Pugilism contra Calvini Derisores

Theology
1

Audio: Calvinism’s Confusion – Part 2
Audio Index | XFacebookCopy LinkShare | Site Index
Taught by Justin Johnson on Sunday, November 25th, 2018.

Download MP3 | Download Outline
Description:
The Bible speaks about predestination, election, grace, and salvation. However, Calvinism brings confusion to the terms of salvation and when salvation is delivered. In this second lesson, we focus on the problems caused by Calvinism’s doctrine of perseverance. Once again, see our most recent seminar’s lessons applied in this lesson titled, “Calvinism’s Confusion.”

Topical Index Page

Related posts:

  • Calvinism’s Confusion – Part 3
  • Calvinism’s Confusion
  • Repentance Confusion
  • The Author of Confusion
  • Prayer Confusion
  • Quench Not the Spirit

Calvinism’s Confusion – Part 2.

Brother @KPuff can you help me here? Is Justin rightly cutting straight the Scriptures?

Johann.

2

Thanx @Johann for the vote of confidence, but I don’t think I’m your best choice for this task. This kind of skilled work is not really in my wheelhouse.

KP

3

Thanks @KPuff. Appreciate you taking the time to respond. I’m genuinely taken aback that you would characterize this as “skilled work.” It would seem that our respective wheelhouses are quite different.

1 Peter 3:15
“…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you…”

Colossians 4:6
“Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.”

Proverbs 15:28
“The heart of the righteous studieth how to answer…”

Proverbs 18:13
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

Proverbs 22:17–21
This passage speaks of receiving wisdom and knowing “the words of truth,” so that you may “answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee.”

2 Timothy 2:15
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Titus 1:9
Holding fast “the faithful word” so that one may “by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”

Jude 3
“…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

No need to respond.

J.

4

I agree with you Johann. Your wheelhouse is quite different from KPuffs.

Calvinism’s most confusing tenet is - “God ordains every instance of evil.”

Seems unlikely.

5

One of the most difficult aspects of Calvinism, at least as articulated in the Westminster tradition, is its assertion that God sovereignly ordains whatsoever comes to pass, including ‘the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men,’ while simultaneously maintaining that God is not the author of sin. The interesting question is not whether Calvinists affirm this distinction, but whether Scripture itself establishes it in the precise form in which the system states it.

So when you say, “Calvinism teaches that God ordains every instance of evil,” I can legitimately respond with… “Yes, but we distinguish God’s ordination of an event from God’s being the sinful author of the event.”

Even your own set of propositions and theological conclusions ultimately falls within some broader theological framework, whether Reformed, Arminian, dispensational, or otherwise. But beneath all of those systems stands the immutable foundation of YHWH. As Paul says, “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Timothy 2:19). Scripture reduces the matter to a fundamental distinction, there are those who are in Christ and those who are outside of Christ. The theological systems we construct around that reality must never become more authoritative than the Scripture itself.

And without the ἀρραβών (arrabōn), the guarantee or pledge of the Spirit, I think we enter dangerous territory when we begin speaking confidently about who belongs to Christ. Paul says we “were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest [ἀρραβών] of our inheritance” (Ephesians 1:13–14). That is why Matthew 25:1–13, particularly the distinction between the wise and foolish virgins, immediately comes to mind. There were ten who appeared to belong to the wedding party, but only five possessed what was necessary when the bridegroom came.

Profession and appearance are not necessarily the same thing as actually belonging to Him.

J.

6

?McGill? Is that you. Great to hear… uh, read your voice.
Welcome back.

KP

1 Like
7

You say it’s dangerous territory to confidently speak about who belongs to Christ, which is also confusing. Whoever God has picked, He causes to believe, and He causes to belong to Christ, according to your creed.

Aren’t you confident about that?

The foolish virgins, in like manner, were ordained by God to be foolish also, right? So they just go on to Hell, exactly as God planned. Your confidence should come easy, wouldn’t you agree?

8

First, welcome back. Happy to see you. Second, this is what I have been trying to get across to @Johann “The foolish virgins, in like manner, were ordained by God to be foolish also, right? So they just go on to Hell, exactly as God planned.”

