Saturday, October 19, 2013

Why BW3 is not a Calvinist


Ben Witherington has a little speech explaining why he's not a Calvinist:


Of course, it's absurd for him to think he can do justice to the issue in a 6-minute speech, but it's fine with me if Arminians wish to be absurd.

I'm going to comment on some of his statements. It's possible that I misheard a word here or there. 

I really didn't believe that before the foundation of the world God had chosen some to be saved and others to be eternally lost…I really didn't believe that the character of God at the end of the day was well represented with the theology that suggests that before anyone was ever created God decided that some were going to be eternally lost and burn forever.

I'd turn that around. I don't think God's character is well represented by a theology in which God creates people who will live forever, but leaves their eternal destination indeterminate. That's pretty callous. If God is going to create people who will live forever, how can God be said to care for them if he leaves the outcome to chance? 

Before God creates a human being, he ought to decide what will happen to that individual. Don't create them unless you already decided what will become of them. If you make a sentient being, a being who, once he comes into existence, will never go out of existence, how is it loving to let him take his chances? 

On Ben's view, God shoves them into the deep end of the pool to sink or swim. What is more, God knows ahead of time who will drown, and he consigns them to that fate by shoving them into the deep end of the pool. 

I really didn't believe that when the Bible commends love, it means God is making an offer you can't refused.

That may explain why Ben is not a Calvinist, but it fails to explain why Ben shouldn't be a Calvinist. It simply begs the question. 

In the NT there are only three nouns used of God: God is love, God is life, and God is light. Everything else is an adjective. God is righteous, adjective. God is holy, adjective. God is sovereign, adjective.
But it's got to be significant that when we're tailing about God and using another noun, it's love, light, and life.

Why think the nouns are more significant than the adjectives? Why not think that's two different ways of saying the same thing–for stylistic variety? To say God is love means God is loving. Love is a divine attribute. Same thing with divine holiness. 

Now my understanding of love is that it's got to be freely given and freely received. If that's is the heart of the Gospel…then that has got to be freely received and freely returned.

He gives us no reason to think his understanding of love isn't a misunderstanding of love. Why accept that definition?

Here's a different understanding of love: being a better friend to your best friend than he is to himself. Suppose your friend becomes clinically depressed. He's dangerous to himself. In that state he's susceptible to self-harm. So you protect him from himself, in spite of himself, until he gets better. 

How many people did Jesus die for? 1 Tim 2 is perfectly clear. He died as a ransom for all. And "all" means all.

i) To begin with, even Arminians disagree on what it means for Jesus to redeem the lost. Some Arminians affirm penal substitution while other Arminians deny penal substitution. So "ransom" becomes a cipher. Fill in the blank. 

ii) Ben also commits the popular semantic fallacy of failing to distinguish between the sense of a word and the referent of a word. What "all" means is not the same thing as what "all" refers to. 

If I walk into a tavern and tell the bartender that I want to buy drinks for "everyone," everyone means everyone, but it doesn't refer to everyone. It only denotes a tiny subset of humans who happen to be in that particular tavern at that particular time. Not an hour before or later. No one outside the tavern. 

Why would God in a really inefficient manner send his Son to die for some when in fact his death atones for the sins of all.

i) "Inefficient" in relation to what? Not inefficient in relation to Calvinism, for Calvinism doesn't say the Father sent his Son to die for some when in fact his death atones for the sins of all. 

ii) But if we're going to infer the extent of the atonement from "efficiency," then what could be more inefficient than Christ dying to save all when all are not saved? 

Prevenient grace that gives everyone the opportunity to respond to the grace of God.

That's a nice sounding sentiment. Why think it's true? For instance, did God bestow prevenient grace on all the heathen peoples in OT times? Does the OT consistently distinguish God's redemptive grace for Israel from all the pagans he leaves in darkness? There are exceptions (e.g. Rahab)–but they are just that: exceptional.

The Bible says Israel is the elect people of God, and those who are in Christ are the elect people of God, and in regard to individuals you could either be in or out. 

In the OT, God chose a people-group. A particular clan which descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You were "elect" if you were born into that ethnic group. If you had those bloodlines. You could be an elect Jew all your life even if you were a closet atheist. As long as you were outwardly observant, you were elect. Does Ben think Christians are elect in that sense? 

NT is replete with passages that talk about those who have make shipwreck of our faith. You can't make shipwreck if something you never had in the first place. If you ain't sailing on the boat you can't shipwreck the boat.

Is Ben really that clueless? Calvinism doesn't say apostates never had faith in the first place. Nominal believers can lose their faith. Indeed, apostates were predestined to lose their faith. 

What you can't lose is your salvation. If you lose your faith, that means you never had grace in the first place, not that you never had faith. ("Grace" in the sense of "saving" grace, viz. monergistic regeneration–in contrast to common grace.) 

And that has reference to dying in a state of impenitent unbelief. God restores some backsliders to faith. 

58 comments:

  1. Jerry Walls seems to be one of the few consistent Arminians along these points. It's why he posits purgatory, post-mortem evangelism, and inclusivism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Erm... So you're saying some people have faith but no salvation?

    What verse would you quote for that monstrosity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's such a thing as nominal faith. Believing, not because the individual is regenerate, but because he was socially conditioned to believe. He believes what others believe, because others believe it.

      Take the stock example of the kid raised in church who loses his faith when he goes to college.

      Delete
    2. So that could be you or me?

      Delete
  3. Nominal in the sense of "in name only", or in the sense of "very little"? If something is in name, but not actuality, then it doesn't actually exist in the first place, thus its not at issue. If in the sense of "little", I don't see any bible quote saying that faith must be up to a certain bar.

    As for believing "because others believe it", I don't remember any bible quote saying that the reason for faith must be one of a certain restricted set of reasons, and other reasons are invalid. In fact, the bible seems to praise those who hold the faith because of the fathers, or because of their family. I don't know any quote that criticises it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're ignoring the explanation. "Nominal believer" as in unregenerate believer.

