Just to open up, I found Timmy Brister’s timeline very useful in organizing all of the commentary concerning the John 3:16 conference. While the conference was, indeed, an SBC All-Star event – it was decidedly anti-Calvinist. Now, I am quite aware that they don’t particularly like this categorization of their stance – Dr. Allen, for example, has taken exception to this – but, on the other hand, they certainly aren’t worried about categorizing Dr. White (a good friend, and spiritual mentor), Steve Camp, and Dr. Robert Reymond, whose Systematic Theology has been very helpful to me, as Hyper-Calvinists. Now, I’ve had quite a bit of dialogue with real hypers – and I have to say… they obviously have no idea what a hyper-calvinist is.

Now, I’m aware he would also reject this statement. He has, repeatedly. However, he has also repeatedly demonstrated that he has a lack of understanding concerning the difference between orthodox, historical calvinism and hyper-calvinism; decretive and preceptive will; anthropological will/desire and theological will/desire; not to mention showing a complete lack of balance in addressing the issue of Calvinism, in general. Apparently, Dr. Allen, as a professor of systematic theology, is unable to distinguish between these things. As a member of the SBC, I find this lack of perception absolutely mind-boggling, given our historical foundation as a Calvinist denomination. I don’t doubt that he would differ with that – but the fact remains.

My problem with this entire issue – with this entire conference, is that it is a group of SBC theologians with an axe to grind. The axe, of course, being the dismissal of Calvinism as orthodoxy. In the process of attempting to paint Calvinists in a certain light, they stooped to slander, followed by libel, in defense of the original slander. Dr. Allen’s statement is as follows:

“This is important. Here is the reason why this stuff is important. Limited atonement creates a situation where there is a diminishing of belief in God’s universal saving will. Dr. Tom Ascol sums up the historic Calvinist position when he wrote ‘I believe that God desires for all people to be saved but has purposed to save His elect. I see two (at least two) dimensions in God’s will: revealed and decretive. Failure to make this kind of distinction is a failure to read the Bible’s teachings on the will of God accurately.’ This statement was made in 2006 just before the time when the debate with the Caner brothers was scheduled to take place and Dr. Tom Ascol was supposed to join forces with James White to oppose the Caner brothers.

Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. By the definition of Phil Johnson in his A Primer of Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson of spurgeon.org, who is the right hand man of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson tells you the five things that make for hyper-Calvinism, and James White by his teaching is a hyper-Calvinist. Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don’t need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. It’s fine for Calvinists to get together and have debates with non-Calvinists. Fine dandy and wonderful; let that happen all day long. But it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism.

By the way, James White is a Baptist, he is not a Southern Baptist. On April 10, during a phone call on the “Dividing Line” web cast, James White scornfully denied there is any sense in which God wills the salvation of all men. That is the total opposite of what Tom Ascol said. By the way, Ascol is right that God wills the salvation of all men. White is the one who’s wrong. The denial of God’s universal saving will is a problem.”

Now, the reasons that this is an absolutely absurd statement have been documented, quite thoroughly, by both Phil Johnson, and Dr. Ascol – not to mention Dr. White!

Phil Johnson:

if Dr. Allen thinks James White is a hyper-Calvinist by my definition, then he doesn’t understand my definition.

Dr. Ascol:

Although I must say that any conference that accuses James White of being a hyper-Calvinist loses credibility with thinking people.

Dr. White:

I simply point out that he seems to wish to establish a definition that forces one to somehow confess what God desires without providing any biblical basis for how we as creatures are to know this. Does God command repentance? Of course. Of all? Yes, of all. Do you proclaim the gospel to all? Yes, to all. Do you say it is the duty of all to believe? Surely, of course. Do you believe the proclamation of the gospel is the means by which God’s Spirit draws the elect unto Christ? Most assuredly. So what is the single basis of Allen’s accustion of “hyper-Calvinism”? My refusal to believe God decreed His eternal disappointment. I find nothing in Scripture or in the LBCF1689 that forces me to believe that God chose to create in such a fashion as to create His own unhappiness, His own lack of fulfillment. I see no reason to believe that God desires to do something He does not will to accomplish. It is only man’s limited nature that even raises the issue, for we know that the proclamation of God’s law reveals God’s prescriptive will, i.e., do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc. Hence we ascribe to God the concept of “desire” and say God does not “desire” that man do these things. Yet, we likewise know that texts like Genesis 50:20 tell us that God has willed that such events take place, and that, in fact, He uses them to accomplish His own purposes, His own glory. The problem is in trying to read into God’s will our own self-limitations. I can freely offer the gospel to all, not because I reject election, nor because I ascribe to God a human-oriented desire that runs directly counter to His own self-revelation and consistency, but because I do not know the identity of the elect, and I have the full promise of Scripture that no man, no woman, no child, will ever, ever turn in faith to Jesus Christ and yet be rejected by Him. ALL who believe will be saved. Will any man believe outside of God’s grace, God’s granting of repentance and faith? Surely not, but again, I do not possess knowledge of the identity of the elect. Hence, I can freely and properly proclaim the duty to repent and believe to all, knowing that those who do so will be those God has drawn to Himself. I find myself completely consistent with the Apostle who likewise said he endured all the trials and tribulations of the ministry “for the sake of the elect” (2 Timothy 2:10).

As I’ve said, this commentary by Dr. Allen, and the other j316 presenters, has been discussed by many, many folks – Timmy Brister has also put together a compilation of liveblogging links from calvinists who attended, as well. A cursory search will give you a wealth of commentary. My concern, as I’ve said, is that these noted SBC theologians seem to have an axe to grind. That axe, regardless of their protests to the contray, is an anti-calvinist one. Dr. Allen is on record as saying that “Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the gospel.” (This was met with a standing ovation.) Now, although Dr. Allen’s insistence is that he is not an anti-calvinist – the reason he says this is as follows;

One of the overriding concerns throughout Ascol’s blog post is evidenced by the four times he identifies me (indirectly each time but clearly I am included) as “anti-Calvinist” (emphasis mine). This is simply false. I am not anti-Calvinist. … Neither is it accurate to portray my recent review of the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue or my John 3:16 presentation as “anti-Calvinist.” One must distinguish between being against people who hold certain theological views and disagreeing with the views those people hold. I am not against any Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe that Calvinism, especially five-point Calvinism, is biblically and theologically flawed at certain points.

In my book review and presentation at the John 3:16 conference, I was at pains to show this. It is apparent to me that some Calvinists within and without the SBC simply will not brook any criticism of Calvinism. To do so in their minds is to be anti-Calvinist.

Let me also say that there are occasions where I am against what Calvinists do or don’t do because of what they believe. I referenced one or two such incidents toward the end of my John 3:16 paper as well as in my book review. Why should this be a problem since Calvinists likewise reciprocate here? In fact, is not this rejoinder the result of Dr. Ascol’s own criticism of my criticism whereby he takes exception to what I have done or have not done because of what I believe? I consider this to be an example of being too thin-skinned.

Also, would it be possible for anyone reading Ascol’s blog to come to the conclusion that he is anti-non-Calvinist or anti-Classical Arminian? I suspect some could, some would, and I know of some who have. Sauce for the goose.

News flash: This is equivocation. When we say one is “anti-calvinist” – we very much do mean that someone is against reformed theology. That someone opposse it. To equivocate, as if the statement somehow means that one is personally dead set against the inclusion of Calvinists, as persons, in the SBC, is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I would have to say that Dr. Allen knows this very well. It was a cheap attempt to score points. Yes, we recognize that, Dr. Allen. Thank you so very much for your attempt to score points off of us with your supporters via condescension. Does Dr. Allen think that we won’t recognize such cheap tricks? If that is what he thinks, I sincerely hope he understands that we do, in fact, recognize such attempts for what they are. They certainly aren’t building any bridges. In fact, it simply propagates the contrary of his insistence that he has no personal animosity, when he makes such remarks. If one treats those one disagrees with such contempt for their understanding, one cannot be surprised if we respond as if he were being insulting. Frankly, if he doesn’t recognize it as insulting, that concerns me. What on earth is he teaching? While the personal dismissal is troubling, what troubles me more is the constant misrepresentation of the positions held by the men he defames. If this misrepresentation is so endemic – as Dr. White, Dr. Ascol, and others have shown – if his understanding of Reymond, Edwards, Owen, Calvin, not to mention Scripture itself, is that flawed – as has been shown by many in the Reformed faith – what on earth can we say other than what we are saying? Dr. Allen is either woefully ignorant – in which case, what is he doing teaching systematic theology? Or, Dr. Allen is being intentionally deceitful, by misrepresenting men of God. What else can we say? Did he not expect this response, when he penned his words for this talk? Did he not expect that those of the reformed faith would examine his words, and compare them to that of historical calvinists, modern calvinists? That those he criticized would not respond? We’ve done both – and we’ve found his comments woefully lacking in historical basis, understanding, and most especially, in any sort of Biblical foundation. Far be it from me to mince words – but in any sort of factual examination of his comments, they have no basis whatsoever in reality, these men’s comments, or in Scripture. This is why we comment so forcefully in our responses. His comments are an affront – not only to these precious men of God, but to the Scripture which we regard so highly. It’s not an attempt to “score points” – but to defend the Word, and the gospel we are commanded to preach. I exhort him to take that into consideration, and to examine his comments in light of Scripture, and not in light of Dr. Byrne’s conception of historic calvinism, which seem to greatly influence his comments.

Yes, I’m a bit perturbed. I’ll admit it. This does not, however, dismiss the fact that the speakers at the J316 conference are either intentionally misrepresenting the Reformed faith to attempt to “stem the tide” of young adherents to calvinism, or misunderstand our position so badly that they are simply firing darts into strawmen constructed of various and sundry piecemeal constructs with no real foundation in real, reformed theology. This insistence is not a new one. Men have been misrepresenting Fuller as an antagonist to Gill for quite a long time. Gill has been represented as a hyper-calvinist for a very long time. Owen, Turretin, and others have also been represented as hyper-calvinist. These representations, however, are simply not true, if you examine their works. You can see a consistent representation of historic, orthodox calvinism in all of the aforementioned men; and their affirmation of it’s doctrines has consistently led to the careful and painstakingly precise exegesis that is the hallmark of the reformed faith. To say otherwise is simply to anachronistically read your own free-will requiring principles back into historic calvinism. To cite Edwards’ Freedom of the Will to somehow affirm unlimited atonement is utterly baffling. To water Owen down in such a manner is simply amazing. To wrest Scripture to an affirmation of autonomous free will, I’m sorry, is just incredible. When you do even a cursory examination of the writings of both the historical and modern champions of human autonomy, and compare them to the historical and modern champions of God’s unquestioned, and incomparable sovereignty; there is simply no comparison whatsoever in the quality and consistency of argumentation. There is no difference in this discussion, either.

Friends, I’m just plain annoyed that this debate even exists in the SBC. That men are so self-deceived that they think that championing man’s autonomous free will, as practically every other apostate denomination does, is somehow an affirmation of Scripture, simply appalls me. If you don’t like the harshness of that comment – too bad. Sneer at the “unkind” tone all you like. I do love my brethren who disagree – but the love of the brethren is grounded in love of Scripture, first and foremost. If you reject the Word of God, and it’s position on the place of man, the place of your will, and the place of your own determination in your own salvation – if you persist in the Romish pursuit of decisional works in your own salvation – if you persist in the downright slander and libel of those who faithfully preach the word of God, for the sake of your desire to preserve the choice of man, while advocating the slavery of God’s will to the will of man – expect opposition. Expect opposition when you defame men who preach the gospel without fear or favor, to all men. Expect opposition when you condescendingly assume that those who were graciously brought to transformation of their mind, lovingly corrected of their conformation to the world in their embrasure of the sovereignty of their own wills, are simply ignorant of history, theology, and Scripture. Sirs, we are most decidedly not ignorant. If we were, we wouldn’t be objecting to the unfair usage of the historical calvinists whom we have read, love, and emulate, as they emulated Christ. Expect opposition when you paint the men who have done so much to teach us the Word out to be heretics, scripture-twisters, and the like. When you tell us that the gospel we preach is nothing of the sort. I beg to differ, sirs, and I expect your opposition when I say the following. “Open union with the people of God is most desirable. It would argue disloyalty in a soldier if he would not wear his regimentals, and refused to take his place in the ranks. True, he might fight alone, but it would probably turn out to be a sorry business. If God’s people will not be ashamed of us we need not be ashamed of them. I should not like to go into a public assembly disguised in the dress of a thief; I prefer my own clothes, and I cannot understand how Christians can bear themselves in the array of worldlings.” – C.H. Spurgeon I, Sirs, think very much that you are ashamed of us. Further, I feel that you are, in fact, ashamed of the Gospel.

