Because I’ve had some other battles to fight, I’ve been neglecting MG’s questions—no relation to the classic sports car, I presume! :-)
BTW, I don’t monitor all the feedback in every thread, so there maybe some other questions of his I’m overlooking.
MG SAID:
“What specific problems would follow from this? What argument by Orthodox are you criticizing?”
Among other things, Orthodox has been arguing that evangelicals cannot be certain of what they believe, whereas sacred tradition or living tradition in EO is the makeweight.
If, however, the Orthodox Communion cannot even agree on the boundaries of the canon, then what becomes of his appeal to religious certainty?
MG SAID:
“What kinds of disadvantages follow for Orthodoxy if there is disagreement between the different parts of the church on the extended OT canon?”
Two issues:
i) If EO appeals to some form of tradition to ground the canon, if that appeal is flawed, and if, by relying tradition alone to establish the canon, it thereby cuts itself off from alternative methods of ascertaining the canon, then it’s at a disadvantage vis-à-vis evangelicalism, which does have a fallback option—indeed, more than one.
ii) This also goes to the larger question of who speaks for Orthodoxy?
MG SAID:
“I just wonder how big of a deal it is that there is disagreement about the contents of the canon; Im not sure its an issue, really.”
See above and below.
MG SAID:
“Unlike Orthodox, I see the point that you guys are trying to make here. Orthodoxy is not as united as it claims to be, and hence one of its claims to superiority is false. However, I think that in a certain sense, Orthodox is on to something. I know what you guys are trying to say, but I would like to see it formulated as an argument. That way we can better assess whether or not it succeeds or fails.”
i) That depends, in part, on whether or not you agree with him. We’re getting mixed signals from different EO commenters. That, of itself, is problematic. Does Orthodoxy speak with one voice, or several conflicting voices? Harmony or cacophony?
ii) Where Orthodox is concerned, the question is whether EO confers an epistemic advantage. Gene, Jason, and I have argued that it’s actually disadvantageous (see above).
MG SAID:
“Well though the Quinisext Ecumenical Council says that these books are canonical, it doesn’t say they are inspired as far as I know. Ecumenical Councils are the place from which authority is expressed in the Church. Its too bad that some individuals are disagreeing on this subject.”
But that raises a fresh set of issues. Take the long ending of Mark. Did Jesus really speak those words or not?
The words attributed to him lay down criteria for what makes a professing believer to be a true believer. Now, if the EO tradition affirms the authenticity of these words, and if these signs do not accompany EO believers, then EO believers are self-deluded.
So it makes a big difference whether someone put these words in his mouth or not. Your eternal fate hangs in the balance.
MG SAID:
“Things that are outside of the scope of ecumenical councils are up for grabs and not necessary for unity.”
i) Is EO tradition backward looking? What about the appeal of writers like Meyendorff to “living tradition”?
ii) And what’s your reason for taking the ecumenical councils as having the last word? By what criteria do you identify an ecumenical council? Why do you attribute infallibility to an ecumenical council? Or do you?
MG SAID:
“Certainly there is disagreement over this issue, but that doesn’t mean that communion is being withheld; and that’s what is crucial to unity in the Orthodox Church. Individual opinions coming into conflict don’t necessarily entail that the Church as a whole has disunity. That’s what I meant by ‘dispute’; I guess I should have said ‘Eucharistic disunity’.’
But don’t the disputes cut much deeper than that? Consider the dispute between ROCOR and the rest of the OE communion. This raises a couple of fundamental issues:
i) What’s the authentic voice of Orthodoxy? Indeed, what’s the authentic voice of Russian Orthodoxy, just for starters? Is it the Metropolitan of ROCOR or the Patriarch of Moscow? Who adjudicates a dispute like that?
ii) Moreover, ROCOR is accusing the rest of the Orthodox communion of heresy and apostasy. For him, “ecumania” is the “heresy of heresies.”
a) And, given his EO assumptions, he has a point, does he not? If the EO communion represents the one true church, then ecumenical syncretism denies the identity of the one true church.
b) Yet his allegation is also in tension with apostolic succession, is it not? If the entire Orthodox communion could defect from the true faith, except for a Russian splinter group, then isn’t the appeal to apostolic succession to ground sacred tradition thereby nullified?
So both sides of this dispute have a point, but it takes the form of mutually assured destruction. They end up disproving each other. Reciprocal falsification.
MG SAID:
“I definately see the point you are trying to get at. There might be a problem with Orthodoxy for this reason. I don't mean to sound inflammatory, (which is how questions like these sometimes sound...) but doesn't your argument cut both ways? Can't I even use your argument to point out the vagueness of Christianity in general? So for instance I could ask this: who speaks for Christians? Again, Im not trying to sound like a jerk. But I do want to know why these kinds of questions don't put all Christians in an equal amount of trouble. Thanks for the interesting post.”
To reiterate a couple of points:
i) If certain Orthodox believers try to falsify Evangelicalism by raising a given objection, and if a parallel objection can be leveled against EO, then they’ve undercut their own position.
ii) But that, of itself, doesn’t undercut the evangelical option, for we may have alternative methods of grounding our belief-system which are insusceptible to the same objections. And, indeed, Jason, Gene, and I (among others) have explicated the alternatives in some detail.
MG SAID:
“I assume you are talking about the doctrine of unconditional election of individuals to eternal salvation, which is the position of Augustinian and Reformed theology. Where do you see this doctrine taught in Scripture?”
It’s a theological construct with many lines of evidence feeding into it from Paul and John. One place to start is:
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/smbrom9.html
“Also, what do you make of 1 Peter 1:2 where it says that there are people ‘elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’? This seems to ground election in foreknowledge of some kind.”
i) No, because the meaning of a word is determined by usage rather than etymology. Petrine usage has its background in OT usage, where, in covenantal settings, the Hebrew counterpart (yada) is a synonym for “choice” rather than “knowledge.
ii) This carries over into NT usage (as well as Qumranic usage), in analogous settings (e.g. Acts 2:23; Rom 8:29; 11:2).
iii) And the prefix accentuates the unconditional aspect of this choice, since it was made before its objects came into being—thereby denoting God’s causal priority in choosing whom he did (and, by implication, excluding others).
iv) In addition, certain words and phrases have a cultural resonance. There were both “libertarian” and “predestinarian” Jewish groups in 2nd temple Judaism. So we have to ask how Petrine usage would have been “heard” by the original audience against that social backdrop. It would have triggered associations with the predestinarian schools of thought.
Taken by itself, 1 Pet 1:2 doesn’t necessarily prove unconditional election, but it’s both consistent with unconditional election and is tilted in that direction. Yet the doctrine of unconditional election is also founded on a larger database.
I'd just make a couple of additions here, speaking for myself.
ReplyDeleteMy line of argumentation with Orthodox has been geared to simply get him to ground his rule of faith and actually demonstrate that his rule is functionally superior to mine. My responses are generally pegged to his, to answer him on his own grounds and get him to answer within his own constraints. In short, I want to know where his rule of faith cashes out. It has consistently cashed out at bare fideism that he's in the one true church and that said church is led by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
So, when he claims that he only needs a minority of Fathers in EO Holy Tradition to agree with him, I ask him to show us the rules for adjudicating who is right and wrong. We get told either we must be EO or that we should ask any EO member or priest or he just runs back to his claims. Benedict S. does largely the same thing. It always comes back to that.
MG, you mention the Councils, but Orthodox has stated categorically that he does not need the authority of councils and popes behind his doctrine. I've thus asked what the point of those councils was and why he "appealed" to them, and he's generally equivocated over the word "appeal," saying he didn't "appeal" to the council, but merely mentioned it because it was a faithful statement of Orthodoxy. But how does he know this to be true? What if there were those in Orthodoxy that disputed the articles of that council or synod? How does he know who was right, if only a minority is needed to back up his own views? The Synod of Jerusalem has come up recently. Well, the Russians did not accept all of its articles, so who was right and who was wrong? If that synod faithfully represented Orthodoxy, then why did Russia not accept all of it?
Cyril's Confession was mentioned, and I had actually alluded to it before. Since we don't know what "Holy Tradition" consists of certainly (since all we've been told is very vague), is this part of Holy Tradition or not? If not, why not? Remember, Orthodox has made claims about what "all Orthodox" believe.
Further, let's assume a council is authoritative. Who gets to interpret the council? In other words, how is grounding the rule of faith in a council superior to Scripture. Let's take the definition of the term "person" in the Trinitarian creeds. Which definition do we use? The original authors'? Boethius? The theologians of East and West during the Middle Ages? Some of those, like Boethius would lead us into Tritheism. The point is that, at some point, somebody has to interpret the councils, and adding a layer of "tradition" between the individual communicant and the council does nothing superior to Sola Scriptura, because, unless that communicant checks his intellect at the door, he or she still has to know that interpretation is correct. In short, Orthodox argument of epistemic certainty simply doesn't cash out at a place functionally different from ours, and, in fact, puts him at a substantial disadvantage, for an error can creep into Holy Tradition and become firmly established over and above Scripture.
That's why I want him to show us an argument for election based on foreseen faith. I chose that for several reasons, the first of which the Council of Jerusalem stated this to be true, and we were told that this faithfully represented Orthodoxy. They also said the Holy Spirit lead the Church into all truth. So, if this doctrine cannot be found in Scripture, then where is it found? If unconditional election is found in Scripture, and this doctrine contradicts unconditional election, then the Holy Spirit has inspired two different doctrines, and, even if my doctrine of election is erroneous, that does not prove the case for election based on foreseen faith. That doctrine is put forth by Arminians, and I've seen their arguments from exegesis for years and they always run to the same Scriptures (Romans 8, 1 Peter 1, etc.) and misuse the word "foreknow/forknowledge," and start going on about libertarianism to make their point, but where's that argument from Scripture. It simply isn't there.
Then there's the Council of Florence which made reproachment between East and West over the filioque. Kiev and many of the Easterns there agreed to it. It was never ratified by Constantinople. So, I asked Orthodox about it. He said he denies the filioque "like all Orthodox." But clearly ALL Orthodox have not rejected the filioque, since the Council of Florence proved it. So, how does he know to follow the majority view (contra the filioque) if a minority view can be a valid appeal for him in other areas of the faith? What is the rule to adjudicate that? Where can it be found?
And then there's the argument over the long ending. I'm trying to get Orthodox to answer some basic questions about the long ending for the reasons Steve supplied. My logic is pegged to his own rule of faith as stated about what "all" Orthodox believe or have believed. Well, if it wasn't always there, then when did it come into use and why was it accepted? Who wrote it? How did the churches know to accept it? If it was a later addition, then clearly ALL the churches did not use it. In short, what is the criterion for its addition? Why accept it? How does he know "the Church" was right to accept it? Where did it come from if it wasn't original? Does the EO feel free to add to Scripture? If so, then Orthodox is not merely arguing for the superiority of his rule of faith, but he is implicitly (or explicitly) arguing for continuing revelation itself and the canon isn't closed at all. In fact, that's not too different than Pentecostals and others who run around talking about what God said to them today. His response comes back to him saying he does not need to prove everything, only he needs to believe the church. But that's just fideism writ large. It certainly isn't any better than the Protestant rule of faith.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I will try to have a reply posted on my own blog in a day or two. You guys are much more productive and fast than the average blogger and I actually didn't see "Peeling an Onion Dome" until about an hour ago! Sorry about that. I'll try to keep up with the pace.
ReplyDeleteMG you asked about 1 Peter 1:2. The passage correctly interpreted, clearly and explicitly states that God’s election of persons is **conditioned upon** His foreknowledge of those persons.
ReplyDeleteMG SAID:
“Also, what do you make of 1 Peter 1:2 where it says that there are people ‘elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’? This seems to ground election in foreknowledge of some kind.”
Steve Hays responded:
=========================================
“i) No, because the meaning of a word is determined by usage rather than etymology. Petrine usage has its background in OT usage, where, in covenantal settings, the Hebrew counterpart (yada) is a synonym for “choice” rather than “knowledge.
ii) This carries over into NT usage (as well as Qumranic usage), in analogous settings (e.g. Acts 2:23; Rom 8:29; 11:2).
iii) And the prefix accentuates the unconditional aspect of this choice, since it was made before its objects came into being—thereby denoting God’s causal priority in choosing whom he did (and, by implication, excluding others).
iv) In addition, certain words and phrases have a cultural resonance. There were both “libertarian” and “predestinarian” Jewish groups in 2nd temple Judaism. So we have to ask how Petrine usage would have been “heard” by the original audience against that social backdrop. It would have triggered associations with the predestinarian schools of thought.
Taken by itself, 1 Pet 1:2 doesn’t necessarily prove unconditional election, but it’s both consistent with unconditional election and is tilted in that direction. Yet the doctrine of unconditional election is also founded on a larger database.”
=========================================
Hays begins with a typical Calvinist method (appealing to yada in the OT and attempting to equate the NT Greek word proginwskw with this OT meaning for yada). MG a very good and helpful article (which shows the problems with this and other Calvinist methods for dealing with the meaning of “foreknowledge”) can be found by doing a Google search and typing “Thomas Edgar foreknowledge”. The first entry will be Edgar’s article titled: “The Meaning of Proginwskw/”Foreknowledge” (in both PDF and HTML versions). Edgar does a nice job of showing the meaning of the Greek word proginwskw/”foreknowledge” to be “knowing beforehand”. He also shows many problems with Calvinist attempts to evade this meaning in 1 Pet. 1:2 (pgs. 56-59 especially and throughout the article).
If Hays were correct in section iii about “the prefix accentuates the unconditional aspect of this choice”, then 1 Pet. 1:2 should read “elect according to the choice of God . ..” Does not elect mean **choose**? So, isn’t it a tautology to say “chosen according to the choice of God?” What Hays suggests is completely foreign to the text of 1 Pet. 1:2.
The Scripture in 1 Pet. 1:2 says that God’s election is based upon, or conditioned upon, His foreknowledge. And foreknowing is not the same as choosing or causing to occur (God foreknows our sin but does not choose for us to sin or cause us to sin). The presence of the word foreknowledge in 1 Pet. 1:2 explicitly contradicts the Calvinist conception of **unconditional election** that God chooses who will be a believer and who will not be, completely independent of any thing they do. 1 Pet. 1:2 says the election of people to salvation IS CONDITIONED UPON GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE.
