Turretin contra the Amyraldian offer of the Gospel

LII. Although by the preaching of the gospel, God offers Christ to the called with his benefits, it does not follow that he must have died for them in order that the offer may not be insincere. He is not offered absolutely and simply, but under the condition of faith and repentance; not as a narrated truth which, whether believed or not, always remains true, but as a promised truth which is ascertained to be true only when its condition is complied with (as Cameron declared). From this it follows that there is an indissoluble connection between faith and salvation and that all are bound to faith who wish to enjoy Christ and his benefits, and who are called to Christ; but that God, by his eternal and immutable decree, has destined Christ to be the Savior of all who are called or that he intended that Christ by his death should acquire eternal salvation for each and every man, can in no way be inferred from this call. … [Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2.14.XIV.52]

Turretin: God does not will to save those He will not save

XIX. Third, if God has a universal will to save all, it is either absolute or conditional. If absolute, all will actually be saved; if conditional, he wills either to effect the condition necessary to salvation in men or only to exact it. If only to exact it, he does not will and intend the salvation of such by exacting from them an act which he knew to be impossible to man. Again, that condition will certainly be about to come to pass or certainly not about to come to pass. If the former, each and every man will certainly be saved; if the latter, God would be made to will vehemently that which he nevertheless well knew would never take place (as depending upon a condition such that it never would come to pass in this respect because he himself, who alone can, does not will to effect it). Now if it does not belong to a wise man to will anything under a condition which he knows to be impossible, how much less can this be attributed to the most wise God? [Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.4.XVII.19]

Turretin concerning the Free Offer

XII. … Thus the promises added to the precepts signify only what God will grant to believers and penitents, not what he wills to grant to all those to whom the precept is proposed. [3.XV.12]

XVIII. There cannot be contrariety between those two wills because they do not will and nill [sic] the same thing in the same manner and respect. … [3.XV.18]

XXIV. If God by this will had signified that he willed the salvation of all without exception, he would have signified that he willed what he least willed (since by passing over the greater part, he has not willed to give them salvation). But when he signifies that he wills the salvation of all believers and penitents, it signifies that he wills that which he really wills and nothing is more true, nothing more sincere than such a declaration. [3.XV.24]

XII. This twofold will [of an antecedent and consequent will as per Amyraut -DHC] cannot be proved from Mt. 23:27, ... Therefore, Jerusalem is here to be distinguished from her sons as the words themselves prove. ... [3.XVI.12]

XVIII. When God testified that "he has no pleasure at all in the death of the sinner, but that he should return from his ways, and live" (Ezek. 18:23), this does not favor the inefficacious will or the feeble velleity of God because the word chpts (which occurs here) does not denote desire so much as delight and complacency. ... [3.XVI.18]

- Francis Turretin, Institute of Elentic Theology

It seems Francis Turretin did not hold to the well-meant offer as taught by John Murray and the Neo-Amyraldians.

The "Two Wills of God": Common Grace

---

Common Grace

What exactly is "common grace"? That is a question that is more confusing than the answers, for it seems that everyone has their own definition of what "common grace" is. McMahon puts forward a definition of "common grace" that is probably embraced by many. According to him, and summarizing Louis Berkhof's idea of "General Common Grace, [Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 435. In Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996)] "common grace" refers to "good gifts to the wicked" from the Holy Spirit to all men indiscriminately (pp. 112-3). McMahon did not mention this, but Berkhof did make it clear that the phrase itself (at least its initial iteration) is a late development from Abraham Kuyper and Kuyperians like Herman Bavinck.[Berkhof, 434] McMahon also gave another definition of "common grace" later in his work, which is probably held by some Neo-Kuyperians and is more heterodox, that "common grace" leads or even prepares men for special grace unto salvation (p. 460). This "natural light" definition of "common grace" is so obviously contrary to Scripture we can discount it altogether and deal with the more general version stated above.

McMahon rejects "common grace" while affirming God's indiscriminate providence to all. In other words, McMahon affirms the substance of God's goodness while denying this goodness the appellative "grace." McMahon's main point here is to state that grace is not in things but grace is always "being in Christ" (p. 128). If grace is always grace "in Christ," then certainly it would sound strange to state that the reprobate who are outside of Christ can partake of this grace. Thus, McMahon makes his case that God's indiscriminate providence does provide good to men but it is not grace.

What are we to say in response? To be sure, if grace is only found in Christ, then of course there is no such thing as "common grace." And we would certainly agree with the content of the goodness God has given to all men including His restraint of sin. But what exactly is grace? Of course we affirm the notion of saving grace, but can we say there is a grace that is not salvific?

Here, I think a look at the Noahic Covenant is in order. Under this covenant (Gen. 9:1-17), we see no promise of salvation from sin but merely the preservation of the creation order. [This is different from the covenant of Genesis 6:18-21 which is a salvation covenant from the Flood]. As it is in the context of a covenant, grace is certainly involved. While it can be argued that there is a salvific event that happened just prior to the making of this covenant, still the covenant parties include all living creatures (Gen. 9:12) and thus animals, which are not saved. Therefore, it seems that limiting "grace" to only being in Christ is too restrictive.

The phrase "common grace" therefore I think is a valid phrase and describes a valid doctrine, only insofar as it is limited to the blessings of the Noahic Covenant. That said, since the Noahic Covenant has regard to earthly realities only and is thus penultimate, the end result is the same as McMahon's case in denying any idea that God has any salvific intent or desire of any kind towards the reprobate.

The "Two Wills of God": Free Offer of the Gospel

---

Free and/or well-meant offer of the Gospel

McMahon sees correctly that holding to an idea that God sincerely desires and wills something (the repentance of the reprobate) which "he has not been pleased to decree"[John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, The Free Offer (Phillipsburg N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), 26] is to put forward two contradictory propositions (pp. 31-4). The offer of the Gospel is "sincere" or "well-meant" because God is not lying when He issues the proclamation or invitation for sinners to come and believe in Christ (p. 306, 311, 317) . But it says nothing about what God intends or desires, contrary to what neo-Amyraldians think. Accordingly, the OPC Minority Report on the Free Offer for the 15th General Assembly of 1948 repudiates the irrational nonsense of the "Free Offer" as articulated by John Murray and Ned Stonehouse (The Majority Report).["The Free Offer of the Gospel," Report for the 15th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Accessed at http://www.opc.org/GA/free_offer.html (Aug 16, 2016)] There is a genuine offer of the Gospel, but this offer is a presentation of the Gospel to all, and predicates nothing whatsoever of what God intends of desires. As McMahon states, "The Puritans and reformers used “offerre” in the sense that the Gospel was a proclamation, or invitation to come and believe on Christ, the Savior." (p. 306)

McMahon attacks the revisionist idea of the "Free Offer." But should we or should we not use that particular term "free offer"? Or how about the term "well-meant offer"? Since these terms do not have fixed definitions, it is not possible to say whether these terms should or shouldn't be used. It seems that, depending on what one means by the phrases, one could or could not hold to the "free offer" or the "well-meant offer." Nevertheless, it seems best that based upon the makeup of words in the phrases, the term "free offer" could be used since the predicate "free" emphasizes that the offer is open to everyone without price, whereas it seems that the term "well-meant offer" is liable to interpretation according to neo-Amyraldism as focusing on God's intent on the offer being to genuinely save everyone. Thus, it seems wise to reject the usage of the phrase "well-meant offer" or "sincere offer" while preserving the more neutral "free offer." For my personal usage, I would use "free offer" for the biblical and orthodox view of the offer, and "well-meant offer" for the Neo-Amyraldian view of the offer.

As an aside, the Neo-Amyraldian view of the offer is that God genuinely desires in His emotions to save everyone both elect and reprobate. The reason why it is called "Neo-Amyraldian" is because, in the classical Amyraldian scheme, the decree to elect comes logically after the decree to provide universal atonement. This idea of God desiring to save everyone, and then having a "subsequent" sovereign will as it were to save only the elect, sounds very much like classical Amyraldism with its idea of God providing atonement to all but then electing only some to salvation.

The "Two Wills of God": The Compound and Divided Sense

C. Matthew McMahon's book The Two Wills of God has three main points, and I will go through one point per post.

---

There are three questions here: One, are there two wills of God? McMahon's answer to that question is no, but the one will of God has two senses, the compound sense and the divided sense. Two, is there a sincere offer to all men of God desiring their salvation? McMahon's answer is God sincerely desires the salvation of all in the divided sense, but not in the compound sense. Three, is there common grace, defined as a disposition in God towards the well-being of the reprobate? McMahon's answer is no, but there is indiscriminate providence towards both the elect and reprobate.

