J.C. THIBODAUX SAID:
“Incorrect, I have the power to instantiate alternative possibilities, God simply knows how I will employ it.”
Is that a fact? There’s a possible world in which I take Catherine Deneuve on a date. And back when I was a teenager, I used to dream about taking Catherine Deneuve on a date. But no matter how vividly I imagined that alternative scenario, I was never able to turn my fantasy into reality.
The simplest way for Arminians and other libertarians to make their case is not through arguments. Instead, if what they say is true, then why don’t they put on a public demonstration of their libertarian prowess?
For example, suppose I buy a big, vacant lot. It has a nice view. I’d like to build a house there. But it would save a lot of money if I could simply will a house into existence. However, I’ve never had much success with that strategy.
Now, there’s a possible world in which the Breakers is sitting on my plot of land. So why doesn’t J.C. employ his libertarian power to instantiate that alternate possibility? We can even invite a TV news crew to film the event.
And, while he’s at it, perhaps J.C. could do me the favor of making Catherine Deneuve materialized by my side. Maybe a younger version since she’s getting up in years.
Once you get the hang of it, the power to instantiate alternative possibilities should come in pretty handy. I really need to draw up a shopping list.
There’s a possible world in which I live in the Breakers. There’s a possible world in which Catherine Deneuve is my wife. And there’s a possible world in which I drive a Duisenberg.
Okay, let’s start with those three possibilities. That should be sufficient for a convincing promo.
Why doesn’t J.C. stipulate a time and place of his own choosing. If it’s at some exotic location, then I’d also ask him to instantiate a Lear jet so that we can get there more easily.
Then let’s see him twitch his nose or rub his lamp to instantiate these alternate possibilities.
I hope he’s not going to tell us that the actual world imposes severe limitations on what alternate possibilities he can instantiate. For, if libertarianism is true, then the actual world simply is the sum total of what alternate possibilities are instantiated by free agents like J.C.
And if he says that one libertarian agent can act as a check on what another agent can instantiate, thereby canceling out his freedom of choice, then can agent can’t do otherwise in many situations.
Perhaps, though, he’d say that not all possibilities are compossible. But if that’s a problem for him, then I’m flexible.
Instead of the package deal containing the Breakers, Catherine Deneuve, and the Duisenberg, I’ll settle for a different package: say, the Getty Villa, Sophia Loren, and a silver Aston Martin—or the Hearst Castle, Greta Garbo, and a Lamborghini—or the Getty Villa, Greta Garbo, and a Duisenberg, &c.
I’m not finicky. Any of these combinations would meet with my satisfaction.
Moving along:
“Because He is atemporal, and can know choices before they are instantiated.”
There are several problems with that move:
i) If God is atemporal, then he cannot know choices *before* they are made, for that would introduce a chronological sequence into God’s knowledge vis-à-vis the object of knowledge which J.C’s stipulation of divine timelessness disallows.
ii) If God timelessly knows an outcome, then the outcome cannot be otherwise since that would falsify his foreknowledge.
Put another way, if God is atemporal, then whatever he believes is immutable—and if his belief about the future is true, then the future cannot be otherwise.
iii) How can an agent know a temporal fact?
a) He can know it directly, by experiencing the temporal fact. But if God is timeless, then he doesn’t experience time.
b) And even if he did experience time, pace J.C’s postulate, we can only experience the present, not the future.
c) He can know about it indirectly, by reading a newspaper or watching cable news, &c. But this would also involve a temporal experience of a temporal fact—albeit it at one or more moves from the event.
d) He could also know about it indirectly if he planned the future, and the future occurs according to his plan. He would know the future by knowing his plan for the future.
That explanation is readily available to the Calvinist, but not to the Arminian.
iv) J.C’s marsupial sidekick has argued for Arminianism on the grounds that “Arminianism is rather simple and takes the Bible at face value.”
But if God is atemporal, then we would interpret certain passages of Scripture anthropomorphically rather than literally. So Thibodaux and Kangaroodort are presenting two mutually exclusive justifications for Arminianism.
Moving along:
“Rather like being chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).”
There are several problems with that facile appeal. As Greg Welty recently explained:
***QUOTE***
Well, not so fast. The proposed interpretation is neither necessary nor plausible. It’s certainly not necessary, because neither text says that God elects us on the basis of foreseen faith. In fact, neither text even mentions faith as something foreseen at all, much less that election is based upon it.12 Rather, in the “foreknew passages” (Ro 8:29; 1Pe 1:2), what is said to be foreknown are people, not faith or works. What Ro 8:29 says is: “those whom He foreknew, He also predestined...” It is persons who are said to be foreknown, not their acts of faith specifically. 1Pe 1:1-2 is even more ambiguous; it just mentions “foreknowledge” without clarifying whether the object of that foreknowledge is persons, or their faith, or their works, or anything else about them.
Not only is the ‘foreseen faith’ interpretation unnecessary (from a textual point of view), it’s also implausible, for it would cut against the grain of everything we’ve already seen in Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. Instead of responding to the imaginary objector, “Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” (Ro 9:20), Paul could have said, “What’s the matter, didn’t you read Ro 8:29? I already told you: all of this is based on foreseen faith. Human choices ultimately determine salvation, not God’s will.” But of course Paul does not say this, though that reply would be ready at hand in Romans 9 if in fact Ro 8:29 is speaking of foreseen acts of faith. In addition, there seems little reason for Paul to say in Ro 9:16, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy,” if in Ro 8:29 he had just taught that election does depend on the man who wills. I think a principle of hermeneutical charity is relevant here: it is not only implausible but uncharitable to interpret Paul in a way that introduces palpable contradiction into his thought – and that in the space of two chapters – especially if said interpretation is textually unnecessary in the first place.
Those familiar with the Calvinist debate at this point are probably well aware of how Calvinists take these two texts. ‘Knowledge’ in Scripture often denotes a personal relationship entered into by choice, rather than bare cognition or awareness. For instance, God says through the prophet Amos, “1 Hear this word which the LORD has spoken against you, sons of Israel, against the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt: 2 ‘You only have I chosen [known; yada’] among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities’” (Amos 3:1-2). Clearly when God says that Israel is the only family on earth he has known, he doesn’t mean he’s unaware of all the other nations. What he means is that Israel is the only nation with whom he has entered into a specific covenant relationship (which is why the New American Standard Bible translates yada’ in this text as “chosen”).
Likewise when Jesus warns religious hypocrites that on the last day, “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Mt 7:23). In saying he never ‘knew’ them Jesus is not saying he was cognitively unaware of them (as though afflicted with a case of divine amnesia). What is he saying is that he never had a saving relationship with them, despite their many words and outward deeds. It is this kind of intimate, personal, committed relationship that Calvinists suggest is being spoken of in these and other biblical texts (cf. Ge 4:1, Ex 2:25, Hos 13:4-5), and in Ro 8:29 and 1Pe 1:2 as well. God foreknows individuals, which is to say he foreloves them, and in virtue of that special, distinguishing love he marks them out for a peculiar destiny: conformity to the image of his Son (Ro 8:29), and obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood (1Pe 1:2).13 14
In the end, the Calvinistic interpretation of the ‘foreknowledge’ texts is much more plausible because the background to the New Testament doctrine of election is surely God’s election of Israel in the Old Testament, and there it is clear that God’s election is according to foreloving. That is, the Lord chose them because “the LORD loved you” (Dt 7:6-8, 10:15-16). Ask an Old Testament Jew or a New Testament Christian why he was elected by God, and the answer is going to be the same: ‘Not because of anything in ourselves, but because God chose to set his love upon us.’15
http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/Welton%20Election%20and%20Effectual%20Calling.pdf
***END-QUOTE***
Moving along:
“Jeremiah 32:35 and Luke 13:34 for starters.”
Well, let’s look at Jer 32:35 for starters:
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”
i) That man can defy God’s preceptive will is not at odds with Calvinism.
ii) When the text says this outcome “never entered God’s mind,” how does J. C. or Ben construe that claim?
a) Ben says that Arminians take the Bible at face value. Well, if we take this verse literally, then God is ignorant of the future, or at least this particular outcome.
Yet Ben denies that he’s an open theist. So, to be true to his Arminian belief in God’s foreknowledge, Ben must treat the description as anthropomorphic. But, in that case, Ben must revert the same hermeneutical approach as the Calvinist.
b) J.C. presumably denies that God is ignorant. So he would also revert to the Reformed interpretation.
c) In addition, J. C. is committed to the proposition that God is atemporal. In that case, it’s literally nonsensical to say that something never entered God’s mind.
As to Lk 13:34:
i) If J.C. and Ben are forced to interpret the sentiments in Jer 32:35 as anthropopathetic, then shouldn’t they be consistent and construe the sentiment expressed in Lk 13:34 the same way?
ii) Since J.C. believes that God is atemporal, then he can’t believe that God “often” desired the repentance of apostate Israel, for frequency is a temporal category.
iii) As commentators point out, v35 alludes to God’s covenant with Israel. Calvinism doesn’t deny that human beings can defy God’s preceptive will. Human begins can be covenant-breakers. Indeed, God decreed their disobedience.
Moving along:
“Drawing is not mutually exclusive to wooing, take Hosea 11:4 for instance.”
i) Hos 11:4 doesn’t say that God “wooed” his people.
ii) And even if it did, that’s a metaphor. Hosea is full of marital metaphors about the love of God. But Arminians don’t take that literally, although Mormons might!
