Tuesday, July 16, 2019

But that's not in the script! How a Calvinist blocks any meaningful dialogue

A woman on facebook shared this letter from her pastor as she was trying to reason with him about Calvinism. She asked for a rebuttal to His letter.   Essentially the pastor employs several logical fallacies to shutdown the dialogue and assume the debate was over before it began.

The real question is not what I or anyone else thinks is logical. The real question is, what has God said he has done in HIs word? If you approach His word with ‘it has to make sense to me or fit my logic’ that is a system too. For it assumes that if something is not logical to you, then it is not true. Which means God has to fit in the box of human logic. "
1 cor. 14: 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
Isa.Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

   There is a difference between logic and rationalizations.  Man's rationalizations are developed independent of the scripture and then imposed or added tot he text.  Biblical logic is developed from the exposition of the text and deals with the implications from the text.
A.  We know the scripture does not contradict itself because that would be confusing the revelation fo God and God is not the author of confusion.
B.  God desires us to understand his word so we "reason together"
Deuteronomy 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

"This is what Krabbendam means by translogical. His larger point is that the assumption' it has to fit in my fallen mind' is actually itself an expression of the fall. He does not mean God is illogical, but that we simply don’t have either the information (given we are nowhere near omniscient) nor the right to judge God’s reasoning by our own. So the real question is first and foremost what has God said He has done? "
     Once the question is asked that way, I can’t come to any other conclusion than the sovereignty of God in salvation as summarized in the Reformed confessions. Calvin once said on the point of the doctrines of grace, human logic does not profit us here. "
    This the fallacy of begging the question.  He is assuming his position is God's position with no evidence from the text.

"Scripture alone must inform our minds rather than our minds filtering and forming scripture. It is ironic that people sometimes say Reformed people are simply satisfying their logical itch in light of that quote. For many an Arminian has said to me, It has to make sense to me or it can’t be true. I was reading just this week an Arminian commentary on 1 Peter 3:17. Mounce says this: ' It may seem strange to some that God could will suffering. It is perhaps more accurate to say that God wills to bring good out of suffering.'
Mounce, R. H. (2005). A Living Hope: A Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter (p. 54). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
"
    Here he is establishing a false dichotomy He gets to define Calvinism and then he gets to define Arminianism and no one else can dare provide another alternative thesis or interpretation of the two.  btw, the subject of suffering has nothing to do with this debate.




"I gave some more thought to your answer to the text that Jesus persecutors and executors did precisely what God determined ahead of time to be done. They were guilty of sin, yet God is at work in all the details to reveal HIs glory and salvation in Christ. You said that Jesus chose for this, which makes it consistent with libertarian free will. However, John the baptist did not choose to suffer as he did yet Jesus says what was done to John was written too (Mk 9:13). Joseph did not choose to have his brothers sell him as a slave to Egypt, and yet Joseph answers that though they intended it for evil, God intended (not permitted, but intended) it for good. The very same event of being sold as a slave is called God’s intention which He does to save all of Jacob’s family. How precisely does this work? I am not all that fussed about the how since God does not spell it out here. But it says He intended it. Compatibalism is the only way of arguing both that God intended it and that the brothers did evil. I do not have the right or the ability to declare God in the wrong here for intending it. I don’t have enough information to declare it either evil or illogical on God’s part. God says it. I believe it and I don’t worry about how. That is GOd’s job. "

The pastor is confusing "compatibilism" with Providence. Compatibalism is the accepting determinism  and then adjusting freedom to that end.
Providence does not require God to force the triangle into the square peg.  Providence has God guide the creation to fit perfectly into place through selective predestination and God's infinite knowledge.


"I would like to ask, please show me one example in Acts where Paul evangelizes with the classic Arminian presentation of the gospel in modern Christianity: "
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

"God loves you and Jesus died for you. If Christ died for everyone why didn’t the apostles make this the cornerstone of their evangelism? Why don’t we find Paul preaching to the men at the Areopagus in ACts 17 or anywhere else for that matter this way? Show me what I am missing please! "

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.11 These things command and teach."

The pastor is applying a false hermeneutic for the book of Acts.  He must be a Pentecostal, because pentecostals develop their doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost exactly with the same method.  Acts is descriptive not prescriptive.  It is Paul's epistle which give us direction.


"Why did Jesus say He laid down HIs life a ransom for many? The word many after all raises questions when interpreters insist it has to mean all. Many isn’t all. The Greek vocabulary clearly exists to explicitly declare that He died for every person who ever lived. Why is it never used that way?
   This is the "greek game".  Because he is insecure of His doctrine he wants to take it to a foreign language, as if 200 translations of the text have never gotten it right and so he is greater Greek scholar than all translators in history and He just hasn't got around to giving us the perfect word.
1 Timothy 2:For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
Meanwhile we have a clear parallel
Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
Many is very clearly paralleled with all.   These response are always on the defense "find me this... Find me that"  At which point, they can simply shoot down any attempts at real rebuttal.
You see something similer in dealing with the "New Atheist" movement.
Essentially they have both grown up in a postmodern backdrop, where their is no anchor for reasoning, so their their is no need to set up a foundation. The New Atheist will post up an evolutionary worldview and the new Calvinism will set up a Calvinist theology without an internal desire to make sure their system is accurate to reality.  So in the end they both argue in the defensive fashion "Don't tread on me".  Everyone ends up an island unto themselves.  This is a comfortable stance for atheism. Their are no rules in their sport, so why bother being the most logical system and waste the energy when they can simply full the opposition intot hinking they are rational?  Why get the most expensive clothes when you can look good in a knock off?
So the New(van tillian) Calvinist applies the same strategy. They don't need any theological accountability so long as they are sophisticated enough to appear rational. That is to say that they look royal when naked until the little boy finally yells "The emperor has no clothes!"


{a fable of of an emperor who was fooled into thinking he had the best garb ever and all the peasants went along with façade out of intimidation, until a little boy pointed out the absurd fact]

I believe that Calvinism is being disrobed by the secular world as we speak because the Calvinist were able to intimidate evangelicals to the point where they were not keeping themselves accountable.