I used a bus. On the bus were John, Paul, Peter, and Sue. God determines that John and Peter are saved, and gives them grace and salvation regardless of what they do or how they feel about it. The flip side of this same coin is that Paul and Sue are already condemned to hell, regardless of what they do and how they feel about it. To me, this would make for a lying and unjust god.

Now, does He give us grace so we have the ability to choose? Yes.

Peter

1 Like
9

I have heard, and believe it to be true, that God’s grace can be described as the power and the desire to believe the truth. God’s offer of grace is to all people. This is God’s will, that each person have the opportunity to choose to believe Him.

And it’s not an easy choice. It’s a continuing challenge. Because there are other realities that God decreed as well.

He decreed that our spirit and mind would be tethered to a physical body that has its own interests. He also decreed that we would each be driven by a profound desire to elevate ourselves.

Free will should be properly understood as being epistemic in nature. We are free to BELIEVE whatever we choose. God’s decree is that we act on our beliefs. Our actions thereby reflect our beliefs.

Of course the map of our beliefs is sometimes a morass of contradictions. A pastor engaged in an adulterous affair believes in Jesus, but he also believes he is saved, and that’s all that really matters for himself, and he desperately needs to feel loved by a woman, land he feels uplifted by the loving attention he receives, even though he knows it’s wrong.

Or maybe a really smart guy who deeply loves Jesus, still highly esteems scholars and scholarship. So he sets about to prove his worth by elevating himself by comparing himself to others not so gifted. Not so insightful. He elevates himself in his own mind by putting others down. And then claims God’s blessing.

We live through a challenge of God’s creation. God offers His grace (the power and desire to believe Him) without end. For salvation (the threshold), and for Godly living (the race).

We should outdo each other with humility and love, being imitators of Christ. Freely choose to believe that it’s best, knowing that it will be God who elevates us.

We know it isn’t easy. Jesus knows it isn’t easy. None of us has sweat drops of blood, dreading the present ordeal, as Christ did, praying to God for a different path. But God saw His coming elevation, as Jesus surrendered His will to the Father.

God’s grace guides us to trust Him, and to each run our race well. He is glorified when we freely choose to respond to His grace by believing the truth. And He will elevate us for each of our victories according to His gracious plan. Victory over our flesh, victory over Satan, and victory over every form of evil selfishness.

Philippians 2

1 Like
10

Bro Pater15

It is so nice to have you back in the proverbial boxing ring. I’m personally working a little rope-a-dope in here lately, so I’m mostly practicing duck-and-cover, shielding one cheek to dutifully expose the second, and choosing to only jab-the-air, and that ever-so-lightly, as my trainer insists. I’m no prize fighter, that’s for sure! I am pretty sure even using this boxing metaphor is going to be received as irritating “trash-talk, and for that I’m sorry. I’m definitely not trying to be offensive.

I have been thinking, between the bells, as my trainer squirts ice-cold water down my bleeding brow; I’ve been asking myself something every fighter should never ask – “Why are we contending?”
What is the hoped-for outcome of this, or any bout?

I personally don’t subscribe to, nor often use the polarizing titles “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” to describe The Body of Jesus, but one of the most logically confusing things to me has always been “why would the professing Calvinist ever argue at all?”

Waiting on the bell
KP

1 Like
11

Polemics – defined by Merriam-Webster as, alternatively, “ an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another,” or, “the art or practice of disputation or controversy . . .” – is sometimes required in theology. There have been, since the Garden, theological opinions that deserve strong rebuke. When required, we should not shy away from that particular task, however reticent we may be to engage in it.

But there are plenty of examples today of self-styled theologians – many of whom you can find practicing their “craft” on Twitter threads or long Facebook comments or various corners of the blogosphere – who engage in nothing but refutation. For them, the theological task is nothing more or less than telling others why they are clearly and dangerously wrong. Theology is take down. To say it a bit more charitably, there are those who remember their task to “guard sound doctrine” but forget the more constructive instruction to “pass on to faithful men what you have learned also.”