Foreknowledge of what? Their sin? No, all have sinned and their sin would not be the basis for choosing them to be His people. Their righteousness? No, scripture says we are not saved by our own righteousness/works, but by faith. So what distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever according to scripture? The believer has a faith response to the gospel message the nonbeliever does not. Non-calvinists seeing these things and being aware of these things, properly conclude that God foreknows individual person’s faith response and based upon, or conditioned upon, **this**, they are chosen (i.e., elect). The election is thus based upon fore-seeing something about the believer which is different from what is seen with the nonbeliever.
Throughout the NT those who are believers are those who have had a faith response to the gospel message. And God does not have their faith for them, or instead of them, or force them to have faith. Their faith response to the gospel message is their own action, their own doing (and yet Scripture makes it clear that this saving faith is neither a “work” nor something that leads to boasting, Rom. 3:27-28). If God has complete and exhaustive foreknowledge (and we know that He does as He knows all things both actual and possible) of all future events then He could easily choose those who respond to the gospel with faith, to be His people. The issue of election deals with answering the question: who does God elect to be His people? The answer in both testaments is that God chooses those who trust Him to be His people.
Amazingly, a verse that explicitly and directly speaks against unconditional election/Calvinism, according to Hays supports Calvinism:
“Taken by itself, 1 Pet. 1:2 doesn’t necessarily prove unconditional election, but it’s both consistent with unconditional election and is tilted in that direction.”
“Taken by itself” this verse clearly supports the non-calvinist conception of conditional election (i.e., because the verse explicitly states that election is conditioned upon foreknowledge). The verse is not consistent with the Calvinistic notion of unconditional election at all. And regarding “tilting” in some direction, it more than “tilts”, it necessitates a conclusion that election is conditioned upon foreknowledge (the Calvinist has God’s foreknowledge conditioned upon his predetermination of all events; Edgar shows the problems with this as well in his article).
Gene Bridges also wrote to MG about 1 Pet. 1:2:
===================================
“That's why I want him to show us an argument for election based on foreseen faith. I chose that for several reasons, the first of which the Council of Jerusalem stated this to be true, and we were told that this faithfully represented Orthodoxy. They also said the Holy Spirit lead the Church into all truth. So, if this doctrine cannot be found in Scripture, then where is it found? If unconditional election is found in Scripture, and this doctrine contradicts unconditional election, then the Holy Spirit has inspired two different doctrines, and, even if my doctrine of election is erroneous, that does not prove the case for election based on foreseen faith. That doctrine is put forth by Arminians, and I've seen their arguments from exegesis for years and they always run to the same Scriptures (Romans 8, 1 Peter 1, etc.) and misuse the word "foreknow/foreknowledge," and start going on about libertarianism to make their point, but where's that argument from Scripture. It simply isn't there.”
===================================
Bridges begins with a demand to “show us an argument for election based on foreseen faith.” Well 1 Pet. 1:2 does this explicitly and clearly. But Bridges **already knows** this argument as he says he’s heard it all before (“That doctrine is put forth by Arminians, and I’ve seen their arguments from exegesis for years.”). “For years” Bridges has known and rejected the truth presented in 1 Pet. 1:2.
I see no reason for MG to respond to Bridges’ demand. It is similar to when a skeptic makes his **demands** of a particular Christian, knowing full well what other Christians have already said about this subject. The skeptic is not interested in the truth, he just wants to argue his view or speak his mind in front of his friends. Similarly, Bridges doesn’t really want to hear MG provide reasons for his belief in conditional election because Bridges wants to know the truth (or for the sake of a reasoned discussion). Bridges already believes Calvinism is true and that non-calvinism is false. And he says himself that he has heard the arguments presented by non-calvinists (“for years”).
The fact is, **conditional** election is explicitly and clearly presented in scripture, 1 Pet. 1:2 does so rather clearly. ELECTION IS CONDITIONED UPON FOREKNOWLEDGE. How could this not be any clearer in 1 Pet. 1:2?
Bridges also believes that non-Calvinists are playing games with the meaning of foreknowledge (“and misuse the word ‘foreknow/foreknowledge”). When in reality, it is the non-Calvinist who takes proginwskw in its proper meaning. And it is Calvinists who do eisegetical gymnastics, playing word games in order to evade the plain and true meaning of the text of 1 Pet. 1:2 (Edgar makes this very clear in his article).
It is interesting that Bridges talks about how non-calvinists will go to certain passages to show the truth of their view (“and they always run to the same Scriptures [Romans 8, 1 Peter 1, etc.]”). Don’t Calvinists do precisely the same thing when “they always run to the same Scriptures (Gen. 50:20, Isaiah 10, Romans 9, etc.)”? The correct view will be one which is able to incorporate all of the “prooftexts” from both sides. If you want the truth, develop a view which handles both sets of texts without the weaknesses of either Calvinism or Arminianism.
Bridges says there is no argument for the conditional view of election from scripture (“but where’s that argument from Scripture. It simply isn’t there”). 1 Pet. 1:2 clearly provides it, but Bridges has already dismissed this verse and has been doing so “for years”. Regarding his own view of unconditional election of individuals to salvation, the scriptural backing for this view is absent. “It simply isn’t there.”
Bridges like other Calvinists will bring up verses showing that God is sovereign and does as He pleases as **proof** of unconditional election. But one can believe in the sovereignty of God as presented in a multitude of Scriptures without holding to unconditional election. This is true because while the bible is full of evidence for God’s sovereignty, it does not teach that God preselects some to salvation independent of them having a faith response to the gospel message and intentionally damning the rest who never have a genuine opportunity to be saved.
Concluding that God is sovereign is a logical and warranted conclusion from the biblical texts. Concluding from these texts which present God as sovereign that unconditional election is true is not logically warranted. It is an **unjustified logical leap** from the evidence of the biblical texts for sovereignty to the conclusion of unconditional election. This idea of a preselected “elect” who are then caused to be the “elect” by God while God does not work with the non-elect in any redemptive manner, is completely absent from scripture.
Actually, it is not only absent from Scripture, it gets worse for the Calvinist. Scripture makes a positive case against this view by asserting that God has a **redemptive love** for non-believers, some of whom will never become believers (e.g. Jn. 3:16-17 and I have already discussed this elsewhere in this blog). **That** is what the bible teaches and because that is true, Calvinism with its intentional restriction of the love and grace of God, is false and properly rejected by the vast majority of Christians who correctly espouse “unlimited atonement”.
The Calvinists are **grace-restrictors**.
Intentionally restricting the love and grace of God in a way that goes against what Scripture says. While scripture speaks of God’s **redemptive** love and grace going out to all human persons (including those who will forever remain in their unbelief, forever remain a part of the “world”). God reveals Himself to be good, loving and gracious. And as Jesus was offered on the cross for the **world** we know these things to be true.
MG read the Edgar article and you will be made quite aware of the meaning of proginwskw/foreknowledge in the NT. Reading that article will also strengthen both your convictions about the truth of **conditional election** and your doubts about unconditional election/Calvinism.
Henry
"Hays begins with a typical Calvinist method (appealing to yada in the OT and attempting to equate the NT Greek word proginwskw with this OT meaning for yada)."
ReplyDeleteYes, and that's because NT theological terms frequently derive their meaning, not from secular Greek, but from OT usage. The NT terms are a synonymous counterpart to OT terms.
If Henry doesn't know this, then Henry doesn't know very much. But, of course, we've already established his ignorance in past exchanges.
Speaking of which, there is nothing distinctively "Calvinistic" about my interpretation of the word. If Henry didn't operate with such a provincial outlook, he would find that the Catholic commentator Joseph Fitzmyer makes exactly the same move I make, tracing the import of the word back to OT usage, and defining proginosko as "predilection" (Romans 525, 604).
It is also defined as "predestination" or "foreordination" by Nigel Turner, a world authority on NT Greek. Cf. Christian Words, 178-79.
"If Hays were correct in section iii about “the prefix accentuates the unconditional aspect of this choice”, then 1 Pet. 1:2 should read 'elect according to the choice of God . ..' Does not elect mean **choose**? So, isn’t it a tautology to say 'chosen according to the choice of God?' What Hays suggests is completely foreign to the text of 1 Pet. 1:2."
Henry keeps reminding us that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. No, it wouldn't be tautologous because 1 Pet 1-2 doesn't employ two synonyms.
As I said before, proginosko denotes more than "choice." Rather, it denotes "prior choice."
So proginosko would be epexegetical by making the additional point that their election was according to the prior choice (=predestination/foreordination) of God.
Henry's problem is that he doesn't bother to consult a standard lexicon. He reads the word "foreknowledge" and then imputes his 21st century cultural / colloquial / English understanding to it.
ReplyDeleteHenry says:
Bridges begins with a demand to “show us an argument for election based on foreseen faith.” Well 1 Pet. 1:2 does this explicitly and clearly. But Bridges **already knows** this argument as he says he’s heard it all before (“That doctrine is put forth by Arminians, and I’ve seen their arguments from exegesis for years.”). “For years” Bridges has known and rejected the truth presented in 1 Pet. 1:2.
Notice that Henry doesn't bother to do any exegesis of this text.
I see no reason for MG to respond to Bridges’ demand. It is similar to when a skeptic makes his **demands** of a particular Christian, knowing full well what other Christians have already said about this subject. The skeptic is not interested in the truth, he just wants to argue his view or speak his mind in front of his friends. Similarly, Bridges doesn’t really want to hear MG provide reasons for his belief in conditional election because Bridges wants to know the truth (or for the sake of a reasoned discussion). Bridges already believes Calvinism is true and that non-calvinism is false. And he says himself that he has heard the arguments presented by non-calvinists (“for years”).
Henry is either to ignorant or too incompetent to realize that he is coming into the middle of a conversation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism regarding their rule of faith. I've given my reasons for citing this particular doctrine (and Henry ignored it, but that doesn't matter, because Henry is too busy running around trying to score points against Calvinism), and I stated that, even if my view of election is erroneous, it does not make the case for election based on foreknowledge.
And for all Henry knows the Eastern Orthodox may not view it that way. I'm not interested in Henry's Arminian sleight of hand, I'm interested in what the Eastern Orthodox exegetical argument is. Henry is like a vigilante who runs into the middle of an intersection to direct traffic only to be arrested himself because he has no authority to direct traffic.
But, that said, I'd like Henry to show us a passage that says that God elects based on foreseen faith or foreseen perseverance (a more Wesleyan view). Where is "foreknowledge" in 1 Peter 1:2 connected to faith, that is God looking down the corridors of history and seeing who will believe and who will not. Where in 1 Peter 1 is this idea located? That's the problem with the verb, you have to make the actual connection with faith or perseverance in order to make the argument. So, assuming Edgar is right on the lexical meaning of the verb for sake of argument, what text actually connects foreknowledge or foreknowing to faith itself. In other words, where does Scripture ever say that God elects based upon foreseen faith?
Bridges also believes that non-Calvinists are playing games with the meaning of foreknowledge (“and misuse the word ‘foreknow/foreknowledge”). When in reality, it is the non-Calvinist who takes proginwskw in its proper meaning. And it is Calvinists who do eisegetical gymnastics, playing word games in order to evade the plain and true meaning of the text of 1 Pet. 1:2 (Edgar makes this very clear in his article).
Really, so what does the verb proginoskw mean here in 1 Peter 1:20? How about Romans 11:2? Please show us that the meaning is something like, "For God know about Jesus before the foundation of the world..." Yes, I know what Edgar says: The passage
teaches that the cross was not an afterthought. Christ’s mission as
Savior was known before the foundation of the world, although He was not manifested as Savior until the last times, for our sakes.
But that's not what the passage says. What is says is that Christ was chosen (foreknown = "foreloved") before the foundation of the world, but He appeared in these last times for the sake of "you." It speaks to the interTrinitarian relationship of the Father and Son, not prescience about Christ. In fact, Edgar's entire argument doesn't make sense here, for where is there anything in 1:20 about Christ not being an afterthought? In fact, that explanation would depend on God having a predeterminate plan related to Christ. Edgar can't recognize the fallacy of regression when it stares him in the face.
Bridges like other Calvinists will bring up verses showing that God is sovereign and does as He pleases as **proof** of unconditional election. But one can believe in the sovereignty of God as presented in a multitude of Scriptures without holding to unconditional election. This is true because while the bible is full of evidence for God’s sovereignty, it does not teach that God preselects some to salvation independent of them having a faith response to the gospel message and intentionally damning the rest who never have a genuine opportunity to be saved.
A. Notice how Henry pontificates about what I allegedly will or won't do. But he has no knowledge of this. This is just his posturing.
B. Tell us, Henry, what Calvinist believes that God will select persons apart from faith? Do those persons elected not believe the gospel?
C. Why, from your own point of view, libertarian freedom, does one person believe and not the other?
D. And don't you believe that God creates some people only to damn them? Does everybody in the world get a chance to hear the gospel and believe or not? Why does God create people who will never ever have that chance? Either you believe common grace can and does provide "a genuine opportunity to hear the gospel" and can save, or you must admit that your view is subject to the same objection you raise about ours.
The Edgar article is laughable, particularly where it compares Lukan usage to Petrine and Pauline usage, and uses the word as used of the knowledge of men and the knowledge of God. He uses secular Greek to determine biblical usage. That's a second fallacy. Edgar engages in multiple exegetical fallacies that were long ago considered and answered by the Reformed community.
"If Hays were correct in section iii about “the prefix accentuates the unconditional aspect of this choice”, then 1 Pet. 1:2 should read 'elect according to the choice of God . ..' Does not elect mean **choose**? So, isn’t it a tautology to say 'chosen according to the choice of God?' What Hays suggests is completely foreign to the text of 1 Pet. 1:2."
Err, no. First, there is no taugtology for the reason Steve cited, and second, the word "foreknowledge" would mean determined or predetermined plan.
As Carson says, it is “methodologically irresponsible to read the meaning of a
ReplyDeleteHebrew word into the Greek without further ado” (Fallacies, 61–62). Two facts
are striking in this entire interpretational procedure. First, is the unquestioning
use of this erroneous argument by almost every interpreter of deterministic
leaning. Second, is the fact that no evidence other than dogmatic assertion is
given for this claim, although it is contrary to acceptable exegetical procedure.
