one potter in the passage: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

    We've had all this already, have we not? I argued that the passage does NOT mention God as the potter of bad vessels. In the following, I wrote a post that responds to an essay by John Piper where he wants to prove that God is the creator of vessels unto destruction:

    Here's what I wrote:

    http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/08/concerning-john-pipers-article-on.html

    It corresponds directly to the objection you raised and are raising again now.

    The potter makes both vessels for honorable and dishonorable use.

    No, the text actually doesn't spell that out. Regarding the "same lump" that serves as a material for vessels of different quality, I also treated that in this post.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jonah,

    Is your comment a tacit admission that you are an open theist, and thus a heretic?

    Well, that's a silly question indeed. But the question I posed, is not silly.

    The answer is no, of course.

    Of course.

    Both questions are silly, because they throw around Biblically undefined terms that twist the other's position and make it sound bad.

    No, the question whether your god is the author of sin isn't silly and doesn't throw around biblically undefined terms! I provided a definition of the term "author of sin".

    Now you guys say "potter of vessels for dishonor" is just as much a metaphor as "author of sin". Ok, so what? You have some idea of what potter of vessels for dishonor means don't you? This expression has *some* meaning to you, doesn't it? This metaphor is not just completely hollow words, right? So I'll leave it up to you guys to substitute your understanding of "potter of dishonorable vessels" into the definition I gave, so that you have a proper definition what an "author of sin" is.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  8. a helmet, using your own logic God isn't the potter of good vessels either. So who is this potter that is mentioned in Romans 9? And don't try saying there are two potters, because the text does not say there are two potters but one (That's what is meant by "the potter").

    Pretend for a moment that it is not a metaphor (though it is). Is it not obvious to you that an actual potter making actual pottery has the right to make a literal vessel for honorable use and another literal vessel for dishonorable use from the same lump of actual clay? That's why it's an effective metaphor. Paul is trying to get across the point by appealing to something we all instinctively find to be obvious. You on the other hand try to short-circuit the metaphor by trying to smuggle in multiple potters. By your logic, certain actual potters can only make honorable vessels while others can only make dishonorable vessels. It's absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  9. a helmet said:

    Good morning Steve Hays,

    You complained that he hasn’t defined “author of sin.”

    Definition: The author of sin is the potter of dishonorable vessels.

    Alternative definition: The author of sin is the sower of tares.

    It's really not that difficult.

    --------
    A helmet, thank you!

    You are right, it is not that difficult. In fact, in your brief summary, you have shown exactly how simple this all is and have proven, once and for all, Steve's original point:

    Arminianism is fundamentally a dualistic system.

    Thanks again for the concession.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Okay, Mr. Double Standard. I retract my statement. Neither question is silly. You're an open theist, a Zoroastrian dualist, and a heretic. I question your salvation.

    Of course, Mr. Helmet did not address any of the arguments from Scripture in my post. He stands refuted until he does.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello Neal,

    don't try saying there are two potters, because the text does not say there are two potters but one (That's what is meant by "the potter").

    It is possible that "the" potter refers to the general concept of a potter, which is now used metaphorical. The issue is what such a potter does.


    Is it not obvious to you that an actual potter making actual pottery has the right to make a literal vessel for honorable use and another literal vessel for dishonorable use from the same lump of actual clay?

    That's why no one can claim to be favored by God simply because he is jewish by nature, a "certain lump". Not all jews according to hte flesh are elected and likewise not all gentiles are un-elected because of the "lump" they are by nature. That's the point Paul wants to get across. He is explaining why the messiah's mission did not occur as it was so widely expected and why God's promises are nevertheless fulfilled. And Paul doesn't stop here, the elaboration goes on....

    That's why it's an effective metaphor.

    It's effective in rebuking all jewish birthright claims.

    Paul is trying to get across the point by appealing to something we all instinctively find to be obvious.

    It is obvious that the good ones in the sight of God are not identifiable by the kind of lump they are. Being Abraham's seed is not a matter of the flesh (a lump), but of faith in Christ. Don't dismiss the context.

    You on the other hand try to short-circuit the metaphor by trying to smuggle in multiple potters.

    No, the verse is not about the question *who* this potter is, but what *a* potter (in general) does and that *the* potter is master over the clay. However, by verse 22 it becomes interesting. Because here is silence about the existence of the bad vessels. However, the prevalent concept of God's longsuffering with respect to good and evil, shines through here. And this divine patience is also a crucial feature in the parable of the fig tree, the parable of the wheat and tares, in Romans 2,4 and in 2 Peter 3,9. Romans 9,22-23 doesn't mention God as a the creator of bad vessels. There's silence. These bad vessels seem to be just there. If this shall be the chief calvinist proof-text for the doctrines of grace, then it's a very weak one indeed!

    By your logic, certain actual potters can only make honorable vessels while others can only make dishonorable vessels.

    I wouldn't carry this metaphor too far. The potter who symbolizes the holy God, doesn't create bad vessels to be sure.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  12. JIBBS,

    So is this a tacit admission that your god is the author of sin?

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's why no one can claim to be favored by God simply because he is jewish by nature, a "certain lump". Not all jews according to hte flesh are elected and likewise not all gentiles are un-elected because of the "lump" they are by nature. That's the point Paul wants to get across. He is explaining why the messiah's mission did not occur as it was so widely expected and why God's promises are nevertheless fulfilled. And Paul doesn't stop here, the elaboration goes on....


    And how exactly does this help your argument?

    No, the verse is not about the question *who* this potter is, but what *a* potter (in general) does and that *the* potter is master over the clay. However, by verse 22 it becomes interesting. Because here is silence about the existence of the bad vessels.

    Are you really this dense? Who is ignoring context again? You rip verse 22 out of context and claim that the existence of dishonorable vessels is a mystery by appealing to an argument from silence?

    Romans 9,22-23 doesn't mention God as a the creator of bad vessels. There's silence. These bad vessels seem to be just there.

    Another argument from silence? Have you ever taken a course in logic? You rip verses out of context and then claim there is silence. Verses 22-23 don't need to mention God as the creator of bad vessels. Verses 20-21 already established that. There is no creator of good things vs. creator of bad things. There is only one God who is God over all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Neal,

    how exactly does this help your argument?

    *My* argument? It was Peter Pike who suggested Romans 9 as evidence that God is the author of sin. It is a calvinist pro-argument that you guys bring up. For me to argue for the negative it is sufficient to show that your claim doesn't hold water. Romans 9,22-23 simply doesn't say that God makes vessels to destruction, but that these vessels "have been prepared". The switch from passive to active tense is notable. Of course, John Piper wants it to say God makes the bad vessels too. But that's unwarranted and implausible.

    Nothing suggests that the holy One makes vessels for destruction! This becomes the more unlikely the more you continue reading the epistle. Again, don't rip a few statements in Romans 9 out of coherence.

    The existence of vessels for destruction is as much a "mystery" as the appearance of tares that were sown at night while everyone was sleeping. The point is, God is not the potter of these vessels. They "have been made". But God "made" the good vessels.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rom. 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

    Pharaoh sinned. Several doozies, actually. God knowingly created him, knowing he would do the evil things he did.

    So tell me how your god is not the author of sin?

    Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

    Are you a Christian? Do you believe that Christ was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures?

    Is your god the author of sin?

    ReplyDelete
  16. A Helmet said:
    ---
    *My* argument? It was Peter Pike who suggested Romans 9 as evidence that God is the author of sin.
    ---

    So now you're a liar as well as a fool. YOU brought up Romans 9 when you said, "The author of sin is the potter of dishonorable vessels."

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Determinism comes in many different forms"

    Does it? I thought it pretty much boiled down to compatibilism and fatalism, no?

    ReplyDelete
  18. a helmet said:

    "The existence of vessels for destruction is as much a "mystery" as the appearance of tares that were sown at night while everyone was sleeping. The point is, God is not the potter of these vessels. They "have been made". But God "made" the good vessels."

    And who made the devil? Was it God, or someone else?

    Who is the molder in verse 20? Who is the potter in verse 21? Please answer this honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "*My* argument? It was Peter Pike who suggested Romans 9 as evidence that God is the author of sin."

    "Author of sin" is your terminology, not the Calvinist's. So to say that Calvinists argue that God is the author of sin is simply a strawman.

    ReplyDelete
  20. a helmet said:

    JIBBS,

    So is this a tacit admission that your god is the author of sin?


    No. Of course you know it is neither a confirmation nor a denial. The topic was not about me and what I believe, but rather you and what you believe. So, I just wanted to thank you for doing what all your comrades have been unable to do thus far in this discussion. You gave a very simple illustration that highlighted the relationship between Arminian theology and Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism as originally postulated by Steve Hays. So, by way of your own admission, Steve has been vindicated and should no longer have to endure the fiery darts of all your misguided counterparts. Could you share your wisdom with all of them? Tell them the reason Steve is right is precisely because, (and I quote you):

    "Definition: The author of sin is the potter of dishonorable vessels.

    Alternative definition: The author of sin is the sower of tares.

    It's really not that difficult.


    I won't say anything about your myopic exegesis of this part of Romans 9. What is most important to me is that you have confirmed the original assessment by Steve. Again, thank you for helping me to understand exactly why Steve was, and is, right.

    ReplyDelete
  21. JIBBS,

    you gave a very simple illustration that highlighted the relationship between Arminian theology and Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism as originally postulated by Steve Hays:

    No! You ignore some very basic basics of christianity:

    1)There is exactly one God. In the very beginning, God was absolutely alone, nothing and no one beside him.

    2)God is almighty. He can do anything.

    3)God is all-loving. He is perfectly good and holy.

    4)God is omniscient. He knows all truth.

    5)There is evil in God's creation.

    --

    Just because you cannot deal with these basics and reconcile the points, doeesn`t justify making God the author of sin! And it doesn`t justify this foolish Manichaeism comparison, as if point 1) wasn`t true. Because christians univocally hold to point 1).

    You can`t harmonize all five points and therefore engage in easysolutionism ending up in a form of weird pantheism. Thereby God ends up being the originator of all sin. You should forsake the doctrines of grace in total.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello Neal,

    Author of sin" is your terminology, not the Calvinist's. So to say that Calvinists argue that God is the author of sin is simply a strawman.

    So you don`t accept the definition, that the potter of dishonorable vessels can be called the "author of sin"? Remember I was asked to define the expression "author of sin", and so I did.

    You have some idea of the meaning of "potter of dishonorable vessels", right? Go and substitute the meaning for the metaphor and then you have my definition of "author of sin". Agreed?

    Peter Pike holds that God is the potter of vessels for dishonor on the basis of Romans 9. And if you ask me to define author of sin, we come to Peter Pike considering God the author of sin. It's a metaphor, yes, but there's a meaning behind evey metaphor.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  23. a helmet said:

    So you don`t accept the definition, that the potter of dishonorable vessels can be called the "author of sin"?

