Refuting Against Calvinism (Part 2)

This is the second part of my review of Roger Olson's book Against Calvinism:

Prolegomena

What is considerably worse however is Olson's attitude towards the whole issue which inform his exegesis of Scripture. Olson in his book claim to operate with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, where Scripture is the "primary source and norm of theology," tradition is the "normed norm," reason is the critical tool for interpreting Scripture and weeding out absolutely incredible theological claims that contradict each other," and experience is "the inevitable crucible in which theology is done" (p. 24). First of all, his professed method is rationalistic, since reason is NEVER meant to weed out incredible theological claims at the start, but rather to be utilized only AFTER revelation is premised. Reason reasons after truth, thinking God's thoughts after Him. Only after God has spoken can reason come in to systematize truths, not before (cf 1 Cor. 1:25; 2:6-7,14-15).

Olson's rationalistic attitude however goes even further. On page 85, Olson wrote:

One day, at the end of a class session on Calvinism's doctrine of God's sovereignty, a student asked me a question I had put off considering. He asked: "If it was revealed to you in a way you couldn't question or deny that the true God actually is as Calvinism says and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him?" I knew the only possible answer without a moment's thought, even though I knew it would shock many people. I said no, that I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster.

Here, we see Olson's fundamental attitude towards Scripture and biblical truths. Olson is a thoroughgoing rationalist. A true Christian who truly loves God will not answer in this manner. If a Christians loves God, they will accept God regardless of who He actually is. No doubt of course God's being is co-terminus with His attributes [1], and therefore if a being does not possess certain divine attributes, that being cannot be God. But the question as phrased deals with our personal conception of God, not whether a being that calls Himself God does not possess certain divine attributes pertaining to God. If the true God is not who we conceive Him to be, the Christian response is to jettison our errant beliefs and worship God, not reject Him because He does not fit into our preconceived mold of what God must be like.

Olson betrays his basic rationalism with the shocking admission above. In Olson's rationalistic scheme, the attributes of "love" and "moral goodness" as understood by him and other synergists ARE the primary lens through which Scripture and God is to be interpreted. Instead of God defining for us who He is and what He is like, Olson insists that God must be what Olson thinks is the "ideal being" or He is not God at all — truly a theology from below.

Such an unbiblical view of God taints Olson's hermeneutics. As Olson remarked during the conversation held at Biola which this reviewer attended, the texts of Scripture that seem to teach Calvinism cannot mean what it means because they contradict [Olson's view of] who God is. In other words, the attribute of "love" and "moral goodness" as understood by Olson is THE hermeneutical lens through which the Bible is to be read. Verses must be interpreted in light of this a priori, or re-interpreted if their meaning is fundamentally at odds with the attributes of "love" and "moral goodness."

Looking at the exegesis of verses of Scripture therefore is almost a waste of time, for Olson deals very surfacely with the actual texts of Scripture in their context, some of which we will look at later. The actual meaning of these texts are after all not important for him, for his a priori commitment has already pre-determined what the verses cannot say. It is extremely disappointing for those who desire biblical exegesis and interaction at the text level, for Olson does not do anything more than a surface treatment of these texts in question.

...

[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation (Ed. by John Bolt, Trans. by John Vriend; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), p. 173

Book Reviews: For Calvinism & Against Calvinism

I have finally done the book reviews for the books For Calvinism, and the book Against Calvinism The book review of For Calvinism can be seen here, and the book review of Against Calvinism can be read here. I will re-post the book review of Roger Olson's book in parts on this blog over the next couple of days. Here is the introduction:

The book by Dr. Roger Olson is a companion volume to Michael Horton's book For Calvinism, and the two of them are published in order to forward the conversation between Calvinism and Arminianism.

As a book written to disprove Calvinism, Olson begins chapter one with the rationale for his book, stating that "someone needs ... to stand up and in love firmly say 'No!' to egregious statements about God's sovereignty often made by Calvinists" (p. 23). Chapter two deals with what Calvinism and Reformed theology refers to, chapter 3 with the "mere Calvinism" adopted by many of the New Calvinists in TULIP, which he then proceeds to critique in subsequent chapters — first Calvinism's teaching of God's sovereignty, then the U, the L and the I which he find objectionable in the TULIP acrostic. Olson then concludes with what he claims are Calvinism's conundrums that show the marked inconsistencies in the system.