      And, no, it's not sufficient to believe the Bible simply because your parents believe it. That's not really believing the Bible. That's believing in your parents, or pastor, or whoever.

      The psychology is no different than being a Muslim or Mormon or Hindu or Buddhist because your parents are.

      And even the OT talks about "circumcision of the heart." Putting your faith in the faith of your pastor or parents is no substitute for putting your faith in God. That kind of proxy faith is fine for little kids, but when you begin to grow up you need to believe for yourself. God must be the source of your faith, not your peer group. Faith resulting from grace rather than accidental social conditioning.

      Delete
  4. "Putting your faith in the faith of your pastor or parents is no substitute for putting your faith in God. "

    So why is it a tragedy to shipwreck such a faith? To get back to the original point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said it was tragic. A crisis of faith or lapse of faith can be a good thing if, after the dust settles, one emerges from the ordeal with well-founded faith.

      Problem is when nominal believers lose their nominal faith, but never replace it with a deeper rooted faith.

      Delete
    2. You didn't say it was tragic, the bible did.

      1Tim. 1:18   This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.

      I guess Timothy had a nominal faith, since Paul so warns him? But then why is it tragic, if he loses such nominal faith?

      Delete
    3. 1 Tim 1:18 doesn't say it's tragic.

      Delete
    4. John:

      "You didn't say it was tragic, the bible did. 1Tim. 1:18   This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith."

      i) As JM notes, your prooftext doesn't say it's tragic.

      ii) "Faith" in the final clause is ambiguous. It could be subjective faith (i.e. their mental state), or it could be objective faith (i.e. a synonym for the Christian faith). The former is psychological whereas the latter is theological.

      iii) I don't deny that apostasy is tragic. What's tragic about apostasy is to come that close, but miss out. Almost cross the finish line, almost make it home, then drop out before you made it. Watch heaven just pass you by.

      "I guess Timothy had a nominal faith, since Paul so warns him? But then why is it tragic, if he loses such nominal faith?"

      It would only be nominal faith if he failed to heed the warning. Regenerate faith is preserving faith.

      Delete
    5. "your prooftext doesn't say it's tragic."

      He says not to let it happen. I think we can safely say it's bad then. He says the opposite to you that it's perfectly fine because when the dust settles things might be better.

      "It could be subjective faith (i.e. their mental state), or it could be objective faith"

      If it's merely subjective faith, how can not keeping it cause shipwreck? If it's objective faith, how can the Calvinist say not keeping it causes shipwreck?

      "What's tragic about apostasy is to come that close, but miss out. "

      How can you "come close" to salvation, how can there be a case of "almost crossing the line", when it was a decision of God before the foundation of the world? You are talking in categories totally alien to the Calvinist doctrine.

      "It would only be nominal faith if he failed to heed the warning."

      Which according to you would be good, because it would expose his fake faith, which would be better "when the dust settles". But Paul doesn't encourage that, unlike you.

      Delete
    6. "your prooftext doesn't say it's tragic."

      He says not to let it happen. I think we can safely say it's bad then. He says the opposite to you that it's perfectly fine because when the dust settles things might be better.

      "It could be subjective faith (i.e. their mental state), or it could be objective faith"

      If it's merely subjective faith, how can not keeping it cause shipwreck? If it's objective faith, how can the Calvinist say not keeping it causes shipwreck?

      "What's tragic about apostasy is to come that close, but miss out. "

      How can you "come close" to salvation, how can there be a case of "almost crossing the line", when it was a decision of God before the foundation of the world? You are talking in categories totally alien to the Calvinist doctrine.

      "It would only be nominal faith if he failed to heed the warning."

      Which according to you would be good, because it would expose his fake faith, which would be better "when the dust settles". But Paul doesn't encourage that, unlike you.

      Delete
    7. John:

      

"He says not to let it happen. I think we can safely say it's bad then. He says the opposite to you that it's perfectly fine because when the dust settles things might be better."

      That's a vague simplistic summary of what I actually said. Unless and until you state your objection in terms of what I actually said, with the specific qualifications, it's hardly incumbent on me to field your misstatements.

      "If it's merely subjective faith, how can not keeping it cause shipwreck? If it's objective faith, how can the Calvinist say not keeping it causes shipwreck?"

      Since that's a question rather than an argument, I'll wait to see if you can formulate an actual argument. Hint: since you're the one who's raising the objection, the onus lies on you to show why you think those are inconsistent. You're not entitled to posit an undefined inconsistency, then demand that I resolve it for you. Pull your own load.

      "How can you 'come close' to salvation, how can there be a case of 'almost crossing the line', when it was a decision of God before the foundation of the world? You are talking in categories totally alien to the Calvinist doctrine."

      Actually, I"m using metaphors. Are metaphors totally alien to you?

      Dropping the metaphor, the apostate has greater knowledge of the stakes than an unbeliever with no knowledge of the Christian faith. The apostate knows what there is to gain and what there is to lose.

      Moreover, for some years (which varies depending on the apostate), he was living that out–at least superficially. So he was in a different position from an unbeliever who was never evangelized or discipled in the first place.

      "Which according to you would be good, because it would expose his fake faith, which would be better 'when the dust settles'. But Paul doesn't encourage that, unlike you."

      It would only be good if he had a nominal faith to expose. Since Timothy was a born-again Christian, there was nothing to expose.

      Delete
    8. >>In your system..... so what? Both are damned before the foundation of the earth, by God's sound judgement and plan. Where is the tragedy?

      The Arminian can face the same supposed "dilemma". For instance, God knew before the foundation of the earth that he would instantiate a world where Jones does not receive salvation. This world is instantiated "by God's sound judgement and plan." If the fact that this world plays out according to "God's sound judgment and plan" means it's not a tragedy for the Calvinist then so too for the Arminian molinist.

      But the answer seems simple enough: For Jones (or Timothy) and those who love him, it's tragic. Considered as part of God's plan and the greater good he will achieve, it's good.

      >>You are so sure of Timothy's status?

      One can look back and be more certain than someone looking forward.

