Comments on Unconditional Election - First rebuttal and response
Well after a long and patient waiting period, the first rebuttal is in to the opening affirmative statement of the Unconditional Election debate. As always, I have plenty to say that went unsaid in my ensuing response to Mr. Norelli.
Logic. I love logic. I was actually very intrigued by logic when I took my first intro course in college. I loved logic so much that I actually read books about logic on my own time. Why do I say this? Because Mr. Norelli has opened up his rebuttal with a logical blunder. The opening paragraph asserts that "one must commit the fallacy of equivocation to assert that these two words (election and predestination) mean the same thing." Well, while I certainly don't believe the words mean the same thing Scripturally, it is certainly not the fallacy of "equivocation". Techincally speaking, "equivocation" is a fallacy of ambiguity and is committed when one and the same word is used in two different senses in an argument. For instance, the word "bank" can have reference to an edge of a river, or an institution that holds money, or even a shot in pool. Another example of an equivocal word could be the word "world". In Scripture, the word "world" is given at least 12 different meanings. To show two, we could see in John 3:16 that there is a "world" that God so loves that He redemptively gives His Son for them, yet the same author uses the same word in I John 5:19 to say that the "whole world" lies under the power of Satan. Obviously, the author is not using the word in the same sense for then we would have an explicity contradiction in Scripture.
Now when I read this in the beginning, I wasn't sure what to expect from the rest of the response since it was obviously not off to a good start. But lets see what it brought.
Nick reiterates that I offered some definitions from some Calvinistic creeds and then asserts that I misrepresented the Arminian position. He offers a defintion of Arminian Election from the Remonstrants . In the definition, it is clear that God actually elected no one who does not, of their own free-will believe and persevere to the end (my paraphrase). What's funny is that Nick says that the "language employed here is strikingly similar to that used by the Calvinist." Hardly the case at all. No Calvinist creed would leave open the possibility that God has not elected a particular group of people unto salvation which He sovereignly brings about. The difference between classical Arminianism, Evangelical-Arminianism and Calvinism is still that God does not leave election up to the creatures will to believe or persevere, even if it is aided by grace. If man's will is only "helped" by grace, then man's will still has a part in effecting the salvation of man. If this is so, then it only follows that man has a share in the glory of salvation for apart from the will of man - which according to Arminians, God could not override or influence effectively - God could not save man.
This is the contention against Arminianism in whatever form it comes in. Is salvation the work of God alone, even as Jonah said, "salvation is of the Lord" OR is salvation the joint effort of God and man, God providing the way of salvation, man providing the will to be saved and believe and keep himself in faith till the end. How the language of Arminianism is "strikingly similar" is really beyond me. No Arminian would agree with language that explicitly says that God has elected some to salvation irrespective of their performance in time. The sole basis for election is the will of God moved by His love, mercy and grace.
Moving along, it is asserted that "salvation is conditional" and that this is "as clear and can be from even the most casual reading of scripture. There is no question that we are told to repent...believe...and confess, all in order to be saved." Well several things to say here. First, I wonder how much Nick is aware of what is theologically called the "ordo salutis" or the "order of salvation." What this is a is a theological "order" so to say, of all that comprise what salvation is. In other words, salvation is a broad term that begins with election and predestination, includes calling, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, conversion and culminates with glorification. Salvation includes all these things but we must make the distinction between the whole (salvation) and the parts (the "ordo salutis"). I tried to bring this out in my presentation of Romans 8:29-30 a bit by mentioning how the one and the same group that is predestined is the same group that is called. These that are called are the same group that is justified and the same group that will ultimately be glorified. None are added to the group and none are taken away. Only those that were predestined are the ones who will be glorified.
Now, that being said, Mr. Norelli is actually asserting that those things that bring about JUSTIFICATION are the same things that bring about salvation. In other words, the things that bring about the act of Justification are what comprises salvation, hence the equation of justification with salvation. The fallacy here is the part to whole fallacy. That is, what is true of the part is not necessarily true to the whole. Salvation is something that has its roots in eternity past, not when we have faith and repent. Salvation is something that has always been in the mind of God. It was always His eternal intention to save us from sin. The fall of Adam did not catch God offguard, so to say so that He had to come up with a plan of how to fix His creation. God had always intended Christ to be the atonement for our sins. Hence, in Revelation 13:8 Christ is called the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." How doesn one have faith when one did not exist? How does one repent of sins that have not yet been committed, nor has the creation even been created so that it could fall? The impossibility is obvious.
It should be noted that this fallacy is the same that exists in the Roman CAtholic doctrine of justification. They confuse all of salvation with justification, especially sanctification. Hence, the possibility of losing one's righteous standing before God, or losing their salvation to use the umbrella term.
