Mace to You? A Response to Fred Butler
J.C. Thibodaux
Update: A special welcome to those joining us from Mr. Butler's blog, Hip and Thigh. I address Fred's post from February 9 here.
This is a reply to an article about Assurance of Eternal Security by Fred Butler of Grace to You.
I had written a few months ago to Fred Butler at John MacArthur's Grace to You concerning an article in which he implied that it was blasphemous to believe in conditional security. Till the Lord returns, I think there will always be disagreement among theologians, though this goes quite beyond mere disagreement. Whatever calling another Christian blasphemous on dubious grounds is showing to a brother, I can guarantee it isn't grace. I sent him my challenge to see if he could back his claims against a stronger defense. Short answer: Nope. Long answer follows as we rebut Fred's post on perseverance of the saints.
I wrote in my article on the perseverance of the saints, or what would be otherwise called eternal security; as well as said in my devotional message on the same subject, that anyone who adamantly denies the doctrine of eternal security is in danger of blasphemy, because it denies the power of God and says our Lord is a liar as to His clear promises to save those for whom He died certainly and absolutely.
Fred's premise from the very start is mistaken, conditional security says nothing of the sovereignty of God, as it does not imply powerlessness, but merely how God chooses to operate; nor does it say anything against His promises, for God is under no obligation to give the benefits of His covenant promises to those who do not remain in covenant with Him. Pretty basic stuff, but we'll touch on it below anyway.
I will commend J.C. for being faithful to his chosen convictions. He is a tried and true Arminian, defending his synergistic presuppositions with the kind of dogged devotion found among the many hard-core King James Onlyists I have run into.
Glad we don't participate in subtle attempts at well-poisoning here....
J.C. seems to pride himself as being a great Arminian apologist/debater, even keeping a running tally on his website of all his "encounters" with any Calvinistic oriented blog commenter who has the tenacious willingness to work through all his banal rhetoric and sophomoric argumentation.
I'm not actually an Arminian proper, but we'll overlook that for the moment. It's true I do keep a list of folks I've presented my challenge to, which I do for the purpose of showing that regardless of who is defending it, Calvinist theology cannot be reconciled with plain scriptural facts. Fred shows us what in his estimation apparently qualifies as more mature and non-sophomoric argumentation,
Probably one of the better smack downs J.C. had, along with some of his buddies, which took place right around the same time he was emailing me, was with the Triablogue guys. If you have a rainy afternoon and want to do some worthwhile, entertaining reading exposing the folly of J.C.s "theology" as the main subject, these posts and comments will provide hours of stimulation: see [links to Triablogue's articles].
Now that's funny. I guess he didn't get the memo that we felled the Triabeast months ago with relative ease. 'Hours' is correct when reading Paul Manata's writing, but by the third rebuttal his arguments had degenerated into such ranting incoherency that cutting them down to size ended up being a tedious, but rather mundane task. Even a quick bit of intervention by Steve Hays couldn't save them, since the silliness of his argument was already shown in the challenge and reiterated at Arminian Perspectives. B. Belvedere's reasoning was mostly sound, but he was largely arguing against a position that I don't hold.
For more highly sophisticated and clearly not sophomoric argumentation that summarizes the intellectual Calvinist case against my theology very well, I highly recommend you read these very telling words from Triablogue along with my thoughts. For all their bravado, all they were left with was a few silly plays on my last name. You might say they got 'auxwned,' but I digress. Fred poses a few questions,
When a sinner is saved is his hope of eternal life secure and most certain, or must he fret over the possibility of forfeiting his salvation with the committal of some unknown sin which will cause him to forsake his relationship with the Lord and thus bring him to being disowned by God and ultimate eternal damnation? In other words, is a Christian's salvation eternally secure, or is it conditioned upon his ability and willingness to maintain it with his good works of obedience? Simply put,
Can a Christian lose his salvation?
Here Fred presents a false dichotomy, presenting Calvinism in the best light he can and comparing it to a version of conditional security where one can fall by "some unknown sin." Sin proceeds from the heart (Matthew 15:19), and just as good works are the outworking of faith, so sin is the result of a heart turning away from God. One doesn't just slip and fall into apostasy by some unknown sin as described in Fred's caricature. He continues with it though,
Now, in all fairness, I wish to make it clear I do not believe J.C. and his pals are Roman Catholic. Never would I argue that they are. However, their view of salvation is similar to Rome's along two important lines: 1) Christ's death did not secure the salvation of any one person particularly, but only made all men saveable, and 2) eternal life is conditioned upon the synergistic effort of a person exercising good works in cooperation with God's Spirit in order to maintain proper obedience so as not to forfeit salvation.
