No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.
Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.
Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.
I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.
Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery, rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.
If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification
If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification
Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation!
You: I thought this was about Calvinists!
Me: Patience, my son. Patience
Calvinists believe in a doctrine called “perseverance of the saints.” Normally, we don’t like the phrase “Once saved, always saved” (even though, technically, we believe this). A little better is the designation “eternal security.” But our favorite is “perseverance of the saints.” We believe that the elect will persevere in their faith until the end. Therefore, if one is among the elect, she cannot lose her seat in heaven.
One would think this would bring a great deal of assurance among Calvinists concerning their security. Their faith is a gift of God and he will never take it back. The elect are secure.
Now, as many of you know, I have quite a significant ministry dealing with Christians who are doubting their faith for one reason or another. Jude 22 says “have mercy on those who doubt.” I don’t think we do this enough. We avoid doubters like the plague, not knowing how to minister to them. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists deal with doubters according to one of two theological clichés. If they leave the faith, they were never saved to begin with. If they are elect, they will not leave faith. End of story.
There are three primary reasons Christians doubt. The first has to do with objective intellectual issues. These doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, Christ’s resurrection, and even God’s existence (among other things). Another group doubts God’s love and presence in their lives. The last group doubts their salvation and the reality of their faith. These are always wondering if they have true saving faith or a false faith. This last group lacks assurance.
It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.
Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
I have my theories. Let me share them, but I am interested in your thoughts.
Here we go (close your ears Baptists): I think we make too much of the doctrine of assurance. I don’t know if it is paramount for a believer to always be absolutely assured that he is a believer. John Hannah, one of my favorite profs at Dallas Seminary, said one time in class, “I am ninety percent sure I am saved . . . but I am only ten percent sure of that.” He would say things like this, knowing it would disturb most of his Evangelical students’ foundations, causing them to think more deeply. I thought if John Hannah is not one hundred percent sure he is saved, how can anyone be? I did not know whether to rethink my Baptist upbringing or take John Hannah out into the hall and share the Gospel with him. Eventually, it caused me to rethink my understanding of assurance. I don’t think there is any reason why we have to be absolutely certain we are saved at every moment. When we present the Gospel to someone and they say they have trusted in Christ, we do them a disservice to force assurance upon them. After all, how do we know that their faith is real? We don’t. Instead of assurance, maybe we should give them some of the Hebrews warning passages. Maybe we should speak to them as Christ spoke to the seven churches in Revelation: “to him who overcomes . . .” Maybe we should encourage them to “test their faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Maybe we should warn them that there is a possible disqualification. (1 Cor. 9:27). This may not fit into your thinking, but we all know there is a faith that does not save (James 2:19). Why not bring this up?
You see, people in our tradition often believe it is anathema to test your faith. To even bring up the possibility of our faith not being real scares us. Why? Because if it is not real, in our sometimes distorted thinking, it is God’s fault and there is nothing we can do about it. We are either elect or not and all that can happen if we examine our faith is bring about the terrifying possibility of reprobation.
I think, for so many of us, the issues are as black and white as they can be. We are caught up in this modernistic ideal of absolutes. Either you know with one hundred percent infallible certainty that we are saved – or we have no certainty at all. But I think our certainty is relative to our situation. The question is never Are you elect? That is a question only for God. The question is Do you believe right now? If you do, you can know you have eternal life. Could you be wrong? Could your faith be false? Could your trust in the Lord be like that of the second and third soils of Christ’s parable? Those that sprung up quickly but faded away? Sure. But the solution is not to divine the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance. They know how to test their faith and they do all they can to keep it. Calvinists often just get paralyzed in fear thinking they are not among the elect and have their hands tied. When, truth be told, we should respond very much like Arminians with regard to the stability of our faith. We do everything to persevere (which I would love to expand on, but I don’t have the space). Our theology demands that when we do persevere, we know that it was God who would not ever let us go, not us who would never let him go. Therefore, we understand our faith was not of ourselves. But this fact does not help much in situations when our faith needs to be tested. We simply do not have a magic decoder ring to determine if we are truly elect.