The Fatalism comments were interesting. I have several things posted on my reply about those that are well worth reading. It was actually funny seeing Nick go there though. To be honest, at some points in the debate, I feel that Nick is stepping onto grounds that he is not very familiar with and tries to use those points for Him. In the Total depravity debate, it was the Pelagian stuff and trying to say that He does not agree with Pelagius. While nobody wants to agree with Pelagius, because he was a condemned heretic, it is hard to say you don't when you make assertions that are absolutely parallel to the very words of Pelagius and his arguments against Augustine in the whole contoversy. I felt the same way when Nick tried to go with the Fatalism arguement.I should have majored in philosophy in college because I enjoyed it so much. Instead, I only minored in it. But I had enough classes to know that Fatalism is far from Calvinism. Without getting into the whole "Monistic materialism" that is common in Stoic Fatalism, the first philosophical school of fatalism, I honestly was shocked that a simple dictionary was being used to define "fatalism" and then compare that to Calvinism, a caricature of it at that! Yes, we believe that God is wholy and totaly sovereign and that nothing happens apart from His divine will and purpose which was eternally decreed, but does this mean that Calvinist believe we go through the world accepting all things as they are without care or attempt to change? Hardly!!! Calvinist have always maintained a balance between God's Divine Sovereignty and man's responsibility (not free will!). Though the line is hard to find, and some, who are Hyper-Calvinist have leaned more toward the former, Reformed Calvinism has always maintained the balance. Its funny to hear that Calvinist would be fatalist, which implies that we accept all that happens without question as "divine will "or "fate", on a rather impersonal level at that. Christians who have believed in the sovereignty of God have been very instrumental in Christian history. John Wycliffe, who gave us the english Bible; Martin Luther, who began the Reformation and actually wrote more about predestination and "free will" than Calvin did; John Calvin, obviously; Jonathan Edwards, who started the Great Awakening; George Whitefield, who maintained the Great Awakening; Charles Spurgeon, the prince of preachers; the Puritan divines; who left an example of holiness and utter devotion to God to us; James P. Boyce, founder of a prestigious Baptist seminary; etc...did these men sit by and accept their world in sin? No....we never would have had a Reformation and re-discovery of the Gospel if Luther, Calvin, Zwingly and other had simply said, "well all this was meant to happen, so we should just sit back and let Rome do her thing."Personally, I found the whole fatalism talk really not worth responding to but still felt that some thing had to be said in order to correct the understanding of what fatalism is and how it could not be Calvinism. The "theology" - for those fatalist who believe in a god of some sort - is certainly not a personal, loving, holy and just God who is immanent in his creation.
Ah....then there was the appeals to the "authorities" in Theological dictionaries and Greek word studies. I respect Kitte's theological dictionary...but that does not mean it is infallible. In fact, I have found that sometimes men insert their own theological views into these dictionaries and such. For instance, in Vine's Expository Dictionary, if you look up the word for "ginosko" - which means "to know" (intimately, or personally) you will find just that. However, when the prefix "pro" is added to it, which means "before hand" , hence "proginoskos" (to foreknow), and "prognosis" (foreknowledge) - the meaning is changed so that it "involves his electing grace, but this does not preclude the human will." That little phrase is what is called a "theological agenda" and is an insertion of bias to the "expository dictionary". Is Kittel's doing the same thing? It would appear so. In my response back on Romans 9, I show from the SCripture that personal and individual salvation is in view in Romans 9:1-13, especially, which carries on to verse 24. Yes, Israel was "elected" to a position and historical task as Kittel asserts, indeed the list in verses 4-5 was to be theirs....but was it? Paul's point in Romans 9-11 is that not all obtained it personally and individually, because not all were personally and individually truly of the covenant of grace. Rather, it was only those whom God freely chose, even as He chose Isaac, and not Ishmael; as He chose Jacob and not Esau, the one with legal right to the blessing; Even as he chose Abraham and not some other person.God freely and sovereignly and unconditionally choose whom He would bless. Nobody has ever earned a blessing from God nor His salvation. Indeed, we are so corrupted in sin, that we don't desire it or want it. No sinner wants to repent of his sins for he loves them. That was the point in the Total Depravity debate: sinners hate God and can do nothing, nor want to have anything to do with God. Thus, the doctrine of Unconditional Election. That though were were sinners, God chose to save us who deserved nothing but wrath, who were wholly dead in trespasses and sins, being children of wrath by nature (see Eph. 2:1-3).
Well a lot has certainly been said. Take note, that there is plenty on the response back to Nick and that I plan to continue my response to his rebuttal, especially the assertions from John 6 in the next rebuttal that I have.