Moving along
“Here are some passages that you might need to reflect on some (Ex. 32:10-14; 2 Kings 20:1-11; 2 Chron. 33:10-13; Jonah 3:6-10).”
Two problems:
i) Ben has yet to explain how our prayers can have an affect on God consistent with his commitment to divine foreknowledge. So there’s a tension between his prooftexting and his theology.
ii) In Scripture, most divine threats are implicitly conditional. So God didn’t change his mind. Richard Pratt has explained this at length:
http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.pdf
iii) And conditionality is not at odds with Calvinism, for conditions are means by which God realizes his will. Calvinism affirms the use of various means to facilitate his appointed ends.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Compare and Contrast
Ben wrote:
“As far as sticking to exegesis you have apparently not read much from Triablogue as they are often all about philosophy.”
This is is funny considering the number of times I have asked Arminians who frequent our comboxes to provide an exegetical foundation for LFW and we've gotten so little in the way of replies.
Indeed, I discharged my own burden of proof here.
But let's play with this for a bit, shall we? Let's try to see what sort of answers we get when we look at the concept of "Free Will."
Calvinism
1. Second London Baptist Confession of 1689
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Determinism.htm
See also Chapter 4 of The Doctrine of God, pp. 47-79, and Responsibility and Ability and his critique of Libertarianism on pp. 126-145.
Also James Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, Chapter 13:
Walls and Dongell, speaking for Arminianism in Why I'm not a Calvinist:
William Lane Craig, Arminian, speaking for the Molinist perspective:
These are just small samples. I am a Calvinist, because I believe the Bible. I don't come to the Bible with a set of "philosophical presuppositions" about Providence and Free Will that are my fundamentums. Arminianism's "exegetical arguments" aren't really exegetical at all. They are simply ethical and philosophical objections that masquerade as exegetical arguments. Please don't accuse Calvinists, particularly those on this blog, for not offering exegetical answers and arguments, when we've been doing it all along. Now, if you'd like to present an exegetical argument for LFW, then by all means do so, rather than gracing us with yet another emotional jeremiad.
“As far as sticking to exegesis you have apparently not read much from Triablogue as they are often all about philosophy.”
This is is funny considering the number of times I have asked Arminians who frequent our comboxes to provide an exegetical foundation for LFW and we've gotten so little in the way of replies.
Indeed, I discharged my own burden of proof here.
But let's play with this for a bit, shall we? Let's try to see what sort of answers we get when we look at the concept of "Free Will."
Calvinism
1. Second London Baptist Confession of 1689
CHAPTER 9; OF FREE WILLParagraph 1. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.1
1 Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19Paragraph 2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God,2 but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.3
2 Eccles. 7:29
3 Gen. 3:6Paragraph 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;4 so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin,5 is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.6
4 Rom. 5:6, 8:7
5 Eph. 2:1,5
6 Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44Paragraph 4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin,7 and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;8 yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he does not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.9
7 Col. 1:13; John 8:36
8 Phil. 2:13
9 Rom. 7:15,18,19,21,23Paragraph 5. This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in
the state of glory only.10
10 Eph. 4:13
Arminianism:
Treatise on the Faith and Practice of The Free Will Baptists (emphasis mine)
CHAPTER III
Divine Government and Providence
1. God exercises a providential care and superintendence over all His creatures, and governs the world in wisdom and mercy, according to the testimony of His Word.
2. God has endowed man with power of free choice, and governs him by moral laws and motives; and this power of free choice is the exact measure of man's responsibility.
3. All events are present with God from everlasting to everlasting; but His knowledge of them does not in any sense cause them, nor does He decree all events which He knows will occur.
Hmmm, let's see if representative theologians fare any better:
John Frame, speaking for Calvinism:http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Determinism.htm
See also Chapter 4 of The Doctrine of God, pp. 47-79, and Responsibility and Ability and his critique of Libertarianism on pp. 126-145.
Also James Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, Chapter 13:
The Scriptural authority for the doctrine of decrees will appear from the following statements and references, gathered with slight modifications from Hodge's Outlines, pp, 205-213:
You can find the detailed exegesis in a standard Reformed commentary. (That's what the references presume the reader will do).1. God's decrees are eternal. Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 2:7.
2. They are immutable. Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9.
3. They comprehend all events.
(1.) The Scriptures assert this of the whole system in general embraced in the divine decrees. Dan. 4:34, 35; Acts 17:26; Eph 1:11.
(2.) They affirm the same of fortuitous events. Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29, 30.
(3.) Also of the free actions of men. Eph. 2:10, 11; Phil. 2:13.
(4.) Even the wicked actions of men. Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:29; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4; Rev. 17:17. As to the history of Joseph, compare Gen. 37:28, with Gen. 45:7, 8, and Gen. 50:20. See also Ps. 17:13, 14; Isa. 10:5, 15.
4. The decrees of God are not conditional. Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 14:24, 27 ; 46:10; Rom. 9:11.
5. They are sovereign. Isa. 40:13, 14; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:11, 15-18; Eph. 1:5, 11.
6. They include the means. Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2.
7. They determine the free actions of men. Acts 4:27, 28 ; Eph. 2:10.
8. God himself works in his people that faith and obedience which are called the conditions of salvation. Eph. 2:8 ; Phil. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25.
9. The decree renders the event certain. Matt. 16:21; Luke 18:31-33; 24:46; Acts 2:23; 13:29; 1 Cor. 11:19.
10. While God has decreed the free acts of men, the actors have been none the less responsible. Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28.
Walls and Dongell, speaking for Arminianism in Why I'm not a Calvinist:
1) “The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.”
(2) “…It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.
(3) “Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.
William Lane Craig, Arminian, speaking for the Molinist perspective:
Since Scripture does not reflect upon this question, no amount of proof-texting can prove thatJohn Miley (Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, 275)
God’s counterfactual knowledge is possessed logically prior to his creative decree. This is a
matter for theological-philosophical reflection, not biblical exegesis. Thus, while it is clearly
unbiblical to deny that God has simple foreknowledge and even counterfactual knowledge, those
who deny middle knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical. (Craig, “Middle-Knowledge View,” 4 Vi Divine Foreknowledge Four Views, 125).
"freedom is fundamental in Arminianism," therefore, "the [Arminian] system holds accordingly the universality of the atonement and provisory nature of the atonement, and the conditionality of salvation.
These are just small samples. I am a Calvinist, because I believe the Bible. I don't come to the Bible with a set of "philosophical presuppositions" about Providence and Free Will that are my fundamentums. Arminianism's "exegetical arguments" aren't really exegetical at all. They are simply ethical and philosophical objections that masquerade as exegetical arguments. Please don't accuse Calvinists, particularly those on this blog, for not offering exegetical answers and arguments, when we've been doing it all along. Now, if you'd like to present an exegetical argument for LFW, then by all means do so, rather than gracing us with yet another emotional jeremiad.
If at first you don't succeed, lose, lose again!
KANGAROODORT SAID:
“So now we are on to lifting other comments from my combox.”
And why does that bother you, exactly? Do you think your own comments are indefensible?
“And trying to say that I need to back them up as if the whole world needs to answer to Triablogue.”
To the contrary, it’s fine with me if you’re not up to the task you set for yourself.
“You guys are very predictable.”
That’s a funny accusation coming from a libertarian. Apparently, you don’t believe in the freedom to do otherwise.
Well, that’s progress. Now that you’ve shown yourself to be a closet determinist, I’d encourage you to come out of the closet.
“Just keep making posts and issuing challenges until your opponent is overwelmed and unable to respond to it all.”
I don’t recall issuing a challenge. I guess we have to acquaint you with the dynamics of a public debate.
If you comment on something I say, especially in the form of a criticism, then that’s an open invitation for me to respond. If you can’t take it when people reply to your public criticism of their position, then don’t criticize their position.
You evidently think that criticism is a one-way street. You should be free to criticize Calvinism, but a Calvinist has no right to criticize Arminianism.
Wherever did you get the idea that you can attack someone’s theological position with impunity? I guess you led a very sheltered existence.
“As far as your above claim I have written several posts on the subjects of free will and determinism so your claim that I haven't presented anything is simply false (and some of them are even exegetically derived).”
“Exegetically derived” once you load the dice with your Arminian presuppositions.
“I am not here to please you or cater to your needs.”
Do you ever listen to yourself as you carry on this way? Instead of dealing with the issues, you emote like a schoolgirl who was snubbed at the prom.
I did a high and dry post on the difference between *affecting* and *changing* an outcome. You responded with a me-centered pity-party.
I then did a follow-up post in which I questioned whether, given your Arminian commitment to divine foreknowledge, it was consistent for you to say that prayer has an affect on God. And you respond to that with another round of self-pity.
“I regret having anything to do with you guys.”
Yes, losing the argument can have that affect on a person.
“(And regrets are a strange thing indeed if we do not have the power of contrary choice as you claim).”
What do you think you accomplish when you trot out this schoolboy objection to determinism? Do you think you’ve said something original? Something your Reformed opponent has never thought of before? Do you think this halts us in our tracks?
This sort of objection would be acceptable if you were just a kid who had never taken a course in philosophy. Never read a book on the debate between freewill and determinism.
But there are well-trodden replies to this sort of objection. You don’t help your own position by operating at such a retrograde level.
Let’s take an example: one function of regret, in Reformed theology, is that God uses regret about the past as a means of changing our outlook with a view to the future.