As a book and attack on Calvinism, this reviewer finds it manifestly unconvincing. Credit is given however for Olson's correct portrayal of the general outline of what Calvinism teaches. However, Olson does not seem to go beyond accurately presenting the basic outlines of Calvinism and instead see logical implications where none exist, as we shall see later

To be continued...

James White's review of Olson's book Against Calvinism: Dividing Line part 2

Dr. James White has done part two of the Dividing Line review of Roger Olson's book Against Calvinism, which you can check out here.

Center-bounded sets and Boundary-bounded sets

Dr. D.G. Hart has posted and linked to an interesting piece by the Christian Curmudgeon on the issue of center-bonded set and boundary-bonded sets. As the Curmudgeon quotes from an article written in 1996:

The traditional paradigm is called “boundary-set thinking.” Boundary setters write creeds and confessions and use them to judge where people stand in relation to the truth. Those who affirm the creed or confession are inside the boundary. Others are outside.

The new paradigm is called “center-set thinking.” Center-set thinkers are concerned not with boundaries but with direction. Jesus Christ and the gospel are the center and the question about any person is not, “Is he inside the boundary?” but, “Is he moving in the right direction?”

But it is at this very point that the new paradigm has a problem. Who is the Jesus at the center? The Jesus of Arius or Athanasius? Which gospel are we moving toward? The gospel of Rome, Geneva, or the Crystal Cathedral?

This was in response to the damage control piece written by D. A Carson and Tim Keller in light of the MacDonald-Jakes controversy, where these sociological terms were used.

In this distinction between center-set and boundary-set thinking, we see the naive underpinnings of the New Calvinism and the Gospel Coalition. The entire dichotomy between the center bound set and boundary bound set is basically invalid. If there is no boundary, then the center is everywhere. One can imagine a circle (boundary) where the center is in a dot or tiny circle in the middle (since dots when magnified are actually tiny circles). Taking the same circle and magnifying it magnifies the initial dot as well to become a small circle. If however we erase the boundary line, then the center must necessarily expand infinitely and encompass everything.

We can see therefore that claiming to be center-set thinkers without the setting of any form of boundaries logically entails the denial of a real center since everything now is "the center." Carson and Keller and the entire New Calvinist movement are however not universalists and therefore they DO have a boundary to their set, the reality which is however amorphous and categorically denied. Whatever such a denial is, it is manifest deception since one claims to have no boundaries but actually does have boundaries. Unintentionally, Carson, Keller, the New Calvinist movement and anyone who identifies with this view of theirs are in violation of the 9th commandment, for they bear false witness against themselves and deceive others by claiming to have center-set thinking without defined boundaries.

Instead of deceiving people, it would be better for them to adopt confessionalism. Confess what you believe and make the boundaries known, instead of lying when one denies the presence of boundaries. When one states that there is a "robust definition at the center," that implies of course the demarcation of the boundaries within which such robustness lies put it at the center and not at the side. Try coloring a small yellow circle, and through drawing a larger circle around it, one could make the smaller yellow circle either at the center or at the side or even at the edge of the larger circle. To speak about "robustness at the center" without defined boundaries is mere shibboleth and means nothing at all.

Center-bounded set thinking therefore is impossible if boundaries are absent. Center-bounded sets imply boundary-bounded sets and vice versa. If the New Calvinists continue their naive thinking of sets, soon the center will disappear altogether but will become and encompass "all in all," heresies included.

Peter Enns' frank admission: Evolution is antithetical to a biblical worldview

Peter Enns recently gave a talk to a gathering of pastors from Tim Keller's presbytery, NY Metro Presbytery of the PCA, as he shared on his blog here. In his sharing, Peter Enns made a few revealing points.

Enns has rejected the historicity of the Genesis creation accounts and instead render a significant portion of the Bible "myth." In this light, Enns in his presentation to the Metro NY Presbytery lay out what he thinks are the available options for Christians who decide to affirm Evolution as being scientifically and factually true. Here are a few choice quotes from his blog post:

Evolution can either be accepted (in some form) or wholly rejected. If rejected, one has no problem with an historical Adam as first man, but then one has to find ways to neutralize the scientific data, which is attempted in various (but unconvincing) ways. (Google Al Mohler, Ken Ham, and Hugh Ross.)

No need to get into that here. This group of pastors was already (largely) aware that evolution cannot be dismissed, and so we proceded [sic] to other things.