Hope you are enjoying the debates, as I know that I am. Keep me in your prayers, whoever comes across this as well as Nick Norelli. God bless
Moses
Logic. I love logic. I was actually very intrigued by logic when I took my first intro course in college. I loved logic so much that I actually read books about logic on my own time. Why do I say this? Because Mr. Norelli has opened up his rebuttal with a logical blunder. The opening paragraph asserts that "one must commit the fallacy of equivocation to assert that these two words (election and predestination) mean the same thing." Well, while I certainly don't believe the words mean the same thing Scripturally, it is certainly not the fallacy of "equivocation". Techincally speaking, "equivocation" is a fallacy of ambiguity and is committed when one and the same word is used in two different senses in an argument. For instance, the word "bank" can have reference to an edge of a river, or an institution that holds money, or even a shot in pool. Another example of an equivocal word could be the word "world". In Scripture, the word "world" is given at least 12 different meanings. To show two, we could see in John 3:16 that there is a "world" that God so loves that He redemptively gives His Son for them, yet the same author uses the same word in I John 5:19 to say that the "whole world" lies under the power of Satan. Obviously, the author is not using the word in the same sense for then we would have an explicity contradiction in Scripture.
Now when I read this in the beginning, I wasn't sure what to expect from the rest of the response since it was obviously not off to a good start. But lets see what it brought.
Nick reiterates that I offered some definitions from some Calvinistic creeds and then asserts that I misrepresented the Arminian position. He offers a defintion of Arminian Election from the Remonstrants . In the definition, it is clear that God actually elected no one who does not, of their own free-will believe and persevere to the end (my paraphrase). What's funny is that Nick says that the "language employed here is strikingly similar to that used by the Calvinist." Hardly the case at all. No Calvinist creed would leave open the possibility that God has not elected a particular group of people unto salvation which He sovereignly brings about. The difference between classical Arminianism, Evangelical-Arminianism and Calvinism is still that God does not leave election up to the creatures will to believe or persevere, even if it is aided by grace. If man's will is only "helped" by grace, then man's will still has a part in effecting the salvation of man. If this is so, then it only follows that man has a share in the glory of salvation for apart from the will of man - which according to Arminians, God could not override or influence effectively - God could not save man.
This is the contention against Arminianism in whatever form it comes in. Is salvation the work of God alone, even as Jonah said, "salvation is of the Lord" OR is salvation the joint effort of God and man, God providing the way of salvation, man providing the will to be saved and believe and keep himself in faith till the end. How the language of Arminianism is "strikingly similar" is really beyond me. No Arminian would agree with language that explicitly says that God has elected some to salvation irrespective of their performance in time. The sole basis for election is the will of God moved by His love, mercy and grace.
Moving along, it is asserted that "salvation is conditional" and that this is "as clear and can be from even the most casual reading of scripture. There is no question that we are told to repent...believe...and confess, all in order to be saved." Well several things to say here. First, I wonder how much Nick is aware of what is theologically called the "ordo salutis" or the "order of salvation." What this is a is a theological "order" so to say, of all that comprise what salvation is. In other words, salvation is a broad term that begins with election and predestination, includes calling, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, conversion and culminates with glorification. Salvation includes all these things but we must make the distinction between the whole (salvation) and the parts (the "ordo salutis"). I tried to bring this out in my presentation of Romans 8:29-30 a bit by mentioning how the one and the same group that is predestined is the same group that is called. These that are called are the same group that is justified and the same group that will ultimately be glorified. None are added to the group and none are taken away. Only those that were predestined are the ones who will be glorified.
Now, that being said, Mr. Norelli is actually asserting that those things that bring about JUSTIFICATION are the same things that bring about salvation. In other words, the things that bring about the act of Justification are what comprises salvation, hence the equation of justification with salvation. The fallacy here is the part to whole fallacy. That is, what is true of the part is not necessarily true to the whole. Salvation is something that has its roots in eternity past, not when we have faith and repent. Salvation is something that has always been in the mind of God. It was always His eternal intention to save us from sin. The fall of Adam did not catch God offguard, so to say so that He had to come up with a plan of how to fix His creation. God had always intended Christ to be the atonement for our sins. Hence, in Revelation 13:8 Christ is called the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." How doesn one have faith when one did not exist? How does one repent of sins that have not yet been committed, nor has the creation even been created so that it could fall? The impossibility is obvious.
It should be noted that this fallacy is the same that exists in the Roman CAtholic doctrine of justification. They confuse all of salvation with justification, especially sanctification. Hence, the possibility of losing one's righteous standing before God, or losing their salvation to use the umbrella term.
