Some Afterthoughts on The Challenge to Reformed Theology
J.C. Thibodaux
In John Piper's sermon The Doctrine of Perseverance: The
Future of a Fruitless Field, he acknowledges that the consequences of
the warnings in Hebrews do indeed speak of eternal damnation, and that
all who believe themselves to be saved should heed the warnings (because
the Bible says to, and because many who think they are saved are not),
yet still asserts that the only ones who can actually fall away are
unbelievers. He concludes that the purpose of the warnings is to keep us
from falling. So he effectively teaches that in an outward sense, the
consequences of violating these warnings apply to everyone, but in a true
sense, only the unredeemed are in view. A few problems here:
1. The consequences of the scriptural warnings I listed here can
specifically apply only to those who are saved. One who is unsaved is already
condemned to hell fire for not believing on the Son of God, so it is
useless to tell him to avoid sin at all costs to escape it; one does not
know Christ has already fallen short of His eternal rest, so exhorting
him to be diligent in a faith that is not real is moot; and no
unrepentant sinner has any part in the holy city or any like inheritance in
God's kingdom, making it futile to warn him under penalty of it being
taken. These passages are not talking about never being saved, they're
warnings against falling away from our Savior. In short, if the result of
not heeding the scriptural warnings is forfeiture of eternal life, then
in reality it logically applies specifically to those who possess it,
making Piper's defense untenable in these cases.
2. As far as God using absurd warnings as a means to preserve
believers, if you really want to have some fun, start questioning the Calvinist
to get to the bottom of the issue:
Synergist: Why does God warn us against falling away?
Monergist: As a means to keep us from falling away.
Synergist: But what if we don't heed the warnings?
Monergist: That's not possible, God will make sure we they take heed
and obey.
Synergist: But if God is already making sure that we obey and keeps us
from falling, then why does He still warn us?
Monergist: I told you, that's one of the ways He keeps us from falling
away.
Ah yes, God is warning us against a violation that He would never allow
to occur with a sentence that He would never carry out to preserve
people that He is already keeping secure. Obviously Calvinists are
performing a ridiculous semantic dance in order to escape the obvious
implications carried in the word of God. As my friend Ben Henshaw so succinctly
put it: "If God does everything (causes us to believe and keep
believing), then to warn them to keep believing is like warning someone hooked
to a respirator to keep breathing."
It's pointless to say that warnings against falling from God's
grace apply only to those who aren't in it, and it's downright silly to
say that God uses those warnings to preserve us if He's the sole cause
for our heeding them. And even if they were simply commands He wanted
to be obeyed, then why tack on the consequence of being cast from His
presence into hell fire if belief in conditional security is doctrinal
error? I can't even begin fathom the reasoning of Calvinists who think
this way: "Yeah, that whole, 'take heed lest ye fall' thing; God would
never actually do that, that's just something He says to the rubes who
lack assurance to keep them in line." What utter nonsense. Could you
imagine how badly they'd rake anyone else over the coals for employing such
convoluted logic? Picture a Pelagian employing that kind of defense
against Ephesians 2:8:
Pelagian: "Well, it's not actually by God's grace, it's by faith inherent in man,
it's only a gift of God in the sense that He created man with that
capacity. While it does mention grace in the context of salvation, texts
like this aren't meant to represent the standard soteriological model,
for that would contradict the biblical doctrine total moral neutrality.
Paul is not saying that salvation is by grace here, He is simply
employing outward human terms to help safeguard the redeemed from becoming
puffed up with pride, as it says, 'lest any man should boast'...." They'd be all over him like Rosie O'Donnel on a buffet, yet they themselves selectively employ similar reasoning
when it fits their doctrine.
It has also been suggested that God simply uses Revelation 22:19 as a "do not tamper" warning to those that merely think they are saved, apparently to scare them into believing they will lose their part in an eternal inheritance they never really possessed, thereby preserving God's word from detractors. This view carries with it the same problems
as the "God is trying to scare us into holiness" argument above: If we teach unconditional security as a central tenet of the gospel, then if some scripture-twisting false professor thinks he's saved, he will certainly have no trouble believing that he is unconditionally secure if that is what is taught, and thus have no fear of tampering with God's word, again making the warning in scripture of not even any practical effect by Calvinist tradition. Let's face it, if you seriously believe such a serious warning to be merely a 'scarecrow' that God has placed up to keep people in line, then proceed to tell everyone that it is in fact only a scarecrow that would never in reality carry out the consequence written, then you are making even the hollow warning of no effect by your teaching. Call me crazy, but I for one prefer to believe God actually means what He says.
If we are to truly believe this nonsense that unconditional security is a vital element of the true gospel, and therefore of necessity make the belief in even the possibility of forfeiting salvation a seriously false doctrine, then we are also forced to conclude that in order to promote holiness and preserve itself, God's perfect word instills a concept of false doctrine within the church via idle admonitions with preposterous consequences. Newsflash: God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and I stand in awe at the sheer befuddlement of anyone that cannot recognize the obvious discrepancy there.
Copyright © 2005-2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.