63
One cannot obtain the meaning of Greek words through Hebrew equivalents.
This cannot be stated more directly and clearly than Carson has already done
(Carson, Fallacies, 61–62). See also Moisés Silva, Explorations in Exegetical
Methodology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 58.
A. It is rather striking here that Edgar stops short of telling us what Carson actually says. Like Dave Hunt, he cuts off the quote. After the word "ado," Carson continues. "The case must be argued. For instance, one must ask the prior question about the degree to which the LXX (let alone the NT) invested Greek words with Hebrew meanings.....it is necessary both to study Hellenistic literature and papyri to reasonably knowledgeable about the semantic range of Greek words current in the days of the translators of the LXX. These considerations are circumvented when a scholar moves directly from the semantic range of a Hebrew word in the OT to that of a Greek word in the NT."
Edgar didn't mention this, and it is Edgar who explicitly states that he's deriving the meaning of this verb from secular Greek. So, he agrees it is illicit to move from Hebrew OT to Greek NT, but he feels free to move from secular Greek to biblical Greek! In fact, in relation to Romans 8:29, the typical Reformed commentator will move from the LXX use of the verb to the NT and argue his case, which is precisely the procedure Carson argues should be done. Egdar calls this procedure "highly irregular," but he presents us with no standard by which to know this. In fact, he agrees with Carson's statement on the importation of Hebrew meanings into Greek terms, but then ignores the rest of his argument. So, he gives the reader the impression that Carson is a reliable source for hermenutical method and then promptly ignores the rest of Carson's own statements! Edgar, by way of contrast, will compare the work of Paul with Luke, but that's a fallacious comparison, and he further says that secular Greek should be allowed to determine the meaning of the term. He cites Carson again to criticize him, but he cites an example where Carson is comparing Paul to Paul's own usage. One does not run to Luke, as Edgar does repeatedly, to determine the meaning of words for Paul. If that is so, then we should run to James to determine Pauline concepts. These are basic exegetical rules. In fact, what Edgar does not tell his readers here is that Carson on page 40 of his book is discussing unknown or unlikely meanings. This isn't the same as noting that "yada" in Hebrew is in the LXX as "prognosikw." How is the meaning of "prognoskw" being related to "yada" in Hebrew an "unknown" or "unlikely" meaning, when the LXX itself if the one that translates it that way, and where is his argument that the standard lexicon itself is incorrect?
He also wants to accuse the Reformed of importing philosophical assumptions into the meaning of the verb.
A. But libertarian freedom is underwriting everything Edgar says. That's a philosophical assumption that Arminians themselves say is not derived from Scripture, but from intuitions. Why is it illicit for us to import philosophical assumptions into the text while he gets a free pass?
B. And is secular Greek not *also* fraught with philosophical assumptions? Where is his argument to the contrary?
It is quite telling that he doesn't use the standard lexicons much in his paper. In fact, he mentions BDAG, I believe, just once, and then he disagrees with it. So, he's defying the lexical meaning of the term, but it isn't as if BDAG is a Calvinist lexicon. He treats us to what Paul "would" have said if he had meant "love" or "choose," but how is he in a position to know this, and what Calvinist does not recognize that foreknowing and predestining are connected but separate?
I'd add that Carson is, himself, a Calvinist, so it's deeply misleading for Edgar to quote a general statement of his about Biblical semantics, and then apply that to Rom 8:29, 11:2, and 1 Pet 1:—as if Carson were endorsing the Arminian interpretation of these passages.
ReplyDeleteForeknowledge of what? Their sin? No, all have sinned and their sin would not be the basis for choosing them to be His people. Their righteousness? No, scripture says we are not saved by our own righteousness/works, but by faith. So what distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever according to scripture? The believer has a faith response to the gospel message the nonbeliever does not. Non-calvinists seeing these things and being aware of these things, properly conclude that God foreknows individual person’s faith response and based upon, or conditioned upon, **this**, they are chosen (i.e., elect). The election is thus based upon fore-seeing something about the believer which is different from what is seen with the nonbeliever.
ReplyDeleteA. Nobody denies that the elect believe. The issue is the basis of that election.
B. Henry asks: Foreknowledge of what?" That's a good question.
His answer:God foreknows individual person’s faith response and based upon, or conditioned upon, **this**.
Uh-huh. The problem is there is no mention of this in the text Even assuming that election is based on foreseen faith, "faith" must be supplied by Henry in order to establish that this text says this.
The text reads:
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
There is no mention of "faith" until vs. 6.
The election is thus based upon fore-seeing something about the believer which is different from what is seen with the nonbeliever.
So God elects those who elect themselves. We are justified by faith and elected by faith too, eh? Election is made a reward for believing. This is precisely why Reformed folks will accuse Arminians of an inconsistent form of autosoterism, a crypto-Romanist position on salvation. In the name of Sola Fide, they deny Sola Gratia. God saves those who save themselves.
Oh, and despite his protestations, Henry is most certainly an Arminian; and, having read his objections in other threads, it is manfifestly apparent that his objections to Calvinism are not exegetical, they are primarily philosophical and ethical, which rather proves my comment about there being no real Arminian exegetical proof of election based on foreknowledge of faith. Yes, he believes in eternal security, but his doctrine of depravity, election, atonement, and calling match that of Arminians. He accepts libertarian action theory. Let's not mince words, he is no "moderate Calvinist." Moderate Calvinism is a historic term with a historical meaning, despite Norm Geisler's redefinition and Ergun Caner's views on Amyraut. is Amyraldianism. He is no Amyraldian. So, Henry, let's just be clear here, since you've objected to the term "Arminian" here. You call yourself a "non-Calvinist" but when pressed on your doctrine have consistently agreed with Arminianism, except on eternal security.
Steve--
ReplyDeleteMy response is up.
Steve Hays says of proginosko:
ReplyDelete“As I said before, proginosko denotes more than "choice." Rather, it denotes "prior choice."
So proginosko would be epexegetical by making the additional point that their election was according to the prior choice (=predestination/foreordination) of God.”
Proginosko does not mean **choice** in 1 Pet. 1:2. It is “ginosko” (knowledge) plus “pro” (before). It means “know before/FOREKNOWLEDGE”. Neither “ginosko” nor “pro” is a Greek word for **choice**. Hays simply reads in his calvinistic conception of “(=predestination/foreordination of God” into the verse. The reason Hays does so is to maintain his system of theology. He is not exegeting this word, he is eisegeting his preferred meaning into the text.
Gene Bridges adds:
“Henry's problem is that he doesn't bother to consult a standard lexicon. He reads the word "foreknowledge" and then imputes his 21st century cultural / colloquial / English understanding to it.”
No, I simply take the Greek words in their ordinary first century meaning. “Ginosko” is not the Greek word for “choice”. People speak of “gnostics” or “gnosis” which clearly refers to their emphasis on secret KNOWLEDGE not choice. The usual meaning of “ginosko” is KNOWLEDGE whether in the Greek NT or “secular Greek” of that time. It is Calvinists like Bridges and Hays who must ignore (actually reinterpret) the Greek text because it completely contradicts their notion of **unconditional election**. So they then argue for a change of meaning from “know beforehand” to something more conducive to their theological system. And again the Edgar article exposes these attempts at evading the proper meaning of the word proginosko by Calvinists.
Henry
Gene Bridges chides me for interrupting his conversation with MG:
ReplyDelete“Henry is either to ignorant or too incompetent to realize that he is coming into the middle of a conversation between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism regarding their rule of faith.”
As Bridges must know, threads on blogs tend to meander in all sorts of different directions. He also must know (and has experienced himself) that all of us have the ability to **choose** what threads we will be involved with, what we will discuss in these threads, whether or not we will continue in a particular thread, and even what specific words and arguments we will use when we interact with others on a particular thread. Since both Hays and Bridges both brought up 1 Pet. 1:2 and election, I MADE THE CHOICE, which was up to me, and not predetermined, to specifically talk about what interests me (their take on 1 Pet. 1:2 and election).
I find it significant that people like Bridges will claim that all events are predetermined by God and yet when things do not go their way or people do things they do not like they will react with frustration, anger, and sometimes even personal attack of the offending party. If God predetermines everything Bridges ought to be happy about **everything**, thankful for **everything** that occurs, be pleased that God’s “secret sovereign will” is being worked out before his very eyes. Instead, calvinists get frustrated, wish that things had gone differently or been done differently (betraying their belief that every event which occurs, occurs necessarily as it is predestined). The fact that I can choose to talk about whatever I want to talk about and that it is up to me unless God purposes otherwise. And the fact that we **all freely choose** what topics we will discuss or not discuss and what we will say in a particular thread is evidence yet again of the reality of choice and free will being real. These things being inescapable realities even for the calvinist like Bridges who argues against them (i.e. argues against reality) because God created the world this way.
Henry
Gene Bridges makes some interesting comments about election. And I am CHOOSING to discuss not Eastern Orthodoxy but the calvinist conception of election.
ReplyDeleteBridges wrote:
“But, that said, I'd like Henry to show us a passage that says that God elects based on foreseen faith or foreseen perseverance (a more Wesleyan view). Where is "foreknowledge" in 1 Peter 1:2 connected to faith, that is God looking down the corridors of history and seeing who will believe and who will not. Where in 1 Peter 1 is this idea located? That's the problem with the verb, you have to make the actual connection with faith or perseverance in order to make the argument. So, assuming Edgar is right on the lexical meaning of the verb for sake of argument, what text actually connects foreknowledge or foreknowing to faith itself. In other words, where does Scripture ever say that God elects based upon foreseen faith?”
There is a problem with unconditional election which Bridges seems to have completely missed.
The calvinistic conception of **unconditional** election is directly contradicted 1 Pet. 1:2 and so is false. Let me begin by presenting the calvinistic conception of **unconditional** election. After we see what it is, then we can fully understand how it is refuted by 1 Pet. 1:2
James White in his THE POTTERS FREEDOM in discussing **unconditional** election at one point refers to two standard confessions which discuss it. He refers first to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1969)
“God’s decree is not based upon His foreknowledge that under certain conditions, certain happenings will take place, but is independent of all such foreknowledge.” (p.124)
He then cites the Westminster Confession of Faith as saying:
“6. This election is not conditioned upon **anything** in the human, either foreseen faith, actions, dispositions, or desires. It is **without** conditions.” (p. 125)
Note that in both confessions it is clearly stated that God's election has NOTHING TO DO WITH FOREKNOWING ANYTHING about what people do or are. James White in his debate with Dave Hunt puts it simply: “His election is **unconditional** in that it is based solely on His purpose and His pleasure and not in anything whatsoever in the creature”. (p. 91-92).
So according to Calvinists the election of believers has nothing whatsoever to do with God foreknowing anything about them or done by them (including faith).
This is a universal negative and all familiar with logic will know that it only takes one positive instance/counter example, to refute a universal negative. In order to refute the calvinistic notion of **unconditional** election one need **not even show precisely what God foreknows about a human person** that conditions his election of that person. One need only show that election is in fact **conditional** upon something foreknown about a human person. 1 Pet. 1:2 says that election is according to, conditioned upon, God foreknowing **something** about a human person. So logically speaking, 1 Pet. 1:2 as it presents the fact that election **is** conditional is sufficient to refute the universal negative of unconditional election.
Bridges is correct that it does not say what is foreknown about the human person in the text of 1 Pet. 1:2. 1 Pet. 1:2 clearly tells us that election **is** conditional upon something being foreknown about a human person (which is alone sufficient to refute the universal negative of unconditional election). So we then ask what could this **something** be?
It is a valid interpretive method to compare scripture with scripture on a subject. Election is part of the subject of salvation, so it is perfectly legitimate to see what other scriptures say about salvation. If we ask what does the NT teach about salvation? The resounding and overwhelming answer is that it teaches that we are SAVED BY FAITH. Romans makes this especially clear as does Galatians and the rest of the NT. So we know for certain that people are saved by faith. We also know for certain that nonbelievers who remain in their unbelief never respond with faith to the gospel message. So we know people are saved by faith, that only genuine believers have such faith and that nonbelievers do not have this faith. It seems to me that what God foreknows about believers that is true of them but not true of others is that they will at some point have a faith response to the gospel message.
So while we know that election is based upon, conditioned upon, SOMETHING foreknown about believers in particular (which is explicitly stated by 1 Pet. 1:2), it seems reasonable in comparing scripture with scripture that this SOMETHING is faith. Now you may not agree with my conclusion, but then I would ask what about man is the foreknown condition to which 1 Pet. 1:2 refers?
Henry
Gene writes:
ReplyDelete“Tell us, Henry, what Calvinist believes that God will select persons apart from faith? Do those persons elected not believe the gospel?”
Every Calvinist like yourself that claims that regeneration precedes faith. We are saved when we are regenerated. If someone is saved they are regenerate and if they are not saved they are not regenerate. So at the point in time in which someone is regenerated they **are** saved. According to you (and many other Calvinists) regeneration precedes faith.
If a person is regenerated or saved **before** they have faith, then they are in fact saved independent of, apart from faith.
While the NT emphasizes repeatedly that we are saved by faith. Calvinists in line with their system of theology argue that it is regeneration that is the key. God only regenerates the elect and those who are regenerated will end up having saving faith as a result of (and some will even claim that regeneration **causes** faith) being regenerated. The NT makes only a few statements about regeneration and in none of them does regeneration precede faith. In contrast to the false calvinistic system that minimizes faith, the NT repeatedly says that we are saved by faith.
Not content with the teaching of the NT on faith, the Calvinists will then attack the notion that a person is saved by faith claiming that if we are able to have faith apart from being regenerated then we are saving ourselves (and/or have reason to boast in our efforts). I have seen Calvinists claim over and over that if we are able to respond in faith to the work of the Spirit who is leading us to faith in Christ, then we are ultimately responsible for our salvation and save ourselves.
The fact that Calvinists routinely challenge and argue against the idea that we are saved by faith, shows that in their system a person is saved independent of, apart from faith. The NT and early church taught that a person was saved by faith. The NT and early church did not teach that regeneration precedes faith. Calvinists invented this notion that regeneration precedes faith.