Compound and Divided Senses

So what exactly are the compound and divided senses? The compound sense is "God's interpretation of His own being given to us in the condescended language of the Bible" (p. 507), while the divided sense is "the revelation of God in the realm where perspective of man would be used" (p. 74), or "the human view of God seen through the historical narrative and written letters of the Bible" (p. 507). The descriptions of these senses more closely match the divine and human perspectives, as revealed for us, respectively. These two senses, since they operate on different planes, are not contradictory, functioning like pieces on two different boards of chess (p. 77). If however, one were to collapse the two senses into each other, one would operate with a very crowded "board" and justice would not be done to all the truths of Scripture. In this light, the PRCA (Protestant Reformed Churches of America) according to McMahon would not escape the charge of Hyper-Calvinism because they fail to differentiate the two senses (p. 82). Likewise, the primary opponents of McMahon's thesis, the sub-Reformed teaching concerning the two wills of God, "common grace" and the well-meant offer of effectual grace, are guilty of the same failure to do justice to the full teaching of Scripture.

How should we think of McMahon's differentiation of the compound and divided senses? The terms are coined by him of course, but the concepts seem to be helpful. We most certainly must hold to God's simplicity so God cannot have two wills, and the division between the compound and divided senses help us to preserve the one will and also to note how God's will is expressed differently, which traditionally is stated as the difference between the preceptive and the decretive wills. What is traditionally known as the "preceptive will" can be thus expressed as the divided sense of God's will while the "decretive will" as the compound sense of God's will.

Aside from the heuristic benefits in differentiating the two senses, the terms themselves ("compound" and "divided") are rather cumbersome. While helpful, I do not believe they go far enough in showing us in what manner the compound sense convey God's interpretation relayed to us, and in what manner the divided sense convey the human view as shown by God. The technical fine line will certainly be lost to most people. To this, I think that bringing in the notion of corporate or federal identity would be more helpful. Instead of leaving it as the compound sense, why not we understand that as the sense towards individuals, towards particular individuals? Instead of leaving as the divided sense, why not we understand it as towards the collective, as an expression of God's principles?

The compound sense speaks about God's interpretation, and thus its locality is in God's intention and desire. It is analogous to the decretive will, which is what God desires and enacts and decrees. It is thus what God will do to individuals, in particular election and reprobation. It seems that the three can be placed side by side as analogous ways of looking at God's will as what God desires: Compound sense - Decretive (Sovereign) - Particular.

The divided sense speaks about the human view, and thus its locality is in God's commands showing forth His nature. It is analogous to the preceptive will, which is what should be done to be congruent with God's ethical nature. It is thus also what God would see as being perfective for all corporately, in covenant solidarity. Side by side the three are to be seen as analogous ways of looking at God's will as flowing from what is perfect: Divided sense - Preceptive - Collective (Federal).

For simplification, we can say that God wills something for the whole (collective) that is realized for the part (Particular). This I think is a good and biblical and simpler way of understanding the compound and divided sense, from another point of view.

On the "two wills of God"

It has been a long time since I first read C. Matthew McMahon's book and PhD dissertation The Two Wills of God. In that book, McMahon deals with the topic whether God actually has two wills. Along the way he touches on the issue of logic and God under prolegomena, then deals with the topic of the Free Offer of the Gospel and Common Grace. I last read the book before I entered seminary (i.e. before 2010), where I was less knowledgeable about many things, and thus I probably didn't have a good grasp of the issues to properly benefit from the book. Re-reading it now in 2016 after seminary has really been much more beneficial.

In light of my second reading of the book, I have re-did my book review of the book here, where I now properly interact with McMahon's proposals. I will be posting the added portions in subsequent posts here, but those who want to read it all can just go to the link to do so.

Why was I interested, and still am interested, in this topic? The impetus for my interest in this topic comes when those promoting the view that God really desires everyone including the reprobates to come to faith, and see that as being the Calvinist view (who were denoted as "Ponterites"), begin accusing everyone who deny their version of the well-meant offer as "Hyper-Calvinists." Besides it being a derogatory slur, I have denied and still deny that what I have believed and still believe is extreme and cultic. McMahon's book on this topic was very helpful in this regard. I have come to recognize these sub-Calvinists as basically Neo-Amyraldians, since their view of God's desire is analogous to the way Amyraldians think of salvation.

In classical Amyraldism, God's decree to elect is subsequent or follows after God's decree to atone for sins. Classical Amyraldism therefore holds to a universal atonement and a particular election. Since Christ died (atoned) for all head for head, therefore the preacher can proclaim that Christ has actually died to save all men head for head, yet only the elect are saved. Likewise, in this new Amyraldism, God actually desires (a universal desire) all men to be saved, while election is particular. Classical Amyraldism splits the work of Christ as atoning for all but interceding for some like some two-minded deity. Neo-Amyraldism splits the desires of God as desiring all to be saved yet wanting the elect to be saved, like some two-person schizoprenic deity. The former has a schism in the mind of God; the latter a schism in the emotions of God.

We will begin the added material in the next post.

Common grace and ultimate ends

One of the polemical arguments by the PRCA crowd against the doctrine of Common Grace is that, since all things work together for the damnation of the reprobate since they wickedly abuse without thanksgiving the gifts of God in this world, therefore whatever good things given to them will result in their damnation. Therefore, if the ultimate end is damnation, how can we say that whatever God gives is indeed gracious, since damnation is certainly not gracious?

The problem with this argument is that it confuses ultimate ends with penultimate goals. What do I mean by this? Let's take the issue of evil for example. The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over evil. All things work together for the good of those who love God (Rom. 8:28). That means evil in the ultimate scheme of things is "good," in the sense that it results in the good of God's people. But do we therefore say that evil is good simpliciter? NO! Evil is evil. When someone does a wicked deed, that deed is indeed evil. God meant it ultimately for good for the elect, true, but that doesn't diminish its wickedness. So here we see that evil is penultimately evil, even though God intends it ultimately for our good.

Likewise in the issue of common grace, what the orthodox version of the doctrine of common grace (there might be other versions of "common grace" that I think are unbiblical) states is that God's kindness is indeed genuine, in the same way as evil is indeed evil even when God meant it for good. God's kindness is genuine even though ultimately the abuse of God's gifts will result in greater damnation. It is a genuine kindness, in the penultimate this-worldly sense. It is God's universal benevolence from His status as the Creator, and manifests His goodness to all He has made.

Turretin contra Murray on the Well-Meant Offer

XXIX The promises of the covenant of grace are not absolutely and simply universal because in the Old Testament they were not promulgated to all (Dt. 7:7; Ps. 147:19, 20; Acts 14:16; 17:30). Nor are they promulgated in the New Testament, since it is plain that the gospel was preached successively and there are still many nations to whom that preaching neither formerly, nor at this day, has reached. Rather the promises are only relatively and limitedly universal from the twofold manner of the divine dispensation; the one external as to obligation (which is extended indisciminately without distinction to classes of individuals, although not to individuals of classes); the other internal (as to application and fruit) with respect to all and each believer, without distinction of nation, sex or age and condition. Hence frequently that universality is restricted to believers from the Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:22, 23; 10:12; Acts 10:43; 13:43; Jn. 3:16). And the nature of the promises (which can only be received by faith) demands this (Gal. 3:13; Rom. 4:13). Now all men have not faith (2 Thess. 3:2), but only the elect (Tit. 1:1,2). And these are the true and proper object of them, who on that account are called "the children of promise" (Rom. 9:6, 7).

XXX. Nor can it be said that the promises are universal of themselves and from the intention of God, inasmuch as God seriously wishes all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; but that all do not obtain it, is accidental on account of the wickedness and unbelief of men, who obstinately resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his operation. For it is falsely supposed that God seriously intends the salvation of all; this cannot be said of those whom he reprobated from eternity and to whom he wishes to give neither the gospel nor faith, without which the promise can either be known nor received. (2) Although it is true that men resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his work, it is no less true that God does not furnish to all that grace by which the resistance of the hear may be taken away; that this is the special gift of God (Mt. 13:11; Rom. 11:7), which destroys the universality of the promise.

— Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elentic theology, 12.6. 29-30

Contrast this with John Murray:

(3) Our Lord himself in the exercise of his messianic prerogative provides us with an example of the foregoing as it applies to the matter of salvation. He says expressly that he willed the bestowal of his saving and protecting grace upon those whom neither the Father nor he decreed thus to save and protect.

