Defending the Doctrines of Grace and God's Sovereignty Part 3
Unconditional Election
Let's begin with this one. I've broken them up a bit so as to aid in dissecting each argument. Let's begin at 1 Timothy 2. If one merely goes back to verses 1-3, where the "all men" is clarified to mean "all types of men". (Kings, those in authority, etc.) However, this also ignores a major point many Arminians refuse to acknowledge. Calvinists make a distinction between God's sovereign will and His permissive will. The basic delineation being that while God decrees all things, He knows that those who are not of the elect, will not do what is pleasing to Him. (IE come to faith, etc.) To place the emphasis this contributor has on 1 Timothy 2:4, while ignoring God's sovereignty, pits Scripture against itself. For as we see in John 6:44: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." So if the flawed hermeneutic of our CAHCT friend were followed, then Jesus would be lying here, or Paul was in his letter to Timothy. As we see, Jesus says that unless the Father draws a person to Jesus, they cannot and will not, come to Him. He also says that those who come to Him, He will raise up on the last day, in other words to heaven. Does Jesus raise any non-believers up to heaven? Of course not, so this passage can only be referencing Christians. Another thing to point out is, that only those whom the Father has chosen then, would be the ones brought to Christ.
You'll also note on this first slide they attempt to make themselves appear perhaps a bit more learned than they are, claiming something is "grammatically unlawful". This is a nonsense term. Grammatically incorrect? Sure, that makes sense and puts across the point that it isn't proper to use grammar in a certain manner. However, this statement in and of itself is an improper use of a term, and is therefore violating the same premise they're attacking the respondent for. Sorry, let me continue!
Now, here the opening line is a real hoot! Calvinists don't study but simply repeat what is told to them? Meanwhile this contributor is simply regurgitating his tradition, while eisegeting their little backside off! This series alone puts the lie to this statement, as well as the fact that Calvinism is so well attested to by numerous people within theological studies! People like D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, Bill Mounce, James White, John Piper, J.I. Packer, Michael J. Krueger, just to name a few! However, I digress, back to the topic at hand!
This next paragraph comes across as a complete word salad. I think the contributor was so focused on sounding "authoritative" that they forgot to make the paragraph make sense first, nevertheless I'll try to decipher it. Now, the preservation of the word of God, has nothing to do with the exegesis of this verse of Scripture. This is a complete red herring, and has no logical consistency with the rest of the discussion. (At least what context was provided to us, though based on past experience, there may be a great deal left out.) The second half of this paragraph makes even less sense. Calvinists are secular now and have a destroyed soteriology? Besides begging the question( since they're assuming that Calvinists aren't Christian without providing evidence) this assertion is utterly groundless. There's no evidence given, no frame of reference to go by, nothing. Just a very oddly worded paragraph that leaves one scratching their head as to what the contributor meant. (Although if how they write is related to how they're thinking process works, it's not hard to see why they have such a difficult time with sound exegesis. ;) ).
The next sentence I totally agree with. However, it's evident they themselves don't follow those same rules when they write, or the previous paragraph would've been understandable. I also agree, to some extent, with the next sentence.... conditionally. Now the next paragraph is where we see the poor exegesis. I've already corrected it above, so I won't go through it again, but as we can see, they've ignored the rest of the passage in favor of their tradition, and set the passage against the rest of Scripture.
Now, in this last slide of the first group, we see (aside from the misspelling of sentence) they've utterly ignored the context as pointed out both earlier in verses 1-3 and the fact that this sets the verse against other Scripture like John 6:37, 44, Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:11-12, Malachi 1:2-3, etc. With such a faulty hermeneutic, it's easy to see where the error originates. On to the next one!
Unconditional Election
As before in my previous articles, I'd like to begin this one with a definition of the term being addressed. In this case, Unconditional Election. Basically, UE is the doctrine that states there is nothing inherent in a person that causes God to choose them for salvation. Of all the doctrines, the angst and hatred for this particular doctrines has me at a loss. I fully understand why people would hate Total Depravity. No one likes being told they're sinful, and wretched in God's sight! Limited Atonement? It's "unfair" to many that Jesus didn't die for every human being ever, etc., etc. In a way, I think it makes sense though. It's of course linked to total depravity in that, human nature wants there to be something special about themselves. Yet the ignorance of the doctrine, and the hatred for it that will be provided by our friends from CAHCT in the following images surprised me.