If one accepts evolution, the first thing to note is that one has left the biblical worldview. I think this is an obvious point, but needs to be stated clearly. As soon as evolution is accepted, the invariably result is some clear movement away from what the Bible says about Adam.

Hence, if one wishes to bring Adam and evolution into conversation, one is left with the theological burden and responsibility of bringing them together somehow in a manner does justice to both.

...

If one wishes to retain a historical Adam, the two options I am aware of (if you know of others, please let us know) are:

(1) “Adam” was a hominid chosen by God somewhere along the line to be the “first man”;

(2) “Adam” was a group of hominids (a view that accounts best for the genomic data that the current human population stems from a few thousand ancestors, definitely not two ancestors).

In my opinion, these two options fail for the same two reasons:

(1) They are ad hoc, meaning that are invented for the sole purpose of finding some way to align the Bible and science. It is generally a good idea to avoid ad hoc explanations, and we rarely tolerate them when others make use of them.

(2) The “Adam” that results from these ad hoc maneuvers is not the Adam that the biblical authors were talking about (a chosen first pair or group of hominids). No biblical teaching is really protected by inventing “Adam” in this way.

This brings us to a non-historical Adam–meaning Adam in the Bible as parabolic, metaphorical, symbolic, or “supra-historical” (a term I learned from Richard Clifford, meaning a truth transcends history but told in historical terms, and therefore not meant to be taken literally).

Some notes:

1) Notice the admission by Enns that belief in evolution means one has left the biblical worldview

2) Notice that Enns believes that attempts to hold on to a historical Adam given the 'fact of evolution' is a mere grasping at straws.

3) One wonders how belief in evolution can be embraced by pastors who are supposed to hold on to the Westminster Confession of Faith

4) One wonders if the PCA in general has any issues with pastors in Metro NY Presbytery who think that evolution cannot be dismissed, which means that evolution for them is either a given or a strong possibility.

[HT: Johannes Weslianus]

Theonomy, Reconstructionism and Dominionism

What is the relation between Reconstructionism, Theonomy and Dominionism? It depends on who you ask. According to Marcus Pittman, Reconstructionism is not the same as what he calls "Seven Mountain Dominionism," which is basically the Dominionist position of the NAR.

I have not much interest in the entire Reconstructionist issue, except to say that one must accurately represent the other position and not conflate the two. The two positions are not the same although they are very similar in form.

Abba is not Daddy

One of Joseph Prince's sayings that promote irreverence towards God is stating that we can call God "Daddy" since that is what the term "Abba" means. We therefore hear expressions such as "Daddy God" and such expressions are given the rubber stamp of scriptural approval. However, is such a meaning really the case?

Some time back in 1988, the biblical scholar James Barr published an article in the Journal of Theological Studies arguing against Joachim Jeremias' interpretation that seem to imply that "Abba" is the same as "Daddy." Barr disputes that claim, stating in the process that the biblical writers could have used the Greek diminuitive form for "father" παπας instead of πατηρ to indicate such a connotation, much as τεκνιον ("dear child") is a diminuitive form of τεκνον (child). Doing some dichronic and synchronic study of the words related to father and "abba" in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and their uses in extra biblical literature, Barr showed that it is unlikely that "abba" has the same connotation as the word "daddy." As Barr concludes,

It is fair to say that 'abba in Jesus' time belonged to a familiar or colloquial register of language, as distinct from more formal and ceremonius usage, though it would be unwise, in view of the usage of the Targum, to press this too far. But in any case it was not a childish expression comparable with 'Daddy': it was more a solemn, responsible, adult address to a Father

— James Barr, 'Abbā isn't "daddy"', Journal of Theological Studies, ns 39 no 1 Apr 1988, pp 28-47

While certainly this does not give us a really good idea of what the term "abba" refers to, we can safely conclude that the term is NOT "Daddy" and therefore Prince is in error here.

In conclusion, God is not our pal, or the over-indulging parent of a spoilt brat. Although we can call God as Abba Father as a name of endearment, we should not ever think that God is just our pal down the street or someone whom we can just approach informally without reverence and fear.

Roger Olson, Calvinism and Worshipping God

One day, at the end of a class session on Calvinism's doctrine of God's sovereignty, a student asked me a question I had put off considering. He asked:"If it was revealed to you in a way you couldn't question or deny that the true God actually is as Calvinism says and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him?" I knew the only possible answer without a moment's thought, even though I knew it would shock many people. I said no, that I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster.

— Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), p. 85

Thus says Roger Olson in his latest book published together with Mike Horton's companion For Calvinism. I am in the process of reading the book when this section was highlighted by Dr. James White on part 1 of his Dividing Line podcast reviewing Olson's book here. It was truly an illuminating moment.

As Dr. White noted, Olson is saying that he would not worship God if God reveals Himself to be someone who Olsen thinks is a monster. In other words, what is primary in Olson's mind is his idea of "love" and "moral goodness," not God.

The characteristic of someone who really loves God and treasures His Word is that he will worship God regardless of who God is. Certainly of course, God's attributes is co-extensive with His being, thus in that sense we cannot say that we worship God if He does not possess certain divine attributes because He would then not be God, but that is not what we are dealing with here.

What we are dealing with is whether we will worship God IF God turns out to different from what we subjectively think He is. That is the entire point of the question asked by the unnamed student in Olson's class. IF God reveals Himself to be something other than what we perceive Him to be, will we still worship God? The Christian who loves God will answer yes. For example, if God reveals Himself as not triune (just to use an extreme example), Christians ought to still worship Him. Of course, we orthodox Christians will say that that is impossible since it violates God's express revelation in His Word.

Therefore, an evangelical Arminian who loves God would not answer that question the way Olson does. If a convinced evangelical Arminian truly loves God, he would say yes, but then add the caveat that he thinks that such a revelation is not possible. This is the correct response for someone who truly loves God.

Olson's answer is sadly positively un-Christian. May we worship God not our ideas of what God must be like.

The devolution of ACNA

Anglicans Ablaze has this disturbing news. I'm not surprised at the response however, noting that the two evangelical Anglican heroes, J.I. Packer and the late John Stott, not only did little to contend for the faith but were active in the ecumenical movement within Anglicanism. As I have said, the actions and non-actions of leaders have consequences for later generations. In this case, there is a real possibility of the apostasy of conservative Anglican churches.

Joseph Prince and Joel Osteen: Birds of a feather

It seems that the Word-Faith Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen has decided to invite Antinomian Prosperity preacher Joseph Prince to his *ahem* "church." Indeed birds of a feather flock together. You will pardon me for not wanting to waste my time listening to drivel although it is livecast in about 1/2 hour away from the time of posting.

Back and forth on Meek's "Personal Knowledge"

Some time back, I have had a short exchange with another guy over my Amazon.com review of Esther Meek's [Polanyian] epistemology as seen in her book Longing to Know. You can read the entire exchange here. Here is an excerpt from one of the last comments:

The denigration of certainty is inconsistent with the Christian faith because it posits a false dichotomy between certainty and confidence. We are to have both - certainty because of the surety of God's autopistos revelation. and confidence because of our relationship with Jesus Christ. As I have said, the problem with Meek is not that trust and confidence is wrong, but that she denigrates certainty, and she deals with the fiducia part of faith instead of the cognitio and assentia which is what epistemology is supposed to deal with.

More on FV and Baptists

Recently, I have heard an informal presentation of one Reformed Baptist position of Covenant Theology. Now, this is informal and not meant to be representative of the theology of all or even most Baptists, neither is it official and necessarily well thought out, but it illuminates one possible manner in which Baptists can appropriate Federal Vision (FV) theology while still remaining Baptists (proving that FV is NOT necessarily a Presbyterian issue).

The manner lies in the understanding of how one enters the Covenant. In that informal presentation of one Reformed Baptist position, the statement is made that "There is no external federal relation to Jesus Christ." I am sure that the presenter was not consciously using the language of the Federal Vision, but this statement reveals to me one manner of how Baptists can be FVists too.

FVists also believe that there is not external federal relation to Jesus Christ. In traditional FV theology, the practice of infant baptism and oftentimes even paedocommunion is due to their arguing as follows:

P1: Infants are included in the Covenant of Grace

P2: There is only one vital federal relation to Jesus Christ

C: Therefore, infants are in true vital federal relation to Jesus Christ and are to have all the benefits of believers including baptism and partaking of Holy Communion

FVists who are Baptists can reason as follows:

~P1: Infants are not included in the Covenant of Grace, which is only for believers who profess their faith

P2: There is only one vital federal relation to Jesus Christ

C: Therefore, infants are not believers, not in true vital federal relation to Jesus Christ and are not to be baptized much less partake of Holy Communion.