Sirs, a gospel which presents sin as sickness, not death; a gospel which presents a foreseen work of faith as the sole, passive acknowledgment of God in salvation of sinners; a gospel which presents Christ as dying for the never-to-be-justified, along with those who will be justified; a gospel which presents the works of faith and repentance as the requirements for regeneration; a gospel which presents certainty of salvation as a nebulous (but still within the freely willed choice of man?) “seal”, but without the decretal, sovereign will of God as the complement to and surety for it – this is a gospel without power, and not the Gospel of Scripture. There is indeed a Gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. The gospel that was presented in this conference is nothing of the sort. You wonder why there was such a response? The response was due to the sub-biblical gospel presented, the dismissive manner in which the Scriptural Gospel was treated, and the frequent, cavalier, even reckless accusations thrown at ministers of the Gospel. First and foremost, the response engendered by the John 3:16 conference was instigated by the complete disregard for Scripture shown by those who spoke. Secondly, it was instigated by the insistence of the speakers to misrepresent and redefine reformed theology. Thirdly, it was instigated by the strange and acontextual cherry-picking of quotes from reformed theologians to substantiate the claims made by the speakers.

As has been shown, by many, many folks around the web, the conference was an unmitigated debacle. It has done nothing but polarize things further – I don’t really midn that, in some ways, because it shows what they really think, when they get together, but will not say in a conventional setting – only in conferences. I challenge Dr. Allen to discuss these things publicly, in a formal setting, with Dr. White, as he has been asked to. Let the SBC see your arguments for your position. Let Dr. Byrne, Dr. Yarnell, Dr. Allen, Dr. Land, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Keathley, Dr. Vines, Dr. Stanley, and Dr. Caner debate these issues publicly, with their theological opponents in and out of the SBC. This was an All-Star conference, as I’ve said. If they truly feel, as Dr. Allen said, that “a move toward 5-point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel” – let’s hash it out, instead of doing this conference-sniping. Instead of skirting around the issue, let’s get this issue concerning the Gospel out in the open, and freely discussed in public. Let’s debate it, instead of sniping from the opposing sides. If you are truly against the gospel preached by the reformed, then let’s see some real discussion of that, and discussion with the men you disagree with. Like myself. Let’s see, from Scripture, how your position stacks up. Debate it. Yes, yes, good men can disagree on it.

I’m tired of the pussyfooting around. Let’s start talking to each other, not past each other. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. I need you to show me how what you beleive accords with Scripture. “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason … my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” ~ Luther

Here we stand, my friends. We can do no other.

I’ll leave you with something from the Prince of Preachers.

It has this singular virtue also—it is so coherent in all its parts. You cannot vanquish a Calvinist. You may think you can, but you cannot. The stones of the great doctrines so fit into each other, that the more pressure there is applied to remove them the more strenuously do they adhere. And you may mark, that you cannot receive one of these doctrines without believing all. Hold for instance that man is utterly depraved, and you draw the inference then that certainly if God has such a creature to deal with salvation must come from God alone, and if from him, the offended one, to an offending creature, then he has a right to give or withhold his mercy as he wills; you are this forced upon election, and when you have gotten that you have all: the others must follow. Some by putting the strain upon their judgments may manage to hold two or three points and not the rest, but sound logic I take it requires a man to hold the whole or reject the whole; the doctrines stand like soldiers in a square, presenting on every side a line of defence which it is hazardous to attack, but easy to maintain. And mark you, in these times when error is so rife and neology strives to be so rampant, it is no little thing to put into the hands of a young man a weapon which can slay his foe, which he can easily learn to handle, which he may grasp tenaciously, wield readily, and carry without fatigue; a weapon, I may add, which no rust can corrode and no blows can break, trenchant, and well annealed, a true Jerusalem blade of a temper fit for deeds of renown. The coherency of the parts, though it be of course but a trifle in comparison with other things, is not unimportant. And then, I add,—but this is the point my brethren will take up—it has this excellency, that it is scriptural, and that it is consistent with the experience of believers. Men generally grow more Calvinistic as they advance in years. Is not that a sign that the doctrine is right. As they are growing riper for heaven, as they are getting nearer to the rest that remaineth for the people of God, the soul longs to feed on the finest of the wheat, and abhors chaff and husks. And then, I add—and, in so doing, I would refute a calumny that has sometimes been urged,—this glorious truth has this excellency, that it produces the holiest of men. We can look back through all our annals, and say, to those who oppose us, you can mention no names of men more holy, more devoted, more loving, more generous than those which we can mention. The saints of our calendar, though uncanonized by Rome, rank first in the book of life. The names of Puritan needs only to be heard to constrain our reverence. Holiness had reached a height among them which is rare indeed, and well it might for they loved and lived the truth. And if you say that our doctrine is inimical to human liberty, we point you to Oliver Cromwell and to his brave Ironsides, Calvinists to a man. If you say, it leads to inaction, we point you to the Pilgrim Fathers and the wildernesses they subdued. We can put our finger upon every spot of land, the wide world o’er, and say, “Here was something done by a man who believed in God’s decrees; and, inasmuch as he did this, it is proof it did not make him inactive, it did not lull him to sloth.”
The better way, however of proving this point is for each of us who hold these truths, to be more prayerful, more watchful, more holy, more active than we have ever been before, and by so doing, we shall put to silence the gainsaying of foolish men. A living argument, is an argument which tells upon every man; we cannot deny what we see and feel. Be it ours, if aspersed and calumniated, to disprove it by a blameless life, and it shall yet come to pass, that our Church and its sentiments too shall come forth “Fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.”

I will say, from the outset, that this post will have political overtones – but only peripherally. I’m not much of a political pundit, but the recent election has served to show a very clear demarcation in worldviews – the subject addressed by this blog. My wife has a childhood friend that she’s kept up with, who tends very much toward a liberal viewpoint of Christianity, social issues, and moral issues. As I read her take on the election, I was a bit taken aback at a nominal Christian expressing such things about a man with such an obviously antithetical viewpoint to orthodox Christianity.

“It felt like a big moment. I could imagine being part of this massive wave of people, with hope burning in our hearts, having faith that this vote wasn’t a risk but a shout for desperately needed change. … I didn’t quite believe it until I turned the channel to CNN, where at least they had put the holograms away for a few minutes, and my heart opened wide to receive the truth, the beautiful truth shining like the sun in my eyes. It’s true. It’s good. It’s here. Thank God.”

Now, if you’ll pardon me for a moment, that looks… idolatrous. I really don’t know how else to put it. A mere man, no matter how powerful, is not worthy of such speech. I can’t pare it down to anything else. I’d like to – but I really can’t see how it’s anything else. “Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.” Can we reduce this to anything else? As I also quoted in my response, “Woe to those who call evil, good, and good, evil.” When you pair this with the fact that Obama has voted for late term abortion of babies, has in fact voted for the death of babies who somehow survive their abortions, supports so-called homosexual “marriage”, has ties to Islamic groups likeCAIR, sat under Rev. Wright, whose theology was discussed recently by both Dr. James White and myself, not to mention his varied ties to shady characters of every sort – I find it amazing, when we are told to not let immorality, impurity, or greed be even named among us!

Are we not told that …”although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them?” What then, is the Scriptural response to such an action? Hearty approval of those who practice such things? Are we to idolize such persons? Consider them to be the answer to our prayers for… hope and change? We cannot, are not, and must not! Yet, some who claim the name of Christ do so. Why is this?

The answer is simple – and it fits the purpose of this blog exactly. Presuppositions. Those who are thinking in such a way, are “children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” What, according to the next verse, is the antithesis to such a state? “… Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

What further amazed me, was this comment on that post. “Just because you believe in someone’s right to choose to do something doesn’t mean you believe in that something they choose to do.” What is it we just talked about? What does Romans 1 warn us of? Those who give approval to such things. The argument that says sin should be allowed as a choice is specious on it’s face. Sin, my friends, is sin. Saying a certain sin is permissible shows something of our willingness to compromise the truth of God. Also, it shows what our view of truth really is. From where it is derived. Does that not sound likesubjectivism ? A relativistic view of man-derived truth, with no stable foundation? I can’t see it in any other way. The original poster, (in her request that I no longer comment on her blog) had this to say; “All I’m going to say here right now is that I continue to celebrate the difference of opinion we can have in our country. And that truly we are all different and I’d rather be accepting of that fact rather than spend time arguing, especially in the presence of people who don’t ascribe to our certain choice of belief. I don’t think we shed light by tossing Scripture (or Tertullian) back and forth between us.” She refers to the fact that I quoted Tertullian’s indictment (in his Apology) of the Roman practice of the abandonment of unwanted infants to the elements, and noted elsewhere that it made her think. I truly hope it did.. He also had a bit to say about abortion – and my point was that it was considered barbarous behavior 1800 years ago – yet we consider it somehow appropriate today. This is progress?

I’d like to examine the inherent presuppositions in her statement above. What I find interesting, first, is her equation of opinions to moral judgment. Is morality truly nothing more than an “opinion”, comparable to one’s like or dislike for, say, lemon meringue pie? Should the fact that people think morality is merely an opinion be celebrated? Then, take her next statement into consideration. Shall we, in fact, accept that simply because some people reject God, are hostile to God, and sin against God, this is ample excuse to refrain from casting down the strongholds we arecommanded to throw down, erected against the knowledge of God? Then, examine this innocuous-sounding phrase; “our certain choice of belief”. Ignoring, for a moment, that “certain”,definitionally, means “true, sure, settled” – certanus – do we really “choose” our belief? Is not faith a gift of God, as Scripture says? Do we, and I’ll be intentional – choose our epistemology as if choosing a hat? Isn’t that the very thing in contention? Whether it’s possible, whether we should? I think that we can find the crux of the matter right here. The underlying assumption is that we simply choose to believe this way – and others do not. Therefore, there is no inherent superiority to our belief – we just chose it, after all. It isn’t as if it’s intrinsically true. Therein lies the problem. This woman has ceded the grounds of truth to man, and removed it from the feet of God. She is not interested in God’s truth – at least not in practice. The last comment is particularly revealing as well.

“I don’t think we shed light by tossing Scripture (or Tertullian) back and forth between us.” This is a breathtakingly plain indictment of the grounds for her conception of truth. Scripture is not the only sure source of divinely revelatory truth to man, and for man. It is not the sole means whereby we mayknow God, and His requirements for us. It is merely something to be “tossed” – not “The Truth,” but merely “a truth” – for, and it is very apparent, there is no truth with a capital to her, and it saddens me to see it. I’ve been to her house, we’ve shared time together, and she’s been friends with my wife a decade and a half. She, however, is not seeing the Word as what it truly is. “the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left”.

The Word is our only source of truth – the Sword of the Spirit. Living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart, divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. That is what the Word is. I truly grieve that she does not see it as such – and she will see this post – and my hope is that she may, perhaps, be shown to the Word by it. I pray that thereby the Lord may open her eyes as to the nature of what she dismisses in favor of a merely temporal ruler, and for the opinions of men, who relegate the divine Word to merely another opinion. I’m sorry, but it’s anything but opinion. The Gospel – and the Word which proclaims it, that we may proclaim it in turn, is an exclusive Gospel. It is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. I can only pray, and I hope you pray with me, that all of the temporal fluff that obscures the truth of the Word’s centrality will be revealed to us all more and more – and to her most of all. We cannot compromise our view of Scripture, and subject it to mere opinion, as if it has no more worth than the bare estimation of man. Scripture is God-breathed, and we must treat it as such.

Well, I have to admit, it feels a bit like 3 years ago, yesterday. Big honkin’ hurricane in the Gulf, fear and agitation as people ponder their own helplessness in the face of the force of nature’s fury. The added weight, this time, of the memories of devastation, destruction, and loss of life. What is brought to mind most clearly at this time, however, is the fact that there are no accidents. There is nothing that is not the express will of God, or that is not His good and perfect will. With this thought in the forefront, we can only think one thing, when facing nature’s wrath.

This is our Father’s world. Do you really know, deep down in your heart of hearts, what the implications of this are? It’s truly a wonderful thing to behold. Not because I’m “smarter”, or more courageous. (As a side note, what else I find interesting is that our church is in the midst of a study of the book of Joshua, my namesake. What is the cardinal principle of this book? Be Strong and Courageous! Why? For the LORD your God is with you wherever you go!) When we look at all things through the prism of God’s glorification of Himself, and His promises to glorify Himself through us, can we submit to fear? Is it even an option for us to buckle beneath pressure, or bemoan our “fate”, as if God did not have a greater glory to involve us in, through it? I cannot imagine such a thing. I cannot wish such a thing. I cannot, because I know the God I serve. When faced with situations that threaten us, tempt us to ditch our faith, and abandon our hope, we can have only one response.

Joy. Does that sound strange to you? Perhaps it shouldn’t.

How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. ~ 2 Cor. 8;2

Didn’t we see that, after the last big storm?

Then he said to them, “Go, eat of the fat, drink of the sweet, and send portions to him who has nothing prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” ~ Neh 8:10

Do you see, yet? What gives us strength?

But let all who take refuge in You be glad, Let them ever sing for joy; And may You shelter them, That those who love Your name may exult in You. ~ Psalm 5:11

Who is our shelter? What is the subject of the great hymn, “A Mighty Fortress”? Is this not the same principle?

For You, O LORD, have made me glad by what You have done, I will sing for joy at the works of Your hands. ~Psalm 92:4

Even hurricanes are the work of God’s hands. I’ll repeat something I said a long time ago, and has stuck with me ever since.

During the hurricane, it was an adventure. The kind of adventure guys really do like, and don’t really care if anyone thinks they’re crazy for liking. The wind made the house shudder, and shake. The trees’ branches were snapping off right and left, making an awful racket. The rain was driving so hard that it really was painful, when it hit you. Small objects were flying past you at 70+ mph – and all you could do was hold on. I’ll confess – I loved it.