I have presented it before and it is the antidote to the Calvinists who argue that if we are able to have a faith response to the Spirit’s leading us to Christ without being regenerated, then our being saved by faith **is** a **work** that we perform, something that we will boast about, us saving ourselves:
“Where then is boasting? It is **excluded**. By **what** kind of law? Of **works**? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” (Rom. 3:27-28).
According to this passage: (1)faith is not a work, (2)saving faith does not result in boasting. So according to **scripture** then, we are saved by faith and this is not us saving ourselves by some kind of religious work or merit nor is it something that leads to boasting.
In talking with Christians from different backgrounds it is evident that we all recognize that the work of the Spirit in leading us to Christ was not something we did or earned (so we do not boast about our faith response to the gospel). This work of the Spirit included showing us our sinfulness, our need for Christ, the fact that He is the only way of salvation, the fact that it is His work of redemption not any work that we perform that saves us, etc. Etc. And the faith response that we have was entirely made possible by what God does. God always takes the initiative in our salvation. The Father sent the Son for the sake of the **world**. The Son willingly died on the cross. The Spirit illuminated scripture for us, and did all that was necessary for us to have a faith response.
But the faith response itself is our action something we choose to do or choose not to do. If we choose to do it we give God all the credit for placing us in the position to respond with faith. If we choose to reject the gospel message, then we are completely responsible for this choice.
I think I said this on another thread; it is like two immigrant parents who work for years and make all sorts of sacrifices to save up the money to make it possible for their children to go to college. When the time comes if the child decides to go to school we do not say that the child was ultimately responsible for their going to college. We say it was the parents who did all the work that was necessary to make it even possible for them to go to college. Likewise, God does everything that it takes to make it possible for us to have a faith response to the gospel and so he gets all the credit if we have this faith response. Genuine believers across the board know this to be true and they do not boast about their salvation. A child who truly understands all the sacrifices made by their parents will not boast in their decision to go to college but will express thanks and gratitude and love for their parents who did so much for them. Similarly, as Christians we understand what God did and what the sacrifice was (Jesus sacrificing himself on the cross for our sins).
Gene wrote:
“Why, from your own point of view, libertarian freedom, does one person believe and not the other?”
I believe God sovereignly sets up the circumstances in leading someone to Himself. That will include sending people who speak the gospel message or placing a person in circumstances where they will hear the gospel message. The Spirit will show the person their sinfulness, their need for a Savior the identity of that Savior, what that Savior did for them, etc. Etc. Only after all this is a person ever in a position to have a faith response to the gospel. I cannot speak for the individual experiences of every person who gets in that place where the faith response is possible.
When you pray for someone’s conversion you are praying for God to do that work of “setting up” that person for a faith response. God is able to set up someone for that person to be in a position to make a faith response and He does so according to His own timing. And the process will vary from person to person and is completely dependent upon God’s sovereignty. For some they are in that place after hearing one message after at a Billy Graham crusade. For others they start attending a church where the bible is faithfully taught and hear lots and lots of messages and they experience the work of the Spirit over an extended time.
You ask me why does one person believe and not the other, in order to answer that question I would have to know the circumstances involved with every person who experiences the work of the Spirit and the heart of those persons (things I cannot know nor will ever know). I can talk about common denominators, common experiences we all seem to have, but again it will not be exactly the same for every person and the circumstances will vary from person to person.
Henry
Gene wrote a short paragraph that is “loaded” with issues:
ReplyDelete“And don't you believe that God creates some people only to damn them? Does everybody in the world get a chance to hear the gospel and believe or not? Why does God create people who will never ever have that chance? Either you believe common grace can and does provide "a genuine opportunity to hear the gospel" and can save, or you must admit that your view is subject to the same objection you raise about ours.”
First, I have run into Calvinists who believe that since God predetermines everything, every event that makes up history is predetermined by God and that God takes pleasure in creating lots of human persons who have no chance to be saved, no possibility to be saved. And yet God intentionally creates these folks for the express purpose of damning them and in damning them “glorifying himself”. Most Christians find this notion to be repugnant as it goes against what scripture says about God taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze. 18) and what scripture says about God having a redemptive love for the world (Jn. 3:16/**world**, and I already discussed the meaning of “world” in another thread so I will not repeat myself here).
For most Christians a God who is good and truly loves people as scripture clearly says that He does: would not do this kind of thing. This is something that should alert those truly seeking the truth to pause and reflect what unconditional election as espoused by Calvinists like Gene actually amounts to. Even non-Christians realize that a good and loving God would not do this. If it were just the nonbelievers who recognized this we could discount this as just the nonbelievers speaking ignorantly about spiritual things. But the vast majority of bible believing Christians from all of the major Christian traditions (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant) have also found this to be repugnant and a direct attack on the goodness and love of God. A whole lot of people have real problems with this notion (that God creates persons for whom He predetermines their every sin, ensures that they cannot be saved, have no possibility to be saved, and then punishes them eternally for doing the very actions which they had to do, were predetermined to do in every instance). It is **only** Calvinists who espouse this notion of God creating people with the intention of damning them with no opportunity to be saved.
Noncalvinists on the other hand, claim that only those who freely reject the gospel offer are damned to hell and that only after God has worked with them in some way. God is not obligated to save anyone or work with anyone. Yet noncalvinists believe that because He is good and because He is loving and because He is merciful and because He says in His Word that he does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked and loves the world to the point of sending His Son to die for the sins of the **world**. That based upon these realities God does love and have plans for saving infants, the mentally disabled and those "who never hear the gospel message”. The Bible does not say much about these kinds of people and their salvation, but noncalvinists believe that based upon what it says and who God is, that we can trust Him on this issue.
Gene asks: “Does everybody in the world get a chance to hear the gospel and believe or not?”
As we do not know, there have been various opinions on this issue, with whole books written on the various options. My own opinion is that if God is everywhere present, is all the things the Bible says that He is in regard to His character and is sovereign and desires to reveal Himself to all persons by setting things up so that all will seek him (cf. Acts 17:26-27, especially verse 27). Then He could do so if He wanted to do so.
I cannot speak authoritatively on the plight of infants, the mentally disabled and those who have never heard the gospel in their lifetimes. I can speak authoritatively on the character of God, the sovereignty of God and the fact that He makes statements that indicate that He wants everyone to be saved and sets things up so that all seek him. Based on these considerations I believe that Yes everyone gets some sort of opportunity to be saved.
Another possibility that a friend of mine endorses is that since God has **middle knowledge** meaning that He knows how every person would act or respond in every possible world. Perhaps God judges those who have never heard based upon knowing how they would have responded had they been given the chance. This would be just and fair and God is perfectly capable of doing this kind of thing. Or perhaps the answer is something else that none of us has ever thought of.
Gene asks: “Why does God create people who will never ever have that chance?”
How does Gene know that they will **never ever** have that chance?
Does Gene have universal and exhaustive knowledge of the individual circumstances of every human person and their hearts, that has ever lived? Upon what basis does Gene know that there are some that God intentionally creates and **never ever* gives a chance to be saved?
Wouldn’t you have to know these things first to know that there are some who never ever had a chance?
Since Gene does not have this knowledge, nor can he, this inclines me to think this is some kind of set up question. I can say about this question, that it is Calvinists not noncalvinists who believe that God intentionally creates lots and lots of human persons WHO WILL NEVER EVER HAVE A CHANCE TO BE SAVED. And why will these multitudes never have a chance to be saved? Because according to Calvinists God intentionally created them to be “reprobates”. It is part of the Calvinist system that nonbelievers are persons who never ever have a chance to be saved. It is impossible for these “reprobates” to be saved because according to the exhaustive determinism believed by people like Gene, only the elect can and will believe and no one else ever has a chance to believe. God makes no effort to save these “reprobates” but in fact sets up their circumstances so they cannot believe, will perform all sorts of sins that God predetermines for them to do, and then on top of all that God punishes them eternally for doing what He predetermined they would do.
Another reason noncalvinists and even nonbelievers are repulsed by all of this is that according to the Calvinist system God is perfectly capable of saving every human person. So even though He could save them all, He intentionally damns most of them.
Gene says:
“you must admit that your view is subject to the same objection you raise about ours.”
Again, both noncalvinists and nonbelievers see major differences between what calvinism espouses about people who remain in unbelief and what noncalvinists claim about these same people. In calvinism though God could save them all if he desired to, He nevertheless intentionally damns them with no chance to be saved (it is **impossible** for them to be saved). He does not want to save anyone other than the “elect.”
On the other hand, the noncalvinist who believes in free will and the reality of choice believes that God sovereignly chose to design human persons to be capable of making their own choices and performing their own actions. And the noncalvinist does not believe that God predetermines **all** events that occur. God also sovereignly determined how people would be saved (i.e. they would be saved if they had a faith response to the gospel) so the plan of salvation involves both the death of Christ on the cross and the necessity of a faith response in order for someone who hears the gospel message to be saved. So God set up the reality of us having free will and He also set up the way of salvation. Both the reality of free will and the way of salvation are realities which God desired and which are part of His sovereignty and are His purposes. God’s sovereign purposes are always fulfilled and always occur. So men will have free will and they will have to exercise that free will in being saved.
It is not an issue that God ought to **force** people to be saved, because that is not His sovereign plan. In the thinking of noncalvinists then, God sets things up in such a way that all those who respond in faith to the gospel message will be saved. But God does not predetermine who will or will not make that faith response. God also says that He provides Jesus’ death on the cross for the **world** (Jn. 3:16-17). The Spirit also works on the **world** (Jn. 16:8-11) leading the **world** to Himself. Now we know that despite the provision of Christ and the work of the Spirit on the **world**, that many will not respond in faith. Those who do not respond in faith do so by their own choice, they are not coerced into their rejection of the gospel nor is their rejection of the gospel something which God causes/predetermined.
With those things in mind then, the noncalvinist says that while God knows before He creates anyone, who will and who will not be saved, He nevertheless sought to save them all and those who responded with faith will be saved and those who reject Him will not be saved. So the damnation of the nonbeliever while a **certainty** in its occurrence (if they continue in unbelief for their whole lifetimes) is not a **necessity** in its occurrence. In Calvinism it is a necessity that the nonbeliever be a nonbeliever as all events are necessitated by the total predetermination of God. Noncalvinists do not believe that every event is predetermined and so not every event is **necessitated** (and noncalvinists do not believe that God necessitates someone’s damnation before they even existed).
It is very different then, to say of the damnation of nonbelievers, that while their damnation was a certainty as God foreknew their every action including their repeated rejection of the gospel offer, that it nevertheless was not a necessity (they did not **have to be** nonbelievers as God gave them opportunities to be saved, but they chose to reject Him). AND TO SAY THEIR DAMNATION WAS A NECESSITY, WHAT GOD INTENTIONALLY DESIRED TO OCCUR. In one view they have a chance but reject their chance by their own doing and choice. In the other view they have no chance and it is God Himself who sets things up so that it is impossible for them to be saved. Sets things up so they have no chance to be saved.
So no the noncalvinists view is not subject to the same objection as Gene’s calvinistic view. And Calvinists who do not admit this difference in the two views are not being honest or are intentionally creating caricatures of the noncalvinist view.
And again, most Christians aware of this difference on the destiny of nonbelievers are repulsed by the calvinist view. The God represented by the calvinist view does not fit the God who reveals Himself in the Bible as good, loving, merciful, forgiving. Nor does the calvinist view of the destiny of nonbelievers/reprobates, fit with the so-called “unlimited atonement passages”. The unlimited atonement passages are such a problem that many declare themselves to be “4-point Calvinists” (e.g. Bruce Ware). Or like D.A. Carson they recognize that the bible seems to present that the death of Christ was sufficient for all human persons but efficient only for those who respond with faith:
“If one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated.” (D.A. Carson, “GOD’S LOVE AND GOD’S WRATH” Bib Sac, p. 394).
Perhaps at another time I can present the problems with “limited atonement”. But for now I just point out the fact that many, many people including professing Calvinists (so called 4-pointers) also see God reaching out to all persons in a redemptive fashion not just the “elect.”
Henry
HENRY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Proginosko does not mean **choice** in 1 Pet. 1:2. It is ‘ginosko’ (knowledge) plus ‘pro’ (before). It means ‘know before/FOREKNOWLEDGE’.”
Henry is asserting what he needs to prove. I’ve already cited Turner and Fitzmyer.
And BAG also rejects his etymological fallacy with reference to Rom 8.
I hate to break the news to the impoverished little mind of Henry, but words frequently have more than one meaning. Which meaning applies is a matter of context, which is, in turn, a matter of interpretation.
Perhaps, though, Henry is a closet homosexual activist who would use the same line of reasoning with reference to the sense of yada in Gen 19.
“Neither “ginosko” nor “pro” is a Greek word for **choice**.”
Henry, could you try, just for once in your life, to be less of a dimwit? No one ever said that the prefix means “to choose.”
“Hays simply reads in his calvinistic conception of “(=predestination/foreordination of God” into the verse. The reason Hays does so is to maintain his system of theology. He is not exegeting this word, he is eisegeting his preferred meaning into the text.”
Henry simply reads in his Arminian conception of “(=foreseen faith” into the verse. The reason Henry does so is to maintain his system of theology. He is not exegeting this word, he is eisegeting his preferred meaning into the text.
“No, I simply take the Greek words in their ordinary first century meaning.”
Tell that to Turner, Bauer, and Fitzmyer.
“’Ginosko’ is not the Greek word for ‘choice’.”
He thinks that by repeating himself he can turn a falsehood into a truth.
“People speak of ‘gnostics’ or ‘gnosis’ which clearly refers to their emphasis on secret KNOWLEDGE not choice.”
i) Gnosticism is a 2C phenomenon.
ii) Moreover, Henry is ignoring the fact that NT usage is often colored by OT usage. Jewish Greek.
“The usual meaning of ‘ginosko’ is KNOWLEDGE whether in the Greek NT or ‘secular Greek’ of that time.”
Even if that were so, frequency is irrelevant to meaning.