You ask me: Michael, do you know you are saved? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, do you have assurance? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, why do you believe you are saved? My answer: because today I am still believing. But I have to test this all the time, as I am not infallible. I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do. This ninety percent assurance will have to do. The witness of the Spirit I have today is enough for today. Tomorrow I will examine myself again. But my assurance does not have to be absolute and comprehensive. While the Catholics went way overboard on their “anathemas” (I mean, come on, guys . . .), I do think they are right to warn against any necessity of infallible assurance. Once we learn to test ourselves, the times of doubt will lead to productive action, not paralyzing fear.
867 replies to "Doubting Calvinists"
@cherylu: No, dear, I am not saying you are not a Christian at all, but have “you” really encountered the knowledge and experience of the Sovereign God, that is the great question, and for all of us! See my # 482 to Greg. And theologically this is always central in The Reformed Divinity!
Again, soli Deo Gloria: glory to God alone!
Thanks for the clarification.
Now I am going to ask for another clarification. You are the only one I see using the term “The Reformed Divinity.” As a matter of fact, I don’t think I have seen that term used by any one else. I think I know what you mean, but would you explain please?
OK, I have time for one more.
Fr. Robert writes,
@AP: Agreed! YOU Sir, are just too ad hom! And bring out the worst of my old Irish nature! (That’s the “flesh” mate), if we were face to face, you would speak much differently I assure you!
You keep saying I am ad hom. Can you give me an example? That is quite the charge, and yet you give no evidence for it, just assert it. Please show me where I have leveled an ad hom argument? And I would also ask you to review your comments and see if there are not any ad hom arguments from your end. I tend to think there have been quite a few. Maybe you are not clear on what ad hom means?
Arminianperspectives: “I suggest we stop assuming those we are speaking to are ignorant or uneducated or need to read volumes of books before we can understand the arguments that are being presented here.”
If Cherylu, Irene, Arminianperspectives, Arminian, and Prometheus could answer this question, it would be helpful:
Jay, from his excellent comment in #455, should be able to help you all understand the question below with this helpful definition:
“And what is a decree? It is just a determination that something will exist and happen.”
Given this definition, answer this question: “When Reprobate decided to write down that thought, did she decree that her thought be written down?”
Yes? Or No?
(A) Yes, Reprobate did decree that her thought be written down.
(B) No, Reprobate did not decree that her thought be written down when she wrote it.
P.S. I do not assume you all are too uneducated or ignorant to answer this question.
I think there is ad hominem on both sides of the discussion. In my opinion, Cherylu is the least offensive of the group. Everyone else is getting either a) riled up or b) merely assertive.
Fr. Robert, you talk about respect, but in the midst of talking about it you don’t seem to show any respect to your opponents. Does respect only count for our elders? Or should our elders lead the way by example? (Please don’t be offended by the term “elders” since you yourself brought up your age.)
I agree that the gospel can be offensive and bring about persecution, but Peter does say that our answers should be with gentleness. I suggest to Fr. Robert, Greg, and Jay that if all that you have left to say are assertions, then perhaps this is not the place for it. The blog is a place for discussion (it reminds me of the dialogue between Luther and Erasmus on free will. Erasmus calls it a dialogue and Luther is offended saying that Christians must be assertive. Erasmus replies that while he has a definite opinion, in trying to win someone over you address them in the manner of a dialogue. Personally I find Luther’s writing here extremely offensive, not to mention highly illogical. Erasmus certainly does stoop to some insults, but mostly he is irenic in comparison.)
Fr. Robert, I had a roommate who made assertions about God like you do, suggesting that the Reformed can worship God better because they understand him truly. First of all, I would be surprised if anyone would think their understanding of God is not better than another’s. So while I would never say to you what you say to us: “If you only understood grace the way we do, you would have a fuller experience of worship” for myself I know that I have a fuller experience than I would if I believed in Calvinism. Why? Because either I would come regretting its truth or I would stop being a Christian. So for me, not being A Calvinist is better because it means I am a Christian.
To clarify about me saying I would regretfully come to Calvinism or not be a Christian. What I mean from a personal perspective is that the goodness of God so shines forth in his love for all people in an Arminian, Catholic, and Orthodox perspective that I would regret having a God that was less good than I had previously been taught or I would reject the Calvinist version of God outright. I have had times where I would rather be in Hell than with a God who created his creatures for eternal torture. This is not an attack on Calvinists. It is not a logical argument. It is a statement of one reason why I find it offensive for you to say that the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” are so wonderful and then condescendingly tell us that “if only we would embrace them we would find great joy and consolation.” This is not our experience. And we would have every right to say the same thing to you about our “Doctrines of Grace.”