It isn’t about “if only I could do it all over again”—which is backward-looking—but about, “having screwed up my life, I now see my need to turn my life over to Christ”—which is forward-looking. Regret is perfectly consistent with Calvinism.
God decrees that certain people have certain motives, since motives function as an incentive or disincentive to a particular course of action. Regret can be an inducement to evangelical repentance.
“Then why do you guys keep going on and on about it?”
Why does Toto pull the curtain back?
“And this isn't an arbitray statement? I could come up with all kinds of arbitray definitions for what Calvinism is, as could anyone.”
You *say* it’s arbitrary, but you don’t *show* it’s arbitrary.
Moreover, you’re quoting my conclusion without quoting my supporting argument.
“Which is philosophical assertion based on a Biblically unfounded correlation between physical death and spiritual death. It is far from exegetically derived.”
It’s Scripture that uses the metaphor of spiritual death. I didn’t invent that correlation. And it’s Scripture that distinguishes between spiritual death and the new birth.
“You guys feel like you are defending Biblical truth by trying to make a fool out me.”
You’re the one who keeps casting the issue in terms of making you look foolish. Does this reflect a Freudian guilt-complex on your part?
I’ve been endeavoring to discuss the theological issues. But you keep responding by talking about yourself, and how you feel about us, and how you feel we feel about you, and how you feel we feel about how you feel about our feelings…
It’s like a parody of adolescent girl-talk.
“Strangely, it would seem that God has decreed from eternity that I would reject Calvinism and defend Arminianism. If that is the case then I don't know why you are battling me. I am just doing what God wanst me to do. God apparently wants us to disagree and is apparently to blame for all the confusion that this debate generates, which is strange for a God of whom the Bible declares is not the author of confusion.”
That’s a lovely example of ripping a passage out of context. Paul is making the practical point that in a church service, everyone shouldn’t speak at once.
If you want to cite something relevant in 1 Corinthians, try 1:18-3:23, where God is responsible for setting up a number of theological pawns who function as a foil to the gospel. God does that, as Paul explains, to highlight the ironic wisdom of the gospel in contrast to the folly of the worldly-wise.
“But that is just me expecting things to make sense again and you have already pointed out how foolish that expectation is.”
If you were sincere about wanting things to make sense, you’d attempt to explain how, by your own lights, prayer has an “affect on God” even though God foreknows your prayer, foreknows how or whether he will answer your prayer, as well as foreknowing how the answer, assuming it’s answered, will figure in the outcome.
Do you think your prayer can change a foreknown future? How is that possible?
And, if it doesn’t change the future, then how does your position differ from mine—except that I’m able to ground divine foreknowledge in divine foreordination, whereas divine foreknowledge is groundless in Arminian theology.
“I wish I had the luxury of defending an unfalsifiable dogma like you guys.”
Meaning what, exactly? Do you think Christian beliefs should be falsifiable? In what sense?
Do you think Jesus may have been a fraud? Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
“So now we are on to lifting other comments from my combox.”
And why does that bother you, exactly? Do you think your own comments are indefensible?
“And trying to say that I need to back them up as if the whole world needs to answer to Triablogue.”
To the contrary, it’s fine with me if you’re not up to the task you set for yourself.
“You guys are very predictable.”
That’s a funny accusation coming from a libertarian. Apparently, you don’t believe in the freedom to do otherwise.
Well, that’s progress. Now that you’ve shown yourself to be a closet determinist, I’d encourage you to come out of the closet.
“Just keep making posts and issuing challenges until your opponent is overwelmed and unable to respond to it all.”
I don’t recall issuing a challenge. I guess we have to acquaint you with the dynamics of a public debate.
If you comment on something I say, especially in the form of a criticism, then that’s an open invitation for me to respond. If you can’t take it when people reply to your public criticism of their position, then don’t criticize their position.
You evidently think that criticism is a one-way street. You should be free to criticize Calvinism, but a Calvinist has no right to criticize Arminianism.
Wherever did you get the idea that you can attack someone’s theological position with impunity? I guess you led a very sheltered existence.
“As far as your above claim I have written several posts on the subjects of free will and determinism so your claim that I haven't presented anything is simply false (and some of them are even exegetically derived).”
“Exegetically derived” once you load the dice with your Arminian presuppositions.
“I am not here to please you or cater to your needs.”
Do you ever listen to yourself as you carry on this way? Instead of dealing with the issues, you emote like a schoolgirl who was snubbed at the prom.
I did a high and dry post on the difference between *affecting* and *changing* an outcome. You responded with a me-centered pity-party.
I then did a follow-up post in which I questioned whether, given your Arminian commitment to divine foreknowledge, it was consistent for you to say that prayer has an affect on God. And you respond to that with another round of self-pity.
“I regret having anything to do with you guys.”
Yes, losing the argument can have that affect on a person.
“(And regrets are a strange thing indeed if we do not have the power of contrary choice as you claim).”
What do you think you accomplish when you trot out this schoolboy objection to determinism? Do you think you’ve said something original? Something your Reformed opponent has never thought of before? Do you think this halts us in our tracks?
This sort of objection would be acceptable if you were just a kid who had never taken a course in philosophy. Never read a book on the debate between freewill and determinism.
But there are well-trodden replies to this sort of objection. You don’t help your own position by operating at such a retrograde level.
Let’s take an example: one function of regret, in Reformed theology, is that God uses regret about the past as a means of changing our outlook with a view to the future.
It isn’t about “if only I could do it all over again”—which is backward-looking—but about, “having screwed up my life, I now see my need to turn my life over to Christ”—which is forward-looking. Regret is perfectly consistent with Calvinism.
God decrees that certain people have certain motives, since motives function as an incentive or disincentive to a particular course of action. Regret can be an inducement to evangelical repentance.
“Then why do you guys keep going on and on about it?”
Why does Toto pull the curtain back?
“And this isn't an arbitray statement? I could come up with all kinds of arbitray definitions for what Calvinism is, as could anyone.”
You *say* it’s arbitrary, but you don’t *show* it’s arbitrary.
Moreover, you’re quoting my conclusion without quoting my supporting argument.
“Which is philosophical assertion based on a Biblically unfounded correlation between physical death and spiritual death. It is far from exegetically derived.”
It’s Scripture that uses the metaphor of spiritual death. I didn’t invent that correlation. And it’s Scripture that distinguishes between spiritual death and the new birth.
“You guys feel like you are defending Biblical truth by trying to make a fool out me.”
You’re the one who keeps casting the issue in terms of making you look foolish. Does this reflect a Freudian guilt-complex on your part?
I’ve been endeavoring to discuss the theological issues. But you keep responding by talking about yourself, and how you feel about us, and how you feel we feel about you, and how you feel we feel about how you feel about our feelings…
It’s like a parody of adolescent girl-talk.
“Strangely, it would seem that God has decreed from eternity that I would reject Calvinism and defend Arminianism. If that is the case then I don't know why you are battling me. I am just doing what God wanst me to do. God apparently wants us to disagree and is apparently to blame for all the confusion that this debate generates, which is strange for a God of whom the Bible declares is not the author of confusion.”
That’s a lovely example of ripping a passage out of context. Paul is making the practical point that in a church service, everyone shouldn’t speak at once.
If you want to cite something relevant in 1 Corinthians, try 1:18-3:23, where God is responsible for setting up a number of theological pawns who function as a foil to the gospel. God does that, as Paul explains, to highlight the ironic wisdom of the gospel in contrast to the folly of the worldly-wise.
“But that is just me expecting things to make sense again and you have already pointed out how foolish that expectation is.”
If you were sincere about wanting things to make sense, you’d attempt to explain how, by your own lights, prayer has an “affect on God” even though God foreknows your prayer, foreknows how or whether he will answer your prayer, as well as foreknowing how the answer, assuming it’s answered, will figure in the outcome.
Do you think your prayer can change a foreknown future? How is that possible?
And, if it doesn’t change the future, then how does your position differ from mine—except that I’m able to ground divine foreknowledge in divine foreordination, whereas divine foreknowledge is groundless in Arminian theology.
“I wish I had the luxury of defending an unfalsifiable dogma like you guys.”
Meaning what, exactly? Do you think Christian beliefs should be falsifiable? In what sense?
Do you think Jesus may have been a fraud? Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
What's The Point?
So, the Calvinist's prayer is 'pointless' and 'a waste of time.'
Okay, let's ignore that for now, as its been answered ad nauseum recently.
Now, Arminians admit God knows everything. He foreknew all who would be saved.
Take the set of all people who God knew would be saved, call it S.
Take the set of all people God knew would be unsaved, call it U.
Now, for every person, God knows whether they are a member of S or U.
Take Sarah, a member of S. Sarah has an Arminian friend, Bill. Bill prays for Sarah. This, as has been recently told, has an effect of God. God moves obsticles, etc. Sarah eventually goes down for an 'alter call', says 'the prayer,' and 'gets saved.' This wasn't a waste of time, or pointless, for God. Or Bill, our Arminian friend. Fine and dandy.
Take Frank, a meber of U. Bill, our friendly Arminian, is also Frank's friend. Bill prays for Frank. Then God does all sorts of things, removes obsticles, whatever, all the while knowing that Frank will not get saved. Seems pointless. Seems a waste of time.
Now, Fank has another Arminian friend, Jim. Jim prays for Frank. God does all sorts of things, yet again, to 'get Frank saved,' and yet knows none of it will come to fruition.