“It is Calvinists like Bridges and Hays who must ignore (actually reinterpret) the Greek text because it completely contradicts their notion of **unconditional election**. So they then argue for a change of meaning from “know beforehand” to something more conducive to their theological system.”
Henry is a chronic liar. If I had a brick for every inch that his nose grows, I could build a road from Alaska to Argentina.
Both Gene and I already cited non-Calvinist scholars who endorse our rendering as a legitimate meaning of the word.
“And again the Edgar article exposes these attempts at evading the proper meaning of the word proginosko by Calvinists.”
Gene specifically responded to Edgar’s article. Where is Henry’s counterargument? There is none. He merely raises his voice and repeats himself.
“I find it significant that people like Bridges will claim that all events are predetermined by God and yet when things do not go their way or people do things they do not like they will react with frustration, anger, and sometimes even personal attack of the offending party.”
Notice that he doesn’t quote anything that Gene ever said to validate his psychobabble.
“Instead, calvinists get frustrated, wish that things had gone differently or been done differently (betraying their belief that every event which occurs, occurs necessarily as it is predestined).”
Can Henry quote me to that effect?
“It is a valid interpretive method to compare scripture with scripture on a subject.”
Fine. Let’s apply the meaning of proginosko in Rom 8:29 (according to BAG, Turner, and Fitzmyer) to 1 Pet 1:2.
“Election is part of the subject of salvation, so it is perfectly legitimate to see what other scriptures say about salvation.”
Yes, there’s a word for that: “systematic theology.”
So let’s apply our system of theology to 1 Pet 1:2.
“If we ask what does the NT teach about salvation? The resounding and overwhelming answer is that it teaches that we are SAVED BY FAITH. Romans makes this especially clear as does Galatians and the rest of the NT.”
This is a splendid example of Henry’s Biblical illiteracy. The standard Pauline formula is not that we are saved by faith, but rather, that we are justified by faith and saved by grace.
“So while we know that election is based upon, conditioned upon, SOMETHING foreknown about believers in particular (which is explicitly stated by 1 Pet. 1:2), it seems reasonable in comparing scripture with scripture that this SOMETHING is faith. Now you may not agree with my conclusion, but then I would ask what about man is the foreknown condition to which 1 Pet. 1:2 refers?”
None, since Henry’s subsequent argument is founded on his fallacious rendering of proginosko.
“Every Calvinist like yourself that claims that regeneration precedes faith. We are saved when we are regenerated.”
There are several elements in the application of the atonement. There is more to salvation than regeneration. Regeneration is a necessary precondition for faith.
“If someone is saved they are regenerate and if they are not saved they are not regenerate. So at the point in time in which someone is regenerated they **are** saved.”
Observe how Henry keeps using singular nouns with plural pronouns. His addiction to transgender usage is further evidence that he must be a closet homosexual activist. The Arminian chapter of ACT UP.
“If a person is regenerated or saved **before** they have faith, then they are in fact saved independent of, apart from faith.”
i) This is equivocal. Independent in what sense? Causally independent? Yes.
But there is more to sovereign, saving grace than regeneration alone. The God who regenerates is the same God who applies the benefits of the atonement in many other essential respects as well.
ii) BTW, Henry must believe that all children who die before the age of discretion are damned. Same with all Christians who die in a state of senile dementia. Same with all adults below a certain IQ.
Henry is a soteric eugenicist.
“While the NT emphasizes repeatedly that we are saved by faith. Calvinists in line with their system of theology argue that it is regeneration that is the key.”
i) Henry said we should interpret Scripture by Scripture. Another name for that is systematic theology.
ii) There is no one “key” to salvation in Reformed soteriology.
“The NT makes only a few statements about regeneration and in none of them does regeneration precede faith.”
Another orphaned assertion.
For a counterargument, see:
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598016%7CCIID1731702,00.html
“According to this passage [Rom 3:27-29]: (1)faith is not a work, (2)saving faith does not result in boasting.”
It becomes a human work when you redefine the concept of faith in Henry’s humanistic, unscriptural terms.
HENRY SAID:
ReplyDelete“And yet God intentionally creates these folks for the express purpose of damning them and in damning them ‘glorifying himself’.”
Henry, quote five or six Reformed theologians who say this. We look forward to your documentation.
In the meantime, why did God, a la Arminians, create countless individuals in the certain foreknowledge that they would spend eternity in hell?
Many atheists, universalists, and annihilationists find this “repugnant.”
“A whole lot of people have real problems with this notion”
A whole lot of people also have real problems with the cross, blood atonement, the doctrine of hell, Christian sexual ethics, and Christ as the only savior.
So, by Henry’s yardstick, we should all agree with John Spong.
“It is **only** Calvinists who espouse this notion of God creating people with the intention of damning them with no opportunity to be saved.”
And it’s only 8 people who survived in the ark, while the rest of humanity perished. And it’s only Lot and his two daughters who survived God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. And it’s only Rahab and her immediate family who survived God’s judgment on Jericho. And it’s only Joshua and Caleb who, of the original, Exodus generation, were permitted to enter the Promised Land. And it’s only John, of the Twelve apostles, who stood beside Jesus at Calvary.
“Another possibility that a friend of mine endorses is that since God has **middle knowledge** meaning that He knows how every person would act or respond in every possible world. Perhaps God judges those who have never heard based upon knowing how they would have responded had they been given the chance. This would be just and fair and God is perfectly capable of doing this kind of thing. Or perhaps the answer is something else that none of us has ever thought of.”
So God judges us, not merely by what we have done, but by all the other things we would have done if only we had the libertarian freedom of opportunity to do otherwise.
Even if I believe in Christ in this life, that’s canceled out by the fact that in some possible world, I rejected Christ.
Even though I’m a Christian in this life, in another possible world I’m a Muslim suicide bomber.
So does Henry propose a rotating, time-sharing arrangement in which I alternate between heaven and hell?
“God also says that He provides Jesus’ death on the cross for the **world** (Jn. 3:16-17). The Spirit also works on the **world** (Jn. 16:8-11) leading the **world** to Himself. Now we know that despite the provision of Christ and the work of the Spirit on the **world**, that many will not respond in faith.”
John doesn’t use the word “world.” That’s just a possible, English rendering. Henry is basing his whole case on the connotations of an English translation term instead of examining the Johannine usage of kosmos.
“Noncalvinists do not believe that every event is predetermined.”
True, noncalvinists regard the world as a runaway train. God was asleep at the switch. Bad things happen for no good reason.
“Perhaps at another time I can present the problems with 'limited atonement'. But for now I just point out the fact that many, many people including professing Calvinists (so called 4-pointers) also see God reaching out to all persons in a redemptive fashion not just the 'elect'.”
Ah, yes… throwing him a lifeline that is one foot too short to reach the drowning swimmer. Oh, well…it’s the thought that counts. An empty gesture is better than nothing, right?
I have already discussed the meaning of “world” in Jn. 3:16-17 on the other thread ( FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD). So without repeating what I’d said there about the meaning of the word “world” I recently wrote:
ReplyDelete“God also says that He provides Jesus’ death on the cross for the **world** (Jn. 3:16-17). The Spirit also works on the **world** (Jn. 16:8-11) leading the **world** to Himself. Now we know that despite the provision of Christ and the work of the Spirit on the **world**, that many will not respond in faith.”
Steve Hays responded to these words with:
“John doesn’t use the word “world.” That’s just a possible, English rendering. Henry is basing his whole case on the connotations of an English translation term instead of examining the Johannine usage of kosmos.”
I have examined the connotations of kosmos/”world” in John’s writings. In that other thread I also intentionally quoted from D. A. Carson who Steve Hays says is a calvinist to make my understanding of kosmos/”world” clear. Apparently, Hays did not read that other post so I will requote part of what I’d said there. Here is what I said on the other thread:
==============================================================================================================================
I am quite aware of the various lexicographical meanings for “world” in the apostle John’s writings. My favorite commentary on John, which in my opinion is the best commentary on John: is D.A. Carson’s commentary. It was unavailable to me for a time, at a friend’s house, and I just got it back. I like the way Carson lays out the various meanings for “world” in his commentary. When preaching and teaching I have repeatedly used **his** definition of “world” to make my points when evangelizing.
For those who do not have access to this commentary here are some statements showing the meaning of “world” that is critical to the proper interpretation of the word in John 3:16-17:
Quotes:
John 1:9-
Because John has insisted that the Word was the agent of creation, it might be thought that when he now describes that Word as coming into the world he means nothing more than that the Word has invaded the created order he himself made. But world for John has more specific overtones. Although some have argued that for John the word kosmos (‘world’) sometimes has positive overtones (‘God so loved the world’, 3:16), sometimes neutral overtones (as here; cf. also 21:24-25, where the ‘world’ is a big place that can hold a lot of books), and frequently negative overtones (‘the world did not recognize him’, 1:10), closer inspection shows that although a handful of passages preserve a neutral emphasis the vast majority are decidedly negative. There are no unambiguously positive occurrences. The ‘world’, or frequently ‘this world’ (e.g., 8:23; 9:39; 11:9; 18:36), is not the universe, but the created order especially of human beings and human affairs) in rebellion against its Maker (e.g., 1:10; 7:7; 14:7, 22, 27, 30; 15:18-19; 16:8, 20, 33; 17:6, 9, 14). Therefore when John tells us that God loves the world (3:16), far from being an endorsement of the world, it is a testimony to the character of God. God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big, but because the world is so bad. Barrett (pp. 161-162) thinks that in 3:16 the world can be ‘split up into its components’, those who believe and those who do not. In fact, the ‘world’ in John’s usage comprises no believers at all. Those who come to faith are no longer of this world; they have been chosen out of this world (15:19). If Jesus is the Savior of the world (4:42),that says a great deal about Jesus, but nothing positive about the world. In fact, it tells us the world is in need of a Savior. (p.122-123)
John 3:16 –
All believers have been chosen out of the world (15:19), they are not something other than ‘world’ when the gospel first comes to them. They would not have become true disciples apart from the love of God for the world. Even after the circle of believers is formed and the resurrection has taken place, these Christians are mandated to continue their witness, aided by the Spirit, in hopes of winning others from the world (15:26-27; 20:21). In other words, God maintains the same stance toward the world after the resurrection that he had before: he pronounces terrifying condemnation on the grounds of the world’s sin, while still loving the world so much that the gift he gave to the world, the gift of his Son, remains the world’s only hope. (p. 205)
John 15:18-19 –
The purpose of these verses is to eliminate the surprise factor when persecution does break out, i.e., to accomplish what John more prosaically accomplishes elsewhere by a simple warning: ‘Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you’ (1 Jn. 3:13). If the world hates you – and the assumption is that it will – keep in mind it hated me first. The world (kosmos; cf. notes on 1:9), as commonly in John, refers to the created moral order in active rebellion against God. The ultimate reason for the world’s hatred of Jesus is that he testifies that its deeds are evil (7:7). Christ’s followers will be hated by the same world, partly because they are associated with the one who is supremely hated, and partly because, as they increase in the intimacy, love, obedience and fruitfulness depicted in the preceding verses, they will have the same effect on the world as their Master. They, too, will appear alien. The world loves its own: this is not a sociological remark about inborn suspicion of strangers, but a moral condemnation. The world is a society of rebels, and therefore finds it hard to tolerate those who are in joyful allegiance to the king to whom all loyalty is due. Christians do not belong to the world, not because they never belonged, but because, Jesus avers, I have chosen you out of the world (cf. notes on 6:70-71; 15:16). Former rebels who have by the grace of the king been won back to loving allegiance to their rightful monarch are not likely to prove popular with those who persist in rebellion. Christians cannot think of themselves as intrinsically superior. They are ever conscious that by nature they are, with all others, ‘objects of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3). But having been chosen out of the world, having been drawn by the Messiah’s love into the group referred to as the Messiah’s ‘own’ who are still in the world (13:1), their newly found alien statue makes them pariahs in that world, the world of rebels. (p. 525)”
End quotes:
I had said about Jn. 3:16 that it was “a clear verse on the love of God for mankind.” And what is the biblical term for mankind apart from God, in rebellion against God? THE WORLD. As Carson makes clear, the term referring to this rebellious group is consistently negative not neutral (“although a handful of passages preserve a neutral emphasis the vast majority are decidedly negative”). And this group is “in rebellion against its Maker”. I especially like Carson’s line: “God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big, but because the world is so bad.”
When I speak on this I tweak it a bit and say things like: “when it says God loves the world, it is not saying He loves the world because the people are so good, or because they are living lives that please Him, or because we are just so loveable, or because the world deserves it, actually if we got what we deserve we would all instantly get hell. No, the amazing thing is that God gave His Son to the world of people who are totally in rebellion against Him, who break his commandments and enjoy doing so. The amazing thing then is that God loves this world that is ***so*** bad!”
Another point that I regularly make is that ***at one point all of us are part of the world***. We are either still in the world, or, if we have become believers we came out of the world by the grace and mercy of God. My way of saying this is: everyone at some point was part of the world, but not everyone is now part of the world. So does the “world” mean every human person? Well Jesus was never part of the world, Adam and Eve before they fell were not part of the world, and an argument can be made that John the Baptist was regenerate from birth and so was not part of the world. With these exceptions in mind, the rest of us, both those who are now believers and unbelievers were/are part of the “world”. Believers are those who thought they were of the world at one time, if we have come to believe then we have come out of the world to serve the one and only true God.
The noncalvinists need not show that “world” refers to all human persons without exception. Rather what needs to be shown is that the “world” includes people who will never become Christians. What is critical and strongly attacks the Calvinist view is this. While some persons come out of this rebellious world and become Christians, others do not, they never come out of the world, they remain in their unbelief and rebellion. But the text of John 3:16-17 says that God so loved THE WORLD that he gave His Son, Jesus, to die for THAT WORLD. So this means that God has a redemptive love for THE WORLD, and that means that God has a redemptive love even for those who never come to be believers (i.e. God loves what the Calvinists calls the “nonelect,” the “reprobate” with a redemptive love). John 3:16-17 then when properly interpreted (i.e., in line with Carson’s suggested meaning of “world” as the group of unbelieving rebellious sinful mankind who are not saved) negates the Hays’ calvinist doctrine of “limited atonement”. Because instead of God **only** having a redemptive love for the “elect” (believers who come out of the world) as Calvinists such as Hays suggest. He has a redemptive love for nonbelievers, some of whom will never turn to him in faith and trust Him for salvation. Will **all** of the “world” be saved? No. So this means that God has a redemptive love, gives His Son Jesus, as an atonement for people who will not respond in faith to the gospel offer. This point refutes calvinism which claims that God has a redemptive love ***only*** for people who are believers, who come out of the world (what they call the elect).