‘The Reformed Divinity’ is a name and title for the whole of the Reformed Doctrine and Theology itself! I prefer it to the name “Calvinism”, myself. And the early Reformers, and most certainly the Genevan Academy (of which of course Calvin was the head), did not use the term “Calvinism”!
Btw, if you ever get the chance, I would surely recommend the reading of Francis Turretin’s 3 vol. set: Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (P&R, 1992). Here is without doubt one of the finest Reformed Divinity’s written! The good Leon Morris said of Turretin: “a towering figure among the Genevan Reformers”! But too, I will not forget the great Theodore Beza, Calvin’s first choice to the leadership of the Genevan Academy, he lived into the 17th century at 86! (Note Calvin died at only 56 himself)
TUAD,
If all you mean by the word “decree” is that God determined it would happen, I would be happy to accept it. However, it seems you sneak in a presupposition that determination cannot include true interaction with creatures.
Personally, the way I see God decreeing our actions (if we go with your definition) and the way we decree our actions are different. I decree my actions or thoughts in the sense that I act on inanimate unconscious matter through my free agency within the bounds of the laws of physics. God has freely decreed what I do by making room for my own free agency. So that while he does in a sense decree what I do by willing that certain things I will come true, he does not decree which result will happen apart from my own free choice. Therefore his decree of what I do takes into account his decree that I have a choice. But, as I said with my analogy of vacation, God can and does and has set certain boundaries to what I can and cannot decide in such a way that my decision cannot ruin his plan.
The key difference, as I see it, between deterministic and non-deterministic theologies is the nature of God’s plan, not the ability of God to control all things. No Arminian would deny God’s ability to do all things. This issue of what God can do and what he has decided to do is addressed more technically in Luther and Erasmus’s debate over free will as well as in Jonathan Edward’s and Daniel Whedon’s theological and philosophical writings on Free Will. (Anyone tired of hearing about Luther and Erasmus yet! 🙂 )
@Prometheus: Did not you say that you agreed with my, or really “the” position of John 17: 12? See also, Romans 9: 13-18 (and verses 19-20, etc.) It does surely seem here too that God raised up Pharaoh (from/in his sin, and leaving him to his own will therein, 9: 17). Of course this is Augustine to degree, and certainly Calvin!
Fr. Robert,
Yes, I did say I agreed, if what you meant was that Judas was not part of the protected group because he was not really part of it in 17:12. This does not mean automatically that he didn’t have a choice. So Romans 9 has nothing to do with it in my opinion.
As for Romans 9, I believe that there are better explanations for how to read the text than the Reformed view. Nevertheless, this passage, of all passages, is probably the most convincing Calvinist proof-text. However, I don’t believe that such a reading of Romans 9 fits a good discourse analysis of all of Romans. Personally, I think that a good literary reading of Romans suggests a more Arminian approach. Nonetheless, I do agree that Pharaoh presents the biggest problem for non-Reformed thinking (as well as the Exodus language).
The pottery imagery, though, is probably the most important aspect of this problem. What we find in OT (Jeremiah), NT (Timothy) and early Christian writers (the Apostolic Fathers) is that pottery imagery invariably involves free will except, ostensibly, in this one passage. That, in my opinion, should give us pause when dealing with an apparent exception even if one comes out on the Reformed side.
PS Thank you Fr. Robert for sticking to the issues. I was afraid that some of what I said would be offensive.
Old Dr. Luther, now there too was a Man of God, and a “Reformer”!
Btw, my Father (RIP) was a scientist & physicist! And still something of a moderate Roman Catholic (of course Irish). He appeared to make his peace with God in Christ as he was dying (at 88 years old). And YES, he is still one of my favorite men! (A WW2 “Spit” fighter-pilot btw, RAF)…now that generation was something special! He owned several airplanes after the war, and flew and raced a P-51 Mustang into his late 60’s, as a hobby. And he met too the great Neil Armstrong (when they chatted, they talked of flying and airplanes. Armstrong was a Navy pilot in Korea). And he (my father) just flew into his early 80’s!