— John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel. Accessed here.

Notice the careful distinction that Turretin makes. Turretin speaks about the free offer of the Gospel strictly in terms of obligation to all classes of people without distinction. Murray however collapses the decretal and preceptive will in the majority report he authored. While claiming the free offer is grounded only in the decretal will, by the end of the report the two wills are confused. While claiming it is to all men without distinction in the beginning, towards the end he speaks of God desiring particular people to be saved. All of such confusion coalesces into statement 3 in the conclusion of the majority report. Does God will the salvation of people whom he does not will to save, as statement 3 asserts?

Far better is the minority report, which preserves the clear precision that Turretin is known for. The free offer of the Gospel is not denied, provided it is clearly explicated in terms of God's preceptive will towards men in general without distinction, sinners qua sinners. Thus, God sincerely calls all men to repent, but God does not call anyone in particular sincerely. Rather, the offer goes out to all, and Man have to personally appropriate Law and Gospel in order to receive this universal Gospel offer

With Murray's confusion, is it any wonder when many people do not accept this doctrine? Irrationalism is a sin just as much as Rationalism. To accept an irrational doctrine is to mock God, and Christ who is the eternal Logos. Christian truth may be trans-rational, but never irrational.

Van Til and the confusion between creation and redemption

It is this sort of basis that Kuyper and Warfield alike maintained the basic unity of science [here understood generically as a rigorous intellectual discipline, not just what we normally mean by the empirical sciences]. God is certain to attain his end with mankind. In the face of Satan, he will cause men to develop and bring to fruition the potentialities that he himself has deposited within the universe. Whether willingly or unwillingly, whether conspicuously or inconspicuously, all men, and Satan too, contribute to the realization of the purpose of God with man and his universe. ...

... And God had determined that through Christ as Redeemer mankind would accomplish the task assigned it. Only on the basis of the work of Christ, then, does the unity of science actually exist and will it be actually consummated. True, the work of Christ must be thought of as immediately and directly effecting the salvation of men. But in saving men and in saving mankind Christ saves science. The unity of science may therefore be said to be Christological in a secondary sense.

— Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th Ed. (ed. by K. Scott Oliphant; Phillisburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 178

Cornelius Van Til is often thought to be a giant defending the Reformed faith. The question therefore is whether Kuyperian incipient Reconstructionism will disqualify him.

In the above passage, Van Til believes that Christ came with one result being that mankind would accomplish the task assigned it. The cultural and intellectual strivings of Man will find their ultimate fulfillment when Christ finally comes again and consummate everything showing the unity of science in Christ.

What are we to make of this? The first thing we can see is the Kuyperian emphasis on the importance of the cultural and intellectual strivings of Man. However in Scripture, is there such an emphasis on such strivings? While certainly those strivings that honor God glorify Him, the focus of Scripture seem to be elsewhere.

These strivings of Man are a part of the Cultural Mandate. As such, it belongs to creation, not redemption. Christ therefore cannot "save" science, as if science however defined is a person which Christ died for. Christ died for sinners, and the elect who were and are sinners. Christ did not die for science or culture, or business or government! Christ shed His precious blood to redeem sinners, not institutions.

In a footnote, the editor K Scott Oliphant sees this as the principle "in which the work of Christ extends to the benefits of the nonelect." In other words, a Kuyperian view confusing creation and redemption; culture and the church, seems to be the basis of Van Til's idea of the well-meant offer. According to this view, Christ came to enable Man to complete the Cultural Mandate and therefore since all things will be consummated in Christ, there is a very real sense that those who are nonelect will get to partake of the benefits of Christ. From this, one could very well say that in some sense Christ died for the nonelect, and from there to the well-meant offer is not that far off.

All of this fail to differentiate between creation and redemption; between Adam and Christ. Christ died for particular people only. Christ is Savior of the Elect in redemption, but He functions differently as Creator and King of all men due to creation. Christ's role in redemption is different from creation, a truth that Van Til failed to grasp.

In this light, we have all the more reason to reject the unbiblical teaching of the well-meant offer. The Gospel offer is unconditional to and for all, but it is not well-meant. We are not to attempt to peer behind the veil at God's secret sovereign will (Deut. 29:29), or by confusing creation with redemption universalize the saving work of Christ in some fashion.

James White and the upcoming anti-Calvinist attack by David Allen

It seems that Dr. David L. Allen (dean of the School of Theology, professor of Preaching, and director of the Center of Biblical Preaching at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) is coming up with a new book entitled Whosoever Wills, to be released next month. Based upon the supposedly biblical "John 3:16 conference of 2008", this book attempts to "offer an alternative to Calvinism in regard to understanding how God works in salvation" (according to the blurb).

Dr. James R. White has chimed in on this issue in his blog here. Given Dr. Allen's abysmal handling of the text of Scripture during the John 3:16 conference, in which the phrase "whosoever wills" is read into the text of Scripture (the Scriptures reads πας ό πιστευων — "all the believing ones", not "whosoever wills"), I am not too optimistic about how the subject would be handled in this book. As it is, Dr. White previewed the book through Google Books, and mentioned that Dr. Allen still disappointingly repeated the same libelous charge of hyper-Calvinism against him, despite and in spite of the fact that even Phil Johnson, who provided the source for the charge in his "A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism" which Allen used as recommended by Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne, (inconsistently) denied that White is in fact a hyper-Calvinist.

Of course, this is partly thanks to the Neo-Amyraldians like Tony Byrne who aid the Arminians against the Calvinists. In an even more recent episode around June-July last year 2009, I clashed with Byrne and Ponter again, and it is during this episode that it was revealed that they actually do not regard Hyper-Calvinism as heresy! To which I responded in a blog post here denouncing their intellectualism. After all, what kind of people are they who freely attach labels and charges of heresy at churchmen such as Dr. James White and Dr. Robert Reymond, and yet claim that they are not actually taking such labels and charges seriously as shown by not treating hyper-Calvinism as the heresy it actually is? These Neo-Amyraldians spend vast amounts of time attempting to prove their hobby horse of limited/unlimited atonement theory as being historically reformed, and throw the labels of hyper-Calvinism to those who disagree with them. Yet, they treat the whole thing as a game it seems; not a serious doctrinal issue at all.

The term "hyper-Calvinism" has been thrown around too many times as a one-size-fits-all silencer. After all, who wants to be labeled as extreme? It seems that the definition of the term has devolved into "any system with a higher view of soteriology than me". The Arminians call all Calvinists "hyper", Norm Geisler in his book Chosen But Free called all Dordtian Calvinists (ie historic Calvinists) "hyper", and the Neo-Amyraldians call all high Calvinists "hyper". Oh well...

If these people in the SBC want to revert back to the error of Anabaptism, I sure am not going to stop them. They are welcome to go back to these heterodox systems of thought and embrace the full range of errors the Anabaptists embrace. Just leave the flock alone and stop calling themselves evangelicals would be helpful indeed.

The illogicity of those who promote the WMO

I am currently reading a book by David H. J. Gay entitled Particular Redemption and the Free Offer (Biggleswade, UK: Brachus,20008), a book written to promote the theory of the Well-Meant Offer, or the Neo-Amyraldian position that God desires the salvation of ALL MEN. I guess I shouldn't be expecting much in terms of logical consistency, but this eats the cake.

In attempting to refute the "Owenite" position of "sufficient for all because of the worth of Christ's person", but "efficient only for the elect" (of which I hold to a variation), Gay states:

Of course, as I have noted, the work of Christ is of infinite worth, and of course he is an all-sufficient Savior — a perfect Redeemer for all the elect, for all their sins, for ever. But this does not mean we can — or should — speculate about its 'sufficiency for all'. In fact, I repeat, however fine it sounds, the concept is, in the end, illogical and meaningless (p. 101)

Gay might as well says that he believes that the sky is blue and not blue at the same time in the same place. Such illogicity shows the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the position of the Well-Meant Offer men.

Response to Jenson on Ponter's Bunyan shuffle

Over at Ponter's "theology" site, Jenson Lim has decided to leave a comment there which briefly states:

Friends,

May I say that this whole discussion is getting quite fruitless? Studies in Bunyan is complex, and not for the faint hearted. Amyraldianism is an even bigger subject. I am surprised at the liberal use of Bunyan in these exchanges. (Like Scripture) It is easy to quote Bunyan and say what one wants him to say.