    Of course I reject it! All you've done with that definition is claim that God is the author of sin. Isn't that what you are supposed to be proving?

    a helmet said:

    You have some idea of the meaning of "potter of dishonorable vessels", right? Go and substitute the meaning for the metaphor and then you have my definition of "author of sin". Agreed?

    There is no "potter of dishonorable vessels" mentioned in scripture. There is only "the potter" who makes both honorable and dishonorable vessels. You are trying to twist the metaphor into something it is not.

    Since you ignored these before, I'll ask them again:

    Who made the devil? Was it God, or someone else?

    Who is the molder in verse 20? Who is the potter in verse 21? Please answer this honestly.

    ReplyDelete
  24. a helmet said:

    Just because you cannot deal with these basics and reconcile the points, doeesn`t justify making God the author of sin!

    Mr. helmet you are projecting. The Calvinist has a theodicy. Just because you don't like the Calvinist theodicy doesn't change that fact. You are the one who (1) has offered no alternative theodicy and (2) is charging that God is the author of sin.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Isn't there some Tb rule about banning posters who don't address arguments, but just keep spouting the same assertions over and over again?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jonah,

    The style of the book of Job is poetry. It's allegorical and the message conveyed touches the following truths:

    -Suffering concerns everyone, even the righteous ones.

    -The inscrutablity of the meaning of suffering is part of the fallen state of mankind.

    -While suffering isn't proportionate to one's individual sinfulness, the general reason for suffering is based on moral evil (sin, the devil).

    -God is sovereign and the meaning for suffering stays hidden to the world.

    -The cooperation between God and the devil illustrates that the source of suffering is found in moral evil, and orginates with the devil. However the faithful may be confident that God is ultimately in control and will be having the last laugh.

    -The faithful will be restored in the end.


    ----

    Now, there is a crucial thing that the book of Job does NOT claim: God's responsibility for moral evil. That God brings calamity and disaster on the already fallen world without respect of individuals, is also pointed out in Isaiah 45,7 and several other times. God also caused the great flood, didn't he? But he is not the originator of moral evil (sin) and the book of Job doesn't say so either!!

    Neal,

    The Calvinist has a theodicy.

    Which has been refuted many, many times and will continue to be refuted. Let's face it:

    The greater good which is the ultimate reason for the existence of sin, according to most calvinists is God's exhibition of mercy and wrath. It is good to exert mercy and wrath in order for God's characteristics to be demonstrated. Without sin, these divine attributes wouldn't be realized and so God's essence not fully come to revelation.

    If mercy and justice are two features of God's essence then they stay hidden unless they are displayed by actually being worked out.

    That's the greater good defense according to the majority of calvinists.

    The first problem is, the mere concepts of mercy and justice are based on the concepts of culpable evil. You can't think of mercy/satisfaction/justice/wrath without thinking of the concept of sin. Hence, the concept of sin is wrapped up in God's essence also.

    The second problem is, if the exhibition of mercy and justice are truly demonstrating two innate characteristics of God, and if the mercy shall in any way genuine and the wrath shall in any way be genuine, then the underlying culpability that prompts these divine responses must likewise be genuine.

    Yet here the theodicy question actually begins, rather than is answered! Because the problem of evil is shifted toward the question of culpability: Why is man guilty anyway? -- Simply by definition? If so, the genuineness, the reality of the guilt stands in the room. This is so crucial, because if man's guilt isn't real, then mercy and wrath cannot be real either and so the greater good isn't real at all but just a smoke and dust. This is why the calvinism's theodicy is so foolish. You should repudiate the greater good defense!

    Kehrhelm "a helmet" Kröger

    ReplyDelete
  27. Neal,

    Who made the devil?

    God made all creatures including all angels, so he made the devil. But he didn't make him devilish! That's the point.

    Who is the molder in verse 20? Who is the potter in verse 21? Please answer this honestly.

    No one specific. If I say "man" is a sinner then I don't mean anyone particular, but mankind. Likewise "the" potter refers to the essence of a potter, and the deeper purpose behind this illustration is to rebut the attitude that the material (lump) has any say with regard to its usage. The potter decides what to do with the clay. This means, no one has any works-based claims on God that would merit grace and salvation. God's dealings with mankind go differently than many had been thinking. Salvation is by faith. That's the news. Don't overstretch the potter analogy.

    Interestingly, vs.22-24 don't mention God as the potter of bad vessels, but verse 24 says regarding God's dealings that he called the good vessels out of two different lumps (people). God is concerned with the good things, not the evil things!

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  28. Only A Helmet can read "the same lump" as "two different lumps."

    Using his reasoning skills, from now on I will read "a helmet" as "an idiot."

    Actually, I cannot do that. That would be mean to real idiots, comparing them to A Helmet.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Peter Pike,

    The "lump" refers to the jews as a nation or non-jews as a people. Fleshly birthrights don't count. That's the point Paul wants to get across.

    Romans 9,22-24:

    "What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"

    The christians are called from among Jews and Gentiles, that is, different unions according to the flesh. The jews were so by nature. The gentiles were excluded from God's salvific blessings by nature.

    But now, the vessels unto honor are called out of various nations according to the flesh.

    The "lump" symbolizes a unity according to the flesh (Jews & Gentiles)

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Calvinist has a theodicy.

    a helmet said:

    Which has been refuted many, many times and will continue to be refuted.

    Hardly. Certainly not by you.

    The first problem is, the mere concepts of mercy and justice are based on the concepts of culpable evil. You can't think of mercy/satisfaction/justice/wrath without thinking of the concept of sin. Hence, the concept of sin is wrapped up in God's essence also.

    I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but let's say we grant that. What of it? That God can conceptualize sin does not mean that God is a sinner does it? Are you claiming that a good God cannot conceptualize sin? Sounds like a denial of omniscience to me. Your heresies are getting worse.

    The second problem is, if the exhibition of mercy and justice are truly demonstrating two innate characteristics of God, and if the mercy shall in any way genuine and the wrath shall in any way be genuine, then the underlying culpability that prompts these divine responses must likewise be genuine.

    What Calvinist has ever said that man is not culpable for his sins?

    Why is man guilty anyway? -- Simply by definition?

    Why don't you try actually critiquing what it is that Calvinists believe instead of making stuff up? Man is guilty because he sins. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but let's say we grant that. What of it?... Are you claiming that a good God cannot conceptualize sin? Sounds like a denial of omniscience to me.

    Well, obviously you understood me wrong, but that might be my fault. I'll explain this again later for I'm running out of time right now.



    What Calvinist has ever said that man is not culpable for his sins?

    Well, the question is on what basis? By definition? Then the greater good is ultimately a hoax! Think that through!

    I'm not making stuff up, this is an accurate presentation of the reformed GGD.

    ReplyDelete
  32. could be wrong here, but the greater good defense is not just used by Calvinist.

    A majority of Christians hold to the greater good defense.

    A Helmet could you cite a reputable Christian group that does not use the greater good defense?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Who is the molder in verse 20? Who is the potter in verse 21? Please answer this honestly.

    a helmet said:

    No one specific. If I say "man" is a sinner then I don't mean anyone particular, but mankind. Likewise "the" potter refers to the essence of a potter, and the deeper purpose behind this illustration is to rebut the attitude that the material (lump) has any say with regard to its usage.

    Why did Paul even use this metaphor? You are being absolutely incoherent. You can't have a non-specific potter deciding to do anything with the clay. You claim the potter is nobody specific, but then you imply that the identity of the potter is indeed God when you say:

    The potter decides what to do with the clay. This means, no one has any works-based claims on God that would merit grace and salvation.

    so which is it? Is the potter God or not? You still have not adequately answered this question.

    Interestingly, vs.22-24 don't mention God as the potter of bad vessels, but verse 24 says regarding God's dealings that he called the good vessels out of two different lumps (people). God is concerned with the good things, not the evil things!

    Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? I've already pointed out that 22-24 don't need to mention God as the potter of bad vessels, when 20-21 have already established that God is the potter of both good and bad vessels.

    ReplyDelete
  34. a helmet said:

    Well, obviously you understood me wrong, but that might be my fault. I'll explain this again later for I'm running out of time right now.

    Of course. When you figure out what you meant, please clue us in. But then again, it is becoming increasingly clear that arguing with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

    I said:

    What Calvinist has ever said that man is not culpable for his sins?

    a helmet said:

    Well, the question is on what basis? By definition? Then the greater good is ultimately a hoax! Think that through!

    I already answered this. Man is culpable because he sins. All theodicies are based on a theory of greater good for the evil that exists. That's what theodicy is all about. If there is no greater good for the evil that exists, God is, by definition, malevolent. The Arminian greater good is to protect man's free will, i.e. it is man centered. The Calvinist greater good defense is that it ultimately glorifies God, i.e. it is God centered. That's what it comes down to. A God centered or man centered theodicy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I agree with Peter and Jonah that there comes a point of diminishing returns in these debates. As a reasonably intelligent man, Kröger is aware of the fact that he keeps raising objections which several of us have already dealt with, yet he simply repeats himself as if no one said anything in reply to his objections.

    If he were an honest and honorable opponent, he wouldn't fall back on tendentious assertions, and regurgitate oft-refuted challenges.

    Since he's not debating in good faith, I think the time is past due for him to go away. He's had multiple opportunities to advance the argument, but hasn't done so–since he has nothing in reserve.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The style of the book of Job is poetry. It's allegorical

    Job isn't poetry, it's wisdom literature, like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Whether it's allegorical, a parable, or a historical event is debatable, but not relevant to this discussion.

    -Suffering concerns everyone, even the righteous ones.

    True.

    -The inscrutablity of the meaning of suffering is part of the fallen state of mankind.

    Noetic effect of sin. Yes, I agree.

    -While suffering isn't proportionate to one's individual sinfulness, the general reason for suffering is based on moral evil (sin, the devil).

    More specifically, the moral evil of original sin, but yes I agree here as well.

    -God is sovereign and the meaning for suffering stays hidden to the world.

    I agree, although one can posit definite reasons for specific instances of suffering. For instance, the reason for Christ's suffering was our redemption.

    -The cooperation between God and the devil illustrates that the source of suffering is found in moral evil, and orginates with the devil. However the faithful may be confident that God is ultimately in control and will be having the last laugh.

    Yes, this follows from the above.

    -The faithful will be restored in the end.

    True. So what's the problem?

    Now, there is a crucial thing that the book of Job does NOT claim: God's responsibility for moral evil. That God brings calamity and disaster on the already fallen world without respect of individuals, is also pointed out in Isaiah 45,7 and several other times. God also caused the great flood, didn't he? But he is not the originator of moral evil (sin) and the book of Job doesn't say so either!!

    Okay, now we are getting somewhere (finally!). You don't have a problem with God being the author of evil, just the author of sin (BTW I'm using your phraseology; I don't see God causing natural disasters as morally culpable). And to you, Satan must act independently of God's control in order for God not to be the "author of sin".