No Prometheus, you have yet to be offensive! Now I’m Irish, so that comes rather easy, plus I am an old Royal Marine Commando (officer). A “Bootneck” as we say! And a breed too! (I have served in combat attached to your American Force Recon Marines, so semper fi!) And for us some pride is there, not to mention I am something of my father’s son (yes a first-born too). So there ya have that! 😉
Btw, I did my Th.D. on Roman studies, especially Romans 7. But I am quite aware of Reformed differences there! But Romans 9, is certainly Augustinian and Reformed for me! But, yes, I have read Ben Witherington’s Romans too, certainly a non-Augustinian position. Btw, one thing is most certain to me, and that is Romans chapters 9 thru 11, are NOT parenthetical, at least fully so!
Fr. Robert,
I am glad that Romans 9-11 are not parenthetical for you. I think that in general it is becoming a commonplace for it not to be read as a parenthetical and for that I am grateful. I have not read Ben Witherington III’s commentary myself, so I’m not sure how he argues Romans 9 myself.
Romans 7 is very interesting. I view 7b and 8a as corresponding to Paul’s contrast between marriage to the law of sin and death and our marriage to Christ by grace through faith in 7a. It would be interesting to see how you see it.
@Prometheus: I am not going to re-hash things in your #11, after 500. As I wrote, the first day I was writing mostly on the run at the hospital, where I am a chaplain. And as I said, I should perhaps not have engaged without proper time, but the essence of what I said stands for me! And I confess I just feel “these” two Arminian’s are just looking for trouble, in their pontification.. Calling Calvinism names, etc.! I don’t think I have called Arminianism “names”? I just don’t think its biblical or even theological! But check the language written to Greg! This surely is ad hom! And the noted attack on Augustine also. I just left that alone, as Augustine surely stands upon his own as a/ perhaps THE Western Father! But anyway, we not getting anywhere, and I am certainly NOT with “A” and “AP”! As stated there is a great divide here! And the top-stone, or the foundation, for the Reformed will always be the certain Sovereignty of God over all His creatures! Again, note I am Infralapsarian, which really is different from supra. Note again the Irish Articles 1615.
Fr. Robert,
Can you show one instance of ad hom from me? CMP, a Calvinist, noted that I have been conducting myself charitably and appropriately. Calling others out on rude behavior or pointing out they have not answered certain arguments is not ad hom. Moreover, where have I called Calvinism names? Surely you don’t mean criticizing it as incoherent and the like? That’s part of the very question that has been being discussed. Surely it is a normal and completely appropriate part of theological discussion to consider the flaws or weaknesses of various positions.
And Prometheus, I am surprised that you said we have all engaged in ad hom. I am not aware of doing so once in the discussion. If I have, please let me know where. I certainly don’t want to do that.
@Prometheus: I now take the classic reformational/reformed position (Augustine’s later view) on Romans 7: 13-25. See btw, David Steinmetz’s book: Calvin in Context, and chapter 8: Calvin and the Divided Self of Romans 7. Its not long, but has footnotes. A concise but right on the Pauline button of Law/Gospel.. The Law of God simply MUST be met, but only ‘In Christ’! Always the place first of the forensic, God’s formal argumentation of God’s Justification In and by Christ. But yes, the true Pauline is both justification-sanctification, but the forensic and law-court of God is always first! Here both Luther and Calvin would agree.
Fr. Robert,
I did say that ad hom was on both sides, so no need to remind me of what AP and A have said (though I have not seen specifically ad hom, just frustration and defensiveness; sorry Arminian for inaccuracy, I’ll let Fr. Robert point out specific examples if he sees any). I also emphasized how much things had degenerated to assertion rather than argument on the Reformed side. Since then, you have mainly returned to argument, for which I am grateful.
As for saying that the Arminian point of view is not a theology, I wonder, then, why you take time arguing with it. Personally, I see Reformed theology as theology, though I think it misinterprets significant portions of scripture. But to say Arminian theology is not Biblical or even Theological is to assert in such a way that there seems to be no more room for discussion. If Arminian thought is completely unbiblical, then is it not heresy? But even irenic heretics can be reasoned with because they at least seem interested in understanding.