Is this how one “defend the faith”? Are souls going to be won and saints built up with this type of rhetoric? I did not leave a similiar [sic] comment at Daniel’s blog for good reasons, but perhaps leave the chap alone, don’t respond to his posts and get on with Kingdom work.

Yours in Christ, Jenson

While Jenson's comment indeed shows a concern for us to spend more productive time on Kingdom work, I would like to respond with a few points on this topic.

1. I agree that this discussion will be fruitless IF I am trying to convince Ponter and Byrne. However, that was never my aim. My aim was to silence their foolish prattling on things they know nothing about.
2. This all started with Byrne's slanderous attack on Dr. James White by calling him a hyper-Calvinist, leading to a slanderous accusation against Dr. White by David Allen in the Arminian John 316 conference late last year 2008.
3. The Neo-Amyraldians have thus graduated from being a nuisance to a force of destruction against godly ministers and against the act of Gospel proclamation itself.
4. They have not stopped their endless crusades against orthodox Calvinism but have instead continue their endless tirades and attacks on godly ministers and undermining the truths of Scripture, all under the guise of "Reformed and Puritan scholarship".

As Dr. White, who has given up on those one-note ponies to do REAL ministry, said in his excellent article On Squeamish Calvinists and Hyper Arminians:

"Unless you impute human-like irrationality to God, I will call you names." This seems to be the attitude of many squeamish Calvinists on the net these days. Unless you are willing to drag God down to the level of a flummoxed suitor, who is torn between contradictory desires, you will be called to repent and labeled with terms meant only to damage your ministry, nothing more.

Those who have not been on the frontlines find it amenable to sit in their comfy computer chairs and opine away at the keyboard. They know they will never be called upon to present a consistent defense of the faith, especially in the face of competing world religions. So they have little concern about the use of words like "tension" and "mystery," which are so often used to do little more than cover over contradiction and irrationality. Some actually think they are giving a meaningful apologetic when they openly confess the contradictions in their proclamation.

There is everything right in pointing out that God is God and is under no obligation to explain Himself beyond what He feels is appropriate, right, and self-glorifying. Man has no grounds upon which to demand further explanation than God in His sovereign power and grace deigns to give. But it is quite another to take the revelation He has given and turn it on its head, forcing it into self-contradictory and absurd stances. And to what end?

...

Now, if you dare to question this perspective, the response will be swift, and predictable. The reply will not be based upon providing sound biblical exegesis that overwhelms you with evidence that God is, in fact, deeply conflicted, and has been, eternally. It is hard to come up with that kind of idea from the descriptions of the Triune Yahweh in the Bible. Oh, sure, there are a few anthropomorphisms that can be shared gleefully with the open theists and the inclusivists and the universalists, etc., but you won't be in any danger of getting hit with a ton of sound exegesis on all the passages that plainly state that God is pursuing an eternal purpose that will result in His own singular glory. No,the retort you will receive will have little to do with exegesis, and everything to do with monikers. Nick-names. Associations.

Want a modern example? Consider Robert Reymond, a fine theologian, teacher, and godly man. Hyper-Calvinist! is the cry when he dares to point out the absurdity of attributing to God a self-imposed internal conflict that results, inevitably, in His own eternal unhappiness and lack of fulfillment. If you ask, "But, how do you respond to his actual argument?" you get back, "Hyper-Calvinist!" Evidently the very harshness of the phrase (especially its association with various and sundry nutcases on the Internet) is meant to stun your thought processes and cause you to curl up in the theological fetal position. You are to immediately run for cover, or join the growing throng that is gathering wood and fire to rid the earth of such a vile creature. The idea that the phrase has historical meaning is not in the forefront. The fact that it had a meaning in Spurgeon's England that is different in many respects from modern day America is likewise cast to the wind. No, once the Hyper epithet has been used, you might as well try naming your kid Hitler and get away with it. The argument is over.

What has this mini-Reformed-jihad gotten us? Well, thanks to these folks most are afraid to even admit to owning a single volume of John Gill's works. Here's how the conversation goes.

"Well, I noted that on that particular text relating to the resurrection John Gill said....

"JOHN GILL!!?? You're a hyper-Calvinist!"

"What? I was talking about his comments on the resurrection."

"But he was a hyper-Calvinist, and every person who has ever read a word he wrote is a hyper-Calvinist, and every person with one of his books in their library is a hyper-Calvinist, and every person who has ever owned a John Gill book believes and lives and thinks exactly like John Gill, and is therefore a hyper-Calvinist. And to agree with anything John Gill ever said is to prove, beyond all dispute and argument, that you are a hyper-Calvinist!"

"But...John Gill masterfully defended such things at the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, the resurrection....

""I can't believe you are a hyper-Calvinist! I had so much respect for you before!"

About the only positive thing I can see that has come from the SC movement (Squeamish Calvinists) has been the sale of plain book covers---used to hide The Cause of God and Truth so that you don't offend them when they are scanning your library shelves for evidence of unorthodoxy. But the general fear that exists in those writing for the Reformed community at running afoul of one of these self-appointed label-makers is most lamentable. If you dare disagree with the comments of Spurgeon or Murray (never mind being able to fairly, soundly cite others who have done the same) your reasons for doing so will not matter. Labels defy reason, they defy argument, they defy consistency. Allow me to throw myself upon the sacrificial pyre in hopes of edifying the reader.

This is the reason why the Neo-Amyraldians must be silenced! They can of course continue to sprout more and more irrational nonsense, but at least now I have a suitable counter against their pernicious errors, which I have made my own. The next time any of such nonsense comes along in undermining the Gospel message and attacking ministers of God for being "hyper-Calvinists", I will have a proven rebuttal against their slanderous attacks.

And by the way, yes, historic Amyraldism is a heady topic. I have read Brian G. Armstrong's Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Euregon, OR, USA: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1969) and it is an academic book, not a popular book. Not to mention it is one of those "scholastic Calvinists have distorted the real teachings of Calvin" humanistic treatment of Moses Amyraut and his teaching. Regardless, the issue here is not historic Amyraldism but their theological offspring the Neo-Amyraldians, who must be opposed in the same way Amyraut was opposed by Huguenot minister Pierre du Moulin. Incidentally, the book itself states the motive of Amyraut and James Cameron his mentor was to go back to Calvin's thought. This should give us some pause when we see the same reason given by these self-proclaimed scholars who desire to bring back "our theological tradition" to what they also think is historic "moderate" Calvinism.

The pernicious error of theological academic intellectualism

In my recent interactions with the Neo-Amyraldians David Ponter and Tony Byrne, resulting in the publishing of a rebuttal to their position and one of their historical claims [based upon an article by John Bunyan], one thing which revealed itself in the meta of a blog post on David Ponter's site is the Intellectualism of the Neo-Amyraldians. While my paper and previous blog posts have focused on the unbiblical position and irrationalism in, as well as the faulty empiricism employed by, Ponter and Byrne, I would now like to focus on a much more pernicious error revealed in our interaction so far: the pernicious error of "theological academic" Intellectualism.

Intellecualism can be defined as "excessive emphasis on abstract or intellectual matters, esp. with a lack of proper consideration for emotions" [1]. In the matter of Christian life, intellectualism is therefore to be regarded as the over-emphasis on the intellectual aspect of doctrine over and against the spiritual aspect of doctrine, thus reducing the study of theology into primarily an exercise of knowledge acquisition rather than of spiritual growth. No doubt doctrine definitely includes knowledge, but the question here is not whether knowledge acquisition is necessary, but whether cognitive knowledge acquisition is the means or the ends of the theological enterprise.

The issue of Intellectualism rears its ugly head in the discussion of the status of "hyper-Calvinism"; whether it is heretical or not. Coming from a the position of the spiritual primacy of theology, I was shocked to discover that Ponter and Byrne deny that "hyper-Calvinism", however one gets to define it, is heretical. In my evangelical and charismatic circle of friends, the issue of anti-intellectualism (the opposite extreme) is something I need to deal with constantly. It is therefore assumed that knowledge, if it to be acquired, must be "practical" (however you wish to define the term "practical"). If there is no benefit whatsoever for acquiring knowledge, what is the use of doing so?