    The trouble is, all the correct things you said about the story of Job don't change the simple fact that Satan can only do what God permits him to do. That's the point I was trying to make, which you missed (as usual). To hold otherwise opens you up to the charge of Manichaeism, open theism, whatever you want to call it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Neal,

    I said:
    "The first problem is, the mere concepts of mercy and justice are based on the concepts of culpable evil. You can't think of mercy/satisfaction/justice/wrath without thinking of the concept of sin. Hence, the concept of sin is wrapped up in God's essence also."

    The greater good is supposed to be the radiation of God’s essence, which comprises the features of mercy and justice. The demonstration and actual outworking of these features is supposed to be so good as to outweigh the foregoing evils. But you cannot define mercy, justice and wrath without reference to sin. They are only thinkable in connection with evil.

    That God can conceptualize sin does not mean that God is a sinner does it? Are you claiming that a good God cannot conceptualize sin? Sounds like a denial of omniscience to me.

    Not even the thought of evil is intrinsically stored in God’s essence. The issue is not what God “can” or “cannot” conceptualize but whether he *does* conceptualize sin in his innate attributes. And I say clearly no. But if mercy and justice are innate concepts of God, then sin is so also, that is, the idea of sin must have been “forethought” by God. That’s objectionable.

    Regarding culpability:
    What Calvinist has ever said that man is not culpable for his sins?[....]
    Man is guilty because he sins. Is that really so hard for you to understand?


    But why do they sin? Because this serves the greater good. The greater good is the exhibition of mercy and justice? What are these categories? They are responses to sin! Don’t you see the circularity of the greater good reasoning?

    Here’s the circle:
    You say man is guilty because he sins. And he sins because mercy shall be shown. And mercy can only be shown where someone is guilty.

    Unless your god is really playing puppet theatre, the issue of culpability is open and so the entire theodicy problem is as open as at the beginning. The whole greater good reasoning was just a circle.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why did Paul even use this metaphor? You are being absolutely incoherent. You can't have a non-specific potter deciding to do anything with the clay.

    Yes, that was actually what I said. A hypothetical potter. He has power over a likewise hypothetical lump.

    You claim the potter is nobody specific, but then you imply that the identity of the potter is indeed God when you say: The potter decides what to do with the clay. This means, no one has any works-based claims on God that would merit grace and salvation.

    Yes, there’s nothing incoherent. Just like the clay cannot claim anything from the potter, so the objector cannot claim anything from God. He has no rights regarding salvation, but this is up to God alone. That’s all. Important to note: Verses 20-21 do not make an actual statement of God making different vessels. Rather God’s sovereignty is compared to the sovereignty of a potter. But there’s nothing that suggests that God actually does form vessels to dishonour in these verses!

    Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? I've already pointed out that 22-24 don't need to mention God as the potter of bad vessels, when 20-21 have already established that God is the potter of both good and bad vessels. (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  39. The reason why I keep pointing to Verse 22-24 is because the emphasis here is actually not on who made the vessels for destruction. The question of authorship of the bad vessels isn’t clearly addressed but what is clearly addressed is the fact that God bore these bad vessels with great patience. The text doesn’t emphasize God’s creatorship of the bad vessels but to the contrary, it emphasizes that He bore them with great patience! The text not only “misses” to explicitly point out God as the creator of these wicked vessels, but quite to the opposite, explicitly points out that God bore them with longsuffering.

    And why?

    Because this is a way to bring the good vessels to revelation. That’s what the text says, and you need inch-thick reformed tradition glasses in order to completely override the meaning of patience towards bad vessels and see the very opposite in the text, namely God’s authorship (and hence approval, at least tacitly) of these bad vessels! Yes, this requires inch-thick tradition glasses.

    Why is the reformed interpretation of Rom. 9,22-24 so odd? The keyword there is “longsuffering”. Notice the striking similarity between this text and the parable of the wheat and the tares. Why shall the servants not rip out the tares right away? – Because they look so similar to the wheat and they might rip the wheat out along with the tares. But at the end, the wheat will become clearly apparent, and this is why the tares are borne with great patience all along just like the bad vessels of Rom. 9,22-23!

    Notice the similarity between this text and the vineyard owner of Luke 13,6-9. When he comes to inspect the garden a certain tree bears no fruit. But instead of having the tree cut down immediately, be shows patience, in order to see whether the tree is going to be fruitful in the end. When the harvest comes, the difference between good and bad trees becomes visible. The same is said about the vessels in Romans 9,22-23!

    Notice the saying about the fishing net in Matthew 13,27. There are good and bad fish mixed together in the net. But the fishermen sit down to scrutinize each fish and so it becomes apparent which is good and which is bad. The bad fish are pulled up together with the good in the beginning, the same is said to hold true for the bad vessels of Romans 9,22-23!

    Sound exegesis is based on juxtapositions of similar texts where the same state of affairs is approached by different authors, where this is possible. You read Romans 9 in isolation and miss the broader issues.

    Again, the keyword is “longsuffering”, which is quite contrary to “authorship” isn’t it? Unless you come with reformed prejudices.

    I've already pointed out that 22-24 don't need to mention God as the potter of bad vessels, when 20-21 have already established that God is the potter of both good and bad vessels.

    I think I’ve shown now how absurd this is! And since this is allegedly the strongest Calvinist proof text, the reformed fundament is very weak indeed!

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  40. Neal,

    All theodicies are based on a theory of greater good for the evil that exists. That's what theodicy is all about.


    Ok, but there's a pivotal difference between, say, the free will defense and the reformed theodicy. In the free will theodicy, the greater good is free will. Evil is a by-product that doesn't serve a greater good in itself. It is thinkable that humans always make the right choices and so the greater good of free will would be realized without evil.

    In the reformed greater good defense on the other hand, God wilfully utilizes the means of evil in order to reach a certain goal. Evil is consciously invoked as a means to get God where he wants to get. Evil is not a by-product but a calculated part of God's plan. That's objectionable and therefore the reformed theodicy is under attack.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  41. A HELMET SAID:

    “You have some idea of what potter of vessels for dishonor means don't you?”

    According to Paul, God is the potter of both honorable and dishonorable vessels.

    “And it doesn`t justify this foolish Manichaeism comparison.”

    You just confirmed that comparison with your two-potter dualism.

    “Remember I was asked to define the expression ‘author of sin’, and so I did.”

    You didn’t define it. Using one metaphor to “define” another is not a definition. Picture-language is not self-defining. You’re giving us pictures without captions.

    “It's a metaphor, yes, but there's a meaning behind evey metaphor.”

    In which case you need to give us the non-metaphorical meaning.

    “The style of the book of Job is poetry. It's allegorical.”

    Poetry and allegory are two different things. You need to justify your allegorical classification. Moreover, for someone who’s so addicted of metaphors, why would you object to using allegory? An allegory is just an extended metaphor.

    “The first problem is, the mere concepts of mercy and justice are based on the concepts of culpable evil. You can't think of mercy/satisfaction/justice/wrath without thinking of the concept of sin. Hence, the concept of sin is wrapped up in God's essence also.”

    You label that a “problem,” but you don’t give a reason. A description is not an argument.

    “The second problem is, if the exhibition of mercy and justice are truly demonstrating two innate characteristics of God, and if the mercy shall in any way genuine and the wrath shall in any way be genuine, then the underlying culpability that prompts these divine responses must likewise be genuine. ”

    Once again, you label that a “problem,” but using the adjective “genuine” three times in one sentence is not an argument.

    “Why is man guilty anyway? -- Simply by definition?”

    Calvinists have answered that question. You offer no counterargument.

    “The idea of sin must have been “forethought” by God. That’s objectionable.”

    How is that objectionable? Do you think God is ignorant?

    “Don’t you see the circularity of the greater good reasoning? Here’s the circle: You say man is guilty because he sins. And he sins because mercy shall be shown. And mercy can only be shown where someone is guilty.”

    Don’t you see the circularity of blogging? Here’s the circle. Kröger blogs because Kröger is a blogger. Kröger is a blogger because Kröger blogs! (They're mutually defining.) Therefore, Kröger can’t be a real blogger, since that puts the horse before the cart. Blogger.com is playing puppet theater!

    “Why is the reformed interpretation of Rom. 9,22-24 so odd? The keyword there is ‘longsuffering’.”

    Exegetes like Schreiner, Piper, and Moo explain the function of divine longsufferance.

    “Sound exegesis is based on juxtapositions of similar texts where the same state of affairs is approached by different authors, where this is possible.”

    i) You’re not interpreting Pauline imagery in a Pauline context.

    ii) Different authors can use the same imagery to denote very different things.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Not even the thought of evil is intrinsically stored in God’s essence.

    So God is ignorant of evil?

    The issue is not what God “can” or “cannot” conceptualize but whether he *does* conceptualize sin in his innate attributes. And I say clearly no.

    "Clearly", you don't know what you are talking about. You make a distinction without a difference. If God does not (or could not) conceptualize sin, then sin is a complete surprise to God when it occurs, which means God only found out about it after the fact. But that also means he only found out he was merciful and just after the fact as well, according to your own admission that the concepts of mercy and justice can only be realized in contract to the concept of evil.

    But if mercy and justice are innate concepts of God, then sin is so also, that is, the idea of sin must have been “forethought” by God. That’s objectionable.

    Why would that be objectionable? Because it conflicts with your dualism?

    Important to note: Verses 20-21 do not make an actual statement of God making different vessels. Rather God’s sovereignty is compared to the sovereignty of a potter. But there’s nothing that suggests that God actually does form vessels to dishonour in these verses!

    You are contradicting yourself. I'll leave off here, because the rest of what you wrote are just more of these same incoherent ramblings.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I said:

    All theodicies are based on a theory of greater good for the evil that exists. That's what theodicy is all about.

    a helmet said:

    Ok, but there's a pivotal difference between, say, the free will defense and the reformed theodicy. In the free will theodicy, the greater good is free will. Evil is a by-product that doesn't serve a greater good in itself.

    You are contradicting yourself again. Which is it? Is there a greater good or not? You can't have it both ways. Either free will is the greater good that is being served, or there is no greater good being served.

    It is thinkable that humans always make the right choices and so the greater good of free will would be realized without evil.

    Exactly! So you prove that the free will defense doesn't wash.

    In the reformed greater good defense on the other hand, God wilfully utilizes the means of evil in order to reach a certain goal. Evil is consciously invoked as a means to get God where he wants to get. Evil is not a by-product but a calculated part of God's plan. That's objectionable and therefore the reformed theodicy is under attack.


    How is that a difference? In both cases you have God willfully utilizing evil to "get God where he wants to get". On the one hand God wants to protect the free will of man, on the other he glorifies himself. Moreover, as you admitted above, the free will defense doesn't wash, since God could have created man in a state of free will in which he never sinned. The glorification is just such a state, unless you want to claim that God will be the "puppet master" of heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Neal,

    I see no contradiction. Obviously we must look at this more in-depth. Verses 20-21 about the molder and the potter are prompted by the objection that God “hardens whom he wills”. The potter analogy underlines God’s sovereignty over his creation. The potter is simply master over the clay. So is God master over mankind. Basically we could leave it at that because there is no further mention of what the potter actually decides to do. But since the underlying fact that prompted this analogy in the first place was the mentioning of God’s sovereign hardening, we should go down the road of figuring out the mystery of the divine hardening, that is, how this hardening is done because if we are raising the objection (of verse 19) then perhaps it is just because we are hardened ourselves?? And if we understood the mystery of the hardening, perhaps thereby we’d become un-hardened and understand this whole diatribe here better?