We can multiply Arminian friends, and the above situations. Say that Frank has 150 Arminian friends who all pray for him. God does all sorts of things to get Frank saved. He does the same thing over and over again. Albert Einstein once quipped that, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Does God expect different results? Then he's insane according to Einstein. Does he not expect anything to happen yet goes through the motions of a futile endeavor? Then what he does is pointless. It's a waste of time.
Now, I suppose it could be countered that God doesn't do anything. He knows Frank will not get saved, and so doesn't waste his time. Okay, then the Arminian wastes his time. His prayers, in light of his very critiques against us, are pointless. Wasted time.
Okay, let's ignore that for now, as its been answered ad nauseum recently.
Now, Arminians admit God knows everything. He foreknew all who would be saved.
Take the set of all people who God knew would be saved, call it S.
Take the set of all people God knew would be unsaved, call it U.
Now, for every person, God knows whether they are a member of S or U.
Take Sarah, a member of S. Sarah has an Arminian friend, Bill. Bill prays for Sarah. This, as has been recently told, has an effect of God. God moves obsticles, etc. Sarah eventually goes down for an 'alter call', says 'the prayer,' and 'gets saved.' This wasn't a waste of time, or pointless, for God. Or Bill, our Arminian friend. Fine and dandy.
Take Frank, a meber of U. Bill, our friendly Arminian, is also Frank's friend. Bill prays for Frank. Then God does all sorts of things, removes obsticles, whatever, all the while knowing that Frank will not get saved. Seems pointless. Seems a waste of time.
Now, Fank has another Arminian friend, Jim. Jim prays for Frank. God does all sorts of things, yet again, to 'get Frank saved,' and yet knows none of it will come to fruition.
We can multiply Arminian friends, and the above situations. Say that Frank has 150 Arminian friends who all pray for him. God does all sorts of things to get Frank saved. He does the same thing over and over again. Albert Einstein once quipped that, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Does God expect different results? Then he's insane according to Einstein. Does he not expect anything to happen yet goes through the motions of a futile endeavor? Then what he does is pointless. It's a waste of time.
Now, I suppose it could be countered that God doesn't do anything. He knows Frank will not get saved, and so doesn't waste his time. Okay, then the Arminian wastes his time. His prayers, in light of his very critiques against us, are pointless. Wasted time.
The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
This is my review of Keller's book:
******************
"Tim Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (TRG, hereafter) is the result of the many questions about God and Christianity pastor Keller has received over the years during his time at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York. Keller writes in a smooth, conversational tone. He addresses in clear language, 'real' questions from those who have crossed his path over the years, using every day examples to illustrate his points, and he does so with a pastoral heart (which is nevertheless well-reasoned rather that overly subjective or emotional in its appeal to the reader). Pastor Keller is clearly well read, and marshals a number of useful quotes from all sides (e.g., from atheists, agnostics, capitalists, communists, Arminian theologians, Calvinist theologians, authors of the classics, and, of course, lots and lots of C.S. Lewis). The quotes alone may well be worth the price of the book for those pastors who like to use a "As some of your own poets have said..." (Acts 17:28) approach to apologetic preaching (cf. "How does the Gospel Preach in a Culture of Paganism?" by Ted Hamilton, CWIPP lecture, Feb 21, 2007, www.cwipp.org). TRG can be read in a couple of sittings.
TRG comes in two parts. Part one is called: The Leap of Doubt. Keller asks both believers and unbelievers to doubt. Believers should not be afraid to wrestle with their doubts. To find answers rather than ignore them. Struggling with your doubts will make your faith "your own," rather than something you inherit. Believers should look for reasons behind their faith. To the unbeliever, Keller asks them to look into, and then treat with "doubt," the (what he calls) "faith assumptions" which under gird their objections, or doubts, to Christianity. "You cannot doubt belief A except from a position of faith in belief B." Keller doesn't really define what he means by "faith," and I think he's a bit simplistic here. Of course, it is true that beliefs are like potato chips, no one can have just one. So, all beliefs are connected to other beliefs. We should examine all those other beliefs. If this is all he means, fine. One major problem, though, is that he calls these underwriting beliefs "leaps of faith" because you cannot "prove them empirically, nor are they truths of reason" (xvii). But, later he claims that the "clues for God" are not "proofs" for Christianity, they have not been proven empirically, and they are not truths of reason, yet he doesn't want to call them "leaps of faith" (cf. 117-121; 127-28). On the one hand, he calls these unrpovable (in the above sense) "leaps of faith," on the other, he calls them "reasons for God." He seems to hold the unbeliever to a higher standard than he later holds himself to.
Part one proceeds by examining the various doubts people have brought to Keller over the years. The strategy here is to point out that all the doubts rested upon claims that the unbeliever had not thought out thoroughly, or were dubious assumptions, or were self-refuting, or they required an argument otherwise lest deck of cards collapse. This is a fine strategy to be sure. Nothing inherently wrong with it in the least. And, Keller does make some insightful observations, helpfully shinning the light on unexamined presuppositions and unargued biases. This is helpful. The draw back, as I see it, is that he often leaves the debate after pointing out one of these assumptions. He gives the impression of a shallow unbeliever who is stopped dead in his tracks after his assumptions are exposed. Many unbelievers, not just university professors, have thought through their implications more deeply than Keller seems to let on. Therefore, readers will need to do their homework in preparation for dealing with unbelievers. Not all of them will not stop dead in their tracks once you've pointed out their assumptions in the manner Keller does. Thus, Keller provides a good model for dealing with doubts, but you will need some more material to fill in the form.
Keller also takes some positions that will not sit well with many Christians, especially those in his own denomination! For example, he seems to lean socialist in many areas, and he holds to theistic evolution. He also seems to be too hard on Christian throughout history. No doubt we have had our embarrassing moments, but in many cases we can offer sufficient justification for some of the charges. It seems to me that Keller gives to much to the critic in this area, but this isn't to say that his responses are bad, in general. They are useful for generalities, but some specific cases may not warrant his apologetic (not as in a defense, but as in saying sorry) attitude. Keller has also made claims elsewhere about church planting to the effect that he, "doesn't believe you can reach New York with the gospel if you only plant Presbyterian churches. There are all kinds of people who’ll never be Presbyterians. It just doesn’t appeal to them. Some people are going to be Pentecostals, some people are going to be Catholics." Now, I do actually agree with some of this. But, do we really want to say that Rome teaches the Gospel? I guess that depends on how you define the "Gospel." They certainly don't teach that we are saved by grace alone, thtough faith alone, in the person and meritorious work of Christ alone imputed to the believer.
Part two presents positive reasons for belief (I said reasons (plural), perhaps the book should have been called "The ReasonS for God."?!), and is called: Reasons For Faith. Keller presents some good arguments here... well, he actually doesn't do much arguing so much as to point you to others who have made the arguments. Nevertheless, he appeals to some good arguuments and some pretty good contemporary philosophers, ones I wish more Reformed Christians would read. Besides C.S. Lewis (who is not contemporary but is seen on almost every page, and was nevertheless a asset to our faith), he cites Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, Robin Collins' design arguments, makes reference to Victor Reppert (author of C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea, and excellent book in its own rite), Darryl Bock, Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham (for purposes of Gospel reliability), and N.T. Wright (for purposes of the resurrection). He also appeals to Francis Collins in many areas as well, especially his anthropic arguments.
His approach here he calls "critical rationalism." This basically means that though there is no knock down, silver bullet argument for Christianity, we shouldn't be skeptics about the possibility of knowing that Christianity is true, or rationally believing its claims. He admits that rational people can avoid all the arguments. Nothing rationally compels a rational person to be forced to assent to the argument's conclusions. They can be resisted. All this is fine and good. My major problem with this section is that he gives off the wrong impression. I don't think he's too fair with the opposing side. He will frequently say that an argument can be rejected, and then gives some of the weakest reasons unbelievers have marshaled in support of their denial of that particular argument. This gives the impression that unbelievers only have weak responses. That they hang by a shoe string in order to deny the arguments. For example, he has his unbeliever denying his argument (again, nothing like a robust argument was presented here, but that's not his purpose) from the uniformity of nature by saying, "We don't know why things are the way they are." But, non-Christians have given much more cogent reasons for their belief in the Uniformity of Nature than that! So, the impression is: on the one hand you have these excellent reasons the Christian can give, on the other, puerile, sophomoric responses by the unbeliever. Now, I personally believe the unbeliever is in a bad situation here, and I try to show that given their best responses to the various problems.