Hyper-Calvinism defined historically is the denial of the necessity of Evangelism and the necessity of people to repent and believe the Gospel. The broader re-definition of the term "hyper-Calvinism", as given by the Amyraldian-symphatizing Phil. R. Johnson, defines a hyper-Calvinist as one who:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect

[source]

Whichever definition or re-definition is used, a commonly agreed point between the historic definition and the Amyraldian-esque re-definition is that hyper-Calvinism includes the belief that Evangelism to all men are unnecessary, and that not all men are called to repent and believe in God and the Gospel. Is this serious heresy? Consider the following verses:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:9-17)

In Gal. 1:8-9, the Apostle Paul proclaimed an apostolic curse upon all who distort the Gospel. In Rom. 10:9-17, we see the importance of the Gospel message, because through it men can thus be saved. Rom. 10:14-16 also extol the virtue of evangelism, because it is the only method through which men are saved, and thus the messengers of the Gospel are said to have "beautiful feet". In all this, the sheer importance of the Gospel and its proclamation can be seen over and over again.

So is hyper-Calvinism serious heresy? Hyper-Calvinism alters the Gospel message by removing the necessity of men to repent and have faith in Christ. It obliterates the necessity of evangelism, with the probable exception of sincere seekers, and thus stands in opposition to the teaching of Rom. 10:14-16. Hyper-Calvinism is thus another "gospel", being placed under the apostolic ban (anathema) as being a Gospel which damns instead of saves.

Ponter and Byrne, in an unexpected shocking admission, state that they do not view hyper-Calvinism as heresy. In another admission by a commenter named Josh, the issue of "hyper-Calvinists" versus "moderate calvinists" (aka Neo-Amyraldians) is delegated to the status of a secondary doctrinal conflict on par with the differences between paedo-baptism and credo-baptism or differing view on the Millennium. Let us review this shocking admission by the Neo-Amyraldians: distortion of the Gospel message is not a big deal after all. Such issue are mere academic subjects of which disagreements are to be conducted cordially as like among academic peers.

If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come! (1 Cor. 16:22 - ESV)

If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be anathema. Maranatha! (1 Cor. 16:22)

One very important issue in the Christian life is the issue of loving God. Love for God is such an important fruit of salvation that the Scriptures themselves pronounce the most severe curse (anathema) on those who do not love God. The pronouncement of this apostolic ban is followed immediately by a phrase uttered in desire and anticipation of our Lord's coming (Maranatha). All of Christian living therefore is to be done upon a foundation of love for God, as the Great commandment reveals (Mt. 22:37). To therefore treat theology as a mere academic discipline without any spiritual usage or significance is a violation of the Great commandment, and therefore theological academic Intellectualism is a most pernicious sin.

To the extent that Ponter, Byrne and the other Neo-Amyraldians partake in such intellectualism, they are sinning against God. It is absolutely abhorrent that attacks upon the Gospel are treated so flippantly as merely academic differences. Such sin is detestable in the sight of God, as we are hereby warned:

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.

“‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ (Rev. 2:1-7. Bold added)

It matters little even if you have all your theological ducks lined up well, if you do not do so out of love for God. Theology taken and studied merely at the intellectual level is sheer wickedness before God. Even if Ponter and Byrne or anyone else for that matter is correct theologically, God is still displeased because our theologizing is not in line with His Word. And God will judge! To those who treat theologizing as a mere academic pursuit, God has promised to remove their lampstand from their place, thus snuffing out their light and witness before men as judgment against them. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Almighty God (Heb. 10:31).

In conclusion, let us repudiate this pernicious error of Intellectualism. Scripture and doctrines are not given for us to have big brains, but to teach, correct, reproof and instruct us in righteousness! (2 Tim. 3:16). While we should reject the utilitarian approach of making only what is practical important, we should also reject the opposite approach of emphasizing the intellectual aspect of theology at the expanse of its spiritual and practical aspect. As I have said before, and will say again:

A theology without spiritual use or significance is absolutely worthless. I have no need for such a "theology" which seeks only to puff up my brain.

May God save us from such "theology". Amen.

---

References:

[1] intellectualism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectualism (accessed: July 04, 2009).

Ponter and John Preston: Perpetually grasping at straws

Over on Ponter's blog post, which has now turned into a slander-fest of yours truly, David Ponter makes the following statement:

Did you catch his confession that he had only read the one single comment of Preston’s from your blog, and yet he was willing to blast us both. He has no credibility. A man who reads something like 5 or so lines from a given author, who then thinks he can speak for that author’s theology as a whole is just an embarrassment. I bet he still has not read the whole Preston file. If he did, he would see Preston’s universal and particular covenant language, and Preston’s references to Christ dying in vain.

This is an utterly vacuous point which goes to show that these "historical scholars" are only interested in their empiricism and not in the truth. My point was NOT to talk about Preston, but to show that acontextual historical quotes like the "5 or so lines" from Preston cannot prove much either for or against the Neo-Amyraldian position. I "blast" them for their empiricism and irrationalism, not whether they have quoted Preston correctly. They can quote to me Jacobius Arminius for all I care!

It is these "scholars" who have no credibility, having misrepresented their opponents like me, plus the writings of John Calvin and now John Bunyan. And now that they have revealed that hyper-Calvinism to them is just a mere academic label void of any spiritual consequences, I have lost all respect of them as Christians. What next? Arianism is a "merely academic label" also? How different is the attitude of the Apostle Paul who states:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)

and Jude the brother of Jesus

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

Such people are the bane of the church, making the Truths of Scripture in theology into dead academic discipline without spiritual usage and significance. Let me say upfront here: I have no use for theology which serves to puff up my brain! All theology is eminently useful unto true spirituality. Any "theology" which has no spiritual use has no use for me either!

Refuting David Ponter's Bunyan shuffle

[continued from here]

David Ponter has decided to attempt a response on the interpretation of John Bunyan on his blog here. Besides numerous ad-hominem and non-sequiturs which I will address later, Ponter's response to my interpretation can be summed in as follows: "The key text to interpret Bunyan's entire article is the quote in the middle of the section which we have previously quoted". This gives rise to Ponter's (and presumably Byrne's) hermeneutical matrix as follows:

Ponter's interpretation of Bunyan's middle section => Interpretation of Bunyan's article Reprobation asserted

I think what has been said has been said, so I will let the readers decide: What does it actually mean to "read in context"? Is reading in context equals

1) Coming up with a certain interpretation of the middle section of Bunyan's article, then categorically state that this particular interpretation of the passage in the middle of the article is the key to understanding the entire article by Bunyan?

or

2) Start at the beginning of Bunyan's article, understanding Bunyan's manner and terminologies, and then follow the flow of Bunyan's thoughts from beginning to end?

I think the answer is self-evident.

In order to reveal fully the numerous logical fallacies that Ponter actively engages in, it would be instrumental to look at his entire post just for once and point out specifically the logical errors Ponter makes. Ponter's words will be in dark red, and mine in black.

---

At first glace Mr Chew makes something which is really quite simple, that a child could follow, into something complex and obscure

Logical fallacy: Petitio Principii and false appeal to experience. I can easily say (and mean) the same thing; in that I find Ponter and Byrne's interpretation "mak[ing] something which is really quite simple, that a child could follow, into something complex and obscure". What does it prove? Nothing.

[Responding to the first part of the interpretation regarding Bunyan's two-fold aspect of Visible and Invisible Reprobation]

Of course, however, from God’s side, he knows who are the reprobate by eternal decree, and still says Bunyan, Christ’s desires their salvation, insofar as they are his creatures (see below). Mr Chew’s quip, therefore, really is off point.

Logical fallacy: Petitio principii! Did Bunyan say that Christ desire the salvation of actual reprobates, or reprobates in Bunyan's "temporal, visible sense" or both? This is a matter of interpretation which must be argued, not simply asserted. Ponter as usual refuses to let Bunyan speak for himself. After conceding that Bunyan does indeed teach a two-fold reprobation, Ponter ignores that and asserts that Bunyan does in fact have the "invisible reprobation in view", without any proof whatsoever.

[Referring to the difference between the collective and the individual]

4) Mr Chew thinks all this this is “probably” what Bunyan had in mind.

Logical fallacy: Red herring. Nevertheless, Mr. Ponter "probably" thinks that this is not what Bunyan has in mind? Given the growing emphasis on Covenant Theology in that era, which assumption has a higher probability of being correct?

[Referring to my discussion of the difference between actions towards the collective and the individual]

Of course there is some truth to this, for example, as some statements to a group can imply a condition, or the condition can be explicit, which means that of any who fail to meet the condition may not be the direct objects of the original predicating statement

Logical fallacy: Ignoratio elenchi! This is NOT what the logical fallacy is discussing. An example of the fallacy of composition is as follows:

Sodium is a dangerous chemical which can explode. Chlorine is a highly toxic chemical. So therefore, Sodium Chloride is a dangerous and toxic chemical which can explode?