I’m not crazy. I’m a typical guy, I think. I never felt like I was in *real* danger. But I knew I could have been. Adrenaline makes you feel like a million bucks. It’s that feeling you get when you take a curve a hair too fast in a sports car, and get dangerously close to spinning out of it – but you don’t. Your heart races, your blood is pumping so loud in your ears… and you feel alive. Okay, maybe I am a bit of an adrenaline junkie.

Mostly, though, I was in awe of the display of God’s might. Not that this was a “judgment”, or anything. Just the fact that God’s creation is so breathtakingly powerful, and knowing that God created it. If this storm is this powerful… and God made it… what must God be like?

I spent a good bit of the time curled up on the porch, head on my knees, tears in my eyes, and my heart in my throat. I wasn’t scared. I don’t think i was ever scared once, to be honest. It was too freaking cool. I was praising God, all by myself. Just me, and God, in the middle of this mighty storm – and I was singing. Brokenly, but I was singing. It was that awesome. It’s truly an experience I really don’t quite know how to share. God was just… there. He was with me. I’m not going to say I felt His “special hand of protection on me” – although it may well have been. I just know God was present, because His children can always feel it. I can’t explain it any other way.

I wasn’t scared. I wasn’t even worried. I was awestruck by how unbelievably magnificent a thing that His power had wrought. I can’t really say I’d still say the same, had I sustained more damage. We had almost nothing damaged at all. All I know is – that hurricane, from the inside, was quite possibly the coolest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. I couldn’t help but fall down and praise. I just couldn’t. I hadn’t told anyone this story yet – not really. Bethany heard it, sort of. I don’t know if I got it across very well to her at the time. It seemed a bit odd a thing to share, really. It’s what happened, though. In the wake of all the devastation, all the pain, and all the loss – I almost feel bad saying I think it was so neat. The actual storm WAS neat. What it did wasn’t so neat. The storm itself… I have never seen anything like it, and likely never will again.

I got to sit and watch the ENTIRE thing from a dry place, I was safe, and I praised God.

I said that back in this post, in Dec. of ’05.

In the midst of a possible dervish of destruction – you know what? God is still in control of things. He’s still the Author and Finisher of our faith. He still has His hand on the tiller. He still “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:3). Fear not!

There is a perfect purpose in the midst of these events, no matter whether we can see it or not. So, while I did do some preparation for the hurricane’s landfall in my area, I also know I can’t lose sight of the fact that there is no room for “a spirit of fear” in the heart of a Christian – only for power, and for love, and for a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7). So, if you also find yourself in the path of a storm, or in the midst of difficulty; “Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.” (Joshua 1:9)

I’ve live-blogged the last few hurricanes I’ve been around for – I’ll likely do the same with this one, as long as I can. I’m 8 miles north of the beach, same house as last time, and the same God is still my God 😀 Don’t worry. God’s in control, and His glory will be displayed in this. In the meantime, pray, meditate on His goodness, and even love this awesome display of might in His creation. I assure you – it is a powerful and blessed thing.

The soul of the Pelagian system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian is divine grace.

Pelagius starts from the natural man, and works up, by his own exertions, to righteousness and holiness. Augustine despairs of the moral sufficiency of man, and derives the new life and all power for good from the creative grace of God.

The one system proceeds from the liberty of choice to legalistic piety; the other from the bondage of sin to the evangelical liberty of the children of God.

To the former Christ is merely a teacher and example, and grace an external auxiliary to the development of the native powers of man; to the latter he is also Priest and King, and grace a creative principle, which begets, nourishes, and consummates a new life.

The former makes regeneration and conversion a gradual process of the strengthening and perfecting of human virtue; the latter makes it a complete transformation, in which the old disappears and all becomes new.

The one loves to admire the dignity and strength of man; the other loses itself in adoration of the glory and omnipotence of God.

The one flatters natural pride, the other is a gospel for penitent publicans and sinners.

Pelagianism begins with self-exaltation and ends with the sense of self-deception and impotency. Augustinianism casts man first into the dust of humiliation and despair, in order to lift him on the wings of grace to supernatural strength, and leads him through the hell of self-knowledge up to the heaven of the knowledge of God.

The Pelagian system is clear, sober, and intelligible, but superficial; the Augustinian sounds the depths of knowledge and experience, and renders reverential homage to mystery.

The former is grounded upon the philosophy of common sense, which is indispensable for ordinary life, but has no perception of divine things; the latter is grounded upon the philosophy of the regenerate reason, which breaks through the limits of nature, and penetrates the depths of divine revelation.

The former starts with the proposition: Intellectus praecedit fidem; the latter with the opposite maxim: Fides praecedit intellectum.

Both make use of the Scriptures; the one, however, conforming them to reason, the other subjecting reason to them.

Pelagianism has an unmistakable affinity with rationalism, and supplies its practical side. To the natural will of the former system corresponds the natural reason of the latter; and as the natural will, according to Pelagianism, is competent to good, so is the natural reason, according to rationalism, competent to the knowledge of the truth.

All rationalists are Pelagian in their anthropology; but Pelagius and Coelestius were not consistent, and declared their agreement with the traditional orthodoxy in all other doctrines, though without entering into their deeper meaning and connection.

Even divine mysteries may be believed in a purely external, mechanical way, by inheritance from the past, as the history of theology, especially in the East, abundantly proves.

~Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond to that mercy and grace through repentance and faith.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him. He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices. God solved the sin problem but we must respond as sinners and repent and turn to Him. This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

Joshua set before the people the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or the gods of other lands and told them they must ‘choose between the two’. But as for Joshua and his house, they would choose to follow the Lord.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

First, in verse 1 Isaiah says “You have comforted me….” Isaiah was saying, “God was angry with me, but now he has comforted me.” Then in verse 2 Isaiah says, “Behold God is my salvation.” My salvation! What an affirmation. In the original language, “behold” means “surprise!” Wonder of wonders! God is my salvation!

Second, in verse 2 Isaiah says, “I will trust…” The Hebrew word is “batach”, which has the meaning of committing oneself to God and thus being secure forever. This is saving faith. It is not enough to have information about the gospel or even to understand it intellectually and agree about the truth of the gospel. Faith is trust. Saving faith is my wholly depending on the Lord.

Third, remember, God sent Isaiah to speak to King Ahaz, who was in serious trouble. The enemy had the strength and the ability to destroy Israel. Although Isaiah gave him the gospel, he refused to trust in God. So in 7:9 the prophet declared, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will nto stand at all.” That is always the truth. If we do not believe in the gospel when it comes to us we will fall That is why Hebrews tells us that “today is the day of salvation.” Implied is do not let it pass you by. Don’t procrastinate!

Fourth, Isaiah said, “I will not be afraid (of anything).” Trust and fear are opposites. Believers are delivered from God’s wrath; thus, their fear of death is gone. A believer therefore says, “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Then comes the glorious shout of jubilation: “But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Dr. _____,

Before I start, I want to confess that I may not have been as charitable as I ought have been before, in our discussions of these issues. My passion results from a zeal for the truth, but was not intended as disrespect. If you gleaned such from our encounters in the past, I apologize most humbly, and I ask your forgiveness. In that spirit, however, I do want to advance a thesis: perhaps, in your advancing this line of doctrine, it is warranted that my puzzlement should be real, when hearing them expounded in your class. From the pulpit, we are taught the opposite of what you have been teaching. That God’s grace in election is unconditional, and the freedom of man’s will to choose any thing is captive to either sin or righteousness. That God’s grace is extended to sinners who are totally depraved – extensive to their wills, which cannot choose anything but evil. That the atonement is not conditional upon the man who chooses to accept it, but upon the intent of Christ to save those for whom He died. That the drawing of all men to Himself is a work of God, worked upon those men who are regenerated by the Spirit, and come willing, not unwilling, to the cross of Christ, due to the effectual call, worked by the Holy Spirit. That we are not simply perseverers, but preserved BY the power of God – irrespective of the autonomous freedom of our wills in a state of salvation.

I pledge, Dr. _____, that my surprise and consternation, in light of what has been taught in the pulpit, was both warranted and truthfully grounded in a real shock as to the inconsistencies of the two gospels being presented. One which seems to require the exercise of a dead man’s “free will”, to accept the Lordship of a God he neither wants nor can desire – and the repentance of sins which a dead loves, and will not release – and a faith which is inexorably set upon this world; and another that requires the faith and repentance that God freely gives, to be the grounds for an invincible, impregnably mighty fortress of salvation which is decreed, empowered, actively aided, and only possible by the creation of new life by the spirit, prior to any exercise of will in the matter. This sovereign will of God is the only grounds I can see for any salvation of man, at all points, and in all means! This is the grounds for my zeal, and I humbly beg forgiveness if I have been too forward in my denial – but I cannot do otherwise in principle, and I apologize if my practice of that denial was lacking in respect.

My difference is grounded not in a desire to “win”, nor in a desire to be the “doctrine police” or any such thing. It is grounded solely in a very real concern and a zealousness (or jealousy!) for the sovereignty of God’s freedom of will over the lives and wills of men, which surely affects how the gospel is presented, why it is presented, and what the gospel itself is. Surely, by asserting that men are not autonomously free does not deny that men are *responsible*. The crux of the matter is that they ARE responsible – to God – the very God who is the self-existent living standard of justice! That is the answer Paul gives to the objector in Romans 9, and it must be our answer when we seek to discover that answer for ourselves, must it not? The salvation that belongs only to the Lord can have no other ground than in the power of God, the unconstrainedly free will of God which determiens the exercise of that power, and the election of men to salvation from before the foundation of the world, to a salvation bought specifically for those whom He elected before the foundation of the world, secured by the omnipotent, substitutionary atonement of the Son, and the justification of His blood – along with the sanctifying work of the Spirit, keeping us in all righteousness! We cannot have any other grounds for salvation, or assurance of it’s efficacy, can we?

If we try to have the grounds for our assurance be in the power of God over our wills, (which does not allow them to stray back to the old nature we were redeemed from, by the sanctification of the Spirit), then how can we say that God has no, or has chosen not to have, power over our wills in the regeneration unto salvation? Does a dead men choose to rise, or is he raised? The heart of stone which dead men have MUST be changed to a heart of flesh by the sovereign power of God. These dead men’s bones are very dry – and can only be knit together by the one who knit us together in our mother’s womb. This is the central issue, it seems. Can a dead man live, unless he is raised to life? If he is raised, will he not believe in the one who raised him, as surely as dusk follows the dawn? This is the glorious truth of the surety found in the doctrines of God’s grace, founded in the absolute sovereignty of God over all of every one of His creations. It is not a mechanistic, fatalistic system, but a glorious declarative truth – that God is our salvation, and that everything that God does, He does perfectly, precisely, and to His own great and majestic glory and purpose.

I’d like to make it clear – I’m not out for your job. I’m not out for you to step down as a teacher. I don’t desire either, and that, in fact is not even on the radar of my concerns. What I’d truly desire is for you to re-examine the Biblical foundation of what is, clearly, part of the very gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. God’s sovereign decree to the salvation of His elect throughout redemptive history, His active regeneration of their souls to prepare a will dead and unable to respond into a soul both alive and able to respond to the gospel presented by the preaching of the Word; God’s active, gracious gifts of faith and repentance to those very same souls, which, on the basis of all this perfect work by the Holy Triune God, believe savingly. This special series of gifts to God’s chosen is of course on the basis of Christ’s death, atonement, justification, and mediation for those self-same elect souls. To try to apply the atonement to one who is not also mediated for, is foreign to the perfect saving work of Christ. Further, to ground our assurance in the ability of God to *keep* our faith, surely necessitates God’s ability to actively direct our wills, and to move in power within those to whom all these good and gracious gifts are granted. Such a necessity surely negates any concept of an *autonomous* free will – and can only mean that the freedom of our wills is only a freedom within the limits of the nature which we possess! Since God can work all things to the praise of His glory, this is very basis of the creative purpose of God, and should be a thing glorified in, not condemned! When a doctrine of the ability of man to freely will is made central to the discussion, and further, cannot be found in scripture as a quality possessed by the children of men, this leads me to believe that perhaps we are placing more credence in a philosophical presupposition than in the words of holy scripture! It is the doctrine of an autonomous free will that is foreign to the Bible, sir, and I challenge you to frame a rebuttal to Romans 9:16, or John 1:13, which in fact state the opposite in the context of salvation – which is the issue.

While I appreciate that you believe no such perfect balance between the responsibility of man and the Sovereignty of God can be found in Scripture, I would respectfully disagree by pointing out that this is a doctrine which is not something new, can be demonstrated by a veritable mountain of scripture, and is perfectly consistent throughout the entirety of Scripture. A Potter whose hands cannot shape the pots as He wills, but leaves the pots to shape themselves of their own free will is not much of a Potter, is He? If God will accomplish all His good pleasure – and his pleasure is decreed from the end to the beginning – can we truly say that God leaves the salvation of His children to the exercise of their depraved wills, apart from any prior intervention of God’s regenerative, restorative grace on those wills? The will of God is always the cause behind all stages of the Work of Salvation. You may disagree with it – but I cannot say otherwise.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him.