I have other problems with this section, but only have time for one more. His treatment on morality is entirely too basic. He seems to have no familiarity with the best of atheistic moral realists arguments, relativists, or non-cognitivists. Or, if he does, he's misleading about the state of the debate. He also makes some blunders which lead me to believer he has not read many non-Christian approaches to ethics. Some mistakes he makes are, he says: (i) no relativist can believe in moral absolutes. Wrong. Subjectivists can. They simply say, since their beliefs on the matter make the moral truths: "I say it is absolutely wrong for me to rape." As long as this belief expresses their beliefs, then it is true. (The downside for the subjectivist is that they reduce ethics to psychology, and can't account for moral disagreement either. They actually imply that we are infallible about our ethical beliefs. A highly counter-intuitive position indeed!) Or, (ii) no relativists can believe in an ethic outside themselves. Wrong again. Maybe the subjectivist can't, but the cultural relativist can---the culture exists outside himself and is the objective standard for his moral beliefs. Now, it is true that no relativist can account for universal, absolute, objective ethics (not all ethical principles are absolute, though). He also claims that no atheists can believe in a moral law that exists. Well tell that to sophisticated moral realists (Russ Shafer-Landau, for example). They believe, for example, that moral obligations are necessary truths that come in the form of hypotheticals and thus can have a true truth condition regardless if people exist to instantiate them or not. They believe these are immaterial and eternally existent, just like, say, laws of logic are. And, they don't think they need a "law giver" just like, say, laws of gravity don't need a "law giver" (I happen to think they do, cf. John Foster's The Divine Law Maker, Oxford, 2004)
Despite these problems, which should set constraints on who you give the book to, or who you use its arguments on, it is still a good book. Keller definitely has a heart for the lost, and I think he succeeds in showing people that Christianity has the best answers to some of life's most practical problems and questions. I would recommend his book with the above qualifications taken into consideration.
How to Avoid Separating the Sheep from the Sheep
INTRODUCTION (Read 1 Cor. 1:1-31)We are going to continue our journey in studying the ancient church that could be likened to the
Paul was no stranger to controversy, schism, and factiousness. He was a hateful, controversial, and murderous man before his conversion and he rebuked Peter for his factiousness after his conversion (Acts 26:9ff; Gal. 2:11-14). The lack of unity that has often plagued the church is nothing new. We see it rearing its ugly head in the ancient
. . . believers are continually tempted to fall back into lives of self-will, self-interest, and general self-centeredness. At the heart of sin is the ego, the self-will, self-interest, and general self-centeredness. At the heart of sin is the ego, the “I”. Self-centeredness is the root of man’s depravity, the depravity into which every person since Adam and Eve, except Jesus Christ, has been born. Even Christians are still sinners – justified, but still sinful in themselves. And when that sin is allowed to have its way in our flesh, conflict is inevitable. When two or more people are bent on having their own ways, they will soon be quarreling and arguing, because their interests, concerns, and priorities, sooner or later will conflict. There cannot possibly be harmony in a group, even a group of believers, whose desires, goals, purposes, and ideals are generated by their egos.[1]
With Dr. MacArthur’s thoughts in mind, let us turn our attention to verses 10-17 under the following points:
I. An Apostolic Plea for Unity (v. 10).
II. A Problem with Quarrels (vv. 11-12).
III. An Overlooked Principle (v. 13).
IV. A Powerful Message (vv. 14-17).
TEACHING/APPLICATION
I. An Apostolic Plea for Unity (v. 10).
Verse 10, Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. – Paul appeals to them as “brethren”, thus showing that he is interested in softening his rebuke without reducing the seriousness thereof. And so, for the sake of maintaining the intimate unity and fellowship around the gospel, a unity that only the Spirit can produce in the heart of a regenerated Godlover, Paul appeals to them as brothers. This type of appeal doesn’t come down to us as an appeal in the form of a bare-naked law, but instead it originates from an attitude of grace because only grace can produce this type of unity. Because they were called into fellowship with God’s Son, they were spiritual brethren, and brethren should and can demonstrate a love that gives yield to quarreling and instead evidences the presence of the new heart by being “made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (Ezek. 36:25-27 cf. Heb. 8:10).
When Paul says that he wants them to be “. . . made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” he doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should think and operate the same way in the church. Quite the contrary, as Fee notes, “Although the words ‘mind’ and ‘opinion’ . . . imply that at least they must agree on the fundamental nature of the gospel . . . they do not thereby imply that in the Christian faith unity demands uniformity; the argument for the need of diversity in chap. 12, not to mention Paul’s argument in Gal. 2:10, rules that out.”[2] So what does Paul mean when he wants them to have the same mind and the same judgment? He provides his own answer when he says, “that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you.” The word “division” is schismata, from whence we get our English word “schism”. This word describes a tearing, or a rending[3] in the church caused by people who have divided opinions over different church leaders. Their quarrelling created divisions in the church, and Paul’s solution is that this “torn-apart” church be “knit-together” by focusing on their unity around the gospel message (cf. v. 17).
Questions for reflection: (1) Professing evangelical Christians are known for surrounding themselves with particular Bible teachers and preachers that tell them what they want to hear. Is this a bad thing? If so why, if not why? (2) What is the difference between a Biblical unity and a legalistic uniformity? What are the pros/cons of either one? (3) What should be the unifying theme for all Christian ministry according to Paul in verse 17?
II. A Problem with Quarrels (vv. 11-12).
Verses 11-12, For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ.” – Various people in the Corinthian church aligned themselves with their own well-respected leaders and it created divisions and was destroying unity. They were separating the sheep from the sheep. Jesus spoke about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:33) or separating the wheat from the tares (Matt. 13:30) at the end of the age. These passages are images of believers being separated from non-believers at the final judgment. Sadly, many followers of Jesus seem to be more interested in separating the sheep from other sheep. This desire to separate the “true” sheep from other sheep didn't start recently, and we can look at other parts of the New Testament to see that professing believers were practicing sheep separation:
NAU Galatians 2:12-13 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, [Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
NAU 3 John 9-10 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
In each case above, these examples of “sheep separation” were corrected by the writers of Scripture. These negative examples are balanced by the many positive encouragements that we find in Scripture to walk in unity, to fellowship with one another, to build one another up instead of attempting to destroy one another so that we can follow our own lusts. Nevertheless, in spite of the many warnings and exhortations from Scripture, we continue to think that it is our duty to separate ourselves from other “sheep” who are not exactly like us in every particular way and to make it worse, we think that we have the right to choose which things are important and which things are not. Now, as a disclaimer, I must clearly state that in order for us to have fellowship with other professing believers, they (and we) must hold to the biblical gospel, lest we be eternally condemned (Gal. 1:6-9). To make it even simpler, there can be no Christian fellowship if there are no gospel-believing Christians to have fellowship with. This means what we can’t share Christian fellowship with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, or any other unbeliever, but only born-again believers. According to God’s word, that is where the line for fellowship should be drawn (cf. 2 Corinthians. 6:14-18).
However, many Christians often shun fellowship with gospel-loving and gospel-defending Baptist, Paedobaptist, charismatic (gasp!), and other born-again, blood-washed brethren because they want to determine for themselves who they should and should not listen to and learn from. This type of thinking displays a similar arrogance that the Corinthians possessed, especially when modern believers wrongly think that since others have differences with them on certain peripheral “doctrines” that this somehow means that they have the right to determine who they can and cannot have fellowship with. Friends, when we unnecessarily separate ourselves from our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and cut off any opportunity of learning from them, we are doing what Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 12:21. When comparing the different yet necessary members of the church with the different yet necessary parts of the human body, Paul said, “And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you.” Paul is saying that this is so wrongheaded. Sadly, many professing Christian preachers encourage this type of behavior by telling Christians to avoid many gospel-loving people because of relatively minor doctrinal differences between them. And so, being like Diotrephes, they love to be reckoned first among their followers instead of doing what Paul did by gently rebuking the idea that there were people attaching themselves to him! This type of thinking breeds what I call the “True-Church Syndrome”, a nasty situation that occurs when a group of people become so disillusioned by the minor doctrinal disagreements amongst Christians that they end up convincing themselves that they are the only ones on earth who are the true church.[4]
Questions for reflection: (1) Since Paul sought unity in the Corinthian church, according to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 where should we be willing to draw the line doctrinally when it comes to withholding Christian fellowship? (2) How do we avoid unnecessarily separating ourselves from other Christians with whom we may not quite see eye to eye on everything? (3) According to 1 Tim. 4:13, what can be done within the Christian church at large to avoid disunity and keep “the same mind and the same judgment”? (4) What should gospel-loving Christians do to avoid the “True-Church syndrome?
III. An Overlooked Principle (v. 13).
Verse 13, Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? - Paul reduces their argument to absurdity by asking “was I crucified for you?” or “were you baptized in my name”? This type of question is rhetorical, and is designed to stop the mouth of anyone who would try to create a “Paul-party”. Since they were not baptized into the name of Paul, they could not therefore be “of Paul”. A believer should never allow anything or anybody to destroy the unity of the church. Paul wanted to preach the gospel without compromise, but he didn’t want anyone boasting that they were his disciples. He wanted to bring men to Christ, not to himself.[5] A divided church is not a characteristic of what a Christian church should be. Paul knew this and it is why he said the following throughout his letters:
NAU 1 Corinthians 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
NAU 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
NAU Romans 12:5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
NAU Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
Today, just like in the first century, when God’s people develop a party-spirit and fight and quarrel against one-another, they bring reproach upon the name of Christ because they are separating the sheep from the sheep and swearing allegiance to men. Christ died to make them one, and instead of creating unnecessary divisions, they should all seek unity around the revealed will of God found in Scripture and learn how to discuss their minor differences in theology like incurable God-Lovers.
IV. A Powerful Message (vv. 14-17).
NAU 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. – Paul thanks God that he baptized so few so that no one could rightly say that they could be identified so closely with him that they could try to justify creating a sect after his name.[6] Paul was repulsed by the idea of having a sect within the church that claimed allegiance to him or any other church leader. This idea was so repulsive to him because that type of allegiance should be reserved only for Jesus.