Or with regards to humans and society:

No man without tools possess the ability to build the Great Wall of China. Therefore, China with her men could not build the Great Wall of China?

Here is an example of the fallacy of division:

Ancient Greek society with its promotion of pederasty is utterly decadent. Therefore, if you were living at that time, any Greek you meet would be utterly decadent and promoting pederasty.

I find it truly illuminating that these self-proclaimed theologians do not even have an idea what these logical fallacies are.

I) Where now did Mr Chew follow his own strictures in coming to this conclusion? He didn’t. He has totally discarded them.

Logical fallacy: Ipse dixit and Petitio Principii. Of course just what "strictures" Ponter thinks I have come up with is beyond me.

III) What evidence is there from Bunyan’s text that Bunyan operated by this idea? There is nothing. Mr Chew adduces not a single shred of evidence that this is so from Bunyan directly.

This is willful blindness. Having acknowledged that Bunyan taught a two-fold reprobation, Ponter conveniently forgets that fact this very instance. Of course, I am not proving that Bunyan taught my position (that would be anachronistic and commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent); what I am saying is that my interpretation makes the most sense of Bunyan's concept of two-fold reprobation and God's dealing with them, unlike Byrne's and Ponter's total neglect of Bunyan's concept.

I will say this as forcefully as I can, only a dishonest man would deny or still try to claim that by the phrase “sinners as sinners” Bunyan means to exclude the reprobate (as normally defined), or, that he meant only to speak of a collective but not to all the individuals within that collective.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur and ipse dixit. Just because Ponter does not see it does not mean it is not there. Unless Ponter wants to claim ex cathedra authority that is. I certainly have no problem seeing that concept taught in the passage Ponter quotes!

The phrase meant to cover all sinners. His point is easy to comprehend: as any man stands in the capacity of being a sinner, he is to be offered and tendered the gospel. Even those who turn out to be finally reprobate, are tendered the gospel.

Agreed, but....

As any man stands in the capacity of being a sinner, God is willing to save him.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur. The truths of the previous sentences do not logically imply this lone assertion. This by the way commits the fallacy of inferring intentions from imperatives which I have shown to be both illogical and unbiblical in my PDF repudiation of Byrne's arguments here.

Further, this section from Bunyan is followed almost immediately by the disputed section (see below), showing that it is “in context.”

Yes, this section from Bunyan is followed almost immediately by the disputed section. However, why is the direction of interpretation backwards from the disputed section to the section preceding it, instead of forward exegesis? Furthermore, since that section is disputed, shouldn't it be the case that other sections be used to interpret it instead of the other way around?

Mr Chew quite anachronistically pulls this idea [of federal representation] out of the brain of Herman Hoeksema, who, though borrowing it from Bavinck, distorted it.

I did not learn my theology from Hoeksema and the PRCA, and I am not too enamored of the PRC's doctrinal stances either, so Ponter is grasping at straws here. I learn most of my doctrinal foundations from Dr. James White and Dr. Robert Reymond, both godly ministers who have been slandered by Tony Byrne as "hyper-Calvinists". As for the issue of anachronism, what does Ponter think the Reformed and Presbyterian churches based their view of infant baptism upon? How do they argue their case for baptizing infants who may grow up to be reprobate? I rest my case.

Then the question comes to this, how can Christ be said to be the federal head of the man who finally perishes in hell?

In the same way as those reprobates who are baptized as infants in Reformed and Presbyterian churches are considered saints and members of Christ's church even though they finally perish in hell. Seriously, does Ponter even understand what he is critiquing? Christ is not the federal head of the man in hell; God offers to all Man, based on the federal representation of Man in Adam as sinners, the Gospel; Christ is the federal head only of the elect who respond to the Gospel. Logical fallacy: Ignoratio elenchi and Strawman.

This certainly reads as if Bunyan is rehearsing a scenario of a man over whom Christ weeps but ends his days in hell.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur and Ipse dixit! Bunyan did not talk to the man who goes to hell, but who is in danger of going to hell. Big difference!

[In discussing my interpretation of Bunyan's two-fold reprobation]

The upshot is, Bunyan is only speaking of our view of Gods desire to save those who seem to us to be reprobate. My, my, how far we left behind the “sinners qua sinners” step.

Logical fallacy: False dichotomy! It is not either/or but both/and. The way Ponter replies, it is as if Bunyan was writing a modern technical treatise on this subject on a few pages instead of the tens of pages in which he develop his ideas and arguments.

Bunyan is not referring to an amorphous collective, or to men who appear to us to be reprobate, but to men who finally perish, to the reprobate who finally perish, to all who finally perish, even to man qua man (as the creature of God).

Logical fallacy: Ipse dixit!

The reprobate who finally perish [sic] is not the ‘temporarily appearing reprobate,’ which is not Bunyan’s meaning here at all, but the reprobate as normally defined.

Logical fallacy: Ipse dixit. It seems in Ponter's view Bunyan should have just skipped the preceding sections and start writing in the middle! One wonders why Bunyan would even bother to write near the beginning of the article his definition two-fold definition of reprobation.

In conclusion, it can be seen that Ponter commits many logical fallacy just in this piece of his. Ponter therefore is in error and his case is lost.

P = I = Irrelevant?

David Ponter has decided to respond to my article refuting Byrne's arguments concerning the quoting of John Bunyan to prop up his Neo-Amyraldism. It has been an interesting read, but unfortunately this can be mostly filed under irrelevant and irrational.

Before interacting with the post proper, I must thank David for pointing out the issue of Preston being a hypothetical universalist. I will admit that I did not read Preston except for that one paragraph quoted by Byrne, as I was focusing mainly on John Bunyan. Yet, if that is the only legitimate complaint that David has against the article, then he is truly grasping at straws. After all, Preston is utterly irrelevant for proving my case. [The paper has been ammended accordingly to take this into account]

In dealing with my article, Ponter's first part dismisses the first section of my article en toto, stating that "[Dr. Bob] Gonzales has already dealt with all this in exegetical detail". This is utterly hilarious if it was not so sad. The fact of the matter, though I did not want to trumpet it, is that in the course of preparing my reply to Byrne I have seen the necessity of addressing Gonzales' inaccurate interpretation of Scripture, his faulty philosophical argumentation and numerous logical fallacies. The entire first section thus is a refutation of Gonzales' posts on this issue, proving from Scripture the biblical teaching on the topic and how Gonzales has utilizes logical fallacies such as non sequiturs and false dichotomies to advance his unbiblical philosophical positions. For example, in addressing Gonzales' denial of God's impassivity, I wrote in a footnote, Footnote 10, that

It is a far cry from denying that God has mutable emotions to stating that He has no [real] emotions. Yet Dr. Robert Gonzales in “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? (http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/02/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-numb/), (accessed: June 26th 2009) commits this non sequitur logical fallacy. Furthermore, the direction of reasoning should be from what Scripture teaches, THEN to have it transform our philosophical framework, not choosing an interpretation of Scripture that conforms to a particular a priori philosophical framework.

Immediately after this, Ponter makes the astonishing claim that "commands presuppose desire for compliance to those commands", a definition which is based on Ponter's petitio principii reasoning based upon his interpretation of what "wish" and "desire" as used by ancient theologians mean. Circular reasoning cannot get any worse than this. How does one know that the Reformers and Puritans believe that "commands presuppose desire for compliance to those commands"? Ponter answers that we know this because this is what they say, as according to his interpretation of their sayings. But how do we know that Ponter's interpretation is correct? Well, because they are, at least to Ponter!

Next up is Ponter's denigration of logic. I guess when one cannot deal with Scripture passages such as Jn. 1:1 and 2 Peter 2:12, name-calling (i.e. rationalism) is all one can come up with.

In my second section, it is very revealing when Ponter has no argument showing why my alternative interpretation of Bunyan's writing is wrong. Simply derisively dismissing it with the phrase "nothing new" does not an argument make.

In the third section when dealing with the issue of historical quote-mining, Ponter it seems prove his irrationality and basic empiricism, as well as lose the gist of the argument. No one is arguing that nobody can produce interpretations of historical quotes, and through careful reading and research offer the best interpretation they can discern. What we are saying is that (1) such proofs are never conclusive, (2) such proofs cannot prove biblical truth. Biblical truth is to be proved by the Scriptures, not by the sayings of theologians no matter how godly they are. Ponter in defending his methodology proves his basic empiricism, and in fact it is very likely that his empiricism has blinded him to the irrationality he is engaged in.