Ah yes, the old 'you're siding with the Catholics' schtick. Also note that he equates perseverance with 'exercising good works.' If he's going to stick with the remaining in Christ being equated with a work of the law canard, then his attacks are going to be exceptionally easy to outmaneuver. Fred then explains his (mis) understanding of Synergism,
These two points are essential in understanding why certain believers insist that a Christian can loose his salvation. For if Christ's death did not secure any one person's salvation, but merely made all people saveable, and that saveability is dependent upon the person first believing with faith and then continuing in cooperation with God's Spirit as he accomplishes good works as outlined in the Bible, then any departure from the stated objectives for maintaining his salvation can very possibly place that salvation in peril with the risk of loosing it forever. God has clearly upheld His end of the salvation plan by making a way for men to be saved, so if the sinner does forfeit his eternal life by engaging in some form of disobedience, then God cannot be blamed for cutting him off. He had done what was needed to be done in order for a sinner to be saved and it was the sinner's fault for not maintaining the necessary steps to be pleasing to the Lord.
his conclusion we'll answer line by line,
With this little bit of background, I hope the reader can now understand why I say such a view of salvation is blasphemous.
This should be good.
It not only makes God into an impotent deity with no power to actually save anyone, at least without the cooperation of the sinful person,
Ah ah ah, no one said God couldn't save anyone without their cooperation, simply that scripture indicates that He requires it. Macrocosm of difference.
but it still remains a works oriented faith that really doesn't distinguish the uniqueness of what Christianity is as the only true way to heaven from all the other false religions.
"Works oriented?" Sorry, faith in Christ is not a 'work,' and remaining in the faith of Christ is not a 'work.' If that's the crux of his argument for condemning conditional security as blasphemy, he lost before he started.
On top of this, I believe it makes God into being a liar as to His promise to give eternal life to those who believe in faith. John states that the purpose of God sending His son into the world was to give eternal life to those who will believe in Him. Is that a legitimate promise or not? And if it is a legitimate promise, then why can't I be assured that God will come through with His promise in spite of my faults?
Oh wow, somebody please clue this guy in on God's covenant promises. I guess by Fred's logic, God telling the Israelites that He would not fail or forsake them (Deuteronomy 31:6) was somehow not a valid promise since He said that He would forsake them when they turned to other gods (31:17). All of God's promises are valid, but many of them carry stipulations of remaining in covenant with Him if one is to inherit them.
I could not trust the word of God if I could loose my salvation with some spiritual mis-step.
I wouldn't think one could fall from grace with a mis-step, but I do believe you could forfeit it if you willfully depart from Him.
The doctrine of eternal security doesn't hang alone. Eternal life with God is the consummation of all the doctrines of salvation. The whole purpose of God decreeing His plan of salvation, electing a people to be called by His name, sending His Son to redeem those people, and then sending forth His Holy Spirit to empower those people to live righteously, is to securely bring those people into eternal life.
Here Fred employs another logical fallacy in stating that God's purpose is to "securely bring those people into eternal life." While God does give us security so that no one can snatch us away from Him (John 10:29), to assume that He therefore makes it impossible to fall (as Fred is indicating) is a sorely begged question. Let's see if such lofty claims as eternal security being the 'consummation of all the doctrines of salvation' has any real backing.
To suggest a Christian can lose his salvation undoes the divine work leading up to eternal life.
Which I believe is God's prerogative. He had no trouble tearing down the generation of Israel whom He had brought out of Egypt, and we are likewise warned,
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)
Fred then gets to his main thrust,
I believe the doctrine of conditional security is a false one, and the idea of losing one's salvation runs counter to at least seven important doctrines pertaining to God's salvation of men. Over the course of a few posts I will outline those doctrines. Let me begin with the first:
Let's see exactly why CS runs contrary to them, shall we?
I. Conditional Security is Contrary to the Doctrine of the New Birth
If the sinner, then, is going to believe in faith, trust Christ, and turn from his treasonous ways, a divine work must take place in the heart of the sinner to re-orient him toward, and re-unite him with, his creator. That is the work of the new birth. We also know it as regeneration.
[spiel about what regeneration is]
When taken together in their contexts, these passages tell us the work of regeneration re-creates the sinner to newness of life. The re-creation he experiences is a divine work coming directly from God alone. In other words, God is the direct agent facilitating this work. Nothing within the sinner can effect this change.
For those unfamiliar with Calvinist theology, he is referring to regeneration prior to faith, not regeneration through faith and obedience to the gospel as scripture teaches.
Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12)
This refers to the resurrection that we who believe have already experienced, which is through faith in Christ.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (John 5:25)
Note that hearing Christ precedes regeneration. It is not merely hearing the gospel message (for many who hear that reject it and do not live), but heeding it.
Moreover the regeneration is permanent and cannot be undone by the believer as the Arminian presupposes.
Funny that he should talk about me 'presupposing' so much when he doesn't present any actual evidence to back this claims, this one being no exception.
Regeneration removes the defilement of the sinner's heart having it cleansed and washed away. As a result a new principle of righteousness exists in his heart. His thoughts are re-oriented toward God. He understands spiritual things and no long lives in a cloud of spiritual darkness. Rather, the sinner who is forgiven of his sins and is identified with Christ, now lives unto the Lord, no longer in spiritual rebellion, but has a heart willingly submitted to God and pursues righteousness while shunning the life of sin.