Greg, what you say is a case-in-point. You talk about confidence in arguing on facebook in front of everyone, but you still have yet to argue, in my opinion. You continue to assert. I fail to see how moving things to facebook will allow for debate when you continue to give bald assertions. Again, if we give evidence, you say it is invalid because we must address your whole system. It is okay for you to not get how we can be reading the same Bible as us. We feel the same way about you! But if we are to get anywhere, if there is to be any charity between us, it would make more sense, in my opinion, to try to understand one another. And if we find that we cannot, we should find a point at which we say we will have to agree to disagree. Many people hate that phrase, but just because we agree to disagree does not mean we think each other’s understanding of truth is equally valid. It just means we will have to agree that we are getting nowhere.
Arminian,
Sorry if I misrepresented you.
I am not going all the way back over 500 plus treads, but I do remember CMP saying somewhere that this blog had become a “Calvinist bashing party” if I remember correctly? And I wonder where that came from? 😉 Btw, this is not a seminary classroom! And I am one that has long seen the great weakness of the blog for Christian Theology and Apologetics! Useful yes, but always a weak place in real dialogue! As a Anglican priest-presbyter, the pastoral always gets left on the back burner!
Btw folks, we Reformed Presuppositional guys (like Greg and I), see the best argument as the Holy Scripture itself! Sure we can see some kind of evidence in logic and scriptural dialogue, but foremost always with the authority of the Text Itself! And even scholastic argument must fall back to the authority of the Scripture itself. Note the Creeds really always fall back here too (the Nicene, etc.) Again, the Christian task is not to prove but proclaim the Gospel itself! Kind of simple “theology” for us! 😉
Simple but always profound! Such is the Doctrine of God!
Btw folks, we Reformed Presuppositional guys (like Greg and I), see the best argument as the Holy Scripture itself! Sure we can see some kind of evidence in logic and scriptural dialogue, but foremost always with the authority of the Text Itself!
And the implication is what, that Arminians do not see the Scriptures as the ultimate authority, or the best argument? Of course, that isn’t true in the least. We just see that authority teaching very different things than you apparently see. It’s too bad you can’t seem to admit to that.
You Arminian’s simply don’t see the doctrine of God’s most sovereign authority, i.e. the great decrees of God! And this btw was somewhat Calvin’s great and particular contribution in theology, what he called himself: the horrible decree – the “decretum quidem horribile fateor ! Yes, this doctrine is just central in the great decree of God, and here is simply everything, or it is nothing! But indeed, GOD really does have His decree, will and order, always! (Rom. 11: 36)
“Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God”! (Rom. 11: 22)
Btw, here is Theopedia’s piece on the Decrees of God.
http://www.theopedia.com/Decrees_of_God
Rock on Greg!
The Infralapsarian view is that of historic Calvinism (the heart of Reformed Theology). According to Warfield, this is the only view that is self consistent and consistent with the facts of Scripture.
John Calvin said in the final edition of the his Institutes, “No one who wishes to be thought religious dares simply deny predestination, by which God adopts some to hope of life, and sentences others to eternal death. But our opponents, especially those who make foreknowledge its cause, envelop it in numerous petty objections. We indeed, place both doctrines in God, but we say that subjecting one to the other is absurd.” Institutes III.21.5 (Translation Battles & McNeill)
Greg,
Your comment here #35 is my cue to bow out of this discussion. I don’t have the time to cut through all of the unnecessary rhetoric and un-backed assertions anymore. I read your paper, so I fully understand that this is simply your MO and I’m just not interested in discussions that are 99% rhetoric and (maybe) 1% substance. I just don’t have the patience for it anymore.
Thanks anyway.
God Bless,
Ben
Infralapsarian –
This term comes from the Latin. Infra means ‘subsequent to’ or ‘below’ and lapsus means ‘fall’. This pertains to the placement of divine election in the order of decrees with respect to the Fall of man. In the case of Infralapsarianism, election is logically after the Fall.