      >>Presumably Paul was at least as certain as you then... which raises the question of why he should be concerned about shipwrecking a born-again Christian's faith... an act that is totally impossible.

      You are so sure of Paul's certainty in relation to Steve's certainty? Timothy hadn't finished "running the race," so to speak. Even if the outcome is certain, Paul doesn't know what that will be when he is writing to Timothy. It makes sense for him to encourage Timothy to continue to run and even to think that his admonition will be a means to that end.

      Delete
    9. >>Is it a tragedy in the non-Calvinist world where Jones receives exactly what he wanted? In the Calvinist system, Jones is too dull headed without regeneration to know what is good for him. In the Arminian system, Jones knows what he wants... and gets it.

      Wait, so you're saying it's *not* a tragedy under Arminianism?

      >>What more do we know about Timothy in the year 2013 than what is provided by Paul in scripture which was looking forward? Do you have his biography?

      We may have information from early church fathers that indicate TImothy never apostatized or we may conclude, from a lack of information that he did, that it's reasonable to think he didn't. Whether we do have such information or not, I don't know. But it's possible we do and it's possible Steve knows. So why are chasing this rabbit?

      >>Where does Steve's certainty derive if not from what Paul wrote? Is Steve a better exegete of Paul than Paul?

      See above.

      >>How is Paul's ramblings...

      Paul's ramblings? I know some Arminians like Roger Olson have a low view of Scripture, but is this what it's come to? "Hi everone. Open your Bibles to Paul's ramblings in the book known as 1 Timothy. We're going to be studying Paul's ramblings to a young pastor...."

      >>what God already achieved in regeneration? Either regeneration saves, and saves perfectly, or it does not. Which is it?

      Is that supposed the lost Sola? Sola regeneratio or something like that?

      Delete
    10. I'll respond to two of John's remarks. Since, however, John refuses to argue in good faith, since he's become abusive and petulant, his comments will be deleted unless and until he is prepared to shoulder his burden of proof. 

"And why is that... to use your terminology, a 'tragedy'?"

      It's a tragic end for the apostate.

      "You are so sure of Timothy's status? Presumably Paul was at least as certain as you then... which raises the question of why he should be concerned about shipwrecking a born-again Christian's faith... an act that is totally impossible."

      That's simplistic. Calvinism doesn't teach that that elect are saved no matter what. Rather, saving grace makes the regenerate receptive to God's warnings. They are saved by persevering. And God uses various means to preserve them.

      "In your system..... so what? Both are damned before the foundation of the earth, by God's sound judgement and plan. Where is the tragedy?"

      Your question is illogical. It's tragic for them. They suffer loss. The fact that God predestined the outcome is consistent with the outcome being bad for them. It's not bad that God did it.

      Delete
    11. "unless and until he is prepared to shoulder his burden of proof. "

      You seem to be labouring under a severe misapprehension that I have any responsibility here to prove anything. You posted up a blog article making certain statements that you claimed proved various things. I'm testing the viability of those "proofs" by asking pertinent questions. Answering my questions with claims I have some burden of proof is disingenuous.

      "Rather, saving grace makes the regenerate receptive to God's warnings. They are saved by persevering."

      Really. Sounds like a work to me. Persevering is a work, and apparently faith and regeneration aren't enough.

      Now tell me, why does God feel the necessity to lie to the regenerate to say that there is a danger in them shipwrecking, when actually it isn't possible?

      The Calvinist system in disingenuous in its core.

      Tell me, what would happen if Jesus died for a person's sins, then they were regenerate, and then... nothing. God chose to cease warning them, took their bible away, and sent them no further revelations. Would they then be lost, even though Christ died for them?

      HOW???

      "They suffer loss."

      What exactly were they in possession of that they lost?

      And how exactly did they "almost cross the finish line", when in point of fact, they weren't even in the race? They had no regeneration, they had no saving faith.

      I don't doubt that you've concocted some devilishly complicated scheme to make all these contradictory data points fit together. What you haven't shown is why anyone else would want to do such an absurd thing.

      "Shipwreck" is a metaphor. Like a disaster at sea. Total loss. The ship sinks. Passengers drown. The cargo sinks to the bottom of the ocean. "

      And what is the cargo? According to the text, it is "faith".

      Why exactly is a fake faith a bad cargo to lose?

      "On the former interpretation, apostates suffer ruin by losing their faith. "

      How is it ruin to lose fake faith?

      "On the latter interpretation, they somehow do harm to the Christian faith."

      And how do THEY suffer, in so harming the abstraction of "the faith"? Very disingenuous.

      Delete
    12. John is firing away one question after another. It's often less time-consuming to raise a question than to answer it (e.g. why is the sky blue?). However, those genuinely interested might consider reading The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance by Tom Schreiner and Ardel Caneday for starters.

      Delete
    13. >>I don't doubt that you've concocted some devilishly complicated scheme to make all these contradictory data points fit together. What you haven't shown is why anyone else would want to do such an absurd thing.

      So you've indicated that even if Steve showed you how all of it fit together coherently you would just shrugg it off as "devishly concocted" and unconvincing...

      So why should anyone waste their time with you now?

      Delete
    14. John:

      

"You seem to be labouring under a severe misapprehension that I have any responsibility here to prove anything."

      Because you do. When you assert that Calvinism suffers from internal contradictions, you assume a burden of proof. You need to argue for your claims.

      "You posted up a blog article making certain statements that you claimed proved various things."

      You suffer from lack of basic reading skills. I was responding to Ben Witherington's speech. I didn't attempt to "prove" Calvinism. Rather, I drew attention to his illogical objections and misrepresentations.

      "I'm testing the viability of those 'proofs' by asking pertinent questions."

      Some of your "questions" conceal unstated assumptions which you need to spell out. Otherwise, the implicit connections you draw are missing.

      "Really. Sounds like a work to me. Persevering is a work, and apparently faith and regeneration aren't enough."

      It's a cause/effect relationship. Perseverance is the result of God's grace.