The Fatalism comments were interesting. I have several things posted on my reply about those that are well worth reading. It was actually funny seeing Nick go there though. To be honest, at some points in the debate, I feel that Nick is stepping onto grounds that he is not very familiar with and tries to use those points for Him. In the Total depravity debate, it was the Pelagian stuff and trying to say that He does not agree with Pelagius. While nobody wants to agree with Pelagius, because he was a condemned heretic, it is hard to say you don't when you make assertions that are absolutely parallel to the very words of Pelagius and his arguments against Augustine in the whole contoversy. I felt the same way when Nick tried to go with the Fatalism arguement.I should have majored in philosophy in college because I enjoyed it so much. Instead, I only minored in it. But I had enough classes to know that Fatalism is far from Calvinism. Without getting into the whole "Monistic materialism" that is common in Stoic Fatalism, the first philosophical school of fatalism, I honestly was shocked that a simple dictionary was being used to define "fatalism" and then compare that to Calvinism, a caricature of it at that! Yes, we believe that God is wholy and totaly sovereign and that nothing happens apart from His divine will and purpose which was eternally decreed, but does this mean that Calvinist believe we go through the world accepting all things as they are without care or attempt to change? Hardly!!! Calvinist have always maintained a balance between God's Divine Sovereignty and man's responsibility (not free will!). Though the line is hard to find, and some, who are Hyper-Calvinist have leaned more toward the former, Reformed Calvinism has always maintained the balance. Its funny to hear that Calvinist would be fatalist, which implies that we accept all that happens without question as "divine will "or "fate", on a rather impersonal level at that. Christians who have believed in the sovereignty of God have been very instrumental in Christian history. John Wycliffe, who gave us the english Bible; Martin Luther, who began the Reformation and actually wrote more about predestination and "free will" than Calvin did; John Calvin, obviously; Jonathan Edwards, who started the Great Awakening; George Whitefield, who maintained the Great Awakening; Charles Spurgeon, the prince of preachers; the Puritan divines; who left an example of holiness and utter devotion to God to us; James P. Boyce, founder of a prestigious Baptist seminary; etc...did these men sit by and accept their world in sin? No....we never would have had a Reformation and re-discovery of the Gospel if Luther, Calvin, Zwingly and other had simply said, "well all this was meant to happen, so we should just sit back and let Rome do her thing."Personally, I found the whole fatalism talk really not worth responding to but still felt that some thing had to be said in order to correct the understanding of what fatalism is and how it could not be Calvinism. The "theology" - for those fatalist who believe in a god of some sort - is certainly not a personal, loving, holy and just God who is immanent in his creation.
Ah....then there was the appeals to the "authorities" in Theological dictionaries and Greek word studies. I respect Kitte's theological dictionary...but that does not mean it is infallible. In fact, I have found that sometimes men insert their own theological views into these dictionaries and such. For instance, in Vine's Expository Dictionary, if you look up the word for "ginosko" - which means "to know" (intimately, or personally) you will find just that. However, when the prefix "pro" is added to it, which means "before hand" , hence "proginoskos" (to foreknow), and "prognosis" (foreknowledge) - the meaning is changed so that it "involves his electing grace, but this does not preclude the human will." That little phrase is what is called a "theological agenda" and is an insertion of bias to the "expository dictionary". Is Kittel's doing the same thing? It would appear so. In my response back on Romans 9, I show from the SCripture that personal and individual salvation is in view in Romans 9:1-13, especially, which carries on to verse 24. Yes, Israel was "elected" to a position and historical task as Kittel asserts, indeed the list in verses 4-5 was to be theirs....but was it? Paul's point in Romans 9-11 is that not all obtained it personally and individually, because not all were personally and individually truly of the covenant of grace. Rather, it was only those whom God freely chose, even as He chose Isaac, and not Ishmael; as He chose Jacob and not Esau, the one with legal right to the blessing; Even as he chose Abraham and not some other person.God freely and sovereignly and unconditionally choose whom He would bless. Nobody has ever earned a blessing from God nor His salvation. Indeed, we are so corrupted in sin, that we don't desire it or want it. No sinner wants to repent of his sins for he loves them. That was the point in the Total Depravity debate: sinners hate God and can do nothing, nor want to have anything to do with God. Thus, the doctrine of Unconditional Election. That though were were sinners, God chose to save us who deserved nothing but wrath, who were wholly dead in trespasses and sins, being children of wrath by nature (see Eph. 2:1-3).
Well a lot has certainly been said. Take note, that there is plenty on the response back to Nick and that I plan to continue my response to his rebuttal, especially the assertions from John 6 in the next rebuttal that I have.
Hope you are enjoying the debates, as I know that I am. Keep me in your prayers, whoever comes across this as well as Nick Norelli. God bless
Moses
posted by prchdaword at 3:37 PM
0 comments