    ReplyDelete
  45. (continue)

    Let’s face it. How was the Pharaoh hardened? Whenever God sent a plague the Egypts were severely shaken but eventually the plagues were withdrawn and everything was alright again. In the beginning the Pharaoh’s own forces were even quite well in contest with the God of the Hebrews. God spared the Pharaoh’s life and restored him to well-being after a period of suffering. With what effect? After seeing that everything really hadn’t been that bad, the Pharaoh would become boastful again. He would come to the conclusion that this God couldn’t be that mighty, angry or serious because he, the Pharaoh, would still reign in sovereign power! God’s longsuffering granted Pharaoh to overcome all the plagues. When do people repent? In good times or rather in bad times? Of course people rather repent in bad times and good times are times of boast. God’s patience towards the Pharaoh confirmed Egypt’s ruler in his self-assurance that he was alright! God’s longsuffering left him in his self-deception and false security. God’s hardening mechanism was his longsuffering.

    When poisonous tares grow among good seed, then their maturation and growth (increase in evil) is likewise that “hardening”. Because if God wasn’t patient towards the tares and didn’t postpone their destruction, they wouldn’t maturate (become worse). This unfolding of evil due to maturation is the hardening. And it is possible by God’s longsuffering. The holy one doesn’t contribute anything actively to the development and increase of wickedness.

    The hardening is also encountered by Jesus Christ’s role as the cornerstone with an ambivalent function. Concerning this cornerstone Romans 9,33 says

    “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.'”

    Christ, the cornerstone can work in two ways: If you believe in him, he is your savior. If you reject him, he is you stumbling stone. This stumbling function that makes people fall is divine hardening, for it was God who laid this stone in Zion!

    How then, does Jesus Christ’s hardening work? If you believe that God raised the crucified Kyrios from the grave and accredited him by lifting him up to heavenly glory, then you believe that the crucifixion had a redemptive, good meaning.

    Now it becomes interesting: If you are a sincere Jew and if you don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God and approved of by the Father, then you believe that God’s final word about Jesus was the curse of crucifixion, for “cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree”. As a sincere Jew who doesn’t believe in Jesus, you would have to conclude that not only was Jesus not approved by God, but to the contrary: What Jesus taught (for instance the ethics of the sermon on the mountain, about Sabbath keeping, about fasting, food regulations etc) was explicitly despised by God. Thus, as a Jesus rejecting Jew you have to infer that Jesus’ teaching was not only neutral or wrong but really an abomination! And so you’d be confirmed in your mosaic law keeping efforts that only bring knowledge of sin and divert from ever gaining eternal life. You’d be hardened in your stubborn legalistic death-bringing works religion. You’d be convinced of your works religion more than before! That’s how divine hardening work via Jesus’ role as a cornerstone. God isn’t actively involved in any development of evil!

    ReplyDelete
  46. (continue)

    Now, the objector of Romans 9,19 doesn’t know these things but only thinks the Jews can earn blessings by works. This prompts v.20-21, but the mystery of the hardening isn’t unveiled there by pointing out that God actively creates bad vessels. Yet this is what you Calvinists want everyone to think by a hasty inference from merely two verses that are read in isolation! However, if juxtapositions of germane sayings are possible, then this leads to a coherent interpretation. Apropos (in)cohrerence: Isolated reading of texts causes incoherence, yet this is exactly what Calvinists do here.

    The rest of what you wrote are just more of these same incoherent ramblings.

    No, comparative studies are always recommended rather than reading critical texts in isolation, as just said. Incoherence results rather from the Calvinistic focussing on this passage as a foundational pillar for an entire theological system, dismissing any comparative studies here.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  47. Neal,

    I'm not an advocate for the free will defense, so I won't defend this view here. Of course, you can say the free will defense is also a "greater good" defense, because free will is the greater good.

    But I do see a difference between the reformed greater good view and the free will defense. But again, I don't embrace either view, so I won't talk about the free will defense here.

    ReplyDelete
  48. a helmet said:

    I see no contradiction. Obviously we must look at this more in-depth.

    Is that a royal "we"?

    a helmet said:

    Verses 20-21 about the molder and the potter are prompted by the objection that God “hardens whom he wills”. The potter analogy underlines God’s sovereignty over his creation. The potter is simply master over the clay. So is God master over mankind. Basically we could leave it at that because there is no further mention of what the potter actually decides to do. But since the underlying fact that prompted this analogy in the first place was the mentioning of God’s sovereign hardening, we should go down the road of figuring out the mystery of the divine hardening, that is, how this hardening is done because if we are raising the objection (of verse 19) then perhaps it is just because we are hardened ourselves?? And if we understood the mystery of the hardening, perhaps thereby we’d become un-hardened and understand this whole diatribe here better?

    You sound very confused. Exactly how does one become "un-hardened" from a divine hardening unless it is a divine un-hardening?

    a helmet said:

    Now, the objector of Romans 9,19 doesn’t know these things but only thinks the Jews can earn blessings by works. This prompts v.20-21, but the mystery of the hardening isn’t unveiled there by pointing out that God actively creates bad vessels.

    You're right. Paul is pointing out that God makes both good vessels and bad vessels. You are the one who is hung up on the bad vessels. Calvinists just accept what the text says. You hurl yourself through all these gymnastic manouvers to try to escape the force of the text, even to the point of saying we shouldn't take Paul so seriously on this potter thing.

    a helmet said:

    Yet this is what you Calvinists want everyone to think by a hasty inference from merely two verses that are read in isolation!

    It is you who keep harping on Romans 9:20-24. But it's not as if the Calvinist position hangs entirely on these verses as you suggest. You have the whole weight of scripture against you. Why does the scripture talk in terms of "election", "predestination", "God's choice" etc.? Why does Christ say no-one can come to him unless he is drawn by the father? (John 6:44) Not only that, but when the disciples start grumbling he repeats the claim even more forcefully! (John 6:64-65) Why are God's people called a "chosen race"? (1 Peter 2:9) Why does God love Jacob but hate Esau even from the womb? (Romans 9:10-13) Why did God raise up Pharoah? (Romans 9:17) Why does Paul say God has mercy on whom he desires, and hardens whom he desires (Romans 9:18) Why does John, quoting Isaiah, speaking of those who didn't believe despite having seen the miracles, say that God "HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND HEAL THEM" (John 12:37-40), This shows that not only Romans 9:20-21 are against you, but the entire chapter of Romans 9 and the entire weight of scripture itself.

    These examples can be multiplied. Your claim that the Calvinist position hangs on two verses is false.

    a helmet said:

    I'm not an advocate for the free will defense, so I won't defend this view here.

    Nice convenient thing to say after having tried to defend it and failed. But I think we're getting the picture here. You don't have a theodicy because you think your dualism doesn't require it.

    Please answer this question: Will people have free will in heaven? Will they sin? Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hello Neal,

    Thanks for your response.

    Is that a royal "we"?

    “We” is everyone who doesn’t approach the text as an advocate (position defender) but like a judge (objective, detached observer). A Lawyers’ role is to find evidence for his favored position which he decided beforehand to defend. Then his job is it to defend it at any cost, come what may. But no wonder, there is a severe danger of falling into the trap of narrow-mindedness.

    You sound very confused. Exactly how does one become "un-hardened" from a divine hardening unless it is a divine un-hardening?

    Did you understand what I wrote about Jesus’ function as a cornerstone that can either save or harden? Everyone who understands this and believes is thereby un-hardened. Un-hardening is by the spirit of truth and receiving the spirit of truth means understanding. If you think divine “hardening” and “un-hardening” are some unfathomable, mysterious manipulations of one’s mind or heart or something like that, you are in grave error. In fact if you don’t know what the hardening actually is, it’s because you are hardened. You lack understanding of the truth. You are in darkness. Un-hardening is by listening to those who speak the truth. The words of truth however are from God. There’s no inscrutable influence exerted on people’s minds, heart and feelings. That’s nonsense.

    So again, to answer your question “how exactly one becomes un-hardened from divine hardening”, it is as follows:

    You hear the word of truth.
    The word of truth originates with God, so it conveys the spirit of God.
    Therefore, the receipt of the word of truth is a receipt of the spirit. Hence, it is a divine “un-hardening”. Everyone who understands becomes un-hardened.


    Paul is pointing out that God makes both good vessels and bad vessels.

    I’m sorry, but I must repeat myself – that’s not in the text.

    You are the one who is hung up on the bad vessels. Calvinists just accept what the text says.

    Where exactly does the text say that God creates a single bad vessel? WHERE?

    You hurl yourself through all these gymnastic manouvers to try to escape the force of the text, even to the point of saying we shouldn't take Paul so seriously on this potter thing.

    No. I’m not saying we shouldn’t take Paul so seriously! I simply said we shouldn’t rip two verses out of the broader message and context by highlighting them in isolation. And that hardly means we shouldn’t take it seriously. We shouldn’t use it as a proof-text, that’s the point and in fact, WHERE does Paul even say that God makes a single bad vessel? If you describe comparative studies and juxtapositions of germane sayings as “gymnastic manouvers” then you are really proof-texting and playing a lawyer’s role here rather than a judge role. Yes, sound exegesis (rather than eisegesis) is a little more than pointing to two verses and highlighting them in isolation. Did you even notice what I wrote about vs. 22-24 and God’s patience?

    Regarding “force of the text”. You can focus on many, many isolated verses in the bible and discover a “force of the text” in them. All proof-texting is based on this opinion. Yet it doesn’t help, context and coherence will bear the whole picture out.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It is you who keep harping on Romans 9:20-24. But it's not as if the Calvinist position hangs entirely on these verses as you suggest.

    No. Did you understand that vs.20-21 are prompted by the fact that God “hardens whom he wills” and the objector (v.19) doesn’t understand this? That’s the real issue and I explained to you what the divine, sovereign hardening is all about! Did you grasp that?

    Furthermore, I don’t keep harping on the passage, for me it is sufficient to show a negative, namely that it doesn’t prove the doctrines of grace.

    You have the whole weight of scripture against you. Why does the scripture talk in terms of "election", "predestination", "God's choice" etc.?