As it can be seen, Premise 2 is one of the distinctive teachings of the Federal Vision. Premise 1 is basically the difference between the Reformed and Presbyterian, and Baptists.

Just for contrast, the Reformed position is this:

P1: Infants are included in the Covenant of Grace

~P2: There is more than one federal relation to Jesus Christ (namely two ways: external and internal)

P3: Baptism is initiation into the Covenant community, while the Lord's Supper is for those who can discern the Lord's Body

C: Therefore, infants are in the external form of the Covenant of Grace (as all professing believers are even those who eventually fall away), but cannot discern the Lord's body, so they are baptized but cannot partake of the Lord's Supper.

Contrary to what John Piper thinks, FV is a threat to Baptists too.

Saints and Sinners Radio Podcast: Refutation of John MacArthur's case against Infant Baptism

I know this may be somewhat dated, but anyway here is an interesting refutation of John MacArthur's case against Infant Baptism by the Saints and Sinners radio show.

Warning: The episodes IMO are really polemical, especially the earlier ones.

VFT Book Review: Seeds of Turmoil by Bryant Wright

The WSC blog has posted my review of Bryant Wright's book on Israel and the end times, entitled Seeds of Turmoil: The Biblical Roots of the Inevitable Crisis in the Middle East here. An excerpt:

One thing that is certainly a plus point is Wright’s insistence that we as Christians ought to love and pray for the salvation of both Jews and Muslims. To the Jews, Wright tells us that we should learn from the apostle Paul who “had great sorrow and unceasing grief in his heart for his Jewish brethren” and thus we should similar love them and desire “for each Jewish person to know the love of Christ” (p. 135). On page 152 addressing the Islamic perspective, Wright similarly says that there is “ultimate hope in only one person—Jesus Christ,” furthermore adding in page 165 that we should be “praying for the Jews of Israel and the Arab Muslims to come to repentant faith in Christ so their hearts can be transformed from hatred to love, from revenge to forgiveness.” This theme is repeated once again in page 175 as he proclaims that the ultimate hope is found in God’s grace that is “available to all—Jews, Arabs, Gentiles.” Through all this, Wright makes it plain that the only solution for the conflict is salvation is by grace through Christ alone for both Jew and Arab

[more]

TGC and the silencing of opposing voices

"I've received from an employee of TGC (The Gospel Coalition) just last week an email basically telling me to shut up about James MacDonald because I'm effectively opposing the work of the church." — Carl Trueman (05:23 - 05:38, here)

Pastor Mike Abendroth just did a radio interview with Dr. Carl Trueman on the MacDonald-Jakes Elephant Room debacle, which is very illuminating. What is disturbing in and of itself however is the above quoted sentence made by Dr. Trueman.

Here we have, apparently, an employee from The Gospel Coalition attempting to silence the warning of James MacDonald's compromise. Apparently, Trueman is big and influential enough to warrant a "reprimand" by the unappointed spokesmen of "Reformed Evangelicals." Unlike the "watchbloggers," whom the BIG-Shots [Caps intentional] can safely ignore because we have less influence, Dr. Trueman as a minister and a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia cannot be easily ignored. Apparently, they decide to try to do damage control and silence the messenger.

Sounds familiar? This is the disgusting tactic of politicking. This behavior is totally un-Christian! This is from the world. Only the world silence controversy with tactics other than resolving the controversy from a doctrinal perspective. Worse still, apparently, criticizing MacDonald's action entails "opposing the work of the church." Since when did MacDonald become the standard of orthopraxy?

This revelation is disturbing, and throws up a lot of questions and doubts over the fidelity to the Gospel of The Gospel Coalition in their actual practice, notwithstanding their damage control piece in which they absolve themselves from any responsibility for MacDonald's actions whatsoever. Maybe one of the "New Calvinists" can help me here: How is the action of one of the TGC employees to Dr. Trueman in line with the Gospel? Do they believe that it is in line with the Gospel that the actions of one man is equated with the work of the church in toto? Does MacDonald possess infallibility when he does ministry ex cathedra?

I hope for the best, but it seems that TGC is on the downward slope. May God have mercy on them and especially the flock under their care, and on us all