Infralapsarianism recognizes that election has to do specifically with salvation. It maintains that the principle of particularism, in the sense of distinguishing grace, belongs to the sphere of God’s plan of redemption. Therefore, Infralapsarians place election at the head of those decrees that look to salvation and subsequent to the decrees of creation and the Fall. In the order of thought, election falls subsequent to the decrees of creation and the Fall because these refer to all men alike, since all men are certainly created and all men have certainly fallen. Likewise, election falls prior to the decrees of redemption and its application because it is just as certain that all men are not redeemed and all men are not saved.
—————————————————————-
It appears the last man standing, is our brother Greg! 🙂 Rock on again mate, GOD’s Word IS THE Presupposition! Btw, to get to the pure Word itself, we fallen humans must often move thru the so-called “rhetoric”! We Reformed call it our form of Scholasticism! 😉
Fr Robert,
Since you say you are infralapsarian, I assume you do not agree with Greg when he said that God creates men specifically to go to hell? (You did say that way back there 500 or so comments ago didn’t you Greg?)
Am I correct on thinking that?
What you, Greg and Fr. Robert, have said is basically, in order to have a conversation, we must make the same assumptions about not only the infallibility and self-authentication of scripture (which Arminians do), but have to buy into your interpretation of it as the most obvious one. Until we affirm your epistemology and your interpretation of scriptures as self-evident, we cannot hope to engage you in dialogue. And yet we cannot be brought over to your epistemology or interpretation without dialogue. Again, a lose-lose situation. Besides Greg basically says that we don’t believe in inerrancy because we don’t have your interpretation!
We are treated as though the kerygma is Reformed theology, though an actual proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers is almost never presented with Reformed doctrine attached. Most Calvinists present the gospel first and Reformed doctrine after conversion. That is my experience.
From another angle, it would be interesting to see you justify your presuppositionalist position. 🙂 Of course you wouldn’t because you presuppose it. But in my reading of church history and particularly the history of the Biblical Canon, I see scripture as anything but self-authenticating. Scripture grew up and was formed in the bosom of the church. There is no definition of scripture or the boundaries of the canon without the church. Just ask those first Christians who, while they had a core list, they weren’t sure about others which eventually made it (self-evident? and self-authenticating?). This I see as the biggest challenge to all reformation (including Arminian) theology. I say this as a Protestant who sees a huge weakness in our presuppositions.
All that said, I am withdrawing from the conversation as well. Whenever you, Fr. Robert, affirm Greg’s comments and then amplify them, you show that you are not interested in conversation any longer. You degenerate back into affirmation. Scripture does not stand alone. It always has interpreters.
I wish it could be more of a mutual learning experience.
Love it Greg! The “pastoral” heart beats only from God In Christ! (Eph. 2: 18)
Greg,
Michael has said quite often that he seldom reads these comments past the first 24 hours or so. So it is really not very likely that he is actually reading here no.
Your concern for him is very evident though.
Fr Robert,
Did you notice my comment # 37 on this page?
Greg,
You are welcome at my blog anytime. I have a lot of posts for you to take issue with. I also don’t have a character limit. But let me say again that I am not interested in the grandiose proclamations, the grandstanding and the over the top rhetoric (notice I said, over the top- I understand that debates include some rhetorical back and forth). If you can keep to the issue at hand without all of the extra bluster, I would be happy to continue the dialogue at my site.
However, I do not use Facebook for debates. I rarely go to Facebook at all, and I only use it to stay in touch with family and friends. That is how I would like to keep things.
If you want to comment at my site, this might be a good place to start:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/john-piper-on-god-ordaining-all-sin-and-evil-part-1-an-arminian-response-to-pipers-first-question/
God Bless,
Ben
@Prometheus: Back to the Arminian brotherhood eh? Fine! Btw, your points about the so-called “church” being THE said keeper of the “keys” of Scripture and everything canon is actually more “Catholic”, than Protestant! The church is really “the pillar and SUPPORT of the truth” (1 Tim. 3: 15), but is NOT the Keeper “itself”, that alone is the Holy Spirit Himself, the Vicar of Christ! I am of course more toward “the Ecclesia semper reformada”!
And btw, let me recommend here, Michael Kruger’s book: Canon Revisited, Establishing The Origin And Authority of the New Testament Books (Crossway 2012). Both Mike Horton and John Frame have written in support of the book!
*I was raised Irish Roman Catholic, “been there and done that”!