    Okay, obviously you’re conceding that this Rom. 9 passage isn’t quite that airtight. Of course the word election occurs many times in the bible, predestination a couple of times. And of course one must deal with these, but they have nothing to do with the doctrines of grace. The elect are saints, not sinners. The elect are wheat, not weeds. The elect are “good fish” not “bad fish”. The elect are those who love God, not those who hate God. The elect are vessels unto honor, not vessels unto dishonour. And so on.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Why does Christ say no-one can come to him unless he is drawn by the father? (John 6:44)

    I’m going to write a thorough article on the reformed usage of John 6,37-44 soon. But I’ll provide a short answer to this question here:

    Why does Christ say no-one can come to him unless he is drawn by the father?
    Because only the righteous ones will be admitted to Christ’s wedding banquet . The father, who is king, will not admit any sinners! To be righteous however, means to be “drawn” by godly motives, rather than by one’s flesh. The father doesn’t give sinners to Christ, but saints. Again, the elect are saints, not sinners.

    Not only that, but when the disciples start grumbling he repeats the claim even more forcefully! (John 6:64-65)

    If someone doesn’t believe in Christ, he’ll stay in his sins. Yet sinners won’t be granted entrance into the kingdom of God, which is given to the son. Sinners aren’t admitted by the father to attend the wedding feast of his son. Therefore, unless you believe the gospel you won’t receive righteousness (wedding garment) and so won’t be able to taste the precious wedding meal (bread of life). If you think God the father gives sinners to Christ you are in grave error. The elect are saints, not sinners.

    The context of this John 6 passage is the teaching about the communion motif. Communion is agape the closest possible union with God, which is elsewhere allegorized by the wedding supper. Since God is absolutely self-sufficient and self-sustaining, the wedding meal is not some addition extra “accessoire” but ultimately divine itself—the flesh and blood of the son of man. This is John’s way of teaching about the kingdom of God and its particulars.

    And again, the calvinistic usage of John 6,37-65 is based on a neglect of context and comparative studies and instead needs to impose extra-biblical sophistic concepts on the passage (Total Deprvity, Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace) in order to make sense of it. Yet it is fallacious to impose unscriptural concepts and complexity on a passage without a need to do so!

    Why does God love Jacob but hate Esau even from the womb? (Romans 9:10-13)

    Because Paul is onto something which is going to become clear in the broader picture. Again, proof-texting doesn’t help.

    The rest revolves around the hardening issue again. Here’s a counter-question: Do we know *whom* God desires to harden? Do we know *whom* God desires to have mercy on?

    Your claim that the Calvinist position hangs on two verses is false.

    Well, of course there are several scriptural pillars that shall serve to buttress Calvinism. The problem however is, that they all fail to provide a solid basis for the doctrines of grace. Each “proof-text” is a holey bucket. Several holey bucket-like fundaments don’t buttress a house.


    Nice convenient thing to say after having tried to defend [the free will defense] and failed.

    No, I don’t defend the free will theodiy at all.

    Please answer this question: Will people have free will in heaven?

    I don’t know.

    Will they sin?

    No.

    Why not?

    Because they love God.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  52. a helmet said:

    “We” is everyone who doesn’t approach the text as an advocate (position defender) but like a judge (objective, detached observer).

    You give yourself too much credit. No objective observer of your arguments could come to the conclusion that you are doing anything but trying to escape the meaning of the text.

    a helmet said:

    A Lawyers’ role is to find evidence for his favored position which he decided beforehand to defend. Then his job is it to defend it at any cost, come what may. But no wonder, there is a severe danger of falling into the trap of narrow-mindedness.

    There is also a severe danger of the pot calling the kettle black.

    a helmet said:

    Did you even notice what I wrote about vs. 22-24 and God’s patience?

    Yes, but you've written the same before. It was just as unconvincing the second time you wrote it.

    a helmet said:

    No. Did you understand that vs.20-21 are prompted by the fact that God “hardens whom he wills” and the objector (v.19) doesn’t understand this? That’s the real issue and I explained to you what the divine, sovereign hardening is all about! Did you grasp that?

    I guess I'm at a loss here. To me, the fact that God "hardens who he wills" means that he "hardens whom he wills". But I guess that's just my narrow-minded understanding.

    Furthermore, I don’t keep harping on the passage, for me it is sufficient to show a negative, namely that it doesn’t prove the doctrines of grace.

    Just don't get so puffed up as to think you've actually accomplished that with your incoherent exegesis. Besides, it was you who claimed that the doctrines of grace hang on two verses.

    a helmet said:

    Okay, obviously you’re conceding that this Rom. 9 passage isn’t quite that airtight.

    Obviously you can't follow an argument. I was dealing with your claim that Calvinism hangs on two verses. I disproved your point by pointing to counter-examples.

    a helmet said:

    Of course the word election occurs many times in the bible, predestination a couple of times. And of course one must deal with these, but they have nothing to do with the doctrines of grace.

    Uh, yeah sure. If they have nothing to do with the doctrines of grace, why must they be dealt with? I'm interested in knowing exactly how you deal with them. Not just a trite dismissal. You are the one who has taken on the task of trying to disprove Calvinism, remember? That means you have to provide coherent arguments. So far your attempts are little more than a comedic sideshow.

    ReplyDelete
  53. a helmet said:

    To be righteous however, means to be “drawn” by godly motives, rather than by one’s flesh. The father doesn’t give sinners to Christ, but saints. Again, the elect are saints, not sinners.

    No, the Greek word, ‘helkō’ used for draw means “to drag off", or to compel. It is the same greek word used in Acts 16:19: "…they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities."

    And the elect are both sinners and saints. You present a false dichotomy.

    a helmet said:

    If someone doesn’t believe in Christ, he’ll stay in his sins. Yet sinners won’t be granted entrance into the kingdom of God, which is given to the son. Sinners aren’t admitted by the father to attend the wedding feast of his son. Therefore, unless you believe the gospel you won’t receive righteousness (wedding garment) and so won’t be able to taste the precious wedding meal (bread of life).

    I'm not even sure we disagree on the above, but why do you think it is relevant? What specifically is it about the wedding feast that you think conflicts with the doctrines of grace?

    a helmet said:

    And again, the calvinistic usage of John 6,37-65 is based on a neglect of context and comparative studies and instead needs to impose extra-biblical sophistic concepts on the passage

    Please, at least pick up a book and read it before you make such stupid statements. There are volumes of Reformed exegesis so your claim is just asinine.

    The rest revolves around the hardening issue again. Here’s a counter-question: Do we know *whom* God desires to harden? Do we know *whom* God desires to have mercy on?

    No, but no reformed writer has ever claimed such. Why is your question even relevant?

    Well, of course there are several scriptural pillars that shall serve to buttress Calvinism. The problem however is, that they all fail to provide a solid basis for the doctrines of grace. Each “proof-text” is a holey bucket. Several holey bucket-like fundaments don’t buttress a house.

    One gets the feeling that you like to stack the deck in your favor. Every appeal to scripture you make is based on sound exegesis and solid "comparative studies" while every appeal to scripture that a Calvinist makes is "proof-texting". Nice level playing field there guy.

    Apparently John was "proof-texting" Isaiah 6:9-10 in John 12:37-40 too.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Neal,

    What about my comments on 9,22-24 " was just as unconvincing the second time you wrote it."?

    Is it convincing that God bears with much patience the vessels he himself made? How convincing is such a schizophrenic view unless one comes with inch-thick tradition glasses? I'm not being polemical here, this is a serious question: Why should it in any way be plausible that God is long-suffering towards something he himself created on his own will? Why is that a plausible interpretation? You would need extraordinarily strong support for such an unlikely interpretation. Any interpretation that gets by without such a schizophrenic twist should ceteris paribus be preferred over such a blatantly anti-rational understanding. Likely meanings are preferrable over unlikely ones. That's a basic exegetical rule also. So what was unconvincing?

    To me, the fact that God "hardens who he wills" means that he "hardens whom he wills".

    I agree. But fortunately we know more. We are revealed whom God wills to harden. This mystery of God's will has been unveiled. God wills that believers get mercy and unbelievers to be hardened. This is why one must not stop at v.9,22 drawing a line that says "No further reading recommended!". This is why context and the broader picture is crucial. The reason why you guys are so confused about God's will is because you don't believe what God revealed about his will. BTW a mystery made known is not a mystery any more.

    It seems that to you the fact that God "hardens whom he wills" is a somewhat profound mystery, right? You think there's some unfathomable, mysterious influence being invoked behind the veil or something like that, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  55. the Greek word, ‘helkō’ used for draw means “to drag off", or to compel. It is the same greek word used in Acts 16:19: "…they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities."

    Yes, the word carries the meaning of compel. Many are dragged in some sense, but not all are dragged by the father. Where else do we find this idea in the gospel?

    “Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.” 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.” (Matthew 22,9-10)

    This gathering is the dragging. Correspondingly:

    “Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.” 22 ' “Sir,” the servant said, “what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.” 23 'Then the master told his servant, “Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full” (Luke 14,21-23)

    The meaning of compelling and gathering people is clear here. That’s what it means “to draw” in John 6,44. Now, notice that not all who are picked up are actually welcome (“both good and bad”). Those who are gathered around Jesus in the John 6 setting desired an ever ongoing miracle of bread supply but according to their own agenda. They desired to make Jesus king (John 6,15) but a king of this world.

    Now, Jesus was indeed going to become a king, yet he would receive his kingship from someone else: God the Father would give the kingdom of God to the son, the successor on the throne (John 6,37). He should reign without end on the throne of David (6,38). The kingdom of God shall outlast the world and so shall the inhabitants of this kingdom (6,39).

    And there's more: This kingdom would be completely different than what the unbelieving people were expecting: “The kingdom of God is like a king who prepares the wedding banquet for his son”. The citizens of God’s kingdom are the guests who attend the wedding feast. (“The kingdom of God is like....”).

    You must be righteous in order to come to Christ

    ReplyDelete
  56. So some people “come to Christ” but in another meaning of the term. They are “drawn by their belly”, they come without proper attire (Matthew 22,11-13), they are going to be “cast out”. They aren’t worthy. They aren’t given by the Father to the Son. In other words, the king who issues the invitation and calls the guests, won’t admit them. So many people are attracted to come to Christ, yet the motives are quite different. Obviously the man without a wedding garment isn’t drawn by the Father, but by his own motives. So are those “many of his disciples who turned back and no longer followed him” (John 6,66).


    And the elect are both sinners and saints. You present a false dichotomy.

    No, there is never a linkage between the elect and sinners in the bible.

    a helmet said:
    If someone doesn’t believe in Christ, he’ll stay in his sins. Yet sinners won’t be granted entrance into the kingdom of God, which is given to the son. Sinners aren’t admitted by the father to attend the wedding feast of his son. Therefore, unless you believe the gospel you won’t receive righteousness (wedding garment) and so won’t be able to taste the precious wedding meal (bread of life)….

    I'm not even sure we disagree on the above, but why do you think it is relevant?


    The Calvinistic understanding of the Father’s giving people to Christ is that the objects that are so given are sinners. According to this opinion the father picks up dirty sinners, transfers them over to the son so that the son should in turn cleanse them. Yet this is not the right perspective to begin with.
    The phrase “to come to Christ” carries the eschatological meaning of salvation. In the ultimate, eschatological sense God is the savior of the righteous, not the wicked (Rev. 19,8-9). Thus, the underlying understanding of “coming to Christ” is not along the lines of the question “how do I get my sins forgiven?”. Rather it is the entrance into God’s kingdom by those who are already righteous. Because of the already-not-yet double nature of the kingdom of God and its overlapping with the current world, the “coming to Christ” happens now already for those who believe and have washed their clothes. Yet “coming to Christ” is semantically the same as attendance of the wedding feast, which is only possible for those who have believed.