      And Calvinism never said "faith and regeneration were enough." Sanctification is necessary. But God ensures all the necessary conditions in the life of the elect.

      "Now tell me, why does God feel the necessity to lie to the regenerate to say that there is a danger in them shipwrecking, when actually it isn't possible?"

      That's a simpleminded question, as I already pointed out. Predestination isn't que sera sera fatalism.

      "The Calvinist system in disingenuous in its core."

      John's objections are disingenuous to their core, since he doesn't make a good faith effort to understand Calvinism.

      "Tell me, what would happen if Jesus died for a person's sins, then they were regenerate, and then... nothing. God chose to cease warning them, took their bible away, and sent them no further revelations. Would they then be lost, even though Christ died for them?"

      Predestination includes the means as well as the ends. It's teleological, unlike fatalism. God's appointed ends are realized by God's appointed means.

      "What exactly were they in possession of that they lost?"

      Damnation is a state of loss. They lose everything worthwhile when they die.

      "And how exactly did they 'almost cross the finish line', when in point of fact, they weren't even in the race?"

      I already explained the metaphor. Try not to be so obtuse.

      "I don't doubt that you've concocted some devilishly complicated scheme to make all these contradictory data points fit together."

      So if Calvinism is inconsistent, then it's false–but if Calvinism is consistent, then it's diabolical. Nice to see your unfalsifiable standards.

      "And what is the cargo? According to the text, it is 'faith.'"

      You're getting carried away with the metaphor.

      "How is it ruin to lose fake faith?"

      I already explained that to you. Are you just too dim to grasp the explanation?

      "And how do THEY suffer, in so harming the abstraction of 'the faith'?"

      You're confused. On the objective interpretation, they don't suffer harm. Rather, they do harm to something else.

      On the subjective interpretation, they suffer ruin by going to hell.

      And I already explained what might be meant by the "abstraction" of "the faith."

      Delete
    15. "Wait, so you're saying it's *not* a tragedy under Arminianism?"

      The system doesn't require it as an objective reality that it's a tragedy. Whether people from their point of view want to regard it such is their choice.

      "We may have information from early church fathers that indicate TImothy never apostatized"

      It's kind of a problem for sola-scriptura land if you have to start quoting church fathers to prove a particular interpretation. In any case, the original readers of the book wouldn't know this, and sound exegesis usually means interpreting according to original view point.

      "So why are chasing this rabbit?"

      Because it's a problem if we have to assume that the text indicates the Paul knows Timothy's faith is real. There's a whole host of problems there, from asking how he could know, to asking how his faith can shipwreck if he does in fact know.

      Delete
    16. >>The system doesn't require it as an objective reality that it's a tragedy. Whether people from their point of view want to regard it such is their choice.

      Then why were you earlier suggesting it was problematic for Steve to not count this as a tragedy? You even tried to prove that Scripture sees it as a tragedy, then when I point out that Arminianism faces the same "dilemma" you're trying to push on Calvinists then you say it doesn't matter if it's a tragedy.

      This is precisely why Steve asked you to spell out an argument. You're more concerned to try and find a stone to throw at Calvinism than argue with consistency or honesty.

      >>It's kind of a problem for sola-scriptura land if you have to start quoting church fathers to prove a particular interpretation.

      I would say you've missed the point here, but based on your other behavior you're probably just intentionally twisting it to save face.

      Delete
  5. BTW, this whole discussion is why I think Sandemanianism is false. A modern counterpart to it is Gordon H. Clark's definition of saving faith. Namely, mere assent to the understood (true) propositions of the gospel. He argued for it in his book "What Is Saving Faith?" (formerly titled "Faith and Saving Faith"). I read the book with the older title so, I don't know if there's more information added to the newer edition by John W. Robbins.

    To define faith like Clark does would imply that regeneration isn't needed to exercise saving faith. It's also problematic because there are plenty of apostates who seemed to both understand and assent to the truth propositions of the gospel while they were professing Christians. Finally, such a definition would entail that the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is false since there are plenty of passages that teach that someone can assent to the gospel and fall away permanently.

    Luke 8:13 says, "And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away."

    Contrary to Clark, the historic Reformational (especially Calvinistic) definitions of faith are better than his reductionistic definition.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Now my understanding of love is that it's got to be freely given and freely received. If that's is the heart of the Gospel…then that has got to be freely received and freely returned."

    By 'freely' he means 'contingently'. But above he described God as *by nature* loving, as in, he couldn't but love. Moreover, did Ben just gut the idea Trinitarian love, or does he think one member of the Trinity could have refused to love another?

    Did Ben think before he spoke?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's a good point, too. He's implicitly defining "free" as the freedom to do otherwise.

      Delete
  7. Not being an antagonist here Steve, John said "If it's merely subjective faith, how can not keeping it cause shipwreck? If it's objective faith, how can the Calvinist say not keeping it causes shipwreck?"

    And you replied "Since that's a question rather than an argument, I'll wait to see if you can formulate an actual argument. Hint: since you're the one who's raising the objection, the onus lies on you to show why you think those are inconsistent. You're not entitled to posit an undefined inconsistency, then demand that I resolve it for you. Pull your own load."

    Isn't the inconsistency obvious? The question is addressing what appears to be an inconsistency. The inconsistency seems to be that Paul telling someone that shipwrecking their faith is a bad thing when in fact it's an impossibility is meaningless. Similarly, if we tell someone don't spend all your money if in fact they have unlimited funds that can never run out would be meaningless. Thus the inconsistency seems to be that Paul has a different understanding of "shipwrecked faith" as some do today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Isn't the inconsistency obvious?"

      I'd say no. But even if it were "obvious" it's still perfectly justifiable for Steve to ask for an actual argument. After all, questions aren't arguments, and if it is so "obvious" then it should be easy to actually posit an argument with premises followed by a conclusion, which can then be addressed.

      The "nice" thing about questions, from a rhetorical perspective, is that A) the person asking questions doesn't need to think clearly enough to develop an argument in the first place, and B) when the question is answered according to what the person who heard it thinks it means, the questioner always has the "out" of, "That's not what I meant." In short, asking questions instead of arguing is rhetorical laziness.