Guess I am not going to get an answer to my question from Fr Robert.
But if what I believe to be the case about your varying views on this issue is correct, I must say I find it interesting that both of you are basically asserting that you know the truth, but you are not in complete agreement on the issues involved with that truth.
If you are in agreement here, please do correct my mistaken understanding.
cherylu: Not to worry, we all are fallible! But yes, I am Infralapsarian! See my #35. 🙂
@cherylu: Again I DON”T know all of the truth, but I know both HIM who is “THE I AM, the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through/by ME.” (John 14: 6)
I meant to post this a while ago in response to Greg’s assertions about Arminians needing to pray like Calvinists, or whatever:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/calvinist-prayer-and-many-other-things-explained/
Fr Robert,
Well, Greg is 100% sure that he is correct it would seem. And you have insisted that we have to go with infralapsarianism (even if you are fallible. 🙂 )
And I think that Jay had a somewhat different take on things then either of you guys did. While you you are all pretty adamant about things, we poor non Calvinists are still left trying to sort out what the right right is! 🙂
Greg,
I’m sorry, but I’m not interested in writing an article to impress you or to prove something to you.
I am just going to give you a little info., and you can take it or leave it. I think that I understand presuppositional apologetic just fine. The truth is, it is really an extremely simple system. I am not sure why you think I have not “engaged” the issue. I am not even sure I know what that means. I have read and learned about presuppositional apologetics from Bahnsen, Van Til, Frame, and others.
I actually prefer presuppositional apologetics in a variety of applications, but it s not without it’s problems. I think that evidentialism must inform presuppositionalism to some extent before pesuppositionalism can really get going. But that doesn’t really matter too much.
What I object to is the idea that presuppositional apologetics can only really makes sense or be useful if one holds to an exhaustively determinsitic Calvinist world view. That simply doesn’t follow. That is a leap in logic that Van Til and other’s have made. That argument is full of holes and is in some ways incoherent (and I am using that word in a strict sense, not just saying it doesn’t make sense, but that the various pieces of the argument simply do not hold together- cohere).
Let me put it to you this way. After reading Van Til’s main work on epistimology and presuppositional apologetics, I threw the book away. That is one of the only books I have ever owned that I threw away. I found it completely useless because it was filled with unsuccessful attempts to prove that only Calvinism can serve as the proper backdrop for presuppositional apologetics. I found Van Til’s philosophy to be so full of holes in that regard, that I saw no reason to keep the book.
So now you know a little more where I am coming from on all this. I want to see a coherent argument from a Calvinist that proves that Calvinism must lie behind the presuppositional approach. I…
That last sentence got cut off for some reason. It should read: “I have yet to see that.” And let me add that when I read that paper you referred us to, I saw more of the same.
As it has been suggested before, we should probably just agree to disagree.
Good luck with those atheists.
God Bless,
Ben
@cherylu: Yes Greg and I have some in-house differences, I like John Frame very much (a student of Van Til btw, Frame is in his early 70’s), and feel he has worked out some of the bugs of Van Til’s basic epistemology (see Frame’s book: Cornelius Van Til. An Analysis of His Thought). Greg says he just does not like Frame! But always I seek to keep my “presuppositional” ideas and faith rather simple! And I do allow for some aspect of the evidential, but it must be in submission always to the Holy Scripture!
Way back when, I had some old snail-mail with Greg Bahnsen, (me from England then, Bahnsen in So. Cal). Sadly Bahsen died after heart-valve surgery as I remember in 1995. My little brother (Irish) was a American Marine in the 80’s! And he still lives in the So. Cal, and has become and American citizen.
Greg,
That is hardly what I said. What I said was that I found Cornelius Van Til’s argumentation weak with regards to trying to make Calvinism the foundation for epistemology, just as I have found your attempts to be in the same way lacking (and I asked you more than once to connect the dots for us).
That is hardly the same thing as saying that I find the subject inconsequential.
It is strange to me that you would draw that conclusion.
Oh well.
I gave up completely yesterday trying to keep up with the convo that was going on here. It was too “hot” and it was not a discussion anymore for the most part. Besides, I was fighting a bug.
But now that things are quieted down, I just want to add some thoughts that are not directly related to the Calvinism conversation per se.