    ReplyDelete
  57. What specifically is it about the wedding feast that you think conflicts with the doctrines of grace?

    When the father “grants” it to come to Christ (John 6,65) it doesn’t mean that the father enables someone to believe in Christ. It means that the father “grants” entry to the wedding feast, that is, he grants it to someone to “come to Christ”.
    However, calvinists eisegetically think the Father bestows the ability to believe the gospel here.

    What Jesus is saying that unless you believe in him, you cannot come to him. For you stay in your sins. Consequently, the father won’t let you in. Correspondingly, you must have a proper attire to come to the feast. No proper attire means lack of righteousness and no admittance.

    Please, at least pick up a book and read it before you make such stupid statements. There are volumes of Reformed exegesis so your claim is just asinine.

    A Calvinist commentator said that three of the doctrines of grace (Total depravity, unconditional election and irresistible grace) are found within the boundaries of John 6:35-45. However, what if a sound interpretation of this passage is possible without imposing new complexity on the text by introducing theological concepts that are foreign to the scriptures? It is unwise to introduce arcane concepts on the passage and additional complexity if that’s absolutely unnecessary. So if the passage John 6:35-45 can be understood without the introduction of 3 of the man-made so-called doctrines of grace, the such an interpretation should be preferred. And besides that, the passage cannot serve as a fundamental pillar of Calvinism.

    I said Do we know *whom* God desires to harden? Do we know *whom* God desires to have mercy on?

    No, but no reformed writer has ever claimed such. Why is your question even relevant?


    God desires to save the believers in Jesus Christ and so he does. God gets exactly what he wills. And fortunately, we have been revealed what God wills. No mysteries here. If someone doesn’t believe then God’s will isn’t thwarted. Rather the other side of the coin is then relevant: Jesus becomes a stumbling block and a judge.

    Well, of course there are several scriptural pillars that shall serve to buttress Calvinism. The problem however is, that they all fail to provide a solid basis for the doctrines of grace. Each “proof-text” is a holey bucket. Several holey bucket-like fundaments don’t buttress a house.

    Every appeal to scripture you make is based on sound exegesis and solid "comparative studies" while every appeal to scripture that a Calvinist makes is "proof-texting".

    Ever wondered why the potter analogy of Romans 9 isn’t seized anywhere else in the bible? It’s quite unlikely that nobody else deals with the spiritual truths treated there. However, other biblical authors might use different analogies and different words to convey the same truths. Thus, one should look for comparable state of affairs to the Romans 9 potter imagery in the rest of the bible. That’s what I do. Ever wondered why the the bread of life discourse (John 6:35-65) is only found in the gospel account of John? Ever wondered why the important kingdom motif that is so prevalent in the synoptics doesn’t occur in John’s gospel at all? Ever wondered why there is no further backing of such critical verses like John 6,37, 44 and 65 by any other gospel narrator or elsewhere in the NT?
    Well, since John doesn’t write about a different Jesus and a different teaching it is reasonable to think that the other biblical authors do deal with the same state of affairs too. Yet they obviously do so in quite different terms and different ways. That’s why comparative studies are crucial and the Calvinistic treatment of John 6,37-44 in isolation is objectionable. Proof-texting is the treatment of texts in isolation.


    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  58. There are volumes of Reformed exegesis so your claim is just asinine.

    No. Seriously, I challenge all calvinists to debate the meaning of John 6,35-45 wiht me.

    ReplyDelete
  59. a helmet said:

    Yes, the word carries the meaning of compel. Many are dragged in some sense, but not all are dragged by the father.

    Sorry but that's not what the text says. It says the exact opposite:

    "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (v44)

    Notice the word "can". "Can" implies ability. Therefore, no one has the ability unless the Father draws (drags, compels, etc.) him.


    The meaning of compelling and gathering people is clear here. That’s what it means “to draw” in John 6,44. Now, notice that not all who are picked up are actually welcome (“both good and bad”).

    Where do you get the notion that they were not welcome if they were compelled to come in?

    You must be righteous in order to come to Christ

    And this is what it comes down to isn't it? Your heresy is now complete. Congratulations.

    And Jesus answered and said to them, "{It is} not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. - Luke 5:31-32

    What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." - Romans 3:9-12

    ReplyDelete
  60. a helmet said:

    The phrase “to come to Christ” carries the eschatological meaning of salvation. In the ultimate, eschatological sense God is the savior of the righteous, not the wicked (Rev. 19,8-9).

    What is your exegetical argument for your claim that "come to Christ" carries eschatological meaning? Salvation is for those who need saving, not those who don't need saving. You are blurring distinctions. It is true that one must be righteous to be in the presense of God, but the scripture never says that God sent his son to save the righteous. The garments represent Christ's righteousness given to us so that we can stand in the presence of the King. Christ calls sinners to repentence. That's what it means to come to Christ. It means to repent of your sins, not your bizarre notions of eschatology.

    Ever wondered why the potter analogy of Romans 9 isn’t seized anywhere else in the bible? It’s quite unlikely that nobody else deals with the spiritual truths treated there.

    I agree, like John chapter 6:37-65; John 12:37-40, Isaiah 6:9-10, Proverbs 21:1, Ezekiel 37, Acts 13:48, 2 Thess. 2:13-14, 2 Tim. 1:9, Eph. 1:4,5

    However, what if a sound interpretation of this passage is possible without imposing new complexity on the text by introducing theological concepts that are foreign to the scriptures?

    Just try to entertain this possibility for a moment: have you ever considered that it is you who are imposing foreign meaning on the text? Like when you try to re-define "draw", "compel", "election", "predestined", "molder", "potter", etc. etc. etc. I mean, after awhile, I would think that you must be getting a bit uncomfortable dismissing scripture reference after scripture reference as "proof-texting". Do you think it might be because you yourself have presuppostions you are bringing to the text?

    That’s why comparative studies are crucial and the Calvinistic treatment of John 6,37-44 in isolation is objectionable. Proof-texting is the treatment of texts in isolation.

    So no matter what texts we show you, you will reply that we are proof-texting.
    By the way, why do you keep "proof-texting" from the wedding feast?

    No. Seriously, I challenge all calvinists to debate the meaning of John 6,35-45 wiht me.

    If you were serious you wouldn't constantly be accusing the other side of proof-texting. It is clear you have a very shallow grasp of Reformed theology, and you would do well to take my advice and pick up some books and start reading so you don't sound like someone who is merely obsessed with TULIP. You are not a competent exegete of scripture despite your delusions to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  61. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (v44) Notice the word "can". "Can" implies ability. Therefore, no one has the ability unless the Father draws (drags, compels, etc.) him.

    No one is able to enter heaven unless he is righteous! To come to Christ is equal in meaning with coming to the kingdom of God. Coming to the kingdom of God, however, is the eschatological salvation, it means to come to heaven. Who can come to heaven? Those who come with the righteousness in the sight of God. Sinners CANNOT come, they won't be let it.

    Everyone who is righteous is drawn by the Father. They are drawn by the love for God. That's what righteousness entails. Others are "drawn" by their flesh. They can come to Christ in the same manner as the unbelieving crowd of John 6 "came" to Christ. They "followed hime" over the sea and "sought" him. Yet they didn't "come to him" in the sense Jesus meant. They were unbelievers. Unbelievers stay in their sins. Sinners however, cannot taste the precious meal. Attendance at the wedding however, is a picture of admittance to heaven.

    John 6,44 says that nobody IS ABLE to enter the heavenly city, to come to the wedding of the lamb of God UNLESS he's a saint!

    Where do you get the notion that they were not welcome if they were compelled to come in?

    Consider the king's acquaintances that were first invited and wouldn't come? (Matthew 22,2-10).They went so far as to even kill the king's servants and so the king concluded that these people (Israel) were unworthy. This prompted the second invitation of "those on the streetcorners". Since the king didn't tolerate the sinfulness of his acquaintances, he won't tolerate the sinfulness of an anonymous, strange sinner picked up on the streets any more, will he? That's why he expelled the stranger without proper clothing. Not everyone who was picked up in the suburbs is welcome. Righteousness required. Not evey fish that is pulled up in the net is a good one. Not every plant that is nourished and finally reaped is a good one. Not every vessel that is borne is an honorable one. In the final analysis there's a dress code in heaven. And without a proper dress you aren't welcome. (Matthew 22,11-14; Revelation 19,9)

    ReplyDelete
  62. You must be righteous in order to come to Christ
    ...

    Your heresy is now complete.


    Who are those who enter heaven in the end? Are they sinners or saints? What is the prerequisite to enter heaven? It's righteousness.

    {It is} not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. - Luke 5:31-32

    There are two modes of salvation. A soteriological and a eschatological mode. The soteriological sense of salvation is about the forgiveness of sins. It is along the lines of "how do I get my sins forgiven".

    The eschatological mode of salvation is concerned with overcoming the evil world which is going to be destroyed. The eschatological salvation is comparable to entering an ark. This ark is the kingdom of God on earth. Whoever is in that kingdom is in the ark and will likewise overcome the world. Entering this ark is entering the wedding hall of the lamb of God!

    Who can enter this ark, and "come to Christ"? Those who are sinless.

    You receive forgiveness through faith. (Soteriological salvation)

    Then you have the righteousness of God and will inevitably come to the lamb's wedding (Eschatological salvation)

    TO COME TO ME in John 6,44 refers to the eschatological sense of salvation. Soteriological salvation precedes the eschatological one.

    "No one CAN COME....."

    The truth that some persons are unable to be saved is pointed out elsewhere too. See Luke 13,23-27:

    "Someone asked him, 'Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?' He said to them, 24 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, “Sir, open the door for us.” 'But he will answer, “I don't know you or where you come from.” 26 'Then you will say, “We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.” 27 'But he will reply, “I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!”"(Emphasis added)

    The inquiry about salvation in v.23 is eschatological. The salvation of Israel in the eschatological sense is meant here. Some will not make it through the narrow door. They will be unable. Why? The reason for the inability is given in v.27: iniquity.

    ReplyDelete
  63. a helmet said:

    It seems that to you the fact that God "hardens whom he wills" is a somewhat profound mystery, right? You think there's some unfathomable, mysterious influence being invoked behind the veil or something like that, don't you?

    You mean something like:

    "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." - John 3:5-8

    Oh, sorry, there I go "proof-texting" again.

    You are like Nicodemus, who thinks everything has to "make sense" from a human perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Neal,

    Salvation is for those who need saving, not those who don't need saving.

    Two things need to be clear here:

    Salvation of whom?

    Salvation from what?