Paul’s makes it clear that his purpose was not to go around baptizing people, but to preach the powerful, life-changing message of the gospel. As much as he emphasizes baptism in his writings[7], Paul makes a sharp distinction between baptism and the gospel in verse 17. In this verse it is clear that Paul does not believe that water baptism effects salvation, but only God does that by the power of His Spirit working in the preaching of the gospel. So Paul wants to go out of his way to make a clear distinction between the two things, lest the Corinthians (and us) think that baptism, in and of itself, in an ex opere operato fashion somehow automatically puts us in a right relationship with God. Baptism is the necessary faith-response to the preaching of the gospel, but it itself, is not the gospel.
Paul says that Christ sent him to preach the gospel “not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” I take him to mean that he wants to preach the gospel without appealing to what the Corinthians had so highly-prized as a mark of divine wisdom, namely the Hellenistic concept of wisdom, which highly valued smooth speeches, golden-tongued rhetoric, and eloquent displays of oratorical skill. Paul wanted the content of his preaching to be God’s wisdom instead of man’s wisdom (i.e., “the word of the cross” in v. 18) and he wanted the form or manner of delivery to be free of eloquent, enticing, and ear-tickling displays of oratorical fancy when he says in 2:1-5, “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”[8]
Questions for reflection: (1) Why was Paul thankful that he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas? (2) Why was it important that Paul ask them whether or not they could be baptized into his name? (3) Why does Paul make such a sharp distinction between baptism and the gospel? Why is this important for us now? (4) What are some of the potential problems with having a pastor with great oratorical skill and command of the language?
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there is no question that the contemporary church is fragmented and divided in a way similar to that of the first-century
[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, (Chicago, ILL: Moody Press, 1984). 24.
[2] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 53.
[3] For good illustrations of the type of usage of schismata as contained in 1 Cor. 1:10, see John 7:40-43; 9:16; 10:19-21 where various groups are said to be divided over the identity and significance of Jesus.
[4] For a specific example of this type of thing, see here: http://www.atruechurch.info/
[5] MacArthur, 32.
[6] Crispus was the synagogue leader in
[7] See for example, Rom. 6:3-7;
[8] Fee, 64-65.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Gossip-mongering
Michael Spencer is defending his laudatory review of Frank Schaeffer’s hatchet-job on his own parents. Both men make a virtue of betrayal.
“If we want to honor our parents, we will be truthful about them, applying all the categories of the Biblical story to them: honor, love, mercy and sinfulness.”
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/humiliation-humanity-and-the-fourth-commandment-can-we-tell-the-truth-about-those-whose-sin-affects-us
Notice how Spencer sets up a false dichotomy: we either have to tell the truth about someone else or lie about him.
This disregards the obvious alternative: we’re under no standing obligation to volunteer everything we know about someone else. There’s no duty, in general, to talk about other people—especially in ways harmful to their reputation.
Indeed, the Bible has a category for that behavior: gossip. And it’s a sin.
There are, of course, exceptions. But Spencer isn’t dwelling on the exceptions.
“These are some of the stories I’ve heard in counseling over the years. All true, and many of them in multiple editions. Because of the particular population I minister to, these kinds of life-stories are common. They are the wall-paper of the rooms I inhabit. There is not a moment of the day I’m not surrounded by these stories and the people they belong to.”
I have just one question: given Spencer’s defense of Frank Schaeffer’s hit piece, how could Spencer ever be a trustworthy confidant?
What if Spencer penned his memoirs tomorrow, and went public with the sins which numerous named individuals had confessed to him in private, after they sought him out for pastoral counseling?
Would you confide in Spencer? Is that what you’d want in a pastor? Is that what you’d want in a friend? Or would you suspect that he’s taking notes for his tell-all exposé?
Years ago, the late Truman Capote wrote a dishy, fictionalized novel (Answered Prayers) about his friends and benefactors.
When a “post-evangelical” pastor mutates into Truman Capote, that tells you everything you need to know about the destination of post-evangelical theology.
“If we want to honor our parents, we will be truthful about them, applying all the categories of the Biblical story to them: honor, love, mercy and sinfulness.”
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/humiliation-humanity-and-the-fourth-commandment-can-we-tell-the-truth-about-those-whose-sin-affects-us
Notice how Spencer sets up a false dichotomy: we either have to tell the truth about someone else or lie about him.
This disregards the obvious alternative: we’re under no standing obligation to volunteer everything we know about someone else. There’s no duty, in general, to talk about other people—especially in ways harmful to their reputation.
Indeed, the Bible has a category for that behavior: gossip. And it’s a sin.
There are, of course, exceptions. But Spencer isn’t dwelling on the exceptions.
“These are some of the stories I’ve heard in counseling over the years. All true, and many of them in multiple editions. Because of the particular population I minister to, these kinds of life-stories are common. They are the wall-paper of the rooms I inhabit. There is not a moment of the day I’m not surrounded by these stories and the people they belong to.”
I have just one question: given Spencer’s defense of Frank Schaeffer’s hit piece, how could Spencer ever be a trustworthy confidant?
What if Spencer penned his memoirs tomorrow, and went public with the sins which numerous named individuals had confessed to him in private, after they sought him out for pastoral counseling?
Would you confide in Spencer? Is that what you’d want in a pastor? Is that what you’d want in a friend? Or would you suspect that he’s taking notes for his tell-all exposé?
Years ago, the late Truman Capote wrote a dishy, fictionalized novel (Answered Prayers) about his friends and benefactors.
When a “post-evangelical” pastor mutates into Truman Capote, that tells you everything you need to know about the destination of post-evangelical theology.
The marsupial playground
“The gentlemen at Triablogue are apparently hurting for material. For someone as dumb as I apparently am, who is defending an obviously indefensible sorteriological position, they sure seem to give me a lot of attention. Why do they feel like they need to addrsss my arguments if they are not a threat to their position? Do they really believe that someone might be taken in by my foolishness? They have even lifted comments written by commenters in my comboxes and dedicated entire posts to ‘refuting’ those threatening comments. Just what has gotten these gentlemen so freaked out and rattled?”
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/03/leaving-play-ground-for-now.html
Would Ben say the same thing about Christ when he defended himself against false allegations? Would Ben say the same thing abut St. Paul when he defended the gospel, or defends his apostolic credentials?
Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the divinity of Christ against Jehovah’s Witnesses? Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the Bible against the aspersions of Bart Ehrman or the Jesus Seminar or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens?
For that matter, isn’t Ben’s own tone pretty defensive? Doesn’t he (and his sidekick—Thibodaux) spend a lot of time defending Arminian theology?
Yes, it’s possible that someone might be taken in by his “foolishness.” Right off the bat, I can think of at two least people who’ve been taken in by his foolishness—Ben and Thibodaux.
“For some reason they have targeted me for the purpose of throwing their theological eggs at.”
How does my post on the analogy between prayer and time travel amount to throwing eggs at Ben?
“Instead, Paul became more insulting and put pictures up all over his post of things like dead kangaroos.”
Since Ben has plastered his own blog with pictures of kangaroos, why does he get so irate when Manata does the same thing in a post responding to Ben?
“I am amazed that I have somehow managed to get them so riled up.”
Reading through Ben’s post, which is pure ad hominem invective from start to finish, it sounds to me like Ben is the one who’s “riled up.”
“The games continue as Steve Hays chimed in with his own post correlating Calvinistic prayer with theoretical issues relating to time travel (which only demonstrates how difficult it is for Calvinists to ‘make sense’ of simple things like intercessory prayer).”
How is my post a “game,” exactly?
“I might even explore the mysteries of time travel with Steve Hays, but these things are not my priority right now.”
Which was not the point of my post. As I explained in my post, I was using time travel to illustrate the distinction between *changing* an outcome and *affecting* an outcome.
The libertarian objection to the Reformed doctrine of prayer is that, since God has already decreed the outcome, our prayers are ineffective.
I simply drew on Dainton’s distinction to show that this objection is intellectually confused. It’s possible to contribute to an unalterable outcome.
Our prayers don’t change the outcome precisely because, in case of answered prayer, our prayers already figured in the outcome. They were built into the outcome.
God has decreed the future, and God has decreed our prayers. God has decreed our prayers to function as a factor in the outcome. Our prayers *affect* the outcome without *changing* the outcome. And I quoted Dainton’s discussion of time travel to illustrate that distinction.
(Notice, I didn’t say that our prayers have an affect on God.)
What is Ben’s alternative? Is Ben an open theist? Does he deny that God knows the future?
For the moment, let’s bracket foreordination and simply play along with foreknowledge. What does a classic Arminian think that prayer does? Does he think that prayer is a way of changing God’s mind?
But according to classic Arminianism, God foreknows our prayer. So if God answers our prayer, then he’s already factored the answer into the outcome before we, as timebound creatures, ever prayed to God.
Or does Ben believe, not that God changes his mind in answer to prayer, but that he hasn’t made up his mind before we pray?
But how is that consistent with divine foreknowledge? If God knows the future, then God foreknows our prayer, and foreknows how or whether he will answer our prayer. God doesn’t have to wait until we pray to hear our prayer.
Notice that I’m arguing on Arminian assumptions.
kangaroodort said...
“As far as sticking to exegesis you have apparently not read much from Triablogue as they are often all about philosophy.”
Apparently Ben hasn’t read much of Triablogue. We respond to philosophical objections on philosophical grounds, ethical objections on ethical grounds, and exegetical objections on exegetical grounds.
“I personally think that the Bible is quite clear that our prayers have a genuine affect on God.”