Steve Hays seeking to enlighten me about the meaning of “world” in Jn. 3:16 cited some commentators. Check them out and ask yourself: do any of them challenge Carson’s meaning of “world” in Jn. 3:16?
I stick by my understanding of kosmos/”world” which is the one which Carson presents in his commentary. And John 3:16-17 with this meaning for “world” refutes calvinism which teaches that the redemptive love of God is restricted only to the “elect.” Scripture opposes calvinism in teaching that the redemptive love of God is for the **world** not just the elect. Scripture opposes calvinism by teaching that God seeks the salvation of the **world** not just the elect. Calvinists being the **grace restrictors** that they are, support a theology that is clearly contradicted by scripture.
In that post I also used an analogy regarding lifeguards since Hays had brought it up. Apparently he brings it up again, so I will repeat some of the things which I said about which view shows God to be more loving, calvinism or noncalvinism.
Hays wrote:
“Ah, yes… throwing him a lifeline that is one foot too short to reach the drowning swimmer. Oh, well…it’s the thought that counts. An empty gesture is better than nothing, right?”
Here again is what I said about the lifeguard analogy on the other thread:
======================================================================
Steve Hays brings up a another major problem for Calvinism when he writes:
”i) Is loving sinners just enough to make salvation merely *possible* for everyone while leaving everyone vulnerable to eternal damnation the most loving thing that God could do?
Which is more loving—to throw a drowning man a life preserver and say to him: “now you have a chance to save yourself–take it or leave it!” Or jumping in and actually pulling him to safety?
An Arminian lifeguard never rescues a drowning man since that would violate his freewill. Instead, the Arminian lifeguard throws him a life preserver, then goes on a lunch break.”
This analogy is so off base that I wanted everyone to see it again in its entirety. Hays opens up a “can of worms” that his Calvinism cannot handle. And he does so by his own choice to bring it up and caricature the noncalvinists view. Note his question: “Is loving sinners just enough to make salvation merely **possible** . . . the most loving thing that God could do?”
So Hays wants to discuss which conception is **more loving**. Surely he must know that his Calvinism will come out on the short end of the stick in this one. But I am glad that he brought it up so I can show the contrast between the Calvinist and noncalvinist conceptions of the love of God with respect to the salvation of sinners/the “world” of John 3:16-17.
Notice how he describes the noncalvinist view as God being like a lifeguard who **merely** throws the drowning man a life preserver, then goes on a lunch break. He goes on to say that the noncalvinist believes the “lifeguard” just throws the life preserver towards the drowning man and says “now you have a chance TO SAVE YOURSELF, take it or leave it” (emphasis mine).
Hays is obviously **mocking** the view he disagrees with. But is his analogy here what noncalvinists really believe? No.
Allow me to rework the analogy a bit to make it more accurate so that we can see which conception is “more loving.”
Imagine a beach, with a lifeguard leader (Mr. G. Clark) with 10 lifeguards under his authority. These 10 other lifeguards do whatever the lead lifeguard tells them to do. A little ways off shore, a boat with a captain and 10 sightseeing visitors on board develops a problem and begins to sink. The captain radios for help and the lead lifeguard, Mr. Clark, finds out about the situation. He also finds out that all 10 people are paraplegics in wheelchairs unable to swim, completely unable to save themselves. Mr. Clark has the ability to save all 10 paraplegics, if he sends all 10 lifeguards to attempt the rescue. According to Calvinism he intentionally sends only two lifeguards to save only two persons and he intentionally allows the others to drown making no effort to save them whatsoever (though he is fully able to save all 10 of them). Mr. Clark had some sort of secret decision so that if this event would arise he would save only two and intentionally leave the rest to drown. How loving is Mr. Clark in this situation?
In the noncalvinist conception, the Lead lifeguard sends all 10 lifeguards who dive into the water and head for the drowning persons. Upon arriving at each person, each person is asked “do you want help or not?” So all have the possibility of being saved. And if they are saved it was not by their strength that they are saved but by the efforts of the lifeguards to save them. All have the opportunity to be saved. Those who reject the offer of the lifeguards drown by their own choice and have no one to blame but themselves. Those who accept the offer are saved by the efforts of the lifeguards alone and so have no reason to boast.
Now which is the **more loving** thing to do? To have the ability to save all ten, but to intentionally save only two and to intentionally let the others drown when you were perfectly capable of saving them all? Or to make life possible for all, with those rejecting the offer of life being solely responsible for their drowning?
Most people understand this difference between the two conceptions. And because they do so, they are repulsed by the Calvinist view, and they understand that Calvinism is the less loving conception. And not only is it less loving in this analogy.
Scriptures such as Jn. 3:16 make it abundantly clear that the lead lifeguard (the Father) sent sufficient lifeguards to save all(the Son). But Calvinism has to reject scriptures such as Jn. 3:16 and has to argue for a God who desires to save only some, though He is perfectly capable of saving them all, but intentionally damns most to eternal punishment. Which conception is more loving? Which conception fits what scripture says? IT IS NOT CALVINISM, but noncalvinism that presents a God who truly **loves** the “world” with a redemptive love. Just as Jn. 3:16 clearly and explicitly states.
We also know some things about the lifeguard who comes to save us. He did not just throw a life preserver at us and go off to lunch. He dove into a sinful world, a world in total rebellion against Him. And He gave up His life to save us. To mischaracterize his efforts as merely throwing out a life preserver and going out to lunch, mocks the gospel message and the true lifeguard the true good shepherd. The gospel message is of a God who so loves THE WORLD that he sends His own Son, who then is mistreated, tortured and killed by the very world for which He came to save.
======================================================================
Steve Hays continues to mock the love of God disparaging it as “throwing him a lifeline that is one foot too short to reach the drowning swimmer.”
No, God demonstrated His love for a rebellious **world** by sending His own Son to die for the sins of the **world**. The Spirit now convicts this same world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. So God is doing quite a bit for this rebellious **world**. And the depth of His love is shown by the fact that He does all of this for people who act like His enemies, for people who will never turn to Him, not just for those who do turn to Him.
Henry
Steve Hays continues to mock the love of God disparaging it as “throwing him a lifeline that is one foot too short to reach the drowning swimmer.”
ReplyDeleteNo, God demonstrated His love for a rebellious **world** by sending His own Son to die for the sins of the **world**. The Spirit now convicts this same world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. So God is doing quite a bit for this rebellious **world**. And the depth of His love is shown by the fact that He does all of this for people who act like His enemies, for people who will never turn to Him, not just for those who do turn to Him.
Henry
*********************
Ah, yes, the Arminian God throws everyone a lifeline that is one foot too short, which is so much more loving that throwing just some people a lifeline that is actually long enough to save them from drowning.
Steve Hays wrote about the lifeguard analogy again:
ReplyDelete“Ah, yes, the Arminian God throws everyone a lifeline that is one foot too short, which is so much more loving that throwing just some people a lifeline that is actually long enough to save them from drowning.”
Some real problems with what you say here. Again, you intentionally misrepresent the noncalvinist view. We believe that, staying with the analogy as you state it, that God offers a lifeline that is perfectly sufficient to save all persons. That lifeline is the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. A lifeline that God Himself **explicitly says** is given for the WORLD (Jn. 3:16-17) not just for the elect as you claim. To claim as you do here that the lifeline is one foot short, is to claim that the redemptive work of Christ is insufficient to save all persons, which is false, and you know that it is false. We also know from other scriptures that not all are saved (e.g. Matt. 25 the “goats”). So noncalvinists conclude that while the lifeline is sufficient for all it is efficient only for those who respond with faith to the gospel message.
Staying again with the analogy as you state it here, you claim that God throws the lifeline to JUST SOME and it is a lifeline actually long enough to save them from drowning.
Two things: (1) you prove by your own words here exactly what I said in my lifeguard analogy (though God is able to save them all, He intentionally sends only two lifeguards to save only two of them).
So you show my analogy in respect to your espoused system of theology to be true. You prove my point to be true.
(2) Just throwing them the lifeline is not in itself sufficient to save them from drowning. By your **own** analogy, it is not enough that the lifeline is thrown to them, or that the lifeline is actually long enough to save them. THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE CHOICE OF, DO THE ACTION OF, GRASPING THE LIFELINE WHICH IS THROWN TO THEM. Grasping the lifeline thrown to the person, by that person, is faith. The lifeline then does not in itself save the persons unless they respond by faith/grasp the lifeline themselves.
Henry
It is a valid interpretive method to compare scripture with scripture on a subject. Election is part of the subject of salvation, so it is perfectly legitimate to see what other scriptures say about salvation. If we ask what does the NT teach about salvation? The resounding and overwhelming answer is that it teaches that we are SAVED BY FAITH. Romans makes this especially clear as does Galatians and the rest of the NT. So we know for certain that people are saved by faith. We also know for certain that nonbelievers who remain in their unbelief never respond with faith to the gospel message. So we know people are saved by faith, that only genuine believers have such faith and that nonbelievers do not have this faith.
ReplyDeleteNotice that what Henry is doing here is filling in the blanks. I asked him for a text that connects foreknowledge to faith, but he can't give us that text, when he earlier argued that was taught by this text explicitly.
Notice also that all he does is list conditions of justification. But what Calvinist denies justification by faith alone. Henry is, as we will see later, equivocating on the terms "save" and "justify" and "regenerate." But I know Baptist theology in particular, and I know that Baptist theology divides salvation into several parts. So Henry is equivocating over those parts with the one word, "saved."
It seems to me that what God foreknows about believers that is true of them but not true of others is that they will at some point have a faith response to the gospel message.
"It seems to me..." So, Henry is filling in the blanks, but where is the text that makes this connection for him? There is not a single text of Scripture that says that men are elected based on foreseen faith.
So while we know that election is based upon, conditioned upon, SOMETHING foreknown about believers in particular (which is explicitly stated by 1 Pet. 1:2), it seems reasonable in comparing scripture with scripture that this SOMETHING is faith. Now you may not agree with my conclusion, but then I would ask what about man is the foreknown condition to which 1 Pet. 1:2 refers?
This isn't what you argued before. You argued this:
Bridges begins with a demand to “show us an argument for election based on foreseen faith.” Well 1 Pet. 1:2 does this explicitly and clearly.
So, Henry is now changing his argument. So much for 1 Peter 1:2.
And notice that he provides no argument for rejecting BDAG here except a fallacy ridden paper that dishonestly quotes Carson. BDAG is the standard lexicon. BDAG is not a Calvinist lexicon. And Ben Witherington, a Wesleyan, agrees with Steve and I. And why does secular Greek determine the meaning of biblical Greek? Is that what Henry taught his students in seminary?
In order to refute the calvinistic notion of **unconditional** election one need **not even show precisely what God foreknows about a human person** that conditions his election of that person. One need only show that election is in fact **conditional** upon something foreknown about a human person.
Henry is not merely arguing against unconditional election. He is arguing for election based on foreseen faith. Henry is now trying to change the argument, but I already stated that, even if my doctrine of election is incorrect, the case for election based on foreseen faith or perseverance is not proven.
Further,this text says is that people are elect according to God's foreknowledge. It does not say that they are elect according to facts that God knows about them. Where is a text that says that God elects based on facts about people, Henry? If the word "foreknowledge" here means "prescience," then prescience of what? Henry is making connections about "facts about people" that aren't in the text. Where does the text make that connection?
What the text says is that they are chosen according to God's determinate plan.
nd again the Edgar article exposes these attempts at evading the proper meaning of the word proginosko by Calvinists.
Again, we've actually dealt with that article, and Henry simply ignores what we stated.
Every Calvinist like yourself that claims that regeneration precedes faith.
Actually, Henry we speak of it in two ways. We speak of it in a narrow sense and a broad sense, but you're too ignorant to notice the difference.
We are saved when we are regenerated. If someone is saved they are regenerate and if they are not saved they are not regenerate. So at the point in time in which someone is regenerated they **are** saved. According to you (and many other Calvinists) regeneration precedes faith.
If a person is regenerated or saved **before** they have faith, then they are in fact saved independent of, apart from faith.
This trades on several equivocations, not the list of which is the difference between Henry's colloquialism (saved) and technical or dogmatic terminology (regenerated). I find it rather difficult to believe that Henry actually has taught seminarians and still makes this comment. Calvinism's dogmatic language follows exegetical terminology quite closely here.
Henry is equivocating between "saved" and "regenerated." This objection is fairly standard fare from anti-Calvinist writing and sermons. Henry is parroting Jack Graham and Dave Hunt. It’s pretty unsophisticated, but surprisingly frequent. This is a textbook example of equivocation: The disputant uses the same word in two (or more senses), trading on one sense in one occurrence to lend a surplus sense to the same word in another occurrence. The Arminian is accusing you of equivocating on your terms. In reality, s/he is equivocating on his/her terms.
Let’s reword this objection using biblical terminology. Regeneration precedes faith is logical, because it means you are regenerated before you are justified. The Reformed understanding of the order of salvation is:
Regeneration precedes faith. Men are dead in sin and cannot come to Christ to repent and believe apart from it. Men are not regenerated because they respond to God in faith. I John 5:1 explicitly states otherwise. The conclusion of John’s prologue in his gospel uses passive verbs to describe being born again and adds that men are born not by their own wills, but by God’s alone.
A man is not converted on account of his free will decision. He is converted because God unilaterally acts to regenerate Him. His faith and repentance are a natural response to God’s grace in doing this. John 6:44/5: No man can (has the ability) to come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. All who hear and learn from the Father come to me. Apart from God doing this, nobody would believe. It is simply impossible for an unregenerate person to choose Christ apart from effectual calling and regeneration. They cannot submit their minds to God or understand spiritual truth or come to Christ and believe apart from it.