    If you read Romans 8,18-39 you see that there is a lot of salvation. But none of the words "sin", or "sinners" appears in this entire section, but the objects here are the elect, those who love God (Romans 8,28). They are the objects of the "golden chain" of salvation. The saints are saved!

    The objects of the "golden chain of salvation" are the righteous ones! Those who love God. Not sinners!

    Second question: What are the saints saved from? The context of the encompassing section is sufferig, tribulation and persecution. Even the christians who have the firstfruits of the sprit are not spared from afflictions in this world, but God will save the elect from the wicked world in the end. That's the christians' hope.

    So Romans 8,18-39 speaks of salvation of saints who are saved from the evil world.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  65. No one is able to enter heaven unless he is righteous! To come to Christ is equal in meaning with coming to the kingdom of God.

    I ask again: Where is your exegetical evidence that coming to Christ is equal in meaning with coming to the eschatological kingdom of God? Your odd interpretations are exposing your presuppositions.

    Everyone who is righteous is drawn by the Father. They are drawn by the love for God.

    Sorry, but you are reading into the text. It does not say that.

    John 6,44 says that nobody IS ABLE to enter the heavenly city, to come to the wedding of the lamb of God UNLESS he's a saint!

    No it doesn't say that. It doesn't even mention the heavenly city or the wedding feast. It speaks of who is able to come to Christ.

    Who are those who enter heaven in the end? Are they sinners or saints? What is the prerequisite to enter heaven? It's righteousness.

    You are conflating repentence and coming to Christ with entrance into heaven.

    There are two modes of salvation. A soteriological and a eschatological mode.

    Didn't you complain that Calvinists believe in two wills of God? So why invoke two modes of salvation? Does the scripture speak explicitly of two modes of salvation? Or is it implicit? If implicit, how do you deal with the Calvinist position that the two wills of God is implicit as well?

    TO COME TO ME in John 6,44 refers to the eschatological sense of salvation.

    Just repeating assertions is not very compelling. Please provide your exegetical proof.

    ReplyDelete
  66. a helmet said:

    If you read Romans 8,18-39 you see that there is a lot of salvation. But none of the words "sin", or "sinners" appears in this entire section, but the objects here are the elect, those who love God (Romans 8,28). They are the objects of the "golden chain" of salvation. The saints are saved!

    And your point is what?

    Even the christians who have the firstfruits of the sprit are not spared from afflictions in this world, but God will save the elect from the wicked world in the end. That's the christians' hope.

    And your point is what?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Neal,

    As said above I’m going to post an article on all this very soon, so I wasn’t going to address each detail here now. So now, I’ll give you the answers piece by piece.

    I ask again: Where is your exegetical evidence that coming to Christ is equal in meaning with coming to the eschatological kingdom of God?

    First, it is remarkable that there are two words (to come and to believe) which are allegedly absolutely synonymous. According to Calvinism, “coming” is just another word for saying “believe”. I say that while it is true that all believers come to Christ and only believers come to Christ, there is a crucial semantic difference between “coming” and “believing”. There’s a reason why Jesus chose to express his teaching this way and why there are these two words used rather than a consequent use of “to believe” only.

    Sound exegesis demands a proper understanding of the terms and expressions used and the way expressions are used sometimes is a peculiarity of the particular author. Thus, the question must be asked how the author of an available scripture uses a certain expressions elsewhere. So are there further occurences of the phrase "to come to me" in the johannine gospel account, apart from chapter 6? Yes, there are two more ocurrences of "coming to Christ": In 3,21 and 5,40.

    “But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”

    This verse is referring to judgment and hence clearly eschatological in meaning. “To come to the light” refers to an eschatological mode of salvation. It presupposes something: Namely that the respective persons’ works “have been done in God”. This is contrasted with “evil works” that stay in the darkness. All who are righteous (works done in God) come to the light and only the righteous come to the light. It is nearby to understand “coming to the light” in the same sense as “come to Me [Christ]”, and therefore in an eschatological sense.

    The second instance (5,40):
    “yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

    This coming to Christ to have life seems to refer to an eschatological salvation too. It is coming to the source of the water of life, the final salvation the Jews were hoping for.

    Thus, an eschatological sense of "to come to Me [Christ]" fits in the johannine gospel narrative and is probably the intended sense of that phrase in John 6.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I said:Everyone who is righteous is drawn by the Father. They are drawn by the love for God.
    ...
    Sorry, but you are reading into the text. It does not say that.



    Are you suggesting there is anyone righteous who isn’t drawn by the father and hence won’t be raised up? Do those who come to Christ not love God?

    It is right that “drawn” isn’t further explained. It stands as a naked term. It is unlikely that the term means a physical action, right? So it is up to us to find the correct semantics of the terms used. The meanings of the critical terms “give”, “come” and “draw”. There is no dispute about the grammar of the text. There’s no debate about the syntax. However, unless we set the right meaning on the naked words “give” (what’s that supposed to mean here?) “come”, and “draw”, we can get the grammar completely right and still don’t know WHAT Jesus is actually talking about here.

    Thus, the crucial issue is semantics, the assignment of meaning to ambiguous words.

    I said:
    John 6,44 says that nobody IS ABLE to enter the heavenly city, to come to the wedding of the lamb of God UNLESS he's a saint! …..
    No it doesn't say that. It doesn't even mention the heavenly city or the wedding feast. It speaks of who is able to come to Christ.


    Neal, it doesn’t mention “effectual call” “inward address” or “regeneration” either! The task is to assigne meanings to the ambiguous expressions. “Drawn” doesn’t mean a physical action. So the question is, WHAT then does it mean?

    Calvinism does this by imposing sophistic theological concepts on the words:

    “all that” = the elect

    “to give” = pre-eternal decree / or the same meaning of “draw”.

    “to come” = saving faith

    “to draw” = irresistible grace, inward address

    But to use your own words now: The text doesn’t say any of that. Note, the proper meaning of these critical expressions (all that, give, come, draw) must be figured out!

    You are conflating repentence and coming to Christ with entrance into heaven.

    Why does John 6:65 not simply read: “Some of you don’t BELIEVE…that’s why I told you that no one can BELIEVE in me unless it is given him by the father?

    Why this switch in words ?

    Why does 6,44 not read: No one can BELIEVE in me unless….?

    Why does 6,37 not simply read? All that the Father gives me will BELIEVE in me?

    Please note, if John was intending to teach that FAITH is impossible without special divine aid, why then doesn’t he actually SPELL THAT OUT in clarity? Rather the critical verses don’t contain the verb “to believe” at all. And you are telling me I “read things into the text”?!

    ReplyDelete
  69. I don’t understand what you are saying about “two wills of God” now. It has nothing to do with anything I said before. However, you cannot get around the clear fact that while Jesus came to save sinners and seek the sick that are lost, the ultimate salvation is of the saints from the evil world. Perhaps that helps understand what “two” senses of salvation means. It’s biblical.


    TO COME TO ME in John 6,44 refers to the eschatological sense of salvation.

    If this meant that nobody can repent and believe in the gospel, then John’s key issue of his writing would be thwarted. The key issue is found in John 20:31 “These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name”.

    The position of 6,44 in the textual body is as a passing comment or at least a minor matter in between. The larger context is the bread of life teaching. If the verse meant “no one can believe” then it would thwart the principle theme, the writing’s overall key issue. It’s a severe hermeneutical blemish to adopt such an interpretation if there is an alternative interpretation that aligns with the key issue. If 6,44 meant that nobody can exercise faith on their own, this would be both against common sense and against John’s key issue (John 20,31) and so it is very unlikely that the author wouldn’t elaborate on this paradox any further.

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  70. And your point is what?

    That there is a meaning of "salvation" that denotes the deliverance of the saints from the evil world. The objects of salvation are righteous.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Where is your exegetical evidence that coming to Christ is equal in meaning with coming to the eschatological kingdom of God? Your odd interpretations are exposing your presuppositions.

    How about this: "To come to Christ" refers to the obtainment of the bread from heaven. The obtainment of the bread from heaven is communion.

    Now, does the bread of life teaching refer to the same spiritual reality as the lamb's wedding meal?

    Do they both symbolize the communion motif?

    What is "all that" which is given by the father to the son? Is it unreasonable to think it is the "kingdom" that is given by the Father (king) to the son (prince) who is the successor?

    What is the kingdom of God like?
    Is it like a crowd being invited to the son's wedding feast? Is the Father issuing this invitation?

    Now, is the coming to the wedding feast NOT eschatological?

    ReplyDelete
  72. This verse is referring to judgment and hence clearly eschatological in meaning. “To come to the light” refers to an eschatological mode of salvation.

    You can just keep asserting over and over, but it doesn't make your argument any better. I can't help notice that all your moves are strictly not exegetical. They consist of assigning novel meanings to terms that don't have that meaning in the original greek. What to make of this?

    Are you suggesting there is anyone righteous who isn’t drawn by the father and hence won’t be raised up? Do those who come to Christ not love God?

    No, I was pointing out that the text does not say what you claimed it said. The Calvinist would agree that those who come to the father are "righteous" in the sense that they are clothed in Christ's righteousness. But that's because they have already been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. As in:

    "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." - John 3:5-8

    Thus, the crucial issue is semantics, the assignment of meaning to ambiguous words.

    If you are hanging your argument on semantics, it is pretty weak indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Neal,

    You can just keep asserting over and over, but it doesn't make your argument any better.

    So the judgment passage John 3,19-21 is not eschatological? Interesting opinion. "This is judgment..." has no eschatological connotation whatsoever, right? Okay, I don't want to sound polemic here, but that's completely nonsensial!

    I can't help notice that all your moves are strictly not exegetical.

    Uh, very precise objection! Do you think it is strictly exegetical to infringe the head-members-principle which suggests that each textual component in a writing must ultimately serve the writing's overall key issue? Do we know whether there's a key issue, a main subject in the johannine gospel account? If so, can we make sure that our interpretation aligns with the head-members-rule? Or does it grossly infringe this principle? ....Just some thoughts on strict exegetical rules.


    They consist of assigning novel meanings to terms that don't have that meaning in the original greek.

    Are you saying in the original greek the verb "to come" has the meaning of "to believe"? Or would that rather be a novel meaning??

    Are you saying "coming to the light" has a some very arcane, mysterious meaning in the original greek that cannot be properly brought into english?

    By the way, are you saying determining the meaning of words is obsolete in exegesis??

    Would you understand a statement like

    Everyone who deiotriahypees will sometimes artuosdipole?

    Or would you need some assignment of meaning to the verbs here? That's semantics!

    What to make of this?

    What are the suspicious "novel" meanings I introduce here? Are "total depravity", "unconditional election", "irresistible grace" "effectual call", "regeneration"

    NOT novel meanings??! How do these expressions relate to the original greek? What in fact justifies the reformed truckload of sophistic concepts that they impose on this text??!!

    All your objections return to you, Neal.

    Seriously, you should abandon the reformed usage of John 6 and the doctrines of grace in total!

    ReplyDelete
  74. The Calvinist would agree that those who come to the father are "righteous" in the sense that they are clothed in Christ's righteousness.