Sir, what doctrinal system claims anything of the sort? I know of no such doctrine from any system that even claims Christendom.

He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.

So, from that strawman, the opposite claim is: “He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.”

Yes, He MADE man that way – but did man not fall? Additionally, in doing so, did He not show that man cannot be trusted to make moral choices? The statement is true – as far as it goes, but it only goes so far. Now, man is a slave to sin, dead in tresspasses and sins, and has a depraved mind – he cannot subject himself to the law of God by making righteous moral choices – in fact – that mind is “not even able to do so”!

They are free – within the limits of their slavery to sin. No one is anything but contingently free – contingent on their master. I would debate really using “free” in the context of slavery. Such a definition is not the Biblical definition of ‘free’ – only ‘free’ in the context of slavery.

Romans 6:18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

That’s the contrast that Paul makes – and that is the contrast we are thus required to make, from Scripture. There is no autonomous free will apart from a contingency upon a master’s influence over his desires, as Edwards would say.

But, we can expound on this from Scripture clearly.

Proverbs 18:1-2 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh [and] intermeddleth with all wisdom. A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.

Through desire / (a man) having separated / himself, seeks / to meddle (to contend with) / all wisdom.

The desire of man is to separate himself, and he thus seeks to contend with the wisdom of God. To separate himself from? The Righteousness of God. Thus, he isn’t interested in true understanding – but his only interest in his own opinions, which now have primary weight, given his focus on self, as a being separated by himself, to himself – not by God, to Himself.

A man is a slave – and always a slave – but he is also free, and always free – but ONLY to that which his nature belongs. When we are born again to Christ – we are made new – we have a new nature. Not one that is fully free of the flesh – but one that is being sanctified by the Spirit, and bought by the blood of Christ.

Romans 6:22-23 – But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Eph. 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

We were by nature children of wrath.

2 Peter 1:3-4 …seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

We WILL be partakers of the Divine nature, which a child of wrath can never be, unless that nature is changed. We were given everything pertaining to life and Godliness – through the knowledge of He who called us!

John 8:36 “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Not free in name only, as you are under sin – free of everything pertaining to life and godliness – but free of the slavery of sin, and slaves to righteousness of God, in which the only true freedom can be found.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

Do you see what this argument depends on? OUR faith and repentance – the “doing” of the “exercise” of these things. Just as in James, the outworking of the Spirit causes in us the inevitable outworking of the gifts He grants to us – which were given to us for the *purpose* of these good works.

Eph: 2:10 – For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Sir, have you never seen the scriptures that say BOTH OF THOSE (faith and repentance) are gifts of God? Say whatever we will, that’s the killer for this argument, if we can demonstrate it from Scripture.

God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond (The Father draws you to Himself) to that mercy (God’s) and grace (God’s) through repentance (God’s) and faith (God’s).

As used, this definition of faith and repentance is unbiblical, the Biblical nature of this definition of “free” will contradicts Scripture, and any election which is not the foreordained Sovereign choice of a free and omnipotent creator is no election, but subservience to the free and omnipotent will of man.

On Faith:

The Hebrew “batach” as “place one’s OWN trust in” as the definition of saving faith – clearly raises the question of the origin of the faith and repentance. As I’ve stated already, that origin is very obvious from scripture – as is our inevitable duty and priviledge to exercise those gifts for their intended purpose.

Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Isn’t that incredible? The same verse we use to *define* faith is the immediate preceding context for the statement as to the origin of faith. What is our surety of this faith? The One who grants it is the One seated at the right hand of the Father and interceding on our behalf, as the One who bought us with a price.

Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Phil. 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

Not only does Scripture testify to the provenance of our faith, but the historic confessions of Baptists also testify to their understanding of it.

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. (2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32)

2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, and also apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come; but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (Acts 24:14; Psalms 27:7-10; Psalms 119:72; 2 Timothy 1:12; John 14:14; Isaiah 66:2; Hebrews 11:13; John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Galatians 2:20; Acts 15:11)

John Owen masterfully testifies to this reality as well.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ – Book II, Chapter 5, Pgs. 234-235

Thirdly, This condition of faith is procured for us by the death of Christ, or it is not. If they say it be not, then the chiefest grace, and without which redemption itself (express it how you please) is of no value, doth not depend on the grace of Christ as the meritorious procuring cause thereof; — which, first, is exceedingly injurious to our blessed Saviour, and serves only to diminish the honour and love due to him; secondly, is contrary to Scripture: Tit. iii. 5, 6; 2 Cor. v. 21, “He became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” And how we can become the righteousness of God but by believing, I know not. Yea, expressly saith the apostle, “It is given to us for Christ’s sake, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in him,” Phil. i. 29; “God blessing us with all spiritual blessing in him,” Eph. i. 3, whereof surely faith is not the least. If it be a fruit of the death of Christ, why is it not bestowed on all, since he died for all, especially since the whole impetration of redemption is altogether unprofitable without it?
In one particular they agree well enough, — namely, in denying that faith is procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. So far they are all of them constant to their own principles, for once to grant it would overturn the whole fabric of universal redemption; but, in assigning the cause of faith they go asunder again.

So does Spurgeon testify:

Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works, lifted up; for he always thinks faith is a work of the creature and a condition of his acceptance. It is as false to say that man is saved by faith as a work, as that he is saved by the deeds of the law. We are saved by faith as the gift of God, and as the first token of his eternal favor to us; but it is not faith as our work that saves, otherwise we are saved by works, and not by grace at all.

If you need any argument upon this point, I refer you to our great apostle Paul, who so constantly combats the idea that works and grace can ever be united together, for he argues, “If it be of grace, then it is no more of works otherwise grace were no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work.”

On Repentance:

Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
2 Tim. 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

1. Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. (Titus 3:2-5)

2. Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation. (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31,32)

3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things. (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:12 8)

1858 Abstract of Principles Articles 8, 9, & 10

VIII. REGENERATION

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.

IX. REPENTANCE

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being, by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things.

X. FAITH

Saving faith is the belief, on God’s authority of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

There is a solution to the dilemma some consider insoluble: The Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. It is not new, nor is it novel – in fact, it is not complicated.

Augustine perhaps stated it first. (Confessions, X, 29)

“Give what you command, and command what you will. You impose continency on us.”

It’s a truly simple concept. What is commanded is also given. What is given, is also commanded. How is God’s Sovereignty and human responsibility reconciled? In the grace of God, of course.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

How can this be said to be analogous to saving faith?

Israel, when they come to the red sea, immediately complain that Moses has brought them there to kill them all. What was Moses’ response? “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.”

Second – did not God harden the hearts of the Pharoah, and the Egyptians (is that free will?), and did not the Egyptians hate the Israelites and want them to leave, out of fear? They had no choice but to obey. The Israelites had no more place among the Egyptians. God burned their bridges behind them.

Third – God gave the commands, the means, and the escape – from the Angel of Death, and the Egyptian army. God provided exactly what He commanded. How is this any difference than faith and repentance being both commanded by God, and granted by God? It’s the Sovereign decree which results in His glory being both radiated from and reflected back to Himself.

Of Election:

This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

Sir, election is personal, predestined, particular, and perfect. It is presented in many ways, it is outlined in many places, and it is God’s sovereign freedom that determines it. Our choice is not only completely irrelevant, but completely immaterial.

God’s decree of election takes place before the foundation of the world. It is a personal decree, a loving decree, and a particular decree. It depends on no will of man – no choice – but on the will of God – HIS choice. It depends on nothing man can, or will do, or has done. It rests solely in His divine pleasure. Not only is it anything BUT foreign to the Bible that election rests in no choice of man, but election by the choice of man is anathema to the gospel, and to Scripture itself, directly contrary to your claim.

Once again: John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

God’s purpose is the purpose which matters in His election. His purposes, His decrees, are what declared the (Omega) End from the (Alpha) Beginning and which accomplish all His good pleasure!

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)

Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

1 Thess. 1:4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, [His] choice of you;

Romans 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to [God’s] gracious choice.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Romans 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of [God’s] choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Isaiah 29;16 You turn {things} around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isaiah 45:9 “Woe to {the one} who quarrels with his Maker– An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making {say,} ‘He has no hands’?

isaiah 64:6-8 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one who calls on Your name, Who arouses himself to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us And have delivered us into the power of our iniquities. But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.

Romans 9:11-24 for though {the twins} were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to {His} choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

“Isaiah said ‘I will not be afraid’ – Trust and fear are opposites.”

Yes – and God has not GIVEN you a spirit of fear – but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND

2 Tim. 1:7-10 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with [me] in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity who has saved us AND called us!

Soli Deo Gloria. To God ALONE be the glory. In all things.

Dr, _____, You know who I am, and what I was. I’m a walking, talking example of the power, Biblical orthodoxy, and experiential efficacy of the Doctrines of Grace. Only a God sovereign over the will of man could, or would have dragged me out of my sin by a methodical destruction of all of my props, pretensions, deceits, sins, and wickedness. A God who draws all men to Himself has no trouble with recreating a will suited to serve Him, and employing His mercy to save a man such as me. I tell you – it was none of me – I was unwilling, I was unable, I was without power or hope in this world. He saved me, He dragged me out of the miry clay and He remade me to serve Him.

There is no power that can resist His call and power. None. It is to His praise, His glory, and to the jealous desire for His glory above all doctrines, theories, and constructions of man that I write this rebuttal. It is a zealousness for the glory of the God who justifies, the God who calls, the God who foreknows His elect, and is mighty to save those He chose before the foundation of the world. Truly, John tells us: We “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Amen, and amen.

Dr. _____ – I love you, I care for you, and I want you to know that I in no way am motivated by any desire to “win an argument”, or to pugnaciously “demean” your abilities as a teacher, which I respect. I’m motivated by a call to defend the gospel of Christ, and by no other reason whatsoever. I consider the Doctrines of Grace the very Gospel – and Calvinism is merely the unfortunate nickname of men for the Biblical theology of God’s Sovereignty in salvation. I am forced to contradict what you are teaching by Scripture and by that “pattern of sound words” which we are commanded to maintain, and to defend. I’m an apologist at heart – and the task of the apologist is to defend the gospel of Christ, and I am more and more convinced that my purpose in Christ is to be “appointed for the defense of the Gospel.” Thus, I am offering this scriptural rebuttal in the spirit of reconciliation, and I am anxious that I do not appear puffed up by means of “superior knowledge”. I have nothing I have not received – and “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Humbly yours in Christ,

Joshua.

John Loftus recently got his second youtube video debunked on the Dividing Line, on 6/12. Ironic, considering the title of his blog.

His response leaves me scratching my head. First, the fact that he responds to practically nothing that Dr. White had to say about his video. Secondly, that he still shows an obvious lack of understanding of where he errs in his understanding of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and doesn’t address any of it, in his response. Third, that he believes he is so important that Dr. White would remember mentioning him in passing, in a single blog post, over 2 years ago – in error, in fact, because the post he was commenting on was not even written by Mr. Loftus. Additionally, he mentions Mr. Loftus’ blog in a comment concerning one of the other posters, shortly thereafter.

He begins (after a short one sentence summary of Dr. White’s discussion of his video) with this statement.

Let me ask White if he knows his own theology.

I wonder. Is Mr. Loftus aware that Dr. White wrote a book called “The Forgotten Trinity”, as his Th.M Thesis? I have this book on my shelf, actually. Further, I truly wonder if Mr. Loftus is aware that Dr. White has formally debated on The Trinity specifically, and twice on the deity of Christ? Not to mention his lecture(s) on the subject, which can easily be obtained from his website.

Along with his obvious ignorance of basic creedal statements concerning the Trinity, his choice of “Christian” examples is also quite illuminating. Swinburne? His explanation of the Trinity is decidedly non-orthodox. Why is he trying to pass him off as mainstream in any way, shape or form? Especially considering that Swinburne is Eastern Orthodox by affiliation, and Loftus is replying to a Calvinist! Swinburne goes so far as to say: “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods”. This is directly contrary to any orthodox creed of any sort!

But let me explain what I said. Let’s see if I’m as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.

At this point, it may be useful to actually explore an orthodox explanation of the Trinity.

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith.
One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

~ Tha Athanasian Creed

Swinburne is not orthodox, of course. Loftus isn’t even in the same time zone with orthodoxy, according to his explanation of his knowledge of the Trinity. This, from a man who graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School! Did he not listen, I wonder? I really cannot imagine that he never heard an explanation of the Trinity from Dr. Craig, who he so often mentions as his mentor, of some sort. He also claims to have taught philosophy and apologetics. He did this, without even a basic understanding of what the Trinity is?

Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves.

That’s all very nice – but Swinburne, when he says that God is 3 Gods, has, at that point, nothing to do with Nicene theology. Period. He certainly cannot profess the Athanasian creed, that we saw above. So, why is Loftus even mentioning this man? Two words. Red Herring.

Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity.

There’s so much wrong with Swinburne at this point, that I’m really confessing – why are we even discussing Swinburne, as if he is relevant to Christianity? I’m sorry, but heresy on this basic level does not have any place in Christianity. Once again, why did he bring him up? Red Herring, perhaps? Distract, by showing us a heretical view, that obviously has nothing to do with orthodoxy, then slip in the punch line, after a bit of time.

I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning.