We understand that there is a sense in which one is saved, i.e., regenerated before one is “saved,” i.e. justified, but that is only confusing if we follow Henry's sloppy language. However, the Arminian must agree that men are “saved,” i.e. justified, before they are “saved,” i.e. regenerated or glorified as well, so Henry's objection falls on his own view too.
Calvinists do not say “we are saved before we are saved.” We teach we are regenerated before we believe and are justified. We are not the ones guilty of equivocating on our terms on a regular basis.
While the NT emphasizes repeatedly that we are saved by faith.
No, the NT emphasizes repeatedly that we are justified by faith, not "saved" by faith.
Further, Calvinism's language on regeneration deals with it in a narrow sense and a broad sense. Is Henry not familiar with these distinctions? Try looking up what Charles Hodge said about the language of regeneration relative to dogmatic usage and the way we use it.
The NT makes only a few statements about regeneration and in none of them does regeneration precede faith.
A. The NT makes only a few statements about election and in none of them is said to be based on faith.
B. Yes it does, 1 John 5:1. The archives here have a long exegetical paper on that very topic. Look it up.
Not content with the teaching of the NT on faith, the Calvinists will then attack the notion that a person is saved by faith claiming that if we are able to have faith apart from being regenerated then we are saving ourselves (and/or have reason to boast in our efforts). I have seen Calvinists claim over and over that if we are able to respond in faith to the work of the Spirit who is leading us to faith in Christ, then we are ultimately responsible for our salvation and save ourselves.
Notice that Henry talks a lot about what *he* has heard. His posts would be shorter and more effective if he would discuss some representative material with documentation for us. Also, we've been over this before. Henry are you teaching the doctrine of prevenient grace from Wesleyanism or are you talking about the Holy Spirit "wooing" somebody externally, like Dave Hunt? Where is the argument for either?
Why does one person believe and not the other? Prevenient grace does not alleviate the difficulty for Henry unless his argument is that the will itself is affected by the Holy Spirit and the inability to believe is removed by it, but that still leaves the will to decide for itself. It makes that decision. At best this is a form of "halfway regeneration." But Henry is not a Wesleyan. He believes in eternal security, which telegraphs that he's probably a fundamentalist Baptist like Jack Graham or Dave Hunt. They do not have a doctrine of prevenient grace whereby that it the case. Sorry, Henry, but men are left to a state of nature to believe in your view. They respond from a state of unregeneracy.
According to this passage: (1)faith is not a work, (2)saving faith does not result in boasting.
So according to **scripture** then, we are saved by faith and this is not us saving ourselves by some kind of religious work or merit nor is it something that leads to boasting.
That's nice, but what Calvinist denies this? This text is about justification by faith alone. We agree. We do not believe God believes on our behalf, nor do we believe that Sola Fide is salvation by merit. But we're here talking, not about justification but ELECTION. You believe that a man's faith is grounds for his election by God. So, God elects those who elect themselves. That's election by merit.
Notice that this passage says we are JUSTIFIED by faith, not "regenerated" by faith. Notice also that it does not say we are "saved" by faith. Scripture also states that faith is the gift of God. See Philippians.
I believe God sovereignly sets up the circumstances in leading someone to Himself. That will include sending people who speak the gospel message or placing a person in circumstances where they will hear the gospel message. The Spirit will show the person their sinfulness, their need for a Savior the identity of that Savior, what that Savior did for them, etc. Etc. Only after all this is a person ever in a position to have a faith response to the gospel. I cannot speak for the individual experiences of every person who gets in that place where the faith response is possible.
This does not answer the question. Why does one person under the same set of circumstances believe and not the other? Was he more spiritual? More intellectual? More afraid? What causes that person to believe?
Further if circumstances determine whether one person will believe and not the other, then that's not a libertarian argument, and since you talked about "a friend" holding to Molinism, I'm to assume you are no Molinist.
Further, this isn't what Henry has argued before. Before, he argued for "reasons," behind a person's decision.
Does Gene have universal and exhaustive knowledge of the individual circumstances of every human person and their hearts, that has ever lived? Upon what basis does Gene know that there are some that God intentionally creates and **never ever* gives a chance to be saved?
A. This, of course, contradicts what Henry previously stated.
I believe God sovereignly sets up the circumstances in leading someone to Himself. That will include sending people who speak the gospel message or placing a person in circumstances where they will hear the gospel message. The Spirit will show the person their sinfulness, their need for a Savior the identity of that Savior, what that Savior did for them, etc. Etc. Only after all this is a person ever in a position to have a faith response to the gospel.
B. I believe this because Scripture says that there is no name under heaven by which men must be saved. Scripture teaches that only faith in Christ will save. If common grace can save why evangelize? Did the people living in China in 59 ad. have any chance of hearing the gospel? Can man be saved apart from it? Yes or no.
C. In the OT, salvation was associated with the covenant community. Were those living Brittania during the ancient period before Christ given a chance to believe?
D. If God created persons knowing they would reject Him, why create them, Henry? God is creating people He knows will reject Him anyway. How is this not the same as creating persons for damnation?
And notice that Henry holds out one standard for himself and one for me. If I need to have "exhaustive foreknowledge" about all persons not being given a chance to be saved, Henry needs the same to argue otherwise, but Henry does not do this.
“A whole lot of people have real problems with this notion”
And this and his other statements are proof positive that Henry's objections are not really exegetical, they are ethical, which rather proves my point.
I have examined the connotations of kosmos/”world” in John’s writings. In that other thread I also intentionally quoted from D. A. Carson who Steve Hays says is a calvinist to make my understanding of kosmos/”world” clear. Apparently, Hays did not read that other post so I will requote part of what I’d said there. Here is what I said on the other thread:
ReplyDeleteNo, what you did was quote Carson because you think he agrees with you, but what does Carson say about this text? He says that it is about God's general attitude toward the qualitatively evil world, not, as you believe, that God loves each and every person the same redemptive way without distinction. Your view and that of Carson are not convertible. Carson is stating a classic infralapsarian view.
You have NOT discussed other possibilities of "kosmos" here. You have assumed what "world' means.
again, you intentionally misrepresent the noncalvinist view. We believe that, staying with the analogy as you state it, that God offers a lifeline that is perfectly sufficient to save all persons. That lifeline is the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
If the redemptive work of Christ is truly sufficient to save all persons in your view then why does it not save all persons? Unbelief? Does it not cover the sin of unbelief? What we mean and what Amyraldians mean by sufficient for all and what you mean are not the same thing, Henry.
The lifeline then does not in itself save the persons unless they respond by faith/grasp the lifeline themselves. Which tells us that the redemptive work of Christ is not sufficient in and of itself to save them. They must respond in order for that to happen.
Gene Bridges apparently now claims that some people are never ever given a chance to be saved and that this is part of God’s predetermined total plan which predetermines every event which occurs in history.
ReplyDeleteI had called him on this claim that **some people are never ever given a chance to be saved** by saying:
“Does Gene have universal and exhaustive knowledge of the individual circumstances of every human person and their hearts, that has ever lived? Upon what basis does Gene know that there are some that God intentionally creates and **never ever* gives a chance to be saved?”
Gene responded with:
”A. This, of course, contradicts what Henry previously stated.
’I believe God sovereignly sets up the circumstances in leading someone to Himself. That will include sending people who speak the gospel message or placing a person in circumstances where they will hear the gospel message. The Spirit will show the person their sinfulness, their need for a Savior the identity of that Savior, what that Savior did for them, etc. Etc. Only after all this is a person ever in a position to have a faith response to the gospel.’
There is no contradiction between claiming that all human persons are given a chance to be saved and claiming as I did in this paragraph that God sovereignly arranges the circumstances in which people are put into a position in which they can respond to the gospel message. I make a distinction between those who are able-bodied (and by this I mean they have the mental capacity) and actually hear and understand the gospel and those who due to circumstances do not hear the gospel message). In the paragraph above I am talking about those who are able bodied and can hear the gospel message under the appropriate circumstances (circumstances God sovereignly arranges). If those who are incapable of hearing the gospel message (which would include infants and children; the mentally disabled; and those “who have never heard the gospel”) are going to be saved, then that is also going to involve God sovereignly arranging the circumstances as well. As I have said already since the bible does not speak clearly on this issue there are various opinions:
“As we do not know, there have been various opinions on this issue, with whole books written on the various options. My own opinion is that if God is everywhere present, is all the things the Bible says that He is in regard to His character and is sovereign and desires to reveal Himself to all persons by setting things up so that all will seek him (cf. Acts 17:26-27, especially verse 27). Then He could do so if He wanted to do so.
I cannot speak authoritatively on the plight of infants, the mentally disabled and those who have never heard the gospel in their lifetimes. I can speak authoritatively on the character of God, the sovereignty of God and the fact that He makes statements that indicate that He wants everyone to be saved and sets things up so that all seek him. Based on these considerations I believe that Yes everyone gets some sort of opportunity to be saved. “
So I have made it clear that we do not know for sure about what happens with those who are not capable of hearing the gospel message but we can be hopeful about it.
I also gave my reasons for inclining to the view that God can and does provides some way of being saved for these persons as well:
“The reason that I believe that he offers His Son to every person is because (1) He makes statements to that effect in His Word (e.g. Jn. 3:16-17), and (2) because of the kind of person that He is, the character that He has and has displayed in both scripture and in our own experience. He is the kind of person who leaves the 99 sheep to go for the one that is lost. The kind of person who rejoices when His son who has lived a sinful and rebellious lifestyle comes back and is heading towards Him. So His Word and His character are my basis for thinking as I do about the extent of the gospel offer.”
So for me, since He makes statements in regards to His redemptive actions that are of a universal nature, and because of the person that He is, I believe that in some way he gives all the opportunity to be saved.
In contrast to my hopeful opinion, Gene Bridges has a dogmatic Calvinist view in which God intentionally creates multitudes of people who due to circumstances out of their control, will never have a chance to be saved. So all of these people according to Gene Bridges are going to hell. Look at how he states his view:
”B. I believe this because Scripture says that there is no name under heaven by which men must be saved. Scripture teaches that only faith in Christ will save. If common grace can save why evangelize? Did the people living in China in 59 ad. have any chance of hearing the gospel? Can man be saved apart from it? Yes or no.
C. In the OT, salvation was associated with the covenant community. Were those living Britannia during the ancient period before Christ given a chance to believe?”
Note that in (B.) Gene states “Scripture teaches that only faith in Christ will save.” OK, if that is meant to be a categorical and universal statement which refers to every human person who has ever lived, whether they are able bodied and hear the gospel, OR they do not hear the gospel (because they are infants, children, mentally disabled, or “those who never hear the gospel”), then we can conclude that those who were incapable of having faith, will not be saved and so will all go to hell. This is a gruesome doctrine that Gene espouses. It is compatible with his calvinism in which God intentionally damns many people without them ever having a chance, but it does not seem to manifest the character of God or what He has said about His universal redemptive efforts. So according to Gene all those who are aborted, who cannot have faith in Christ will go to Hell. And their abortions were predetermined to occur by the same God who predetermines every event to occur exactly as it does. This is repulsive calvinism at its worst.
But it is not only the babies and small children who are all predetermined to go to Hell for not hearing and believing the gospel message, it is also all of the mentally disabled and all of those “who never hear the message.” Gene even gives us specific instances of groups of people who all went to hell according to God’s predetermined plan (“Were those living Britannia during the ancient period before Christ given a chance to believe?” and “Did the people living in China in 59 ad. have any chance of hearing the gospel?”). I have heard other calvinists make specifications of entire people groups who they **know** went to hell.
All of this nastiness could be avoided if we keep in mind that when the scripture speaks of people going to Hell it speaks of those who hear and reject the gospel message. If the cross of Christ is sufficient for and intended for the **world**,then God is just and justifier so that He is perfectly just in applying the merits of Christ’s work to whomever He pleases. We know that He pleases to save those who respond in faith to the gospel message. But why can it also be His prerogative to apply the benefits of Christ’s work to babies/children, mentally disabled or those who truly never heard or never had a chance to be saved?
Gene do you really believe that all babies/children who die before the age of accountability, all mentally disabled persons and all of those who never hear the gospel message are going to Hell?
The bible does not speak about the eternal destinies of infants and small children and the mentally disabled and those who will never hear the message. Does it not better reflect what God says in His Word and who He is/his character, to hope that while scripture does not speak about this issue clearly that God can justify those who have never heard the gospel message based upon the cross that was sufficient for and intended for the world?
In Acts 17:26 it speaks of God’s sovereignty and states: “and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation.” And in the very next verse it states what God was up to by doing so: “THAT THEY SHOULD SEEK GOD, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us”. So v. 26 says that God has sets things up sovereignly, so that, in order that THEY SHOULD SEEK HIM. As it speaks of nations and God’s plan this is of a universal scope. Perhaps you may want to call this “common grace” and I do not care what label you put on it, but this is God’s sovereignty being manifested on a universal scale in order to set people up so that they may seek Him. And seek Him for what purpose? I would say for the purpose of having a saving relationship with them. If God sovereignly sets up the able bodied in this way to have a chance to be saved, is it unreasonable to believe that He has some sort of saving plan for those who never get a chance to hear the gospel, for infants/children, and mentally disabled persons?
For those who do hear the gospel message, scripture is clear they must believe in order to be saved (hence no other name under Heaven by which they must be saved). But we cannot conclude from the case of the able bodied who do in fact get an opportunity to hear the gospel, that things are identical with the infants/children; mentally disabled and those who have never heard. If Acts 17:27 is part of God’s universal redemptive love for the WORLD, then how do we know that there are people who will never ever have a chance of salvation? Acts 17:26-27 sure sounds like they get a chance of some kind to me.
Gene wrote:
”D. If God created persons knowing they would reject Him, why create them, Henry? God is creating people He knows will reject Him anyway. How is this not the same as creating persons for damnation?”