This kind of theological engagement suffers in at least two ways. First, it produces theologies that are completely reactionary to whatever is happening in our current cultural moment. Rather than theology being a pillar and buttress of truth, it becomes shifting sand – ironically, sand that shifts in exactly the same direction that the supposedly dangerous culture does, even if it comes to different conclusions than that culture. Theology in Scripture is firm, sound, a trustworthy deposit. Exclusively polemical theology is, on the other hand, tossed about by the winds, even while it intends to straighten everyone else’s sails. It sniffs around for silly myths rather than avoiding them.

The other way that this theology-as-polemics suffers is by producing pugilists rather than peaceable ministers of sound doctrine. In 1 Tim. 3:3, Paul gives instructions regarding the qualification for an overseer (elder, pastor, bishop…). The penultimate characteristic listed in the first group (vv. 2-3) is “not quarrelsome.” In the KJV, it’s translated as “not a brawler.” Whether or not this particular qualification has physical confrontation or an intellectual disposition in mind (and, given the mention of “violence” in the immediately previous characteristic, one could choose either option, I think), the latter plausibly can be considered under it in terms of general application. A minister of the gospel should not be one disposed to quarreling, physically or intellectually. But theology-as-polemics produces bulldogs, not shepherds. It produces pugilism, not discernment. It produces violence, not love. And this pugilistic attitude leads, in turn, to viewing one’s interlocutor as an argument to be destroyed rather than a neighbor (and, often, a Christian sister or brother) to be loved.

J.2026-08-19T22:00:00Z

1 Like
12

Nice work Johann. We should all and each certainly take stock of our own motivations.

I have question for you. In the reading of Philippians 2, how would you explain the meaning of verse 17 - “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.”?

My Greek is limited to “neh” and “oxi”, even though I lived in Athens for 30 months.

What does Paul mean when he says he is poured out as a drink offering on the sacrifice and service of their faith?

And please forgive my apparent redirection of the thread.

13

Back to the subject at hand, on the Felix Culpa, Calvinism would view the felix culpa (the “fortunate fall”) through a lens of God’s absolute sovereignty.

How then does God avoid culpability for the original sin? (and every sin since?)

14

OK, I’m busy eating my supper.

When I first joined this forum, I would have happily put on my six-ounce gloves and stepped into the ring with you. These days, not so much. I find myself seeking peace rather than another theological boxing match.

Calvinists are often accused of failing to read the context, are they not? Well, quite rightly in this instance, because you seem to have overlooked the context of this particular thread. It was supposed to be a discussion between KP and me, not between you and me.

So, with all due respect, I think I’ll step back from this particular exchange. There is no shortage of opportunities elsewhere for theological sparring, but at this stage I would much rather pursue peace than put the gloves back on.

“Now will I exhort thee (whosoever thou be that readest scripture) if thou find ought therein that thou understandest not**, or that appeareth to be repugnant, give no temeritous nor hasty judgment thereof: but ascribe it to thine own ignorance, not to the scripture, think that thou understandest it not, or that it hath some other meaning, or that it is happly overseen of the interpreters, or wrongly printed.** Again, it shall greatly help thee to understand scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and unto whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstance, considering what goeth before, and what followeth after. For there be some things which are done and written, to the intent that we should do likewise: as when Abraham believeth God, is obedient unto his word, and defendeth Lot his kinsman from violent wrong. There be some things also which are written, to the intent that we should eschew such like. As when David lieth with Urias’ wife, and causeth him to be slain. Therefore (I say) when thou readest scripture, be wise and circumspect: and when thou commest to such strange manners of speaking and dark sentences, to such parables and similitudes, to such dreams or visions as are hid from thy understanding, commit them unto God or to the gift of his holy spirit in them that are better learned than thou.”[11]

J.

15

Calvinists are often accused of not reading context.