Ah, there we go. Ok, so – he admits, finally, that Swinburne has nothing to do with a Biblical account of the Trinity. I’m still failing to see it’s relevance – and especially in the light of the fact that he has yet to shed any light on Dr. White’s supposed ignorance on the topic. His conception is, indeed, fantastical, and bears no relation to Biblical teaching on the nature and essence of God. So, notwithstanding the bolded claim above – does he, in fact, understand the single orthodox understanding of the Trinity?

The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.

Of course not. This is GOD.

So, what is the logical next step? Perhaps, present the correct view of the Trinity? Nope.

Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God.

We go, once again, to a claim of universal orthodoxy by some.. wacky ideas. Barthian Neo-orthodoxy, being championed as actual orthodoxy? Why? Because we can score points that way. That’s why.

Barthian/EO ideas about Trinity are exceedingly laughable, considering that Barth was a rank heretic, and the mysticism of the EO church can hide any sort of wanton heresy, if it is explained as a “mystery”. Tell me I’m wrong. Does Mr. Loftus really think he’s fooling us? I’m quite sure he can fool people who want any reason to believe Christianity is false – but it may be helpful to listen to Christianity’s self-definitions, before he runs too far ahead of himself.

Now, his basic misunderstandings in the video Dr. White examined are rather incredible. No less incredible is his willingness to trot out obvious trinitarian heresies. Why does he do this? I’m purely baffled by his statements on this issue. I’m forced to concede that he is either incredibly ignorant of orthodoxy concerning the trinity, unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as validly Christian, or purely dishonest. Given his continual harping on his experience under William Lane Craig, we are left with little recourse than to say that it is more likely that he is being dishonest. Let me explain why.

If he studied under Craig, he would know what an orthodox construction of the Trinity is, and not the garbled hash he presented to his video audience. Thus, as he is deliberately misrepresenting the orthodox trinitarian position, he is being grossly dishonest, purely for points. This is further demonstrated by his list of qualifications, including claims that he has taught apologetics, philosophy, and theology.

If he is ignorant, it is despite all of this theological training, personal mentorship, and personal experience as a pastor. Despite his mentorship by William Lane Craig. What this suggests is these possibilities:
1. He was deliberately hardened, and did not understand what he was taught for that reason.
2. He just didn’t pay attention in class.
3. He is suppressing the truth, in unrighteousness, and doesn’t realize what he is doing.

Perhaps all 3. Regardless, this is not what he was taught, given where he went to school, and who he was taught by. So, it has to be an endemic ignorance!

If he is unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as valid, I’m forced to wonder why he continually refers to historic creeds and the like. We aren’t talking about something arcane, or something Christians disagree about. This is something that is definitional to Christianity, not something that is a take it or leave it. If someone does not confess the Trinity, they are not Christian. Point-blank, period. So, why then, are we even trying to state that people who deny the Trinity are even relevant to any discussion of Christianity? Orthodoxy concerning the Trinity is foundational, not optional. So, when we are speaking of Anti-social Trinitarianism, or Social Trinitarianism, why are we even pretending that this is relevant to orthodoxy? If we are ignoring orthodoxy, and only discussing modernist neo-orthodoxy – why are we even pretending to talk about Christianity? Does he understand that such neo-orthodoxy has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity? Perhaps we’re once again intruding into ignorance – the previous explanation.

Let Christians define Christianity. Further, let the Bible define Christianity. Not John Loftus. Especially since John Loftus cannot correctly define the Trinity.

“Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).”

Why do we have no mention of orthodox Trinitarianism? Does he know what it is? Not according to his video explanation!

“Each person is not to be considered God, only the whole”. Really? Let’s back up to the Athanasian creed.

“Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.”

So: Not only are each of the persons God – but, the whole is also God. Does Mr. Loftus know the orthodox explanation for this? He doesn’t seem to.

Dr. White certainly gives that explanation, to follow. Does Mr. Loftus interact with this correction? Not in the slightest. Instead, he goes into Social/Anti-Social trinitarianism. What does this have to do with orthodoxy? These two beliefs are not orthodox. In fact, Mr. Loftus’ understanding is far from orthodox. Has he ever read the Athanasian creed? The Nicene? It’s not apparent from his statement!

SOME Christians? I agree with Dr. White. This is definitional. You can’t deny the Trinity’s self-existence from eternity, and call yourself Christian.

Notwithstanding the mispronunciation of “Occam”, he behaves as if the very concept of “uncaused eternality” is an idea that has never had an argument advanced for it, throughout history. Not only that, his argument is a simple argument from incredulity. Last I checked, that was a simple fallacy. Further, he acts as if the concept of an uncreated God, let alone the two-millenia old doctrine of God, concerning the Trinity, is something new and “incredible”. However, as Dr. White points out – there is no definition of “person” made by Mr. Loftus in his discussion of God. What I find interesting is his assertion, in the comments of his blog reply, that Dr. White “(u)sing words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.” Is that so? Tell us, Mr. Loftus. Whose video was he critiquing, and how did the subject come up? Dr. White is a published author on the doctrine of the Trinity. His discussion of common misconceptions of the word “person”, when applied to God, can be found on page 25-26.

“Words often carry with them ‘baggage’ that has become attached to the meaning of a word. The way we use the word may cause us to conjure up particular mental images every time we hear it. The most glaring example of this is the word ‘person,’ a word that is often used when discussing the Trinity. When we use the word ‘person,’ we attach to it all sorts of ‘baggage’ that comes from our own personal experiences. We think of a physical body, an individual, separate from everyone else. We think of a spatial location, physical attributes like height, weight, age—all things associated with our common use of the word ‘person.’ When we use this word to describe a divine person (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), we tend to drag along with it the ‘baggage’ that comes from our common use of the term in everyday life. Many people, upon hearing the word ‘person’ used of the Father, for example, conjure up an image of a kind of old grandfatherly figure who is the ‘person’ of the Father. He’s separate, different, limited—everything we think of when we think of the term ‘person.’ It will be our task (and it is a difficult one!) to labor to separate such ‘baggage’ from our thinking and use such terms in very specific, limited ways so as to avoid unneeded confusion.”

I really think Mr. Loftus is the one laboring under a misconception, here. It is not Dr. White who misunderstands the doctrien of the Trinity. It is Mr. Loftus. Further, he is the one who has begun to delve into a discussion on the topic without any definition of terms, or exploration of the topic in historic orthodoxy. You would imagine he had received this training in the past – I myself have studied this doctrine, to some extent, as have most orthodox Christians. Not all understand it completely, but what they do understand MUST be orthodox. To worship God in Spirit, and in TRUTH, you must have a proper conception of what you worship.

Let’s delve into Dr. White’s definition of terms, concerning the Trinity. (pg. 26ff)

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

…

First, the doctrine rests completely on the truth of the first clause: there is only one God. “The one Being that is God” carries within it a tremendous amount of information. It not only asserts that there is only one God – the historic belief, shared by Christians and Jews known as monotheism– but it also insists that God’s “Being” (capitalized so as to contrast it with the term “persons” found in the next clause) is one unique, undivided, indivisible.

Second, the definition insists that there are three divine persons. Note immediately that we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory. I emphasize this because, most often, this is the misrepresentation of the doctrine that is commonly found in the literature of various religions that deny the Trinity. The second clause speaks of three divine persons, not three divine beings. As I warned before, we must not succumb to the temptation to read the term “person” as if we are talking about finite, self-contained human beings. What “person” means when we speak of the Trinity is quite different than when we speak of creatures such as ourselves. These divine persons are identified in the last clause as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, we are told that the relationship among these divine persons is eternal. They have eternally existed in this unique relationship. Each of the persons is said to be eternal, each is said to be coequal with the others as to their divine nature. Each fully shares one Being that is God. The Father is not 1/3 of God, the Son 1/3 of God, the Spirit 1/3 of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally. There was never a time when the Father was not the Father; never a tiem when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was not the Spirit. Their relationship is eternal, not in the sense of having been for a long time, but existing, in fact, outside the realm of time itself.

The three foundations of the Trinity, then, are already clearly visible. Here they are:

Foundation One: Monotheism: There is Only One God
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons
Foundation Three: The Persons are Coequal and Eternal

That’s in Chapter 2: What Is The Trinity?

In Chapter 11, we find: Three Persons. I won’t go into a detailed quote from this chapter – but He discusses all of the individual characteristics of these three persons, in detail.

In Chapter 12: A Closer Look, Dr. White lists Louis Berkhof’s definition, from his Systematic Theology.

1. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia).
2. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the Divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished .
6. The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

After stating this, he goes into further detail, on each one of these points. I would encourage Mr. Loftus to purchase this book, The Forgotten Trinity, study it, and thereby gain an understanding of which he speaks. Dr. White is not confused, as to his theology of God, or on the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is eminently orthodox, very concise, and I am purely baffled at the claim of Mr. Loftus that Dr. White has no understanding of the subject. Again, he is the author of a book explaining the subject – and he does so in an extremely concise and understandable manner, that no orthodox Christian will have any problem in endorsing. it is, in fact, endorsed by Norman Geisler (an opponent of long standing concerning other issues), Dr. J.I. Packer (a theologian who has much experience writing about the Doctrine of God), Dr. Gleason Archer, Fr. Mitchell Pacwa (a Catholic debate opponent), Kerry D. McRoberts, and Dr. John MacArthur. This is no novice, and the book is entirely sound in doctrine.

What possible grounds does Mr. Loftus have for his skepticism concerning Dr. White’s understanding of the subject?

…that’s one of the reasons I asked White if he understands what he believes. Using words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.

See, that’s the thing. Dr. White is speaking from the perspective of a published author, with a very extensive body of work outside of that, as well. Plus, it’s work in the very subject Mr. Loftus is accusing him of ignorance in. If Mr. Loftus, as is apparently the case, is ignorant of Dr. White’s extensive treatment of the subject, I’m hard-pressed to be sympathetic about his own complete misunderstanding of the subject he is addressing.

I’m with Dr. White. What does “eternally created” even mean? Just a basic overview of the Nicene or Athanasian creeds will disabuse you of that notion. Further – I’ll return once again to his claim that Dr. White “failed to define terms”. Does he not understand that Dr. White is critiquing HIS video? Is it that difficult to see that his own failure to define any sort of terms is the source of most of his confusion?

The single greatest reason people struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity is miscommunication. It is very rare that anyone actually argues or debates about the real doctrine of the Trinity. Most arguments that take place at the door, or over coffee, or at the workplace involve two or more people fighting vigorously over two or more misrepresentations of the doctrine itself. it is basic to human communication to define terms. Yet so many people have so much emotional energy invested in the Trinity that they often skip right past the “definitions” stage and charge into the “tooth and claw” stage.

…

When it comes to the central affirmation of the triune nature of God, most of the time we leap right past the “formalities” and directly into a tug-of-war with passages of Scripture. The result is almost always the same: both sides go away thinking the other side is utterly blind. Such frustrating experiences could be minimized if we remember that we cannot assume that the other person shares our knowledge or understanding of the specifics of the doctrine under discussion.

~ The Forgotten Trinity, pgs 23-24

I would submit that perhaps Mr. Loftus’ knowledge of the doctrine in question is not as complete as he’d like to think.

“Massive confusion”, indeed. Created?

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Remember that, from above?

See, here’s where Mr. Loftus gets a bit annoyed. Dr. White corrected him over several things. I don’t think his usage of the word “logos” was in question. It was the manner of usage. Mr. Loftus says “also known as ‘logos'”. As Dr. White points out – “logos” is only a descriptor. Not a title. The second person of the Trinity is first and foremost, the Son. Perhaps He would be, in a much lesser sense, also known as “logos” – but the choice of this term was strange, in the manner he used it in.

Further, his discussion of the supposed “incoherence” of the Incarnation was… not very convincing or coherent, in it’s own right? I mean, when you post a link to your supposed discussion of the Incarnation, in the blog post that is supposedly an exhortation that your opponent is ignorant of what he HIMSELF believes, and even this is completely ignorant of the orthodox understanding of THAT doctrine, I find it hard to believe any accusations of ignorance against anyone else have any credence whatsoever. At least not from them. Mr. Loftus, despite his claims, has obviously not understood what he was taught.

Now keep in mind that the God-man Jesus was a fully human being, so any resurrected God-man must have a body in keeping with his humanity, otherwise the human part of the God-man ceased to exist, died, or his was simply discarded. But it can’t be that God would destroy a sinless man, the man Jesus. Therefore, the resurrected Jesus, being a God-man, is a new and unique being, and this dual natured being is unlike the previous 2nd person of the Trinity.

Now, such a lack of understanding is truly indicative of the level of argumentation he has to offer. Honestly, Dr. White has better things to do than refute this level of… misunderstanding. As he often says, concerning Islam – if you want to show the truthfulness of your own view, it’s helpful to at least make an effort to accurately represent the beliefs of your opponents. If you show no interest in truthfulness concerning their views, you have shown, in essence, that you have no concern with it, ultimately, concerning your own.

Advice I wish Mr. Loftus would take. Especially when his sole claim to fame is that he was taught by the famous William Lane Craig.