Greg, I think this is more directed to you then anyone else as you are the one that seems to be 100% convinced you are right.
In principle I agree with you in that there is one truth–God’s truth. However, among Christians and those reading His Word, there is a great deal of difference in how they understand that truth that they see in the Bible.
I have been in various denominational churches as well as several non denominational ones in my life time. I grew up in a Lutheran family. I remember how shocked I was at one point when I realized that certain understandings of Scripture that I had were not at all the way others understood them. I realized at that point that just because something is taught as the truth didn’t make it so.
Christians believe differently about a multitude of things. For example: complimentarian/egalitarian, the mode and meaning of baptism, cessationist/continuationist, the meaning of the Lord’s supper, YEC/OEC, of course Calvinism/Arminianism, not to mention eschatological differences. And the funny thing is, they all believe that what they are saying is what Scripture teaches or that it can be backed up with Scripture.
The irony on this thread itself is evident as those of you that are Calvinists and are insisting that the rest of us should be too don’t even agree on the details of how that all works.
Obviously my point is that Christians do differ on things. Obviously that is not the ideal, but it is a fact of life. I do believe we need to come to agreement on things. But that is easier said then done. Some of these issues have been discussed for centuries already.
To Arminian. Calvinists aren’t stupid. We know Shank’s absurd doctine of Life in the Son,Corporate election.Just another variation of God predestinates the plan,not the man.So in Romans 9 God’s mercy is shown to Nations running and willing to set themselves up or to a moving corporate body of contingent individuals who have free willed their way into the body of Christ,and may Free -will their way out ,so one can never say what specific indiduals will be eternally in Christ,until history ends,if then. Pure nonsense. But the amusing part was the statement “God has been forced to use them through their failure.”..I have sad news for Arminians. Your not going to force God to do anything. He won’t be forced.
Jay,
What article are talking about?
Arminian Prometheus, #514: “If all you mean by the word “decree” is that God determined it would happen, I would be happy to accept it.”
Cherylu, Prometheus is happy to accept that God has determined all the events that have happened, all the events that are happening now, and all the events that will happen in the future. Will you be happy too?
Cherylu, #158: “If your understanding of Scripture is true, all I can say is that for the greatest share of humanity it would of been better indeed if they had never been born. The thought of being born helpless and hopeless and doomed for an eternity in hell without a thing you or anyone else can do about it is beyond appalling.
Say whatever you like, but I see no way whatsoever that any concept of love can be applied to that situation. At least you were honest about that Greg and said you didn’t believe God loves the reprobate.
And the thought of creating people to torture them forever in a place that you yourself warn people to avoid at any cost seems downright diabolical.”
God has decreed that every person ever born be born. No one ever born had a choice to not be born. Reprobate’s birth was sovereignly decreed. God foreknew Reprobate’s destiny before she was born, and He knowingly decreed her birth; therefore, has Prometheus has written: “If all you mean by the word “decree” is that God determined it would happen, I would be happy to accept it.”
Be happy to accept it as Prometheus is happy to accept it.
TUAD,
Believing that the only way God foreknew something (reprobate’s destiny) is that He already decreed it in such a way that reprobate had no opportunity for salvation, is different then believing that God foreknew something because He was omniscient and knew before reprobate made his/her choice what that choice would be.
And just a forewarning here, I don’t have either the time or the energy to pursue this conversation much further at this time.
Jay mentioned this statement: “God has been forced to use them through their failure.” as if it had to do with something I said or recommended But it doesn’t. As far as I know, that statement was not in anything I recommended. And I should did not say that. I am not sure what he is talking about.
Me: “No one ever born had a choice to not be born. Reprobate’s birth was sovereignly decreed. God foreknew Reprobate’s destiny before she was born, and He knowingly decreed her birth; therefore, has Prometheus has written: “If all you mean by the word “decree” is that God determined it would happen, I would be happy to accept it.”
Cherylu: “… God foreknew something because He was omniscient and knew before reprobate made his/her choice what that choice would be.”
Good! Sounds like your happy with God’s decrees when Reprobates who had no choice in being born go to Hell. Celebrate your happiness.
Arminian,
That is the statement that I was wondering about and why I asked to what article he was referring.
Maybe he will clarify for us.