Php 2:12 Therefore Ὥστε, my μου, beloved, ἀγαπητοί just as καθὼς always πάντοτε you have obeyed, ὑπηκούσατε, not μὴ only μόνον as ὡς in ἐν my μου - τῇ presence, παρουσίᾳ but ἀλλὰ now νῦν much πολλῷ more μᾶλλον in ἐν my μου, - τῇ absence, ἀπουσίᾳ work out κατεργάζεσθε· your own ἑαυτῶν - τὴν salvation σωτηρίαν with μετὰ fear φόβου and καὶ trembling. τρόμου
Php 2:13 For γάρ God Θεὸς is ἐστιν the [One] ὁ working ἐνεργῶν in ἐν you ὑμῖν both καὶ - τὸ to will θέλειν and καὶ - τὸ to work ἐνεργεῖν according to ὑπὲρ [His] τῆς good pleasure. εὐδοκίας. [Often overlooked…]
Php 2:14 Do ποιεῖτε all things Πάντα without χωρὶς murmurings γογγυσμῶν and καὶ disputings, διαλογισμῶν,
Php 2:15 so that ἵνα you may be γένησθε blameless ἄμεμπτοι and καὶ innocent, ἀκέραιοι, children τέκνα of God Θεοῦ unblemished ἄμωμα in [the] midst μέσον of a crooked σκολιᾶς and καὶ perverted διεστραμμένης, generation, γενεᾶς among ἐν whom οἷς you shine φαίνεσθε as ὡς lights φωστῆρες in ἐν [the] world, κόσμῳ,
Php 2:16 holding forth ἐπέχοντες, [the] word λόγον of life ζωῆς unto εἰς a boast καύχημα to me ἐμοὶ in εἰς [the] day ἡμέραν of Christ Χριστοῦ, that ὅτι vvv οὐκ I did not run ἔδραμον in εἰς vain κενὸν nor οὐδὲ toil ἐκοπίασα. in εἰς vain. κενὸν
Php 2:17 But Ἀλλὰ even καὶ if εἰ I am being poured out as a drink offering σπένδομαι on ἐπὶ the τῇ sacrifice θυσίᾳ and καὶ service λειτουργίᾳ of τῆς your ὑμῶν, faith, πίστεως I am glad χαίρω and καὶ rejoice with συνχαίρω you ὑμῖν· all. πᾶσιν
Php 2:18 And δὲ - τὸ likewise αὐτὸ you ὑμεῖς also καὶ be glad χαίρετε and καὶ rejoice with συνχαίρετέ me. μοι.

It shall greatly help ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark
not only what is spoken or written,
but of whom,
and to whom,
with what words,
at what time,
where,
to what intent,
with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before
and what followeth after.

Written by whom?

Let us take up the obligation of searching the Scriptures, often mentioned as the first task of the Bible student as that of “observation.”

“Peering into the mists of gray
That shroud the surface of the bay,
Nothing I see except a veil
Of fog surrounding every sail.
Then suddenly against a cape
A vast and silent form takes shape,
A great ship lies against the shore
Where nothing has appeared before.

He who sees a truth must often gaze
Into a fog for many days;
It may seem very sure to him
Nothing is there but mist-clouds dim.
Then, suddenly, his eyes will see
A shape where nothing used to be.
Discoveries are missed each day
By men who turn too soon away.”[10]

Golden Rule
of
Interpretation

When the plain sense of Scripture
makes common sense, seek no
other sense; therefore, take every
word at its primary, ordinary, usual,
literal meaning unless the facts of
the immediate context, studied in
the light of related passages and
axiomatic and fundamental truths,
indicate clearly otherwise."[12]

J.

16

The context that I noticed is that you seemed to be spoiling for a fight from the onset, and then chided KPuff when he deferred. Maybe that’s not what your intent was, but that’s what it looked like. Also, this is a forum. If you wanted a private conversation, it has a messaging feature that affords that opportunity.

Nevertheless, in any case, it’s a critical point to make sense of, because it affects multiple aspects of our Christian walk, and our understanding of God.

It’s the “hard” problem. Any light you can shed on it would be appreciated.

17

Just told you, in no uncertain terms, that my days of “spoiling for a fight” are over. Is there something about that you still do not understand? You seem perpetually ready to pick a fight with John Calvin, the Reformers, or Martin Luther, but you have your own Bible, do you not? Why not let the Scriptures settle the matter rather than continually sparring with the Reformers?

And there are different kinds of questions, are there not? There are questions asked in a genuine desire to examine and test something, the δοκιμάζω kind, and there are questions asked to test, tempt, or entrap, the πειράζω kind. Our Lord Jesus Christ certainly did not answer every question put to Him in the manner the questioner expected. In fact, He often answered the heart behind the question rather than merely the question itself.