      Note that this doesn't mean questions don't have their place, nor that there are times when it's useful to posit the question instead of the argument. But if someone calls you on the question, you have to actually have an argument, or else the questions are empty to begin with.

      Delete
    2. Your statement is scarcely any improvement on John's.

      "Shipwreck" is a metaphor. Like a disaster at sea. Total loss. The ship sinks. Passengers drown. The cargo sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

      Cashing out the metaphor, it probably means to suffer harm or ruin, although some commentators think it means to cause harm or ruin.

      On the former interpretation, apostates suffer ruin by losing their faith. They got off to a good start, but their pilgrimage was abortive. They lose the race.

      On the latter interpretation, they somehow do harm to the Christian faith. Perhaps their apostasy causes scandal, damaging the reputation of the Christian faith in the eyes of unbelievers. Something like that. Paul doesn't spell it out, and I think the former interpretation is more likely.

      Both those interpretations are consistent with predestination. God can predestine some individuals to suffer ruin. Conversely, God can predestine events, like heresy or apostasy, which harm Christian mission in the short-term, but are beneficial in the long-term. For instance, responding to heresy forces Christians to clarify their understanding of Scripture. Dig deeper. Develop a more self-conscious faith.

      Delete
    3. Peter, two propositions seem inconsistent
      a) it is impossible for Christians to lose their faith
      b) Christians are warned not to lose their faith.

      I'm not saying they are. Only that they do appear to be. B seems to entail that a is false - If A is true, then B seems confused to say the least. Perhaps there are good reasons in some situations where it is proper to warn someone of an impossibility?

      Steve, regarding your last paragraph here, does it really address John's objection? Wouldn't an Arminian simply ask - Can God can predestine someone to have a "saving" faith and also to lose it (lets call that a true-apostate). John seems to imply this when he says "I guess Timothy had a nominal faith, since Paul so warns him? But then why is it tragic, if he loses such nominal faith?

      I get that you're saying good things can come from these bad things, which God predestined, but John is referring to saving faith vs. nominal faith.

      Perhaps I'm just confused about what's really being argued (maybe that's Peter's point).

      Delete
    4. As I've explained multiple times now, Calvinism doesn't take the unqualified position that it's "impossible" to lose your salvation. Rather, we're dealing with a counterfactual scenario. You could lose your salvation if you were impenitent, but the elect are penitent. It's hypothetically possible. Salvation is not unconditional. Indeed, that's the point of perseverance. However, since the regenerate are receptive to God's warnings, that hypothetical is not a live possibility. And, indeed, the warnings motivate perseverance. They function as an efficacious means to preserve the elect.

      Delete
    5. Auggybendoggy

      "Steve, regarding your last paragraph here, does it really address John's objection? Wouldn't an Arminian simply ask - Can God can predestine someone to have a "saving" faith and also to lose it (lets call that a true-apostate)."

      That's not Calvinism. That's an imaginary alternative, where God elects, then reprobates, the same individual.

      God can to that in a fictional narrative about a different theological universe.

      Delete
    6. Makes sense. It would be contradictory by definition to say God does one and the other.

      Delete
    7. Auggybendoggy wrote:
      ---
      Peter, two propositions seem inconsistent
      a) it is impossible for Christians to lose their faith
      b) Christians are warned not to lose their faith.
      ---

      Allow me to give this counter-example:

      A) It is impossible for safe drivers to drive recklessly.
      B) Drivers are warned to slow down over an unsafe section of road.

      As you can see, B) is actually implemented to help ensure that A) comes about. These are not set in contradiction. They help each other.

      I take the passages regarding salvation in similar light. There is therefore no contradiction.

      P.S. Since I can't resist: Safe drivers cannot drive recklessly, but surely they must drive wrecklessly. Just saying. :-D

      Delete
    8. To piggyback on Peter's point, when we're dealing with nested relationships where the truth or falsity of one thing is contingent on the truth or falsity of another, we can't simply say "that's possible" or "that's impossible." For the possibility or impossibility of one case is embedded in the possibility or impossibility of another. Hence, the answer must be more qualified.

      Delete
  8. Steve,

    "If you make a sentient being, a being who, once he comes into existence, will never go out of existence, how is it loving to let him take his chances?"

    This has some analogy to having kids. Just because parents don't predetermine every aspect of our kids lives, doesn't mean we don't love them.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, parents aren't God.

      Delete
    2. If my kids were facing eternal torment and doing so would get them eternal bliss and mean their fulfillment as human beings, I would at least predetermine their salvation out of love for them.

      Delete
  9. "If my kids were facing eternal torment and doing so would get them eternal bliss and mean their fulfillment as human beings, I would at least predetermine their salvation out of love for them."

    .... yet you don't believe God does such a thing.

    In the real world, you would do everything you can to convince them the right thing, and leave it at that... just like God.

    God is smaller than you then, in your system.

    "So you've indicated that even if Steve showed you how all of it fit together coherently you would just shrugg it off as "devishly concocted" and unconvincing...

    So why should anyone waste their time with you now? "

    There's a big difference between a scheme that can be forced into the text, and a scheme which naturally comes out of the text. I can see how the JW interpretations of the end times can be read into the text. But I see no reason that I should do such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In the real world, you would do everything you can to convince them the right thing, and leave it at that... just like God."

      I can think of plenty of other things God can do to convince people to do the right thing that He does not do. It's no effort on His part to perform miracles or to show up visibly or any kind of things that atheists and other nonbelievers say would cause them to believe. I mean, unless you believe they're totally depraved and need God to actually change their hearts before they'd believe or something...

      Delete
    2. >>.... yet you don't believe God does such a thing.

      Actually I do believe God does such a thing. That's why the elect are saved. I just don't believe God loves everyone the way I may love my children.

      Delete
    3. >>In the real world, you would do everything you can to convince them the right thing, and leave it at that... just like God.