You'll also note on this first slide they attempt to make themselves appear perhaps a bit more learned than they are, claiming something is "grammatically unlawful". This is a nonsense term. Grammatically incorrect? Sure, that makes sense and puts across the point that it isn't proper to use grammar in a certain manner. However, this statement in and of itself is an improper use of a term, and is therefore violating the same premise they're attacking the respondent for. Sorry, let me continue!
Now, here the opening line is a real hoot! Calvinists don't study but simply repeat what is told to them? Meanwhile this contributor is simply regurgitating his tradition, while eisegeting their little backside off! This series alone puts the lie to this statement, as well as the fact that Calvinism is so well attested to by numerous people within theological studies! People like D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, Bill Mounce, James White, John Piper, J.I. Packer, Michael J. Krueger, just to name a few! However, I digress, back to the topic at hand!
This next paragraph comes across as a complete word salad. I think the contributor was so focused on sounding "authoritative" that they forgot to make the paragraph make sense first, nevertheless I'll try to decipher it. Now, the preservation of the word of God, has nothing to do with the exegesis of this verse of Scripture. This is a complete red herring, and has no logical consistency with the rest of the discussion. (At least what context was provided to us, though based on past experience, there may be a great deal left out.) The second half of this paragraph makes even less sense. Calvinists are secular now and have a destroyed soteriology? Besides begging the question( since they're assuming that Calvinists aren't Christian without providing evidence) this assertion is utterly groundless. There's no evidence given, no frame of reference to go by, nothing. Just a very oddly worded paragraph that leaves one scratching their head as to what the contributor meant. (Although if how they write is related to how they're thinking process works, it's not hard to see why they have such a difficult time with sound exegesis. ;) ).
The next sentence I totally agree with. However, it's evident they themselves don't follow those same rules when they write, or the previous paragraph would've been understandable. I also agree, to some extent, with the next sentence.... conditionally. Now the next paragraph is where we see the poor exegesis. I've already corrected it above, so I won't go through it again, but as we can see, they've ignored the rest of the passage in favor of their tradition, and set the passage against the rest of Scripture.
Now, in this last slide of the first group, we see (aside from the misspelling of sentence) they've utterly ignored the context as pointed out both earlier in verses 1-3 and the fact that this sets the verse against other Scripture like John 6:37, 44, Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:11-12, Malachi 1:2-3, etc. With such a faulty hermeneutic, it's easy to see where the error originates. On to the next one!
In this one we open right away with a poisoning the well fallacy, as well as the begging the question fallacy. The claim is made that 1) Calvinism is a false belief system and does not back this up, and then follows that with 2) the claim that it attacks the body of believers. Lets unpack that last statement a little. To believe that "believers" would walk away because they're not sure if they're "elect" shows us a few things. That those who walk away due to not knowing if they're elect (something I've never heard of before) simply fulfills what Jesus said when He said " they go out from us to show they were not of us." I see this "false belief" didn't stop this person from believing, nor attacking it with strawmen, so I guess they've refuted their own point. I'd also point out, that if you're that worried about people leaving over something so easily "refuted" then apparently you're perfectly happy with a church full of false converts. Because in many of these people's churches, it's about quantity, not quality. Now that that rant is out of my system, let's move on. Now, this first paragraph is a shining example of one who is railing against something, of which they are utterly ignorant. One could not come to Christ, unless they were of the elect, as I pointed out above! To say that someone's faith is "in vain" is pure emotionalism. One cannot have "vain faith". If they have true and enduring faith, it is a gift from God, and cannot be in vain. If they do not, they were a false convert as Jesus said. It's very simple. Now we see them say "election is a truth of Scripture." Had they stopped there, they would've been spot on, but they threw in the "however" in the very next sentence. How can you acknowledge that the Scriptures each something, and then repudiate that teaching in your very next breath? We see the common Molinist teaching here where "election is a result of your faith", taking away God's sovereignty, and replacing it with either man's or some cosmic card dealer. They then quote a passage of Scripture that refutes their very point! Ephesians 2:8! It's pointing out that God's grace saves you! God has to give you the faith! I'll point back again to Ezekiel 36:26, as well as my article on total depravity! (See how these are so nicely interwoven.) Now, they begin quoting verses (without context) and end it with these:
This is a wonderful strawman built up by Arminians lately. No one has ever claimed Calvinism is the gospel, only that it's the most consistent with the gospel.