What affect? To change his mind? How can a God who changes his mind all the time answer prayer?
There’s a drought. Joe is a farmer. He prays for rain to save his crops. God was planning to have another sunny day tomorrow, but in answer to Joe, he changes his mind and decides to make it rain. On TV, Joe hears the weatherman say it’s going to rain tomorrow.
But Mary has a wedding tomorrow. She prays for sunshine since rain would spoil the outdoor reception. God hears her prayer. So God scraps plan B to make it rain and reverts to plan A—in answer to her prayer.
When Joe switches on the TV, later in the day, he hears the weatherman now say it’s going to be sunny and dry.
So he prays for rain again. God hears his prayer and changes his mind again.
Ted is a banker. He prays for drought so that he can foreclose the mortgage on Joe’s farm in order to pay for his daughter’s tuition. God hears his prayer and…
“The burden rests on those whose theology (or philosophy, if you will) would undermine what the Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose.”
Okay, so, by his own admission, Ben doesn’t have exegetical argument for his position. Rather, it’s a question of what presuppositions he brings to the Bible.
Guess, what, Ben, that’s a *philosophical* question.
“The Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose that man has the feedom to choose in the sense that people have always understood ‘free will’, etc.”
“Plainly presuppose”? What’s that suppose to be, exactly?
If something is plainly stated, then it isn’t presupposed. Rather, it’s explicit.
For Ben to claim that his interpretation turns on a “presupposition” is actually a backdoor admission that his interpretation doesn’t derive from what is plainly stated in the text. Rather, this is something he brings to the text.
Something can’t be plainly presupposed. It’s either one or the other.
“The burden of proof rests with those who wish to calim otherwise.”
No, the onus is not on a Calvinist to disprove Ben’s philosophical presuppositions. On the one hand, Ben isn’t even attempting to do exegesis since, by his own admission, this is not about something asserted in the text of Scripture—but an extrascriptural presupposition which he imports into the sacred text “to make sense of” Scripture.
On the other hand, Ben is not attempting to defend his extrascriptural presupposition, either. So he hasn’t presented any argument for his position. Not from Scripture. And not from philosophy.
It’s not up to the Calvinist to offer a counterargument to Ben’s nonexistent argument. Unless and until Ben can muster a supporting argument for his claim, there’s nothing for us to disprove.
“Calvinists affirm monergism and determinism. They should therefore explain how intercessory prayer makes sense within such philosophical assumptions.”
Been there, done that.
“Arminianism doesn't need to engage in 'philosophy' to make sense of intercessory prayer because intercessory paryer fits perfectly within an Arminian framework.”
Actually, it doesn’t even fit within an Arminian framework, for reasons I just gave.
But assuming that it did, that begs the question in favor of the Arminian framework.
Murdering your political opponents fits perfectly within a Marxist framework. Does that make it true?
“Arminianism is rather simple and takes the Bible at face value.”
No, Mormonism takes the Bible at “face value.”
At one end of the spectrum, Calvinism has a consistent hermeneutic, with its doctrine of divine accommodation. That’s why we treat certain descriptions of God as anthropomorphic rather than literal.
At the other end of the spectrum is Mormonisn, which takes every description literally. This is the basic continuum:
Calvinism>Arminianism>neotheism>Mormonism.
Arminian hermeneutics is an ad hoc compromise—to the left of Calvinism, but to the right of neotheism and Mormonism.
“But you then either make sanctification unneccessary for salvation, or you admit that ‘salvation’ is not monergistic.”
Calvinism never said that ‘”salvation” is monergistic. Elements of salvation are monergistic, like election and regeneration.
“And by your own definitions you make sanctification a ‘work’ of man because you also claim that unless God unconditionally and irresistibly regenerates the sinner, then faith as a condition would really be a ‘work’. Why not say the same with respect to sanctification?”
i) We don’t say the same thing with respect to sanctification between the regenerate are no longer dead in sin. The unregenerate are passive in regeneration because they are dead in sin. Once regenerated, their spiritual condition is different.
ii) Calvinism doesn’t deny that Christians perform good works. But these are gracious works.
“If God alone keeps you, then how is sanctification synergistic as you say? According to you, if you are at all responsible for your spiritual progress, then you will fail, so how can you say that sanctification is co-operative as you did above?”
“Synergism” is a term of art. A technical term.
In traditional usage, it means more than it’s etymological compound (“work with”).
Consider, for example, what it means in Catholic theology, a la supererogatory merit or congruent merit. Or consider what “works of the law” mean in Pauline usage.
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/03/leaving-play-ground-for-now.html
Would Ben say the same thing about Christ when he defended himself against false allegations? Would Ben say the same thing abut St. Paul when he defended the gospel, or defends his apostolic credentials?
Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the divinity of Christ against Jehovah’s Witnesses? Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the Bible against the aspersions of Bart Ehrman or the Jesus Seminar or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens?
For that matter, isn’t Ben’s own tone pretty defensive? Doesn’t he (and his sidekick—Thibodaux) spend a lot of time defending Arminian theology?
Yes, it’s possible that someone might be taken in by his “foolishness.” Right off the bat, I can think of at two least people who’ve been taken in by his foolishness—Ben and Thibodaux.
“For some reason they have targeted me for the purpose of throwing their theological eggs at.”
How does my post on the analogy between prayer and time travel amount to throwing eggs at Ben?
“Instead, Paul became more insulting and put pictures up all over his post of things like dead kangaroos.”
Since Ben has plastered his own blog with pictures of kangaroos, why does he get so irate when Manata does the same thing in a post responding to Ben?
“I am amazed that I have somehow managed to get them so riled up.”
Reading through Ben’s post, which is pure ad hominem invective from start to finish, it sounds to me like Ben is the one who’s “riled up.”
“The games continue as Steve Hays chimed in with his own post correlating Calvinistic prayer with theoretical issues relating to time travel (which only demonstrates how difficult it is for Calvinists to ‘make sense’ of simple things like intercessory prayer).”
How is my post a “game,” exactly?
“I might even explore the mysteries of time travel with Steve Hays, but these things are not my priority right now.”
Which was not the point of my post. As I explained in my post, I was using time travel to illustrate the distinction between *changing* an outcome and *affecting* an outcome.
The libertarian objection to the Reformed doctrine of prayer is that, since God has already decreed the outcome, our prayers are ineffective.
I simply drew on Dainton’s distinction to show that this objection is intellectually confused. It’s possible to contribute to an unalterable outcome.
Our prayers don’t change the outcome precisely because, in case of answered prayer, our prayers already figured in the outcome. They were built into the outcome.
God has decreed the future, and God has decreed our prayers. God has decreed our prayers to function as a factor in the outcome. Our prayers *affect* the outcome without *changing* the outcome. And I quoted Dainton’s discussion of time travel to illustrate that distinction.
(Notice, I didn’t say that our prayers have an affect on God.)
What is Ben’s alternative? Is Ben an open theist? Does he deny that God knows the future?
For the moment, let’s bracket foreordination and simply play along with foreknowledge. What does a classic Arminian think that prayer does? Does he think that prayer is a way of changing God’s mind?
But according to classic Arminianism, God foreknows our prayer. So if God answers our prayer, then he’s already factored the answer into the outcome before we, as timebound creatures, ever prayed to God.
Or does Ben believe, not that God changes his mind in answer to prayer, but that he hasn’t made up his mind before we pray?
But how is that consistent with divine foreknowledge? If God knows the future, then God foreknows our prayer, and foreknows how or whether he will answer our prayer. God doesn’t have to wait until we pray to hear our prayer.
Notice that I’m arguing on Arminian assumptions.
kangaroodort said...
“As far as sticking to exegesis you have apparently not read much from Triablogue as they are often all about philosophy.”
Apparently Ben hasn’t read much of Triablogue. We respond to philosophical objections on philosophical grounds, ethical objections on ethical grounds, and exegetical objections on exegetical grounds.
“I personally think that the Bible is quite clear that our prayers have a genuine affect on God.”
What affect? To change his mind? How can a God who changes his mind all the time answer prayer?
There’s a drought. Joe is a farmer. He prays for rain to save his crops. God was planning to have another sunny day tomorrow, but in answer to Joe, he changes his mind and decides to make it rain. On TV, Joe hears the weatherman say it’s going to rain tomorrow.
But Mary has a wedding tomorrow. She prays for sunshine since rain would spoil the outdoor reception. God hears her prayer. So God scraps plan B to make it rain and reverts to plan A—in answer to her prayer.
When Joe switches on the TV, later in the day, he hears the weatherman now say it’s going to be sunny and dry.
So he prays for rain again. God hears his prayer and changes his mind again.
Ted is a banker. He prays for drought so that he can foreclose the mortgage on Joe’s farm in order to pay for his daughter’s tuition. God hears his prayer and…
“The burden rests on those whose theology (or philosophy, if you will) would undermine what the Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose.”
Okay, so, by his own admission, Ben doesn’t have exegetical argument for his position. Rather, it’s a question of what presuppositions he brings to the Bible.
Guess, what, Ben, that’s a *philosophical* question.
“The Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose that man has the feedom to choose in the sense that people have always understood ‘free will’, etc.”
“Plainly presuppose”? What’s that suppose to be, exactly?
If something is plainly stated, then it isn’t presupposed. Rather, it’s explicit.
For Ben to claim that his interpretation turns on a “presupposition” is actually a backdoor admission that his interpretation doesn’t derive from what is plainly stated in the text. Rather, this is something he brings to the text.