Yes?

J.

18

Yes, here is something about that that I still don’t understand. I still don’t understand why you say your fighting days are over, immediately followed by fighting words. Can you explain that?

I do agree with some of what you posted, of course. Your “Golden rule of interpretation” is a good starting place. The conversation gets pointed when attempting to merge particular specific passages into the axioms and fundamentals.

The scriptures say plainly and without equivocation that “God is love.” It therefore seems abhorrent for me to believe that God would create a sentient eternal being for the specific determined future of eternal conscious torment. The axiom and fundamental of God being the paradigm of love would seem to argue against that being the real answer.

I have a question that may seem unrelated, but let me ask, why do you think God put the tree of life in the Garden of Eden?

19

Cheers, mate. This is going nowhere because we are back to circular reasoning. You are taking the statement “God is love” and making it the controlling axiom, while effectively looking past the rest of what Scripture reveals about God’s character. Scripture does not present love as God’s only attribute, nor does it permit us to define His love in isolation from His holiness, righteousness, justice, goodness, mercy, grace, truth, faithfulness, wisdom, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, sovereignty, patience, wrath, and jealousy.

God is love, but God is also holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous (Psalm 11:7), just (Deuteronomy 32:4), good (Psalm 34:8), merciful (Psalm 103:8), gracious (Exodus 34:6), truthful (Deuteronomy 32:4; Titus 1:2), faithful (Deuteronomy 7:9), wise (Romans 16:27), all-knowing (Psalm 139:1–6), all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), unchanging (Malachi 3:6), sovereign (Psalm 115:3), patient (2 Peter 3:9), and a consuming fire in His holy judgment (Hebrews 12:29).

So the question cannot simply be, “How can a God of love judge?” The biblical question is, “How does everything Scripture tells us about God fit together?” We do not get to elevate one attribute above the others and then use our definition of that attribute to place the rest of Scripture in the dock.

What didn’t Paul do in this sermon?

He could not assume a knowledge of Scripture, so he did not approach them by directly citing the authors of the Old Testament as he would Biblically literate Jews and God-fearing Gentiles when he went to the synagogue. He did not just quote Bible verses to them. However, he did confront them with the teachings of multiple passages from the Old Testament Scriptures masterfully weaving them into his defense of the faith. There are multiple clear allusions drawn directly from the Scriptures of the Old Testament. These include between 1-2 dozen teachings from every portion of the Scriptures: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, e.g., Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

"Let us thank God daily for giving us the Scriptures. The poorest Englishman who understands his Bible, knows more about religion than the wisest philosophers of Greece and Rome.

Let us remember our deep responsibility. We shall all be judged at the last day according to our light. To whomsoever much is given, of them much will be required.

Let us read our Bibles reverently and diligently, with an honest determination to believe and practise all we find in them. It is no light matter how we use this book. Eternal life or death depends on the spirit in which it is used.

Above all let us humbly pray for the teaching of the Holy Spirit. He alone can apply truth to our hearts, and make us profit by what we read." - J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on Matthew

J.

20

Good answer - I agree. But you answered the wrong question.

I understand God judging evil. The question was - why would a God of love create a sentient person for the determined purpose of eternal conscious torment?

Being “determined” means that the creature has no choice, and never had a choice with regard to their fate.

Unless I am misunderstanding, this is a core belief of Calvinism.

About the tree of life in the garden, what if it’s true that Adam and Eve could have actually believed what God told them? It isn’t much of a leap to think that that could have happened.

In the case that Adam and Eve believed God, they would not have disobeyed God. We always do what we believe is best for us at the moment.

Their moment of temptation verified their genuine freedom, enabling love relationship, whether they resisted, or succumbed.

And suppose that God had the tree of life (which enabled them to live forever) handy in the garden in the case that they successfully resisted temptation by the virtue of their belief in God? If they successfully rely on their belief in God, perhaps then God would invite them to eat from the tree of life, which they apparently had not done. And live forever.

Since we know that believing in Jesus is the way of salvation, we know that there is nothing more important in the life of a human being than what we choose to believe. It seems that this was true of Adam and Eve as well.

You may have a different view on why the tree of life was in the garden.