      As Peter Pike points out, even on Arminianism God doesn't do everything he can to convince them of the right thing. So God is smaller than your system. And Arminians like Jerry Walls will simply say God does everything he can, short of violating their free will. But if it were my child I would violate their free will in at least this one instance for their eternal good. So the Arminian portrayal of God is smaller than my system too.

      Delete
  10. " You could lose your salvation if you were impenitent, but the elect are penitent. It's hypothetically possible. Salvation is not unconditional. "

    Whoa, what happened to unconditional election? That election is not based on anything in the person, but rather it is based on God's secret will before the foundation of the world? Penitence is very clearing something we find in the person, otherwise.... Well the term has no meaning. Out the window goes the Calvinist exegesis of Ro 9 that it's nothing found in Jacob and Esau. No, it was because God found penitence in Jacob, not Esau.

    Oh sure, God may have caused the penitence of Jacob, but nevertheless it is still conditional on Jacob.

    Oh dear, John Piper won't be pleased at having wasted so many words only to have a Calvinist succumb.

    "However, since the regenerate are receptive to God's warnings, that hypothetical is not a live possibility."

    Oh dear, the Calvinist system is so contrived and so spaghetti like in its logic, that we need to understand the difference between theoretical possibilities and live possibilities. Apparently they are different. I can't imagine any scientist being able to grasp such a difference, and I can't either. I wonder why God's people should.

    "And, indeed, the warnings motivate perseverance."

    Enunciating non-live possibilities is motivational. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>Whoa, what happened to unconditional election?

      Before you set about to single-handedly dismantle Calvinism, maybe you should first try to understand it?

      Delete
    2. John

"Whoa, what happened to unconditional election?"

      Nothing. Election is not salvation. Rather, election is a cause of salvation. Election is unconditional, whereas salvation is conditional.

      "That election is not based on anything in the person, but rather it is based on God's secret will before the foundation of the world?"

      Correct. God doesn't elect anyone contingent on their having faith. Rather, their having faith is contingent on their unconditional election.

      "Penitence is very clearing something we find in the person, otherwise.... Well the term has no meaning. Out the window goes the Calvinist exegesis of Ro 9 that it's nothing found in Jacob and Esau. No, it was because God found penitence in Jacob, not Esau."

      A nice illustration of your hopeless intellectual confusions. Faith and repentance are requirements of salvation. They are not, however, the independent contribution of the believer. Rather, they are the result of God's monergistic regeneration. God's grace is the source of their fulfillment.

      "Oh dear, the Calvinist system is so contrived and so spaghetti like in its logic, that we need to understand the difference between theoretical possibilities and live possibilities. Apparently they are different."

      If you're that philosophically inept then you have serious problems. You don't know the first thing about counterfactuals.

      "Enunciating non-live possibilities is motivational."

      Your sarcasm isn't justified by your unintelligent responses. Try to learn the rudiments of conditional and counterfactual truths.

      Delete
    3. There's two common ways in which the term "hypothetical possibility" is used. One is to say "Let's assume X were true. Then Y would be true". Like for example "Consider the possibility that the flying spaghetti monster is true. Then, people could lose their salvation". Under this meaning of hypothetical, the "X" can be as outlandish as you wish to conceive, because it is just a thought experiment.

      The other meaning of hypothetical possibility is to describe events that COULD occur, but which may or may not have occurred. Like I ask the question, could you become the king of England, ,and I say, well yes, I am 36000th in line to the throne, so if a bomb wiped out half of London, I could hypothetically become King of England. In this meaning, there is some possibility, however unlikely, that the thing could come true. One can outline a scenario where it would come to pass.

      Now if you are saying losing your salvation is hypothetically possible under the first meaning, then it's empty rhetoric. The flying spaghetti monster could hypothetically cause you to lose your salvation if you want to postulate that.

      But if you are using the second meaning, then you haven't told us the circumstances under which it could occur, so again its empty rhetoric.

      "They are not, however, the independent contribution of the believer. Rather, they are the result of God's monergistic regeneration"

      Nothing in the universe is independent of God as first cause, so I guess we are all Calvinists then, right?

      But when you said loss of salvation is possible, depending on whether the believer perseveres, that seems to go right to the Arminian position. If not, I don't see how you can object to any Arminian statement.

      "You don't know the first thing about counterfactuals."

      Counterfactuals are just ways of expressing arguments, they are not rigorous arguments if the conditional is hopelessly impossible.

      There is still no difference between theoretical possibilities and live possibilities. To have a live possibility you have to have a theory about how it can occur. aka, a theoretical possibility.





      Delete
    4. Counterfactuals simply express an alternate cause/effect relationship, viz. If Charles Martel lost the Battle of Tours, European history would be radically different. If the conditional premise is true, the consequences are true. This is the basis of alternate history novels.

      Th deterrent value of warnings is one way God preserves the elect. If the elect flouted the warnings, they would go to hell. It's a relation between two things. Given A, therefore B.

      Is Martel losing the Battle of Tours a realistic scenario? Some other things leading up to that event would have to go differently for that to go differently.

      "But when you said loss of salvation is possible, depending on whether the believer perseveres, that seems to go right to the Arminian position. If not, I don't see how you can object to any Arminian statement."

      In Arminianism, perseverance is contingent on human willpower; in Calvinism, on divine willpower. Fundamental difference.

      Delete
  11. "If the elect flouted the warnings, they would go to hell.

    Why?? Jesus died for their sins.

    If you're going to discuss impossible scenarios you'd better have a rock solid argument.

    "In Arminianism, perseverance is contingent on human willpower; in Calvinism, on divine willpower. Fundamental difference. "

    What is the difference given that you told us that harsh warnings are what keeps the elect in line, and lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost? I mean, does something different keep the elect in line under the Arminian system??? Really??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John said:

      "Why?? Jesus died for their sins."

      Jesus didn't die for impenitent sinners.

      More to the point, you're conflating a counterfactual scenario with reality.

      "If you're going to discuss impossible scenarios you'd better have a rock solid argument."