This clip shows, very clearly, the depth of Mr. Loftus’ confusion, concerning very fundamental Christian doctrines. When he asks whether Dr. White knows what he believes – I find that odd, considering Mr. Loftus’ demonstrated ignorance throughout this video, and on his blog. A more pertinent question would be:

Does Mr. Loftus have a correct conception of orthodox Christian doctrine? If so, why is he misrepresenting it so badly? If not – what possible justification does he have for his ignorance? There is a very obvious answer to this question, of course.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.} 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. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

~ 1 Cor 2:12-16

This is the root of the problem. Mr. Loftus, despite his academic training, simply fails to understand even the most fundamental things of theology. Why?

{So} we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

~ Hebrews 3:19

He does not know God, and thus cannot appraise the things of God. He has no recourse, either. God is the only recourse. I will pray that God does His will in this man – but, of course, God changes the man. What the man thinks of God is really irrelevant. I pray that his eyes will be opened. We shall see.

Again, these standards he gives are not related, in the slightest, to orthodox understanding of the relationship of the members of the Trinity. This is his basic problem. Why does he not have it? Once again – no one can know the things of God unless they are spiritually appraised. One again, as Dr. White says – he has had “every possible opportunity to study the doctrine of the Trinity, and understand it”. Why does he not? He can’t.

What saddens me is that he doesn’t completely misunderstand it. He knows the gospel. Unfortunately, it’s just enough of it to condemn him. It’s truly not any sort of ‘glee’ that I feel, when listening to a false believer speaking of the contents of his false profession. It’s just sad, to me.

Once again – using “being” in a way that in no way accords with a Trinitarian description in any orthodox way simply shows your unwillingness to correctly represent your subject.

I could probably finish with more clips from the Dividing Line, but I think we’ve adequately explored Mr. Loftus’ colossal ignorance of what he puzzlingly considers a doctrine that Dr. White is ignorant of. As we can demonstrably show that this is not the case; as we can further show that Mr. Loftus is blindingly confused as to the nature and implications of Trinitarian doctrine; and even further, that Mr. Loftus has absolutely no excuse for being so staggeringly ignorant of what he professes to be educated in – we are left with only sobering conclusions.

Mr. Loftus does not know what he is talking about – because his mind is incapable of it. What do I mean by this?

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

~Romans 1:21

This qualifies as “futile speculation”, does it not? When you do nto understand, there is typically a reason for this. The reason is: God hides it.

At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from {the} wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal {Him.}

~ Matthew 11:25-27

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…

~ Romans 1:22

Can it really surprise us, when natural men act as they do? That they fail to understand what they fail to understand? It shouldn’t perhaps – but I’m willing to admit that it does surprise me, sometimes.

The wisdom of God is, truly, hidden from those to whom He has not revealed it. It’s hidden in plain sight. The things revealed are even impossible for them to understand as true. How much more so the doctrines approaching the secret things of God? Well, I hope that we can learn something from this. A man given every earthly advantage to learn the truths of God fails miserably, if God Himself is not in it. Folks, this is a sobering lesson for us. Education, opportunity, and even personal mentorship in doctrine are nothing, if God is not in it. Well, may God have mercy on him.

Soli Deo Gloria. Man has not a thing to do with it.

(Cranmer): i asked you to explain
(Cranmer): i then challenged an assertion you made
(Cranmer): you asked me to explain
(Cranmer): i was trying to explain
(Cranmer): but you simply didn’t want to listen to what I had to say
(Manuel): no dice David I want a debate
(Cranmer): it was a debate
(Cranmer): just not a shouting match
(Manuel): no it was not it was you asking questions
(Cranmer): yes, it was
(Manuel): LOL!
(Cranmer): i get to do that when I’m laying out an argument
(Cranmer): and you are free to do it when you lay out yours
(Manuel): LOL!
(Algo): <@Cranmer> when I am done, I will return it to you
(Algo): dishonesty is the mark of a cult
(Manuel): Who wants to debate?
(Manuel): yes it is!
(Cranmer): right
(Cranmer): and so Jesus, the Living ONe, the YAHWEH of Isa 41, says “I was dead”
(Cranmer): there is your problem in a nutshell
(Cranmer): and no claiming rudeness will remove it for you
(Manuel): No dice you are being dishonest david
(Cranmer): Jesus is the YAHWEH of ISa 41, by his own words, and he says “I was dead”
(Cranmer): where’s the dishonesty?
(Cranmer): that’s quite a claim, so I think you would be better backing it up
(Algo): Cranmer, you are being dishonest because he doesn’t want the truth.
(Cranmer): Manuel, where’s the dishonesty?
(Cranmer): I know the ops don’t like people making such heavy unfounded accusations
(Cranmer): Manuel, where’s the dishonesty?
(Manuel): jeuss is both David’s son and davids lord Right?
(Cranmer): yes, yes he is
(Manuel): Both human and divein he which dies and does not die
(Manuel): So yes you are being dishonest
(RazorsKiss): Yes, posesses the natures of God, from eternity, and humanity, from the Incarnation.
(Cranmer): no, since in Rev 1:19 he claims divinity AND says “I died”
(RazorsKiss): and continues with both natures, for Eternity.
(Manuel): You are mixxing him i9nto a hybrid
(Cranmer): thus the divine one dies
(Cranmer): you are presupposing that the divine cannot die
(Manuel): hybrid is your veiw’
(@brigand): I think even the nature of “death” is being debated.
(Reformerz): Are you UPC or are you Apostolic, Manuel?
(Manuel): hybrid
(Cranmer): nope, it’s really simple
(Manuel): apostolic
(RazorsKiss): Could a mortal man bear the wrath of God, Manuel?
(Cranmer): Manuel presupposes that the Divine cannot die
(Cranmer): and Jesus contradicts him
(Manuel): No Your Jesu is a Hybrid
(Cranmer): he claims to the divine yahweh of Isa 41
(Cranmer): and then claims to have died
(Cranmer): so your disagreement is not with me Manuel
(Manuel): jesus is both davids son and davids Lord
(Cranmer): it is with Jesus’ words in Rev 1:19
(RazorsKiss): Could a mortal man take the penalty of death for us all?
(Manuel): yes
(Cranmer): razor, leave him
(Cranmer): leave him to disagree with Jesus
(Cranmer): Manuel disagrees with Jesus.
(Manuel): A Mortal man without sin
* Cranmer thinks that is a terrible position to be in
(RazorsKiss): Or must He be BOTH man and God – man to share in our suffering, and our temptations – and God to bear the wrath of the Father for the sins of

the world?
(Manuel): There is one mediator between god and men THE MAN CHRIST JESUS
* Cranmer goes off to make a ham/cheese toasted sandwich
(Algo): manuel thinks Jesus is a hybrid?
(Cranmer): two fillings, one sandwich – hypostatic union in the one bread
(Manuel): NoI think your veiw of Jeus is a Hybrid
(@brigand): RazorsKiss: Even Job says he needs a mediator who is both God and man.
(RazorsKiss): I think your view of Jesus cannot save.
(Algo): Did you come up with that term?
(RazorsKiss): Only man cannot bear the wrath of God.
* Cranmer is bored with Manuel because he won’t listen to Jesus’ words in Rev 1:19
(RazorsKiss): Only God does not suffer as we do, and is not tempted as we were tempted.
(RazorsKiss): The God-Man can fulfill both.
(RazorsKiss): Did, and will for eternity.
(Manuel): There is One mediator between god and men the man christ jeus
(RazorsKiss): Yes, there is.
(RazorsKiss): Interceding before the Father.
(RazorsKiss): Why does He have the right to intercede before the throne?
(Manuel): No his slain humanity
(Manuel): is ever seen
(RazorsKiss): He is the Son of God – the only begotten of the Father.
(RazorsKiss): So, Manuel.
(Manuel): The sojn of god refers to his humanity not divinity
(RazorsKiss): If, in the beginning was the Word.
(@brigand): How can one mediate between both God and man without being both divine and human?
* Algo shuts up.
(RazorsKiss): And the Word was WITH God – and the Word WAS God – and He was in the beginning with God…
(RazorsKiss): How can we not be taling about 2 different persons – being called God?
(Manuel): Psalm 33:6 by the word of the LORD were the heavens amde and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth . the day you make the breath of your