    That's not even the calvinistic understanding. According to calvinism the father drags sinners to Christ. The objects that are drawn are sinners, not saints. They aren't righteous but are yet to be imputed the righteousness of Christ. You don't even represent reformed theology accurately here!

    Imputation is by faith. The objects of the divine "transaction" between the father and the son, according to calvinism are sinners, not righteous ones at all!

    But that's because they have already been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

    Though you even misrepresent your own position, are you even aware that you are just now imposing "novel meanings" (regeneration!) on the passage here that are unwarranted? What justifies this novel meaning here? See, your objections come back to you like a boomerang.

    For the sake of brevity I cannot comment on your use of John 3 now, for this would be long.


    If you are hanging your argument on semantics, it is pretty weak indeed.

    Semantics are completely irrelevant and unimportant, right??!

    I wonder what's weak about contemplating the meaning of words used in a text. I wonder what's "weak" about that.....

    Let's compare this to a consonant text. If you only know the consonants, you cannot read the word. You need the "soft" vowels in between in order to make sense of the word and be able to spell out what is meant.

    Now, the syntax, the grammar, the mere vocables used, the textual order etc. are comparable to the consonants. They constitute the necessity. They're indisputable. They aren't subject to debate.

    But the semantics, the meaning of the naked expressions used and the background of the text are comparable to the vowels, that MUST BE DETERMINED. Otherwise you cannot understand the text.

    Now, is it necessary to "find" the doctrines of grace in this John 6 passage? If there's a plausible interpretation that gets by without such "novel" inventions, then such interpretation should be preferred!

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  75. That's not even the calvinistic understanding. According to calvinism the father drags sinners to Christ.

    Your superficial view of Calvinism is showing. Please go read some books.

    Now, is it necessary to "find" the doctrines of grace in this John 6 passage? If there's a plausible interpretation that gets by without such "novel" inventions, then such interpretation should be preferred!

    Well boo to you too! You are naive indeed. What you take to be novel I say is the natural reading of the text. Since it is you who are trying to disprove Calvinism, the burden of proof is on you to show that the natural reading is not the correct reading.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Your superficial view of Calvinism is showing.

    Are you saying someone is righteous prior to faith?

    According to Calvinism, righteousness is imputed by faith, which according to calvinism, is the act of "coming to Christ" in John 6,44 & 65. Thus, the one drawn is NOT righteous yet. This is not a superficial view, but a very accurate presentation of calvinism.

    Please go read some books

    This is most calvinists' lame excuse when they run out of arguments. Referring people to their "fathers" without whom allegedly nobody can understand the scriptures properly. Their infallible interpreters.

    What you take to be novel I say is the natural reading of the text.

    Can you "naturally" read verse John 6,37?

    "Everything the father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never cast out"

    --What does the "giving" denote here?

    --Why is "all that" (or everything)which is given neuter, while "whoever" which comes is personal?

    --Is there a double-arrival at Jesus (given then come)?

    Obviously the grammar is not disputable. But unless you determine some meaning on the terms "give", "come", "all that", and "draw", you cannot understand what Jesus is actually saying, despite the grammatical clarity.

    So where do you get the meanings of these critical but ambiguous expressions from?

    You can try to derive them from comparative juxtapositions according to the rule Scripture interprets Scripture or you can make up your own ideas. Obviously you prefer the latter. Any interpretation that succeeds without inventing new concepts and un-scriptural crutches should be preferred over the reformed understanding that "discovers" the doctrines of grace in this passage!

    Since it is you who are trying to disprove Calvinism, the burden of proof is on you to show that the natural reading is not the correct reading.

    What is the natural reading of the word YHWH? Is it Yehovah like the Jehovah's witnesses claim? Or is it different?

    What is the natural reading of MHMMD? Is it Mohammed as most Allahists claim? Or is it Muhammad? Or something else?

    What is "give" in v.6,37? Where do you get its natural meaning from? By jumping to v.44? Or by jumping somewhere else? I'm curious.

    What you consider to be the natural reading can be proven to be untenable because of the following basic exegetical fallacies:

    1)It grossly breaks the head-members-rule. John's goal is to exhort the readers to believe in Christ and his main subject (head) is to provide the basis for this (John 20,31). All members of a textual body must be compatible with and serving the head in some way. If 6,44 meant that faith must be a gift from God and the readers by nature unable to believe, then v.6,44 would be elevated on the rank of the key issue and the text structure completely out of balance. An interpretation that avoids such blemish is preferrable over one that infringes the head-members-principle!.

    2)It breaks the basic principle that Scripture shall interpret Scripture. Sound exegesis is based on comparative juxtapositions where this is possible. If different biblical authors approch the same subject in different ways, then one might likely come to a coherent interpretation.

    3)It fails to reckognize that the dogma of natural man's unability to believe betrays common-sense. While it is not unreasonable that nobody is able to fulfill the ten commandments, it is not convincing why nobody can fulfill the gospel commandment to repent and believe. Thus, it would require an extraordinarily strong argument for this dogma to be plausible. Yet John doesn't dedicate much space to this question, neither does any other NT author. If faith were impossible for sinful man even though he is commanded to believe, it is very unlikely that the author would not elaborate on this paradox any further.

    ----

    You should forsake calvinism!

    -Kehrhelm "a helmet" Kröger

    ReplyDelete
  77. a helmet said:

    Are you saying someone is righteous prior to faith?

    Where did you get that impression?

    According to Calvinism, righteousness is imputed by faith, which according to calvinism, is the act of "coming to Christ" in John 6,44 & 65. Thus, the one drawn is NOT righteous yet. This is not a superficial view, but a very accurate presentation of calvinism.

    It's an oversimplification. The ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification.

    I said:

    Please go read some books.

    To which you responded:

    This is most calvinists' lame excuse when they run out of arguments. Referring people to their "fathers" without whom allegedly nobody can understand the scriptures properly. Their infallible interpreters.

    No, I said that because you have a tendency to oversimplify and setup strawman arguments as evidenced from the above.

    Can you "naturally" read verse John 6,37?

    By "natural" I mean simply taking the normal usage of the words that are used. So yes, you can "naturally" read the scriptures. Some are more difficult to understand, and must be interpreted in light of other scriptures to be sure, but we don't need a helmet to translate them for us.

    What does the "giving" denote here?

    Do you need a thesaurus?

    Why is "all that" (or everything)which is given neuter, while "whoever" which comes is personal?

    Do you really need these things spelled out for you? "All that" refers to a class of people, as most people would take the meaning in everyday usage, while "whoever" denotes an individual. What's so hard about that?

    Is there a double-arrival at Jesus (given then come)?

    I am not committed either way, but I don't see why there has to be a double-arrival inferred. If one prefers to look at it that way, that's fine.

    So where do you get the meanings of these critical but ambiguous expressions from?

    Only to one who is trying to escape the normal usage of the words are they ambiguous.

    What is the natural reading of the word YHWH? Is it Yehovah like the Jehovah's witnesses claim? Or is it different?

    You are quite the obstinate one aren't you? It's a name. There is no secret alternate reading. Whether you are a Christian or a JW makes no difference. The name is still the name. The conflict with JW's and other cultists have nothing to do with the name itself. It's their doctrine that is wrong, not the name.

    ReplyDelete
  78. a helmet said:

    If 6,44 meant that faith must be a gift from God and the readers by nature unable to believe, then v.6,44 would be elevated on the rank of the key issue and the text structure completely out of balance.

    Who claimed that it is the key issue? Just because it is not the primary issue doesn't mean it isn't taught in scripture. Your logic is faulty. You seem to think that either (1) it must be the primary issue or (2) it isn't true. False dichotomy.

    By the way, in Ephesians 2:8 Paul explicitly states that faith is a gift from God. Of course, you will now claim that it is "ambiguous".

    An interpretation that avoids such blemish is preferrable over one that infringes the head-members-principle!.

    Translation: An interpretation that avoids offending the helmetless one's sensibilities is preferrable over the one that infringes his autonomous reasoning.

    If different biblical authors approch the same subject in different ways, then one might likely come to a coherent interpretation.

    I agree. Hence in addition to John chapter 6:37-65, I also previously pointed you to these: John 12:37-40, Isaiah 6:9-10, Proverbs 21:1, Ezekiel 37, Acts 13:48, 2 Thess. 2:13-14, 2 Tim. 1:9, Eph. 1:4,5

    And I never denied the principle of letting scripture interpret scripture. It is a highly regarded principle in the Reformed tradition, which you would know if you had bothered to read some Reformed writers.

    But when you use the principle, you let the more clear passages interpret the less clear, not the other way around. You don't just get to claim ambiguity where none exists and then try to fill in the gaps by going to less clear passages.

    It fails to reckognize that the dogma of natural man's unability to believe betrays common-sense.

    Finally we get to the crux of the issue. You find it objectionable becuase it betrays your notion of common sense. I shouldn't be surprised, because after all "there is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." - Proverbs 14:12

    It's too bad you weren't around when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 and 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; you could have set him straight.

    Thus, it would require an extraordinarily strong argument for this dogma to be plausible. Yet John doesn't dedicate much space to this question, neither does any other NT author. If faith were impossible for sinful man even though he is commanded to believe, it is very unlikely that the author would not elaborate on this paradox any further.

    Matthew 19:23-26; Mark 10:24-27; Luke 18:24-27

    Again with the false dichotomy. Either it's primary, or it can't be true. That's just horrid reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Neal,

    I've posted a reply over at my blog on the doctrines of grace:

    http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/09/response-to-commentor-at-triablogue-on.html

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete
  80. Kehrhelm,

    This will be my last post in this thread. I don't really think there is much point in continuing this conversation as you kind of gave away the store when you said the following:

    It fails to reckognize that the dogma of natural man's unability to believe betrays common-sense. While it is not unreasonable that nobody is able to fulfill the ten commandments, it is not convincing why nobody can fulfill the gospel commandment to repent and believe. Thus, it would require an extraordinarily strong argument for this dogma to be plausible.

    What one finds to be plausible and common-sensible is highly subjective and depends on one's presuppositions. You've already stated you will not allow any reading that violates what you take to be common sense or plausible, so at this point you are dug in and no amount of reasoning from the scriptures will have any effect. We're at the point where Wittgenstein says we call each other heretic and go home. That's unfortunate, but that's where we are.

    I'm sure we will spar again at some point in the future...

    Neal

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hello Neal,

    What one finds to be plausible and common-sensible is highly subjective and depends on one's presuppositions.

    So where do the presuppositions that lead to the adoption of Total Depravity (natural man is unable to believe) come from?

    Obviously you take them from Romans 3,10-12.

    However, I've also demonstrated how this passage makes such an interpretation positively irrational. Romans 3,10ff doesn't in any way teach the reformed version of Total Depravity, rather it is exegetically impossible to maintain this interpretation of the text.

    Here's why:

    http://combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-more-notes-against-total-depravity.html

    -a helmet

    ReplyDelete