First of all, if God creates people who reject Him after they have a chance to be saved He is being loving and merciful and good to those persons. Second of all, a family is a blessing and part of God’s plan is to have godly families. Third, as I have said repeatedly part of God’s design plan for human persons is that they have the capacity to make choices and perform their own actions. Fourth, when everything was first created it was all good and all meant to be a blessing for mankind. Fifth, we know that at the end God will create a New Heavens and New Earth which will again be good and where there will be no sin. Sixth, through the fall of Adam and Eve sin entered the world. If we put all of these things together, we see that the same things that have a potential for great blessing and which were originally very good because of sin can have the potential for great evil. Apparently then, God considered the possibility of human persons having a personal relationship with Him which was freely chosen, a relationship in which they could worship and serve him through their own chosen actions, to be worth the possible negative consequences that result from sin. Plantinga argues this very well, that free will is a sword that cuts both ways. I also believe that the reality of choice and free will make everything good possible and so are worth the costs. Most moral evils result from choices people make, often involving things which God originally created to be great blessings (e.g. a person can use their mind to design an orphanage or a gas chamber).
Now having said all of that, creating people who have the opportunity to be saved but repeatedly reject this possibility strikes me as something a loving and good God would do. On the other hand, intentionally creating people and predetermining their every action/sin and then judging them and punishing them for eternal punishment based upon doing the very things that you determined they would do in every instance is neither loving nor good. It is sadistic and cruel and does not fit with the God who reveals Himself in scripture to **be** loving, merciful, forgiving, good, etc. etc. What makes the two views different which you continue to refuse to acknowledge is that in your view, God intentionally creates “reprobates” fully intending them to be exactly what they are. In my view he creates human persons who freely choose to be nonbelievers. There are big differences between claiming God intentionally makes a reprobate versus saying that God loves the unbeliever and reaches out to the unbeliever with an awesome redemptive love and yet **they** freely reject His love.
Henry
"Gene do you really believe that all babies/children who die before the age of accountability, all mentally disabled persons and all of those who never hear the gospel message are going to Hell?"
ReplyDeleteNotice how Henry is reversing himself. He initially attacked Calvinism because it supposedly separates faith from salvation.
Now he himself is trying to separate the two.
Steve Hays simply ignores what I have written. He says:
ReplyDelete“Notice how Henry is reversing himself. He initially attacked Calvinism because it supposedly separates faith from salvation.
Now he himself is trying to separate the two.”
I have made it clear that I make a distinction in regards to the salvation of those who are able bodied and hear and understand the gospel message (they **must** respond in faith in order to be saved, cf. Acts 16:29-31). And infants/babies, the mentally disabled and those who never hear the gospel message. In the latter persons case, since they cannot have a faith response due to lack of capacity or lack of opportunity. If they are going to be saved, then it will involve God saving them based upon the cross of Christ but without them exercising a faith response.
With the able bodied I am not “trying to separate the two”. With the other group which includes infants/babies, mentally disabled and those who never hear the gospel message, I am suggesting that for **them** to be saved it is going to have to be without them exercising a faith response as is true with the able-bodied.
I have not reversed myself at all. It will be interesting to see if Gene Bridges reverses himself and now claims that infants/babies, the mentally disabled and those who never heard (including his two chosen examples from Britannia and China) could possibly be saved.
Henry
Steve Hays’ verbal ridicule and hateful speech towards people is completely unacceptable and sinful according to scripture. There is no evidence of him attempting to live out what the Bible says we ought to be choosing to do in regards to how we are to interact with people both believers and unbelievers. The unacceptable speech can be documented as He has made repeated hateful, sarcastic, condescending, abrasive, belittling comments towards both unbelievers and believers with whom he disagrees theologically.
ReplyDeleteI wrote to him just today (6-14-07) and asked:
“Steve when will you cease engaging in the constant abusive and sinful comments towards me?”
I added:
“You know what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with one another: you need to do a better job of doing these things in your interactions with me. I want to engage in a civil and rational discussion so there is no need for your repeated belittling comments and personal attacks.”
And Steve Hays immediate response to my words contained no apology, no hint of remorse, no attempt to cut out the sinful manner of speaking with me. Instead he writes the following words, again reiterating his false accusation that I am a false teacher (and if we know our bible we know that accusing someone about being a false teacher exhibiting the traits discussed in the NT regarding false teachers is tantamount to saying that they are going to hell) and continuing his sinful abusive speech. Here is Steve Hays response to my appeal to being civil and rational and cutting out the unnecessary personal insults and personal attacks:
======================================================================
“I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”
“You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.
”For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.”
”Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”
“You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.”
”Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.”
”BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part.” (6-14-07)
======================================================================
I am now going to contrast what Steve Hays has been saying towards me, with what the Bible says about how Christians are to interact with and speak with one another. I will share two sets of statements here. First the public comments on Triablogue by Steve Hays directed towards me (and this is not an exhaustive listing of them), second Bible verses about how we ought to be acting towards one another. A friend of mine suggested providing this contrast if Steve Hays continued in his sinful abusive speech towards me.
======================================================================
Set 1 = public statements by Steve Hays towards Henry:
Henry seems to have a problem thinking outside his own little box. (3/22/07)
Sigh. Someone else who can’t follow his own line of reasoning. (3/22/07)
The most charitable interpretation of Henry’s statement is that he’s very young, naïve, and inexperienced. But for those who haven’t led such a charmed life or sheltered existence, the source of bitter regret is not that we could have done otherwise, but that we couldn’t bring ourselves to do otherwise. (3/23/07)
This is a purely emotional appeal, which is the last resort of the scoundrel. You reject the witness of Scripture because you dislike the consequences. (3/23/07)
It's a pity that Henry is so forgetful. (4/1/07)
As usual, Henry can't follow his own argument (4/1/07)
Henry never fails to miss the point. (4/1/07)
No, the major reasons are as follows:
i) Many people are just as illogical as Henry. (4/1/07)
Henry is now advertising his ignorance of Biblical lexicography.(4/8/07)
Henry pays lip service to Scripture, but he’s too lazy to consult the standard commentaries, lexicons, or monographs on lexical semantics. (4/8/07)
Such is Henry’s forked-tongued rhetoric on secular philosophy. (4/8/07)
Henry also doesn’t know the difference between sense and reference.(4/8/07)
Henry is ignorant of the doctrine he’s opposing. (4/8/07)
Henry is a false teacher. The Bible has very harsh things to say about false teachers. And keep in mind that, in the NT, the false teachers were professing Christians. But that doesn’t prevent the Bible from denouncing them in no uncertain terms. (4/8/07)
I would be prepared to cut Henry some slack if he were an honest man. But he prevaricates. He raises objections. When we answer him on his own grounds, he then chooses to ignore the counterarguments, change the subject, or repeat himself ad nauseum. (4/8/07)
I said:
”Steve Hays’ claims that I am a false teacher going to hell for eternal punishment.”
Which, of course, I didn't say. Henry suffers from a persecution complex. He's looking for a pretext to back out of a losing argument. (4/10/07)
Another palpable characterization of this thread. His problem (among others) is that he is not an honest disputant or truth-seeker. (4/10/07)
An honest and honorable man would withdraw his initial objections if he's been answered on his own grounds, and can show no flaw in the counterargument. (4/10/07)
That, however, is not what Henry does. He thinks that he's entitled to unconditional respect when he conducts himself in an intellectually disreputable fashion. (4/10/07)
I hold professing Christians (as well an unbelievers) to a minimal standard of intellectual honestly. (4/10/07)
If Henry doesn't know this, then Henry doesn't know very much. But, of course, we've already established his ignorance in past exchanges. (6-1-07)
Henry keeps reminding us that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. (6-1-07)
I hate to break the news to the impoverished little mind of Henry, but words frequently have more than one meaning. (6-4-07)
Perhaps, though, Henry is a closet homosexual activist who would use the same line of reasoning with reference to the sense of yada in Gen 19. (6-4-07)
Henry, could you try, just for once in your life, to be less of a dimwit? (6-4-07)
Henry is a chronic liar. If I had a brick for every inch that his nose grows, I could build a road from Alaska to Argentina. (6-4-07)
This is a splendid example of Henry’s Biblical illiteracy. (6-4-07)
Observe how Henry keeps using singular nouns with plural pronouns. His addiction to transgender usage is further evidence that he must be a closet homosexual activist. The Arminian chapter of ACT UP. (6-4-07)
ii) BTW, Henry must believe that all children who die before the age of discretion are damned. Same with all Christians who die in a state of senile dementia. Same with all adults below a certain IQ. (6-4-07)
How did he ever get to be a seminary prof, anyway? Did he marry the daughter of the seminary president? (6-7-07)
I know it makes your widdle head hoit to think logically, but with daily practice, a few baby steps at a time, you may just get the hang of it. (6-7-07)
Henry has a real problem thinking through the ramifications of his own position. He needs to work off all those layers of intellectual baby-fat. (6-7-07)
I realize that Henry finds it difficult to grasp the obvious, but maybe a little light will suddenly switch on if we keeping drawing his attention to the obvious. (6-7-07)
Or is his commitment to Arminian freewill so fanatical that he would let his own brother blow his brains out without making an effort to wrest the gun from his hands? (6-7-07)
He's like the parody of the spoiled, only child, who's used to receiving uncondition approval from his doting parents for whatever he says. (6-7-07)
No wonder he’s an Arminian. It’s the theological projection of an overgrown child. The theology of the middle-aged brat. Henry remains the center of his theological universe—ever compliant to his petulant whims. (6-7-07)
Because Henry lacks the intellectual honesty to accurately represent the implications of his own position, someone else will have to do it for him. (6-10-07)
Is Henry dense? “More loving” is a wedge issue. One may introduce the comparative to then leverage the superlative. (6-10-07)
Henry suffers from reading incomprehension. (6-10-07)
Henry, in his linguistic naiveté, doesn’t appreciate the difference between the etymology and meaning. (6-10-07)
Another one of Henry’s problems is that he doesn’t even know the meaning of English words. (6-10-07)
Robots are people, too! Clearly they need to add I, Robot to the curriculum at Henry’s backwoods seminary. (6-10-07)
How is it that Arminians know so little about human nature, especially in matters of the heart? Did Henry grow up within a Shaker community? (6-10-07)
How is it that Henry, like other Arminians, is so obvious to social psychology? So clueless about the world around them? (6-10-07)
Henry is now arguing with MG as well as me. That's an imprudent move on his part since MG has a far more agile mind that Henry. But, by all means, Henry—take on yet another, superior opponent. (6-12-07)
I also know how the Bible talks about false teachers, of which you are one. Therefore, I’m following Biblical precedent.”
You are a dishonest opponent. You have been repeatedly corrected on your many mistakes, yet you continue to repeat the very same mistakes.
For some reason, you seem to think that you are exempt from such elementary Christian duties as honesty and truth-telling.
Therefore, what you’re entitled to is stern reproof, which is exactly what you’re getting.”
You’re projecting. I didn’t make any claims about my intellectual superiority. There’s nothing prideful about my pointing out that *others* are smarter than you are, of which MG is an evident example.
Remember that I’m not your only opponent. You’ve also crossed swords with Bridges and Manata—both of whom can and have argued circles around you.
BTW, you’re indignant reaction betrays a good deal of injured pride on your own part. (6-14-07)
============================================
Set 2 = Bible verses on how Christians are to interact with and speak to other Christians:
“and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.” Eph. 4:24-25
“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” Eph. 4:29-32 (unwholesome words, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, malice, are not acceptable; instead kind, tender-hearted, forgiving ought to be done)
“for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.” (Eph. 5:8-10) (children of light do not talk to each other as the children of darkness do to each other)
“Do all things without grumbling or disputing; that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:14-15) (blameless, innocent, light in a dark world)
“so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10) (our actions ought to be done in a manner worthy of the Lord; we are to be good witnesses manifesting Jesus’ character to both unbelievers and especially believers = “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” Gal. 6:10)
“For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.” (Col. 3:6-8) (Christians may have experienced anger, wrath, malice, slander, abusive speech, in the past as nonbelievers, but it should no longer characterize them, or be practiced by believers, as saved persons these things are to be put aside and replaced by love, kindness, gentleness, self control, etc. etc.)
“And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.” (Col. 3:12-14) (we are to be compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, patience, bearing with one another, forgiving)
“Now as to the love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another; for indeed you do practice it toward all the brethren who are in all Macedonia. But we urge you, brethren, to excel still more” (1 Thess. 4:9-10)(love other Christians and **excel** in it)
“And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Tim: 2:24-26 – Note while this is spoken about how we are to act towards nonbelievers, if these things are true of that interaction how should our interaction be with other believers??? Even when the unbeliever wrongs us we are to be patient when wronged, correcting them with gentleness realizing that God is the one who has to change their heart)
“To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Pet. 3:8-12)(are to be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, humble, not returning evil for evil or insults when insulted)
“Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” (1 Pet. 4:8-9) (above all love ought to characterize the interactions between Christians)
“You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the might hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time” (1 Pet. 5:5-6) (God hates pride and opposes the proud but gives grace to and relates better with people who are humble)
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:2-7, presents the character traits Christian leaders/elders are to have, shows what Christian maturity looks like, if you do not manifest these traits you are not a mature Christian no matter how smart you may be; examine the posts and see if they manifest these character traits or not)
“Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1 Jn. 3:15-16)(the posts have repeatedly manifested hatred rather than love)
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 Jn. 4:7-8) (a genuine believer will consistently be manifesting love towards other believers irrespective of whether or not they hold the same doctrinal beliefs)
“If someone says, “I love God”, and hates his brother, he is a liar, for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” (1 Jn. 4:20-21)(we have a right to ask of a professing Christian: where is the love? If you hate other Christians, that suggests you are not one of His people)
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (Jn. 13:34-35). (Jesus said it himself, love of one another, not intellect or contentious arguing, is what shows people belong to Him, intellect without love is no different than the nonbelievers, just as anything without love is worthless, cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3)
“Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly, it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7, if a person loves other believers and unbelievers, we ought to see what is described here in their posts on the internet as well)
Now having seen some of the sinful things which Steve Hays has said towards me. And comparing his statements with the biblical admonitions of how Christians are to speak and treat one another. Hays needs to change his manner of interacting and speaking towards me. He needs to better practice what the Bible says about the manner in which Christians are to interact with one another. If he claims to be a Christian then he needs to live out what the Bible says, obey the exhortations and commands of scripture in regards to how to interact with other people. And if he has problems with the Bible verses mentioned here, or refuses to practice them, then he needs to have some interaction with the God who expects His people to be living these things out in every area of their lives.
Henry