But it is not a 'forced willingness,' since God warns us time and again against departing from Him. The new birth is indeed what spurs us to live for Christ, but to assume that it does so irresistibly is erroneous.
There are at least three thoughts in response to the conditional security position, and in light of the biblical data concerning the new birth, why their position is in error:
1) I believe it is clear the Bible reveals that the new birth is alone the work of God. The sinner, in his sinful state, has no interest nor desire to come to God. Left to his sinfulness, he will only weary himself to resist God. How then can the sinner reject a work that is not his to begin with?
Fred's logic is only partially correct, as he is not factoring in prevenient grace. If receiving the grace of God (and therefore receiving faith in Christ which is the condition God requires before He regenerates us) is synergistic, then it isn't a huge leap of logic to reason that standing in that grace is as well. Fred therefore hasn't shown any logical reason why men couldn't reject an offer for God to perform a miraculous work for them.
It doesn't originate with him, nor does he even wish to pursue it. Unless there is a over-riding presupposition of total libertarian free-will that permits the newly regenerated Christian to return to a life of sin, but such a concept of the will is foreign to the Bible's description of man.
I guess he's never looked very closely at Psalm 81,
I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. But My people would not hearken to My voice; and Israel would none of Me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels. Oh that My people had hearkened unto Me, and Israel had walked in My ways! (Psalm 81:10-13)
or perhaps Christ's lament over Jerusalem,
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)
The concept of libertarian free will fits the biblical record quite well, I address the issue in greater depth in a post at Arminian Perspectives.
2) According to the biblical data, regeneration is the transforming of a sinner into a new person. A radical heart change takes place at the hands of God. The person is spiritually resurrected. The divine work is so thoroughly whole and complete with its effects upon a sinner that once born again the sinner will not walk away.
Once again, no supporting scriptural evidence is provided for the last sentence, and I think I know why....
Ephesians 2:10 tells us we are God's workmanship created unto good works and Colossians 1:13 says God's regenerating work transfers us from the kingdom of the devil and places us into the kingdom of Christ.
Yes, which in no way contradicts conditional security.
To suggest we can lose our salvation means we have it in our power to take out the heart of flesh that was given to us by God and replace it with the heart of stone God initially took out of us (Ezekiel 36:26).
Or just harden it through the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13).
It means we have it in our power to renounce our citizenship in Christ's kingdom and transfer back to the kingdom of the devil.
That's exactly what the last passage I presented in the challenge (Revelation 22:19) implies.
It would be like Lazarus committing suicide a couple of months after being raised from the dead by Jesus (John 11).
Why this would have been such an impossibility he never states.
3) All the biblical data tells us that God's promise of the lasting effects of regeneration are sure. The person's desires will always be to pursue righteousness. Persisting in sin grieves him and though he may stumble in sin, his longings will be to overcome it.
And STILL no supporting data or address of the biblical evidence I've presented, in spite of this he still claims that "all the biblical data" supports his position. There's a pattern developing here.
Why would God go to the great lengths of sacrifice to redeem a people called by His name, promise them eternal life, give His Only Begotten Son to secure the salvation of these people, initiate spiritual birth in their hearts, when such a great and awesome work has no lasting value and can potentially be undone? What would be the purpose?
First off, Fred's drawing up another false dichotomy with the words, "has no lasting value and can potentially be undone." It DOES have lasting value, provided one remain in Him. He then asks, "What would be the purpose?" Why would He tell the Israelites of all the good He was going to do for them if He knew they were going to reject it and receive none of it (see Jeremiah 42:9-12), why would He lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, yet scatter their bodies in the wilderness in His wrath (Hebrews 3:17)? So then why wouldn't He redeem someone who received Christ, but cut him off if he departed? Or better yet, why would He give warnings against falling away if the belief that it's possible to fall away constitutes blasphemy?
Just so we can say God wants men to enjoy his "freewill?" Such a theology devalues the power of God to save.
Not really, unless we wish to argue that God is so sovereign that He can't choose to let anyone have a choice in the matter. Bottom line, scripture does clearly speak of a new birth, but there's not really any aspect of it spoken of in scripture that contradicts conditional security.
I might also add that if the 'consummation' of all your doctrines of salvation is directly contradicted in scripture, then either one or more of your doctrines, else the logic employed to derive said consummation is fatally flawed. Doctrine unchecked by and incongruent with scripture is simply man-made doctrine. All in all, this was pretty run-of-the-mill as far as Calvinist replies go: Heavy on the offense laced with sweeping claims, light on the defense with no foundation, and making no substantial address on the details or the issue of the warnings given to saints in scripture. Supposedly, Fred has at least six more major doctrines he feels I violate that he will more than likely try to bash us over the head with soon. We'll be waiting.
Copyright © 2005-2008, 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.