      Of course, this cuts both ways. The same could be said for your objections including objections masked as innocent queries.

      "What is the difference given that you told us that harsh warnings are what keeps the elect in line, and lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost?"

      I don't see where Steve ever said "lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost". It appears that's your interpolation.

      Also, Steve noted it's a "fundamental difference," not any old "difference".

      "I mean, does something different keep the elect in line under the Arminian system??? Really??"

      Again, fundamentally, their own willpower to make it to the end in contrast to God's willpower to keep them to the end.

      Delete
    2. John:

      

"Why?? Jesus died for their sins."

      Redemption is a necessary, but insufficient condition of salvation. Other necessary conditions include regeneration, faith, repentance, sanctification, and perseverance. It's a package deal. Special redemption entails the other conditions, and vice versa.

      "If you're going to discuss impossible scenarios you'd better have a rock solid argument."

      Prooftexts for the perseverance of the elect.

      "I mean, does something different keep the elect in line under the Arminian system??? Really??"

      There's nothing that keeps them in line. They have the libertarian freedom to lose their salvation (under the Arminian system). To the extent that some of them persevere, that's due to the exercise of their libertarian freedom (under the Arminian system). Not comparable to Calvinism.

      Delete
  12. "Jesus didn't die for impenitent sinners"

    In Steve's self contradictory hypothetical, YES HE DID!! Hey, I'm not the one who raised the hypothetical that the elect could be lost.

    "Of course, this cuts both ways. The same could be said for your objections including objections masked as innocent queries."



    Actually no, I'm not the one who argued that scripture warns about non possible possibilities.

    "don't see where Steve ever said "lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost". It appears that's your interpolation."

    Steve said salvation is conditional on following the warnings yes. Go back and read.

    "Again, fundamentally, their own willpower to make it to the end in contrast to God's willpower to keep them to the end. "

    That's what I thought Calvinists preached, but Steve said the elect are kept in line by the warnings, and the point of warnings is to appeal to the HUMAN will. Warnings have no other function than to manipulate the human will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John

      "In Steve's self contradictory hypothetical, YES HE DID!! Hey, I'm not the one who raised the hypothetical that the elect could be lost."

      Stop behaving duplicitously. You've been the one asking cagey questions this whole time. Steve and others responded to you on your own grounds. You're acting as if this is somehow off-limits in addressing the very questions you yourself raised.

      "Actually no, I'm not the one who argued that scripture warns about non possible possibilities."

      It's your contentious caricature that this is about "non possible possibilities". Steve has already explained in detail what he means. Just because you fail to grasp what he's saying doesn't mean that's the case for everyone else.

      "[Me:] I don't see where Steve ever said 'lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost'. It appears that's your interpolation."

      "[You:] Steve said salvation is conditional on following the warnings yes. Go back and read."

      1. What makes you think the statement "salvation is conditional on following the warnings" is equivalent to "lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost"? You just assert this is so without argument.

      2. However, it's possible some of the elect may be ignorant of certain warnings (therefore "lacking" in their knowledge of these "warnings"), but still avoid committing the sins that were warned about in spite of their lack of knowledge. Perhaps they themselves were never tempted with these particular sins for example.

      It's similarly possible some of the elect are ignorant of certain warnings, commit the sins that were proscribed, but then repent. As such, they may have suffered harm because they "lacked" any "warnings," but they were ultimately saved.

      In short, it'd be like saying, "returning home is conditional on following the warnings" is entirely equivalent to "lacking such harsh warnings one would not return home". But someone could "lack" warnings about the dangers of traveling via this or that route, but still eventually make it home, even if they had to suffer more on their journey than if they had the warnings in the first place.

      3. By the way, what makes you think the warnings in general are best described as "harsh"? Perhaps this is a Freudian slip. Maybe this is all the more so when coupled with your later description of "warnings" possessing "no other function than to manipulate". It almost sounds as if you don't like the idea of biblical "warnings" for deeper psychological reasons.

      Delete
    2. "the point of warnings is to appeal to the HUMAN will."

      1. This doesn't conflict with what I've said. I never denied warnings aren't in part appealing to the human will.

      2. Besides, what part of "fundamentally" do you not understand?

      "Warnings have no other function than to manipulate the human will."

      1. "Manipulate"? That's your malicious characterization.

      Are parents "manipulating" their child's "will" by warning them not to get into cars driven by strangers? Is one friend "manipulating" another friend's "will" by warning their friend about the dangers of drinking and driving or taking illicit drugs?

      2. Warnings can serve various functions. Take Gal 5:2-6. Sure, Paul's warning is a warning against circumcision as the means to be accepted before God. At the same time, Paul's warning teaches us more about what the gospel entails and doesn't entail. Paul's warning sheds further light on what the gospel is and isn't. Hence, Paul's warning serves a didactic role as well.

      Related to this, warnings, if heeded, can make one wiser. They can be a source of wisdom.

      Likewise some warnings actually serve as indirect encouragement. A kind reproof. Such as a father to a child. Why admonish someone you don't care about?

      Delete
    3. "You've been the one asking cagey questions this whole time."

      If there's any cagey question (which I deny), it is the original question of Ben Witherington about the shipwreck question. Of course saying that questions are cagey is a subtle form of ad-hominem, as if some questions are somehow sleazy in their nature.

      And I didn't force Steve to answer any particular way. If he wants to say it is hypothetically possible for the elect to be lost, that's an astounding admission for a Calvinist that needs considerable exploration.

      "Steve has already explained in detail what he means. Just because you fail to grasp what he's saying doesn't mean that's the case for everyone else."

      Just because you claim to understand, doesn't mean he adequately explained it. Just to name one example, there is no sound basis for his "live possibility" and "hypothetical possibility" distinction.

      "What makes you think the statement "salvation is conditional on following the warnings" is equivalent to "lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost"? You just assert this is so without argument. "

      I didn't say those 2 statements are equivalent. However Steve said that warnings are the mechanism that keeps the elect in line, and if hypothetically the elect ignored them, they would be lost. Therefore, without the warnings, which supposedly keep them in line as a necessary prerequisite to salvation they would be lost.