mouth another person is the day you will have anarguemtn from john 1;1
(RazorsKiss): Why wouldn’t God be one in purpose?
(RazorsKiss): All 3 persons?
(RazorsKiss): How could God NOT be one in purpose, in all 3 persons?
(Manuel): no such thing as three persons of god
(Manuel): you actually have four with your veiw of jesu
(RazorsKiss): John 1 – The Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.
(Manuel): yesssss
(Algo): Sabin is no debater<---but you are? (RazorsKiss): Two persons, being called God. (Manuel): 1st. john 1:1-2 (RazorsKiss): Why is this, Manuel? (Manuel): eternal life was with god from the beggining (RazorsKiss): Eternal life was "God"? (Manuel): 1st. john 1:1-2 (Manuel): yes (Manuel): Yes! (RazorsKiss): So you have two Gods? (RazorsKiss): God - and Eternal Life? (Manuel): No! You do (RazorsKiss): No, I have 3 persons in one God. (Manuel): eternal life is not a person (RazorsKiss): You apparently have two Gods. (RazorsKiss): So it's an impoersonal God? (Manuel): God is Spirit john 4:24 (RazorsKiss): So God is not a person? (RazorsKiss): You said earlier that a spirit cannot be a person. (Manuel): A spirit is not a person (RazorsKiss): God is Spirit. So God is not a person? (RazorsKiss): Curious. (Manuel): Yep (RazorsKiss): So, now you have TWO impersonal Gods. (Manuel): otherwise your jesus is two persons (Manuel): No (RazorsKiss): The God, whom the Word was with - and God - who is spirit, and cannot be a person. (RazorsKiss): Do I have you correctly? (RazorsKiss): Because that is where your argument has taken you. (Manuel): The word is simply that the word Psalm 33;6 (RazorsKiss): 1. You say that God is Spirit. (Manuel): yep (RazorsKiss): 2. You say that a spirit cannot be a person. (Manuel): yep (RazorsKiss): 3. You say that God cannot be a person. (Manuel): he is only a person in the person of the son (RazorsKiss): 4. God is, therefore, what? An inanimate spiritual object? (Manuel): God is spirit (RazorsKiss): A non-personal God gave Christ his Godhood? (RazorsKiss): How would a non-personal God have any interaction with a person? (Manuel): God is a person 1 person in the person of the son (@brigand): Seems like Manuel defines "person" has having flesh and blood. (Manuel): no (Cranmer): 😉 (RazorsKiss): That "person" was only a human being, given his godhood by "god", this impersonal force - according to you. (RazorsKiss): So, we now have *3* Gods, Manuel. (RazorsKiss): One is a person, one is an impersonal force called "The Word" (RazorsKiss): and one is "Jesus" - who WAS a man, but was then "made to be" God, by the impersonal force known as "God", elsewhere. (RazorsKiss): Is this what you're trying to tell us? *** Manuel (~gjzcjzbhd@Cobra-IP1.ViperShells.com) Quit (Manuel:IRC) (RazorsKiss): Rofl. (graceb4me): bummer (@brigand): lol (@brigand): nice RK. (doulos): what? he quit? (RazorsKiss): He's a trinitarian! (RazorsKiss): You all saw that... (RazorsKiss): The Oneness pentacostal just argued himself into being a trinitarian. (RazorsKiss): *sigh* (doulos): God equals spirit, which equals impersonal force which creates Jesus?... * RazorsKiss finds a place to post that one (RazorsKiss): 1. God is spirit, and cannot be a person (doulos): that was insane. (RazorsKiss): 2. So, the "God" in Scripture is an impersonal God (doulos): doesn't understand what a person means.. (RazorsKiss): 3. "The Word" is also impersonal, and also God- and separate from "God" * doulos to Manuel.. person... you keep on using that word..... * doulos I don't that word means what you think it means *** MikeAtHome (~chatzilla@cpe-024-163-081-139.nc.res.rr.com) Quit (Read error to MikeAtHome[cpe-024-163-081-139.nc.res.rr.com: Connection reset by peer) (RazorsKiss): 4. Jesus, who is also God - IS personal - but was not always God, but made to BE God (RazorsKiss): by an impersonal "God" * Cranmer returns with his ham cheese and chilli sandwich - trinitarian and cultic * Cranmer also sips his ethiopian harar doppio (RazorsKiss): I think I just KO'd him. (RazorsKiss): Or.. really his own argument did. (crewbear): ham cheese and chili is trinitarian? (doulos): yeah.. no doubt * Cranmer understands that everyone else is jealous (RazorsKiss): Because that was the funny part. It was what HE said that smoked him. (RazorsKiss): all i did was assemble it. (Cranmer): that too *** Manuel (~gjzcjzbhd@Cobra-IP1.ViperShells.com) has joined #prosapologian (doulos): You assemble three into one Razor? (RazorsKiss): Cranmer- did you see Manuel admit to being trinitarian? (Manuel): LOL no you seen no such thing (RazorsKiss): Sure I did. (Cranmer): you're kidding me, that would be good (Manuel): Sorry (Cranmer): oh, he's back (Cranmer): good to have you back, manueal (Cranmer): manuel (Manuel): nom I would belong to a cult then (Cranmer): how you doing with the Divine Jesus claiming to die in Rev 1:19? (RazorsKiss): 1. God is not a person, but impersonal, correct? Because, according to you, a spirit cannot be a person, and God is Spirit. (Cranmer): I am the First and the Last ... I died (Manuel): That is your veiw not mine (Cranmer): no, it's jesus' view (Cranmer): he says (and correct me if I'm wrong here) "I am the First and the Last ... I died" (RazorsKiss): 2. The Word is also God, but also impersonal - and separate from "God" in John 1. (Manuel): The first and last can say that david Because he was not onloy the first divine but the last glorified humnaity that died (Cranmer): manuel is currently dancing for us (RazorsKiss): That's 2 Gods so far, Manuel. (Cranmer): lol (Manuel): for you razor (Cranmer): so "first and Last" is actually a statement about humanity? (Cranmer): ~nas isa 41:4 (@Gutenberg^): 12Isaiah 41:4 "Who has performed and accomplished [it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.'" (NASB) (Manuel): i have One god and one glorified man (RazorsKiss): Then, Jesus is also God, because He was granted his Godhood by the Father - but He is personal - granted His Godhood by the impersonal "God". (RazorsKiss): No, you admitted the "Word" is a God, but not a person. (Cranmer): sorry Razor, I'm interrupting (Cranmer): go ahead (RazorsKiss): And was "with" God, the impersonal Father. (Manuel): We cannot debate here razor you need to come to my group this is confusion compounded (Manuel): Okay lets use your reasoning razor shall we? (RazorsKiss): No, you are confusion multiplied (RazorsKiss): No, let's not. (RazorsKiss): Let's stick to your trinitarian admission. (RazorsKiss): God is, by your admission: (Manuel): yes let's do and i will show you how you have four persons instead of three (RazorsKiss): 1. The impersonal Father (RazorsKiss): 2. The impersonal Word (aka Eternal Life, as you defined it) (Manuel): Okay God the father is a person (Manuel): lets use your reason razor (Cranmer): hello! now he's a person! (RazorsKiss): No, you said God is spirit, and spirits cannot be persons. (Manuel): reasoning (@brigand): !!! (RazorsKiss): Be consistent. (Manuel): Come on now (Manuel): you be consistent? (Manuel): God the father is a persons * Cranmer finishes his sandwich and sits back (RazorsKiss): I'ev been consistently pointing out that you're skipping around like a bug on a hot skillet, yes. (RazorsKiss): Yes, that's my claim - but not yours. (Manuel): come on mr brave let's dance? (Cranmer): a bug on a hot skillet - i like that (RazorsKiss): I'm not interested in my argument. I know it already. (Manuel): No you don't ! * Cranmer dances to Rev 1:19 (RazorsKiss): I'm interested in where you're getting you're trinitarian impression. (RazorsKiss): *your (Cranmer): nice, now Manuel knows our arguments better than us! (RazorsKiss): Because you have outlined 3 Gods for us. (Manuel): your veiw of god is either hybrid or you have four persons (Manuel): I was trinitarain (Cranmer): not at all (Cranmer): you still don't get it (geoffist): you "WERE" trinitarian? not anymore? (Manuel): I lefvt it for the truth' (RazorsKiss): You're also Trinitarian - but with no Biblical basis for it. (Cranmer): i am beginnig to suspect that it's because you don't want to (RazorsKiss): It's a bit confusing. (RazorsKiss): Why can a spirit not be a person again? (Manuel): Come on Razor * Cranmer notes that the first and best way to debate is to properly understand your opponent and address their best argument (RazorsKiss): Please outline that from Scripture for me. (Manuel): come on God the father is a person * Algo can't remember who the Hybrid was. (Cranmer): we're all heretics geoff, keep up 😉 (RazorsKiss): You're revoking your statement that a spirit cannot be a person, then? (@brigand): Cranmer: The best way to debate is to use your words but define them differently, then make random claims (Cranmer): lol (Cranmer): mate (Cranmer): you need the forward slash!!! (RazorsKiss): Manuel: You're revoking your statement that a spirit cannot be a person, then? (Manuel): I don't believe a spirit is a person it is weak and contradictory when explain ing god (Cranmer): try it out, jamie (Cranmer): lol (RazorsKiss): So, "God is Spirit" - thus, God is not a person. (Manuel): Come on let us use your reasoning (Cranmer): oh, I'm not seeing it (Cranmer): my bad (RazorsKiss): ~nas John 4:24 (@Gutenberg^): 12John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NASB) (Manuel): Yep (Manuel): Yep (RazorsKiss): So, God is not a person, by your statement. (RazorsKiss): So, Christ is not a person, when He says "into your hands I commit my Spirit", either? (Manuel): Stop with your beating around the bush (RazorsKiss): So, Christ is not a person, when He says "into your hands I commit my Spirit", either? (Manuel): That is a human spirit part of a person body soul and spirit jeus was glorified humanity a person (RazorsKiss): The Father is not a person, as Jesus says "God is Spirit" (RazorsKiss): Spirit cannot be a person. You didn't say "God's spirit". (Manuel): razor let us use your reasoning? (RazorsKiss): So, are also denying men have spirits? (Cranmer): i'm bored (Cranmer): someone boot him (RazorsKiss): Why? Yours is much more enlightening. (Cranmer): he simply doesn't want to listen (Manuel): No men have spirits it is part of humanity persons (RazorsKiss): So, are men persons? (Manuel): 'Yes men are persons (Manuel): so was jesus (RazorsKiss): Then spirit can be persons, can't it? (RazorsKiss): God is spirit, is He not? (RazorsKiss): Per John 4:24? (Manuel): why are you asking me ? (Manuel): I thought you knew (RazorsKiss): Because you're the one playing footsie with the truth. (Manuel): Your doctrine is not the truth (RazorsKiss): Is God Spirit, or do you deny the Biblical doctrine? (Manuel): God is Spirit (Manuel): Yes (RazorsKiss): Why then, cannot God be a person? (RazorsKiss): Jesus is. The Father is.. a Father. (Manuel): What? (Apollos): apparently a spirit cannot have personality in CG's world (RazorsKiss): Fathers are typically persons. This describes a relationship. (RazorsKiss): Relationships are only had by persons. (RazorsKiss): You cannot have a relationship involving only one person. (Manuel): of course god can have personality to deal with us on our level but he is above that (RazorsKiss): Is God a person? (RazorsKiss): The Father - is He a person? (@brigand): God is above having a personality? (Algo): with=face to face (Manuel): NO only in the person of the sonm is god a person (RazorsKiss): So who was Jesus talking to, when praying in the Garden? (Manuel): Yes he did (Manuel): he Prayed to his god as a real human man (RazorsKiss): Who was speaking when the Father said "this is my son, in whom I am well-pleased"? (Manuel): The father Duh (RazorsKiss): A person, or an impersonal force? (RazorsKiss): Do impersonal forces have sons? (Manuel): Goid as spirit the allpowerfull all knowing ultimate being

(JuDaS): I am currently reading the Book of Mormon.
(JuDaS): And I am wondering.
* AOMin takes interest
(JuDaS): Why do we reject other doctrines, other than the fact they are false.
(@bluelunch): I would think that would be a good enough reason in itself.
(@AOMin): how can there be a better reason?
(Tur8inFan): Judas: doctrines need warrant
(JuDaS): I am not saying that it is the best reason.
(@AOMin): or even another one?
(Tur8inFan): Doctrines not derived from Scripture lack warrant
(doulos): Do you knowingly accept a falsity?
(Tur8inFan): Therefore we reject those doctrines
(JuDaS): The same way atheists do.
(@AOMin): well, you do understand the issue of truth, correct?
(JuDaS): Do atheists not reject God?
(@AOMin): not in truth, no
(JuDaS): But they know he exists?
(@AOMin): they do so according to Romans 1
(JuDaS): Yes.
(@AOMin): suppressing the knowledge of God
(JuDaS): So, they do know that God exists.
(JuDaS): That is a fact.
(@AOMin): according to Romans 1, yes
(JuDaS): But, believe in a falsity.
(yoopertrol): when I was a roman catholic all I knew was what the church told me, when I started reading the bible they lost their authority
(@AOMin): if I understand you, yes
(JuDaS): That is how you knowingly accept a falsity, AOMin.
(@AOMin): ok
(JuDaS): Back to the initial question.
(JuDaS): Is there another reason why we reject the fallacies other than the fact they are not true?
(doulos): regeneration Judas….
(JuDaS): Regeneration…?
(@AOMin): are you suggesting that there are legitimate times to simply destroy the persons belief rather than witness God’s truth to them?
(@AOMin): I mean, I could do that
(@AOMin): I can come into a convo with a Mormon and just tear JS up one side and down the other
(JuDaS): Hmm, I wasn’t thinking about that.
(JuDaS): But, that makes sense.
(@AOMin): leaving them helpless and hopeless
(doulos): Being born again leads us to truth and gives us spiritual discernment.
(RazorsKiss): always be ready to give a defense….
(JuDaS): Well let me put it this way.
(@AOMin): but what does that achieve?
(RazorsKiss): FOR the hope that is within us
(RazorsKiss): IN gentleness, and reverence.
(GraceAlone): Hey guys, any veteran calvinists here?
(JuDaS): Is there another reason you reject false doctrine IE: Book of Mormon, Quran, NWT other than the fact it is not true?
(RazorsKiss): because of what IS true!
(GraceAlone): Hey
(@AOMin): well, since truth is the core of the Christian faith……I don’t see any other legitimate way
(JuDaS): Yes, that’s what I was aiming for.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas 2cor 10:3-5
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:5 [We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and [we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (NASB)
(@bluelunch): GraceAlone: what do you mean by ‘veteran Calvinist’?
(@bluelunch): many here have believed in the doctrines of grace for quite some time.
(RazorsKiss): look at the contrast in verse 5.
(JuDaS): Perhaps we don’t reject the Book of Mormon because its false teachings alone.
(JuDaS): But because of its credibility.
(RazorsKiss): destroy speculations and every lofty thing – raised up against what?
(JuDaS): Or, lack of credibility.
(GraceAlone): I just have some genuine questions for those that are somewhat advanced in theier reformed study
(RazorsKiss): the (true) knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: fire away. If anyone can answer, he will.
(JuDaS): You are correct.
(RazorsKiss): as Bahnsen says – press the antithesis
(GraceAlone): Is there anything that happened that was NOT ordained by God?
(RazorsKiss): you have to push their falsity – but with what? The truth in opposition to it.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: nope
(RazorsKiss): You don’t push a negative deconstruction of their argument alone – you push the juxtaposition of the false and the true
(JuDaS): GraceAlone: I believe so, after the reformation, the Bible is no longer a closed text, thus making cults.
(JuDaS): Whilist I am not saying that the Bible should be a closed text.
(GraceAlone): I think the obvious theological answer is no, however, then how can sin and immorality be explained?
(JuDaS): There needs to be equilibrium.
(RazorsKiss): BY showing the true as the only alternative to all of the falsities that exist.
(GraceAlone): You’d have to jump into fatalism and double predestination or supralapsarianism if you say No…
(GraceAlone): If yes, then wouldn’t that destroy the full purpose of God’s FULL sovereignty?
(JuDaS): I am not saying yes/no.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: While God did ordain all events, Romans 9 gives the answer as to why evil exists, and what purpose it has.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:14-16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:17-19
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (NASB)
(JuDaS): There was benefits and… Misfortunes.
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (NASB)
(GraceAlone): So is it double predestination, or single predestination?
(JuDaS): In the reformation.
(RazorsKiss): God ordains all. Period.
(RazorsKiss): However, some are ordained for differing *purposes*.
(RazorsKiss): Some for dishonor, and some for honor.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:20-22
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:23
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:23 And [He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (NASB)
(GraceAlone): Has God ordained sin? I don’t mean by adversity and destruction, but I mean immorality and unholiness
(RazorsKiss): The vessels of wrath were prepared for destruction.
(GraceAlone): So it is double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): Well, we don’t know exactly, I think, is the only answer we make.
(@Algo): Wow….I step out for a sec. and it’s grand Central.
(RazorsKiss): I think trying to make it a “double predestination”, as if God’s decree is a separate thing for believers and unbelievers…
(RazorsKiss): Is not really looking at the problem holistically.
(GraceAlone): are you supralapsarian RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Does God declare the end from the beginning? Yes, according to Isaiah 46:10
(RazorsKiss): Supra/infra is a bit of an angels dancing on the heads of pins discussion.
(GraceAlone): Infra is more passive while Supra is hard, straight and every close to hyper
(RazorsKiss): So, does/did God ordain that evil men exist? If so, to what purpose does He do so?
(GraceAlone): I don’t know, is it possible that it was ordained for a greater end or means?
(RazorsKiss): Romans 9 tells us – He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy.
(GraceAlone): It’s hard to be completely ound calvinist without going into supralapsarianism and fatalism
(GraceAlone): sound*
(RazorsKiss): Why is it fatalism to accept God’s sovereignty?
(RazorsKiss): Man is responsible for His deeds – because God says he is.
(graceb4me): GraceAlone: are you a Calvinist?
(GraceAlone): Fatalism is God being 100% the cause of everything
(RazorsKiss): God is Just, therefore, God’s judgement of the matter is Just.
(RazorsKiss): No, that’s determinism.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: there’s a difference between ’cause’ and ‘ordain’
(GraceAlone): Somewhat yes, but I’m trying to study on infra and supralapsarianism
(RazorsKiss): Fatalism says that no matter what we do, it’s all determined.
(@brigand): Fatalism is even outside of God’s ability to effect.
(RazorsKiss): and that we can do whatever we want, because it doesn’t matter.
(@brigand): infra and supra are pre-Fall considerations that we really don’t have the insight into.
(RazorsKiss): Well, maybe instead of trying to split hairs on the “order of the decree”, maybe we should try to look to Scripture to see what God’s decree is.
(RazorsKiss): Because, really, that’s all infra/supra is, ultimately.
(@brigand): (and those aren’t the only two options)
(GraceAlone): I see absolute sovereignty, anyone else?
(JuDaS): Before you continue, who are you referring to when you say ”God”, RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Maybe it’s worthwhile to study, maybe not – but I think your questions are more deep-seated.
(doulos): From Him and through Him and To Him are all things.
(GraceAlone): meaning God has ordained the fall, rather than only “allowing” it to happen, although arguably it could be the same
(RazorsKiss): The trinitarian, Christian creator of heaven and Earth – the Alpha and Omega.
(RazorsKiss): The one and only God 😀
(JuDaS): Are you talking about…!?
(JuDaS): ”I Am?”
(RazorsKiss): How can God allow anything which He has not ordained?
(RazorsKiss): Yes 😀
(@Algo): ……….For Those Of Us In The Slow Group—> http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
(doulos): Is it evil that God ordained sin to be?
(JuDaS): Nay, but rather beneficial.
(RazorsKiss): Nope. Cannot do evil.
(GraceAlone): That’s a question that I had too
(RazorsKiss): Good is what, when you get down to it?
(GraceAlone): Would God be in one contextual sense, the author of sin, but not in another contextual sense?
(doulos): Was God’s INTENTION in the act, evil Gracealone?
(GraceAlone): Probably not
(RazorsKiss): God ordained creatures that would act contrary to His will, and that their acts would only rebound to His glory, in Eternity.
(RazorsKiss): In Judgment of their sins, which has also been ordained from the beginning.
(GraceAlone): so all the sin is for better end?
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: exactly.
(RazorsKiss): What did Joseph says to his brothers?
(RazorsKiss): *say.
(JuDaS): Razorskiss: Do you believe in double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): “you meant this for evil – but God meant it for good”
(GraceAlone): I have that position atm
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- I don’t think the term is sufficient for a definition, really.
(GraceAlone): Wouldn’t Calvinism be unsound if Calvinists were not double predestinaters then?
(RazorsKiss): As it’s commonly used, perhaps I would be – but I don’t think that “double predestination” is sufficiently precise.
(JuDaS): Some of us aren’t Calvinists, though.
(RazorsKiss): Calvinism has never been a monolithic thing.
(JuDaS): Regardless, I think double predestination leaves no room for freewill.
(RazorsKiss): Some have always tried to moderate some things, to the detriment of others.
(RazorsKiss): You’re right.
(RazorsKiss): No will is free save God’s.
(GraceAlone): There is no free will in single either lol
(JuDaS): Ah, ah, but there is.
(@brigand): Read Sproul on Double Pre.
(RazorsKiss): Because no will has freedom to act in any way that is possible, save God’s.
(@bluewoad): brigand: but he’s a Van Halen groupie!
(RazorsKiss): All wills are controlled by the desires that the will acts upon.
(GraceAlone): brb
(doulos): posse peccare non posse non peccare
(JuDaS): What we cannot fail to understand is.
(JuDaS): God did not create us.