In a previous post, it seems that from the comments so far that for these Neo-Amyraldians, they can harshly denounce and label others "hyper-calvinist", but for them that label functions like an academic badge! The label "hyper-Calvinism" should rightly denote the heresy of denying the need to preach the Gospel to all and offer Christ to all, and that all men are not duty bound to believe in the Gospel. Yet, for these "scholars", all of these labeling seems to be an exercise in academic discourse. I am utterly shocked at the cavalier attitude such people have towards matters of such gravity. Theology, although an academic discipline, is a spiritual matter. Believing in wrong theology can potentially damn a person, yet these Neo-Amyraldians treat the applying of a label which is understood as denoting serious heresy as nothing more than a stroll in the park?! Utterly disgusting! It is no wonder that these people are not interested in truly reaching others like Roman Catholics with the Gospel, since for them everything is just an exercise in academia?! I can just imagine the scenario from a spiritual bird's eye point of view:

Ponter: This guy X teaches hyper-Calvinism. Apply the tag.

Byrne: Hey, another guy Y there believes the same thing. Tag him.

[Meanwhile on the ground]

The left flank of the battlefield is soaked with blood. The 3rd Division is fighting a losing battle against the enemy, when suddenly X and Y arrived with much needed reinforcements in the 40th Brigade.

3rd Div Soldier: Hey, who goes there?

X: It's us X and Y. We have heard of the need here, and have brought some reinforcements to aid you in this battle.

3rd Div Soldier: You may pass. Glad that you can join us here sir.

3rd Div General: Hold it right there! You are X and Y?

X and Y: Yes, sir.

3rd Div General: I have just received a radio report from command that you are now labeled the enemy. Soldiers, shoot them!

X and Y: Wait, you have it wrong. We are not...

[Sound of gunshots erupted; X and Y lay dead on the floor. Chaos and battle erupts as the 40th Bde return fire]

Enemy General: Soldier, what is the sound I hear?

Enemy Scout: It seems that there is a battle going on in the enemy camp, sir.

Enemy General: Excellent. Prepare our troops to move in and crush all opposition.

[Hours later, the 3rd Div is eliminated and the enemy is victorious]

May God save us from such flippancy with regards to spiritual things.

The universal offer and the Gospel presentation

In dealing with the issue of the Universal Offer or Call of the Gospel over and against the irrational idea of the Well-Meant Offer, one issue which was dealt with was the area of evangelism. How does one share the Gospel with others in light of the biblical idea of the universal offer? As I have written:

We proclaim Christ crucified and His death for sinners, and it is up to sinners to come up with the minor premise themselves in this valid Gospel syllogism:

Major premise: Christ died for sinners
Minor premise: I am a sinner
Conclusion: Christ died for me

The Gospel message is not meant to be proclaimed that Christ died for anyone in particular, but the universal offer is to be preached in a way that it will impress upon the hearts of its listeners that Christ died for sinners. It is up to each individual sinner to have faith (which only those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit will have (Jn. 3:3, 5-8)) in the Gospel message. When these individuals who are the elect believe in the Gospel message, then they will provide the minor premise as one of the symptoms of repentance and manifest faith through believing in the conclusion of the Gospel syllogism.

Major premise: Christ died for sinners [Gospel proclamation]
Minor premise: I am a sinner [Personal Repentance]
Conclusion: Christ died for me [Personal faith]

The indicative of the Gospel is therefore to be proclaimed that Christ died for sinners, and that only; we are not to think ourselves wiser than God in spicing up the presentation by turning God into a love-sick suitor. We are also to call sinners to repentance, and thus sinners would know the way to fulfil the minor premise, in order that faith is created in their hearts (conclusion) through believing the Gospel message (major premise) and applying it to their persons (minor premise).

And so we have gone full circle, back to the Apostles' seemingly foolish methodology. It truly is amazing how wise we think ourselves out to be, and use all sorts of methods to make the Gospel more attractive and winsome, adding man-made philosophies like the Well-Meant Offer to the Gospel message, as if the Gospel proclamation methodology found in the Scripture are insufficient unless we add the "necessary ingredient" that Christ died for YOU, YOU, YOU and YOU, and that He thinks of YOU daily, and desires and longs for YOU to have a relationship with Him, and intends YOUR salvation. See how he is on his knees begging YOU to receive him. *Urgh*! (Small case intentional)

Yet it seems that the Apostles' methodology without all the "evangelical" trappings has been found to be the most consistent with all of Scriptures. After going through Scriptures and logical reasoning, the Apostles' "foolish methodology" of simply telling Man of Christ's death for sinners and commanding them to repent of their sins is the most biblical method! Perhaps if we start following Scripture and trust its sufficiency and authority for ALL of ministry then we would not create such a mess as found within "Evangelicalism"!

The full response to Tony Byrne, and sufficient refutation of Neo-Amyraldism [AMMENDED]

I have finally finished the response to the Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne, which can be found here. Here are the subtopics in the paper itself.

I. Biblical teachings and logical errors
I.1.1 On God’s desire

I.1.2 Non-decretive desires?

I.1.3 Deducing intentions from imperatives?

I.1.4 Illogicity runs amok

I.2.1 Distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church

I.2.2 What applies to the collective may not be applicable to the individual; the logical fallacy of division

I.2.4 Understanding Covenant Theology and its idea of the universal offer

II. Interpretation of historical sources
II.1.1 Context of John Bunyan and his writings

II.1.2 The context and proper interpretation of his work

II.1.3 Rebuttal of Byrne’s interpretive fallacies

III. Conclusive rebuttal and practical concerns
III.1 The logical fallacy of quote-mining

III.2 Conclusive rebuttal of Byrne’s fanciful theories

IV. Conclusion

Section one of the response was previously posted on the blog here, and the PDF contains the remainder of my response to Tony Byrne, both in refuting his Neo-Amyraldism according to the Scriptures, his quote-mining methodology, and his misquotation of historical sources.

Here is the abstract, if you like, of the paper.

The Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne has quoted John Bunyan in one of his blog posts in asserting that Bunyan believes in the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I have refuted Byrne’s eisegesis of Bunyan and came up with an alternative interpretation. In reply, Byrne attempted a proper response to prove that his interpretation is correct, or at least highly probable. In this paper, I would address the issue of God’s desires, interpret Bunyan’s quote in context, and refute Byrne’s interpretation of Bunyan as being acontextual and thus reading of foreign concepts into the text.

Add (30th June 2009): I have made some minor changes to the article (typo and the section regarding John Preston) to touch it up.

Reply to Tony Byrne's attempted rebuttal (part 1)

I have been working out a response to Tony Byrne's attempts (here and here) to defend his "interpretation" of John Bunyan's quote, which in the process a lot of fundamental concepts must be rehashed in order to create a proper framework from which a response can be made. In the process, I have, it seems, refuted some [not all] of Dr. Bob Gonzales's attack on the impassibility of God and the defence of the well-meant offer.

Anyway, here is a small part of the response, pending completion in the near future.

---

I. Biblical teachings and logical errors

I.1.1 On God’s desire

What exactly IS God’s desire? According to Dictionary.com based on the Random House Dictionary [1], ‘Desire’ is “a strong feeling, worthy or unworthy, that impels to the attainment or possession of something that is (in reality or imagination) within reach”. Desire therefore has the connotation of something that involved the emotions of the person involved, and non-fulfillment of that desire would negatively impact the feelings of the person who has that desire.

What does the Scriptures therefore teaches us about God’s desires?

The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. (Ps. 33:10-11)

Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. (Ps. 135:6)

For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Is. 14:27)

remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ (Is. 46:9-10)

[Nebuchadnezzar:] all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” (Dan. 4:35)

First of all, it can be seen from these verses that God’s absolute sovereignty over all things is asserted, and that God does whatsoever he pleases to do, and absolutely nothing and no one can stop Him or even ask of Him an account. If God does not want to do something, it is not done, and if He wants to do it, it will be done.

Before we look into this idea of God’s plans and purposes with regards to His desires, it may be instrumental to look at how the Bible uses the word ‘desire’ when predicated of God [2].

For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: (Ps. 132:13)

But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does (Job 23:13)

In both of these texts, the word ‘desire’ when predicated of God is based on the Hebrew word ‘avah, which carries the connotation of desire/craving/ longing. As Job 23:13 states, whatever God desires, that HE DOES. Certainly, it seems therefore that there is nothing in God’s desire that He doesn’t do.

I.1.2 Non-decretive desires?