Now, since this article is getting long, and appears to be more of a refutation of CAHCT than a defense of Unconditional Election, I present the last section of slides:
Again we find someone attempting to write above their vocabulary level, hoping to sound more authoritative, and more knowledgeable than they are. The opening line is a hodgepodge of words designed to boggle the reader with the author's "stunning intellect"! It fails, and not just because it misrepresents Calvinism. Now, as I've already pointed out in part 1 of this series, it is the Calvinist who holds God's sovereignty in the higher regard. The Arminian subjugates God's sovereignty to man's sovereignty, leaving God hoping people will come to Him with no direct ability to make it so, and ultimately failing billions and billions of times as those who reject Him burn in hell. But let's see if this contributor has some new argument, some new evidence for us to examine!
And in the rest of the paragraph, we see the absolute lack of self awareness we've come to expect from CAHCT. How can the group, who holds God is literally sovereign over everything, be downplaying His sovereignty, while those who force God's sovereignty to submit to man's sovereignty is holding it up? Hopefully we'll see in a moment, though I'm not holding my breath.
And the hits just keep coming! From condemning Calvinists as "satanic", to immediately citing a passage that adds evidence to both total depravity, and unconditional election! You have to ask, why did men love evil and hate the light? Why would men who love evil turn from it to the light? These are not questions I'm confident will be raised in the coming section....
It's quite obvious this contributor has no idea what theosophy means, or who it's associated with. Theosophy is roughly the idea that mystical or occult philosophies can give you direct knowledge of the divine. It's related to Western esoterism, which is very distinct from Christianity. Western esoterism is nearly impossible to define, yet Christianity, in general, and Calvinism in particular, are easily defined. Those who ascribe to theosophy include groups like Buddhists and liberal Catholics. To lump Calvinism into this group is a gross error. Also note that, yet again, no evidence is given for this assertion, it's simply thrown out and you are supposed to accept it without question. This is the mark of a cult. Now, what truly blows my mind in this, is the next small section of definitions from the online dictionary on sovereignty. Setting aside the fact that these definitions are not theological in nature, they still explode the idea that Calvinism, and Unconditional Election, somehow limit God's sovereignty! In fact, they prove the exact opposite! If God is sovereign (and to the Calvinist He is) then HE CHOOSES whom to save, however in the Arminian theology, this is turned on its head. Man becomes sovereign, and God is told who He will save based on man's choices. Now, as to the "searing of the conscience, and accountability, this shows another stellar lack of knowledge on our contributors part, as Calvinists believe that accountability still lies with humanity. That if we go to hell, it is because we rejected God, and that once God has changed our heart, we will turn to Him. The lack of self awareness is real folks! Remember, a link to their page is available in my first article in this series, so make sure you check out everything I've posted, so that you can see the entire context, and make the final decision yourself!
Now enough of the refutation. Let's discuss unconditional election for a moment. I take us back to John 6:44, and I'm most interested in the word "drawn" in that verse. That word, ἑλκύσῃ in the Greek, means to haul bodily, and is used in John 21:6 and 11 in hauling nets full of fish from the water, or in Acts 16:19 and 21:30 to describe bodily forcing someone into or out of an area. This is not a passive wooing, or a plea to come, but a forceful command. This is the Father grabbing you by the collar and dragging you to the Son! To then say that one might second guess their salvation because of unconditional election is ludicrous! If one is drawn, they will not fail to be saved! There is nothing special about oneself that gets God's attention to say "Look at John Smith! He's so much better than Jeff Brown! I'll elect him to salvation!" No! It's exactly the opposite! There is nothing within us to allow us to boast, and since that's the case, then there's nothing within is to cause God to choose us! It's His sovereign choice! He is the final decider of all things. To say it is any other way, is to diminish His sovereignty, not enhance it! If you've been drawn, rejoice! If you feel the draw, rejoice! If you do not, do not despair! We do not know who the elect are, only God does, and He works on His timetable, not ours! Your drawing may be in the future, and we will welcome you into the brotherhood of discipleship! God bless!
No comments:
Post a Comment