Something can’t be plainly presupposed. It’s either one or the other.
“The burden of proof rests with those who wish to calim otherwise.”
No, the onus is not on a Calvinist to disprove Ben’s philosophical presuppositions. On the one hand, Ben isn’t even attempting to do exegesis since, by his own admission, this is not about something asserted in the text of Scripture—but an extrascriptural presupposition which he imports into the sacred text “to make sense of” Scripture.
On the other hand, Ben is not attempting to defend his extrascriptural presupposition, either. So he hasn’t presented any argument for his position. Not from Scripture. And not from philosophy.
It’s not up to the Calvinist to offer a counterargument to Ben’s nonexistent argument. Unless and until Ben can muster a supporting argument for his claim, there’s nothing for us to disprove.
“Calvinists affirm monergism and determinism. They should therefore explain how intercessory prayer makes sense within such philosophical assumptions.”
Been there, done that.
“Arminianism doesn't need to engage in 'philosophy' to make sense of intercessory prayer because intercessory paryer fits perfectly within an Arminian framework.”
Actually, it doesn’t even fit within an Arminian framework, for reasons I just gave.
But assuming that it did, that begs the question in favor of the Arminian framework.
Murdering your political opponents fits perfectly within a Marxist framework. Does that make it true?
“Arminianism is rather simple and takes the Bible at face value.”
No, Mormonism takes the Bible at “face value.”
At one end of the spectrum, Calvinism has a consistent hermeneutic, with its doctrine of divine accommodation. That’s why we treat certain descriptions of God as anthropomorphic rather than literal.
At the other end of the spectrum is Mormonisn, which takes every description literally. This is the basic continuum:
Calvinism>Arminianism>neotheism>Mormonism.
Arminian hermeneutics is an ad hoc compromise—to the left of Calvinism, but to the right of neotheism and Mormonism.
“But you then either make sanctification unneccessary for salvation, or you admit that ‘salvation’ is not monergistic.”
Calvinism never said that ‘”salvation” is monergistic. Elements of salvation are monergistic, like election and regeneration.
“And by your own definitions you make sanctification a ‘work’ of man because you also claim that unless God unconditionally and irresistibly regenerates the sinner, then faith as a condition would really be a ‘work’. Why not say the same with respect to sanctification?”
i) We don’t say the same thing with respect to sanctification between the regenerate are no longer dead in sin. The unregenerate are passive in regeneration because they are dead in sin. Once regenerated, their spiritual condition is different.
ii) Calvinism doesn’t deny that Christians perform good works. But these are gracious works.
“If God alone keeps you, then how is sanctification synergistic as you say? According to you, if you are at all responsible for your spiritual progress, then you will fail, so how can you say that sanctification is co-operative as you did above?”
“Synergism” is a term of art. A technical term.
In traditional usage, it means more than it’s etymological compound (“work with”).
Consider, for example, what it means in Catholic theology, a la supererogatory merit or congruent merit. Or consider what “works of the law” mean in Pauline usage.
LFW Gone Wild, Or, Hank Hanegraaf-The Wrong Answer Man
At about
Oh how I wish I had my cell phone with me last night! A dear sister called into the program professing to be a new Christian and “ignorant” about theology. Now, there’s certainly nothing wrong with either proposition. I rejoice at the news of the New Birth, and I applaud any Christian who wishes to learn more and thereby alleviate his or her ignorance. However, Brother Hank did little more than perpetuate her ignorance.
Our sister was deeply concerned about the futility of the life of unbelievers, people who would obviously perish in their sins if they ever converted to Christ. What are we to make of a God who creates people knowing they will eternally perish? What was Brother Hank’s response?
1. People are created with the freedom to accept or reject Christ.
A. Really? Where, pray tell, does the Bible, Bible Answer Man, teach this? It’s worth noting that Hank never, not one time, substantiated this assertion with Scripture. I thought the title of this show was The Bible Answer
No man can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him...
But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
And that’s just a small sample...
C. Not even Arminians, who profess to believe in Universal Prevenient Grace teach this, Hank, for they draw a distinction between common grace and UPG. UPG is a benefit of the cross itself and it alleviates the inability of men’s wills to accept or reject Christ.
So, Hank has put himself firmly in the semi-Pelagian camp. Men are, according to him, born with this ability. He's confused over the difference between UPG and common grace.
2. God did not create men to be sinners, He merely created the possibility for sin/evil.
A. Where does the Bible teach this? Again, no Scripture was cited.
B. This seems to be invoked to get God “off the hook” with respect to the Fall. It’s true, God did not create Adam and Eve as sinners, but nowhere does the Bible teach that He created “the possibility of evil/sin.”
C. As Grudem notes (ST: 349), this reply is unsatisfactory because it implies God will have to allow for the possibility of sinful choices in heaven eternally, because this defense is invoked (and Hank used this rationale) in order to guarantee our choices, our love for God would be meaningful. If that’s true, then God must do this in heaven too or our choices aren’t meaningful. More on this later.
D. What about the “eternal covenant” (Hebrews 13). Is this eternal covenant Plan B? What about Proverbs 16:4? Jude 4? Again, that’s just a small sample.
3. If God hasn’t done this, our love for Him would be meaningless.
A. This begs the question.
B. Where does Scripture teach such a thing? Again, the BAM didn’t support his answer with Scripture – and whenever he gives this answer, he never does so.
Our dear sister wisely replied. "If that was true, why can’t people fall away in heaven?" That’s a good question. Hank’s answer; “Because in heaven we are actualized in our choices.”
A. Huh? What Scriptures teach this? Once again, the BAM did not support his answer from, you know the Bible. I thought this program is called The Bible Answer Man.
B. We agree, grace in the intermediate and final states constrains our choices, but not because “we have been actualized in our (free will) choices," but because our nature has been fully conformed to the image of Christ.
C. So, Hank’s response is nothing more than an ad hoc restriction on libertarian freedom.
Our sister’s question was most insightful, for Hank tipped his hand such that we learned that, according to Hank men have LFW due to creation, not UPG. However to appeal to us being “actualized in our choices,” presumably due to some sort of constraining grace logically pulls in the opposite direction of the foundational statement that men must have LFW in order for their choices to be meaningful at all.
Here is the right answer:
Dear sister, Scripture teaches that God gives mercy to whomever He pleases. Scripture also teaches Jude 4, Proverbs 16:4, and Romans 11:32. This is also for His glory. Yes, it is cause to make us cry out with wonder on the one hand and distress on the other. Paul, in Romans 9, says he was greatly distressed over this truth, for the sake of his fellow Jews. Let this move you to be sure that God has a people, as yet uncalled, and that you are to share the Gospel with all persons. All those God mercies will come to Christ, and some may well do so through your efforts. What a glorious thing for us to be given the joy of participating with Him in this! Weep over the lost in this life, and yet know that Scripture also teaches that, in the end, we will look back and rejoice in what God has done, when we see His plan has unfolded completely. To God alone, through Christ alone be the glory, Amen, and Amen!
Finally, I hate to sound like one of those “aggressive Calvinists” that Frank Cox dislikes, but, honestly, this is, perhaps, why so many Calvinists are “aggressive.” These sorts of unbiblical, unsupportable, and frankly horrible answers come too often from the lips of Brother Hank and many an actual anti-Calvinist. They frustrate us, even anger us.
On the one hand, this makes doing apologetics with atheists easier for us Calvinists, as the comment stream here has shown. Atheistic apologetics seems catered to Arminianism, probably because (a) Arminianism/Libertarianism is the majority position right now theologically and (b) it’s just such an easy target.
On the other hand, we have the old adage that the Gospel with which you win them is the one that will keep them. No wonder the drop-out rate in SBC churches alone is appalling. Yet, the Libertarians plow on. When we have Open Theists conceding the problem of evil too boot, well, what more needs to be said?
So, here’s a challenge.
1. For the Arminians/Libertarians: Where, pray tell, does the Bible invoke the Free Will Defense? As I’ve asked more than once, where does the Bible teach LFW? Shouldn’t we employ theodicean answers the Bible actually employs?
2. We on T-blog often deal with more, how shall we say, academically minded opponents, but, in my mind, the hearts of the people are captured by popularizers, men like Brother Hank. At the risk of sounding “aggressive,” I’d like to encourage our faithful readers to, when you get the opportunity, contact Hank, indeed, call his show, and ask the questions I posed in (1) above. Indeed, ask him to substantiate his answer to the problem of evil with Scripture. When he tries to give an answer, be ready to remind him that Arminians/Libertarians like Walls and Dongell admit to LFW being a philosophical position, not an exegetical one.
When Hank tries to run to the “Well, it can be deduced from Scripture” defense, respectfully ask him which Scriptures he has in mind. No doubt he will refer to some command. Remind him that’s a classic case of begging the question. Nothing can be deduced about ability from a command. This, incidentally, is why I always ask the proponents of LFW that question. Our rule of faith is Sola Scriptura. If Scripture doesn't teach it, we shouldn't believe it. LFW is a wholly philosophical position. It can't be deduced from Scripture at all, and Scripture, every time it ascribes our choices to our desires in such a way that what we desire is a sufficient cause (for example James 1:14 - 15), it explicitly contradicts Libertarian Action Theory. We've been over that many times here.
The FWD is unbiblical, since the Bible does not support a libertarian definition of “free will.” It should be jettisoned – period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)