      "However, it's possible some of the elect may be ignorant of certain warnings (therefore "lacking" in their knowledge of these "warnings"), but still avoid committing the sins that were warned about in spite of their lack of knowledge."

      I don't see how that is relevant.

      "In short, it'd be like saying, "returning home is conditional on following the warnings" is entirely equivalent to "lacking such harsh warnings one would not return home"."

      But it's not what Steve said. He said "They function as an efficacious means to preserve the elect.". He didn't say "well the elect don't need the warnings, but they're there anyway". If they would have returned home anyway, then the warning was hardly efficacious.

      "Are parents "manipulating" their child's "will" by warning them not to get into cars driven by strangers? "

      Yes they are, that's what the word means. Didn't say there was anything wrong with it, but it's true.

      "2. Warnings can serve various functions."

      That's wonderful, but we're talking about the shipwreck verse about destroying your faith and salvation. Not 1001 rabbit holes.



      Delete
    4. @John

      "If there's any cagey question (which I deny), it is the original question of Ben Witherington about the shipwreck question."

      People can simply re-read your comments to see what I mean. Easy peasy.

      "Of course saying that questions are cagey is a subtle form of ad-hominem, as if some questions are somehow sleazy in their nature."

      1. Cagey is hardly tantamount to sleazy. That's your own telling inference from the one to the other.

      2. Also, there's nothing wrong with pointing out someone is behaving in a particular way if, indeed, they are behaving in said particular way.

      3. Ad hominem isn't always fallacious. For example, see here.

      "And I didn't force Steve to answer any particular way. If he wants to say it is hypothetically possible for the elect to be lost, that's an astounding admission for a Calvinist that needs considerable exploration."

      1. He responded the way he did in part because he's responding to the way you're asking.

      2. You've left his perfectly relevant point about the counterfactual scenario unanswered. Instead, all you've done is act gobsmacked by his response.

      "Just because you claim to understand, doesn't mean he adequately explained it. Just to name one example, there is no sound basis for his 'live possibility' and 'hypothetical possibility' distinction."

      Just because you claim there's "no sound basis" for the "distinction" doesn't mean there's no sound basis for the distinction. It's just an assertion sans argumentation.

      Yes, it's possible to play this game all day.

      "I didn't say those 2 statements are equivalent."

      Pity you can't even follow your own argument. You originally said: "What is the difference given that you told us that harsh warnings are what keeps the elect in line, and lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost?"

      To which I responded: "I don't see where Steve ever said 'lacking such harsh warnings the elect would be lost'. It appears that's your interpolation."

      To which you responded: "Steve said salvation is conditional on following the warnings yes."

      "However Steve said that warnings are the mechanism that keeps the elect in line"

      No, this is another example of your failure at basic reading comprehension. To take an example, one of the statements Steve made was: "Rather, saving grace makes the regenerate receptive to God's warnings. They are saved by persevering. And God uses various means to preserve them."

      For one thing, Steve notes the role of "saving grace" in "God's warnings".

      For another, he indicated the role of "perseverance" in salvation as well.

      For still another, Steve noted "various means". That's in the plural, not singular.

      Delete
    5. "and if hypothetically the elect ignored them, they would be lost. Therefore, without the warnings, which supposedly keep them in line as a necessary prerequisite to salvation they would be lost."

      Lurkers can take note if interested: I've already explained to John why that's wrong-headed. He's just repeating the same error by summarizing what he previously said.

      "But it's not what Steve said."

      No, it's what you said.

      You have a problem keeping track of your own line of thinking. It's no wonder you can't track others well enough if you have so much difficulty tracking yourself.

      "He said 'They function as an efficacious means to preserve the elect.'. He didn't say 'well the elect don't need the warnings, but they're there anyway'. If they would have returned home anyway, then the warning was hardly efficacious."

      That's because I'm responding to you on your own grounds. I'm not responding to Steve. Go back and re-read what you yourself wrote.

      "Yes they are, that's what the word means. Didn't say there was anything wrong with it, but it's true."

      1. In that case, it's noteworthy to observe how you "manipulate" words to suit your own agenda. I'm not at the moment saying there's anything wrong with it, but it's true.

      Yes, again, we can play this game all day long.

      2. If it's true parents are capable of "manipulating" (e.g. deftly exerting such dominating control and influence over) a child's will by telling the child not to get into a car with a stranger such that the child obeys, then why is it not likewise true the Arminian God is capable of "manipulating" a child of God's will by telling the child not to get into false and deadly teachers and their beliefs, values, and so forth such that the child obeys?

      "That's wonderful, but we're talking about the shipwreck verse about destroying your faith and salvation. Not 1001 rabbit holes."

      1. I'm merely responding to your categorical assertion that "Warnings have no other function than to manipulate the human will."

      Although interestingly enough your response is itself a tacit concession that you're mistaken.

      2. If you don't want to see rabbit holes, then you may wish to stop conjuring up imaginary white rabbits to follow.

      Delete
    6. John:

      "If he wants to say it is hypothetically possible for the elect to be lost, that's an astounding admission for a Calvinist that needs considerable exploration."

      There's nothing the least bit astounding about the *hypothetical* possibility that the elect could be lost.

      "Just to name one example, there is no sound basis for his 'live possibility' and 'hypothetical possibility' distinction."

      "15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised" (1 Cor 15:15).

      A counterfactual scenario involving an argument ad impossible. Given the premise, the conclusion follows. But that's a hypothetical possibility, not a live possibility.

      "That's what I thought Calvinists preached, but Steve said the elect are kept in line by the warnings, and the point of warnings is to appeal to the HUMAN will."

      They appeal to the human mind. In any case, Calvinism doesn't deny that elect Christians exercise their wills. But that's hardly equivalent to libertarian freedom of the will (a la Arminianism). The elect will what God wills them to will, because God wills it.

      Delete