To propound the idea of the well-meant offer, the idea of God having non-decretive desires [3] is postulated. However, is this phrase even a coherent concept? We have seen that the Bible portrays a God who does all He desires. All that God wills to do is theologically referred to as God’s decretive will. So therefore, logically, all of God’s desires must fall into the category of God’s decretive will [4]. The idea of non-decretive desires therefore is a contradiction in terms, reducing itself to the nonsensical phrase “non-desire desires” or “non-decretive decrees”.

Much has been made about passages like Deut. 5:29 [5], which states:

Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever! (Deut. 5:29)

This and other passages like Ex. 32:14, which mention God relenting (literally repenting) of what He wanted to do, in order to prop up the idea of God having non-decretive desires. However, the Scriptures themselves do not allow for such an explanation. One basic hermeneutical principle is that of the Analogia Scriptura or the Analogy of Scripture: that more obscure verses are to be interpreted by those with greater clarity. Another principle is that the didactic portions of Scripture take precedence over the narrative portions of Scripture. The various verses where it is said of God’s wishes like in Deut. 5:29 and of God’s “repentance” in Ex. 32:14 are found in the narrative, and therefore the senses and meaning of these verses are to be interpreted in light of the more didactic passages like those found in the Psalms and Is. 46:9-10. When we do so, such passages can be seen to be a form of language called anthropopathism, in which truths regarding God and His attitude towards what He commands are couched in human emotive language in accommodation to our finite understanding [6].

So what are verses like Deut. 5:29 supposed to teach us? They are written to teach us more regarding God’s precepts and the attitude of God towards their fulfillment as precepts qua precepts, which brings us to the next point.

I.1.3 Deducing intentions from imperatives?

God’s commands and laws are normally termed God’s “perceptive will”, which refers to what God commands of men, both individually and generally. Verses like 1 Thess. 4:3 uses the word ‘will’ in this sense, and tells us what God wants of us in His commands.

Is it possible to deduce God’s desires from His ‘preceptive will’? Is it possible to deduce God’s intentions at all from His commands? No, for such is logically fallacious! Certainly, in real life, we can possibly discern the intention and the desire of the person giving commands, but that is because we have a context and environment where hints are given so that we can make educated guesses of the desires and intentions behind the giving of such commands. Therefore, the claim that intentions can never be deduced from imperatives seems counter-intuitive. However, it need not be so. Even in human relations, a parent may “command” their child to study hard to score 90% or higher for his exam, but he may actually intend the command to be meant for pushing the child to study hard with the high grade being a good thing which is not absolutely necessary. And in the case of God, we do not have any “environment” and the only context we have is Scripture, which therefore in its totality must inform our view [7].

Without even discussing the issues of God’s intentions with regards to the well-meant offer, a more basic idea in theology is the issue of Law and Gospel, and it is here that we already see God’s principle differentiating His desires and intentions from His commands. As it is written:

The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Rom. 7:10-12)

Notice that it is written that the Law, the commandment, promised life. This is what is revealed in God’s perceptive will. Yet we can see in passages like Gal. 3:19-24 that the intention of God in giving the Law was so that it would function as a guardian leading Man to Christ, and also as a guide for Christian living (Gal. 5:14, Jas. 2:8)! God’s intention in giving the Law therefore is different from what is stated explicitly in the Law, thereby proving that even in the most foundation area of Law and Gospel, God’s intention and God’s commands are not necessarily linked.

Scripture therefore shows us at least one example showing the error of deducing intention from imperatives. God’s perceptive will therefore cannot be used to deduce or infer anything about God’s intentions at all. Not only it is logically invalid, it has been shown to be biblically in error even and therefore any reasoning from imperatives to intentions or desires is illogical and unbiblical.

I.1.4 Illogicity runs amok

Christ is the Logos of Scripture (Jn. 1:1) [8]. He is thus always logical. While God is not logic, logic is the manner in which God thinks. Ontologically, God precedes Logic, yet Logic precedes God epistemologically [9]. The Scriptures even makes it clear that those in rebellion against God are irrational (Gr. aloga) (2 Peter 2:12) – without logos. Therefore, God is supremely rational and one aspect of rebellion against God is irrationality. To the extent that we are still irrational in our thoughts, we have not loved God with all our minds (Mt. 22:37) and are therefore still sinning in this regard.

Ignorance and irrationality is tolerable, in the sense that that is the natural state of fallen Man. Christians who have been regenerated will grow progressively in godliness which include (but is not limited merely to) rationality, and therefore will be more knowledgeable about the things of God and think more rationally on spiritual issues as a consequence. Celebration of ignorance and irrationality in the name of “mystery” however is a different ball-game altogether; an exhibition of false piety in mystifying what God makes clear in Scripture, and a celebration of this act as something to be celebrated instead of grieved over.

Having made and proved the previous points according to Scripture, it is now time for us to evaluate Byrne’s response in light of the biblical principles we have deduced from Scripture.

Byrne in his response commits the error of deducing intentions from imperatives, as this statement shows:

We’re only claiming that Bunyan thinks God is willing to save the reprobates inefficaciously according to the revealed will …

This is logically nonsense statement, as a rephrase of that statement according to its logical equivalence would show

We’re only claiming that Bunyan thinks God [desires] to save the reprobates [in a manner that does not reflect His desire] according to the revealed will …

Byrne could very well talk about a “round square” and a “quadrilateral triangle”, and it would have the same meaning as the sentence he wrote above – absolutely zero! Logically contradictory sentences or [real] oxymorons as opposed to reconcilable paradoxes have zero knowledge content at all, and are not even worth arguing in the same way as it is ridiculous to argue about the existence of a “non-Christian Christian”. Unless such sentences can be shown to be a real paradox in the sense that both are referring to two different non-contradictory senses, appeal to mystery is basically appeal to ignorance. If a person is ignorant about the subject, then he should keep quiet and not celebrate his ignorance, much less arrogantly think that his ignorance means that no one else can solve the problem he cannot solve.

The problem with Byrne here is that his statements and beliefs in this regard flatly contradict the Scriptures. Only the Bible is the norming norm that is not normed (norma normans non normata), not even the Creeds and Confessions and most definitely not what Christian theologians and pastors have written. Failure of Byrne to ever exegete the texts properly (quoting men’s interpretation of scriptural texts do not count) means that even if the Reformed giants truly taught what Byrne and his fellow Neo-Amyraldians teach, Byrne is nowhere nearer the Truth. However, even Byrne’s interpretations of historical sources are in error, as we shall see in the case of John Bunyan later

---

References:

[1] desire. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desire (accessed: June 22, 2009).

[2] The Greek word that can be translated desire, ‘thelo’ (θελω), has a broader range of meaning as a glance at Strong’s Concordance shows. Nevertheless, a cursory look does not indicate many instances whereby it is predicated of God’s desires, except 1 Tim. 2:4 where the context makes it very clear it is talking about classes of men – all men without distinction and not all men without exception. For exegesis of this verse and others like it, check out James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom (Merrick, New York, USA: Calvary Press, 2000), pp. 139-145.

[3] Comment #14 in Robert Gonzales, Gerety’s Hammer misses the mark (http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/geretys-hammer-misses-the-mark/#comment-2381), accessed: June 26th 2009.

[4] If all God desires He does (Job 23:13), then the subset of “God’s desires” [R] is within the subset of “God’s decrees” [C] (R ⊆ S). Since the Scriptures teaches that God does all He desires and does not anywhere teaches God decreeing what He does not desires, by exhaustive induction based on Sola Scriptura, R ≡ S

[5] Robert Gonzales, God makes a wish: That each and every sinner might be saved (http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/), accessed: June 26th 2009

[6] It is a far cry from denying that God has mutable emotions to stating that He has no [real] emotions. Yet Dr. Robert Gonzales in “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? (http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/02/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-numb/), (accessed: June 26th 2009) commits this non sequitur logical fallacy. Furthermore, the direction of reasoning should be from what Scripture teaches, THEN to have it transform our philosophical framework, not choosing an interpretation of Scripture that conforms to a particular a priori philosophical framework.

[7] I find it supremely ironic that those who like to teach about the incomprehensibility of God; that He is “Totally Other”, are nevertheless so sure of what God intends when He gives His commands.

[8] For a better understanding of the word logos as used in Jn. 1:1, check out Gordon H. Clark, The Johannine Logos (Jefferson, Maryland, USA: The Trinity Foundation, 1972 [1989])

[9] C. Matthew McMahon, The Two Wills of God (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005), p. 24