(JuDaS): Giving us cards.
(JuDaS): Saying whether we went to hell or not.
(RazorsKiss): No – He created us before the foundation of the world, with the intent, and the decree that specific people would, or would not.
(JuDaS): But rather, the Adversary is giving us ”going to hell” cards.
(JuDaS): And with Jesus, we are exchanging them for ”going to heaven” cards.
(RazorsKiss): As well as decreeing every action we would make, throughout time – as is His prerogative.
(doulos): How does this “exchange” take place?
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- that’s not only unbiblical, it’s also untrue 😀
(@bluewoad): JuDaS: Satan does not send us to hell. Our sin sends us to hell.
(JuDaS): Let me explain.
(RazorsKiss): God sends us to Hell, actually.
(JuDaS): Or elaborate.
(RazorsKiss): well, those who are going.
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(JuDaS): Our sin.
(JuDaS): Is transferred to Jesus Christ.
(@brigand): JuDaS: Satan could be nonexistant and sinners would still sin and hate God.
(doulos): Only if Jesus died for them Judas.
* Algo hopes to see this discussion summarized on RazorsKiss’s blog later.
(JuDaS): And righteousness is given to us believers.
(RazorsKiss): heh
(@Algo): Heh
(JuDaS): Thus propitiation is given to God the Father.
(RazorsKiss): hey, it just happened to catch me on the way in
(JuDaS): Through Jesus.
(JuDaS): Does that make more sense now?
(JuDaS): And we gain justification.
(RazorsKiss): Sure. But who did Christ die for?
(JuDaS): Or, are justified.
(doulos): Who is “we” in the justification?
(JuDaS): Us.
(RazorsKiss): Who is “us”.
(JuDaS): Believers, of course.
(RazorsKiss): Ok, so those who don’t believe, are not part of that equation.
(JuDaS): Not necessarily.
(GraceAlone): Hey RazorsKiss, God’s absolute decree in all, would it make God in a contextual sense the author of sin?
(JuDaS): No, actually.
(doulos): What does propitiate and EXpiation mean?
(GraceAlone): He would not be the author of sense as sin being the actual end and reason, but rather a better cause and goodness.
(RazorsKiss): As God decrees the end from the beginning, He decreed the number and the manner of the salvation of God’s Own – and those are whom Christ’s death was both effective and intended for.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone- in effect.
(JuDaS): Hmm…
(GraceAlone): In a sense; yes, you mean?
(RazorsKiss): Basically, that God has a plan within which all sin will have a purpose, to bring glory to God, and to display His mercy.
(RazorsKiss): On those whom were spared the wrath of God by the sacrifice of His Son.
(JuDaS): I think Razor nailed it pretty good there.
(doulos): Did Jesus die to purchase faith for those who will NOT believe?
(RazorsKiss): So: If God decrees those who are saved, and those who are not – as well as the acts throughout history, made by every man, and all to His greater glory – can we possibly say, like the objector in Romans 9, that God is unjust?
(doulos): By no means!
(RazorsKiss): God has mercy on whom He has mercy – and hardens whom He will harden – and all to His glory.
(GraceAlone): Of course not, but it is not God rejecting the salvation of man, it is God ordaining sin, that’s a very tough stumbling block for me
(RazorsKiss): Our perception of the justice of the thing – or the lack thereof, is completely irrelevant.
(RazorsKiss): Why? God creates men for whatever purpose He desires.
(doulos): We are but dust.

(RazorsKiss): Does God sin by creating peoople who will sin, even under the Arminian scheme?
(RazorsKiss): It’s the same question, just pushed back one level.
(RazorsKiss): God says, resoundingly, in Romans 9 – “Who are you, to answer back to God?”
(GraceAlone): in Arminianism, arminians basically give up the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(RazorsKiss): God, very evidently, is nothing of the sort.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: you basically have to be either an open theist, or believe in the ordaining of sin.
(JuDaS): RazorsKiss, so do you in fact, believe there is no such thing as freewill?
(doulos): A biblical free will
(RazorsKiss): No, only contingent will.
(RazorsKiss): Contingent upon God’s ordination.
(UncleStudy): What about the nature of Justice? Is it a mere ‘levelling of the scales’? Or is it in someway restorative?
(UncleStudy): i.e. If your daughter is raped, is justice satisfied because the rapist receives retribution?
(GraceAlone): basically either open theist, or supralapsarian + double predestinater
(RazorsKiss): ~nas romans 9:16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): Man does will – but how does he will? In accordance with his desires.
* doulos nods
(RazorsKiss): If a man’s desires are continually evil – what is his will?
(RazorsKiss): If a man has the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit, he is ABLE to have that war that Paul desribes in Romans 7, between flesh and spirit.
(JuDaS): Quite frankly, I think predestination well… Double predestination is completely unBiblical as well.
(RazorsKiss): Why? Because he has a new spirit.
(doulos): text please?
(RazorsKiss): UncleStudy: Justice: That which is in accordance with the nature of God.
(RazorsKiss): God IS Just. Therefore, accordance with God = Justice.
(RazorsKiss): Well, i gotta head down to the ballfield.
(RazorsKiss): But I hope that was beneficial somehow 😀
(JuDaS): Yes…

Gotta take a listen to this, folks. Timely, and passionate defense of God’s created institution.

Enter the following code in, to embed this on your website or blog.

[code lang=”html4strict”]


[/code]

I wrote this for a Sunday School lesson a good while back, and it was floating around in my blog’s “drafts” buffer. Figured I’d clean it up and post it. Enjoy.

What do we mean, when we say “unfair”?

The dictionary says that it means to be “unjust, biased, or unethical”.

So, when we apply this to the life of Job, does God’s treatment of him seem unfair?

Or, a different question, do the things that happen to us, or to others, seem unfair?

Are they “just”?

“Properly due, merited; consistent with what is morally right”

Think back to the definition of grace that many of you may know:

“UNmerited favor”

So – when God acts to bless, is He not bestowing grace, not justice?

We’ll stop there, and come back to it – just keep that in the back of your mind for a bit.

The Accusers: – Job 15:5-6

Eliphaz comes out swinging, responding to Job’s stinging remarks in Job 13, calling them “… you forgers of lies, You are all worthless physicians. Oh, that you would be silent, And it would be your wisdom! “. He sure does wish that they had stayed silent, like they had begun, when they first arrived! “Your platitudes are proverbs of ashes, Your defenses are defenses of clay.”

Ouch!

He isn’t done, though. He rails at Job for thinking himself better than they – then, he appeals to authority (an age-old debating trick that is as ineffective as it is deceptive) by saying that the “grey heads” think the same as they do.

In verse 20, he cuts to the heart of his argument – that the wicked are the ones who see this sort of judgement, as the natural outworking of their sinful lives – thus, Job must be sinful.

The argument goes as follows:

1. Sinful men are always punished by God for their sins *in this life*.
2. You seem to be punished by God in this life.
3. You must be a sinful man.

Job, after Eliphaz’s chapter-long diatribe winds down, will have none of it. In fact, he’s rather annoyed.

Read Job 16:2-3

He then goes on to recite a short-form version of the trials he has endured, and makes a very interesting statement.

Job 16:19-21>

Catch a couple things in there?

1. He has faith in the Justice of God
2. He trusts in God, not man (small wonder, considering what he keeps hearing from them!)
3. He anticipates an advocate in heaven for men.

Where have we heard of that?

Read 1 John 2:1

Sound familiar?

Read 1 Tim. 2:5

How about that?

Job picks up on this, and understands the need for such a thing – as we may be hard-pressed to imagine.

Job Trips:

After Bildad essentially rehearses Eliphaz’s argument, in Job 18, Job has enough.

First, he accuses them of pride – which, probably, is justified.

Second, though, he accuses God of being unjust. Of wronging him.

Is God unjust? CAN God be unjust?

He even says to them in 19:22 -“Why do you persecute me as God does, And are not satisfied with my flesh?”

Job isn’t perfect. He’s amazing – but he isn’t perfect.

However, read what he says right after he says that:

Read Job 19: 25-27

Wow. This, many think, is the most triumphal statement of faith ever recorded. Remember, too, that this is not only before Abraham’s covenant, but before the law, before the messiah, or any hint of the messiah.

He affirms his faith in God’s existence, His sovereignity, His personal involvement in human affairs, His future reign on earth – he affirms his own mortality, his belief in a physical resurrection, and his belief in an eternal life in the presence of God.

Wow. This is from a man sitting in ashes, ridiculed by his friends, who has lost everything he posesses, everyone he loves (does his wife count?), and afflicted most excruciatingly by varied sickness. Utterly amazing.

Zophar, then, gives Job the *same argument*. Again. Read Chapter 20, if you don’t believe me. He does, though.

Job finally, finally, responds to their argument.

Read Job 21

Seems rather similar to this:

“for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45)

Read Ecclesiastes 7:15

Common Grace. Common Grace is defined as the “grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation”. Job, I believe, is establishing for these knuckleheaded “comforters” this bit of theology.

God gives even the wicked some blessings. God gives these same blessings to everyone.

However, Job is reminding them that God’s grace is extended to believer and unbeliever alike – and that not every bad thing that happens to someone is the result of a judgment from God.

So. What can we learn from this?

1. Not to be miserable comforters, of course. Mr. Hal has talked about this, before – remember Mrs. Triplett?. What does Job tell them?

Job 16:5

2. God cannot be unjust. Everything is for His glory, and there is purpose behind our suffering – even when we can’t see it.

3. We have an advocate in heaven, Who mediates between the Father, and us

4. Common Grace explains the seeming “unfairness” of Christian suffering and non-Christian prosperity.

5. Faith can be found, even in the midst of suffering. “For when I am weak, I am strong”.