Dialogue on Revelation 22:18-19
August 10, 2007 Joshua Hitchcock posted a response to the challenge to reformed theology.
Hmmm...this response wasn't as good as his last two. Josh starts out by observing,
"The first thing to note is that it reads if "anyone". The Greek word for anyone is "tis" and means just that. If anyone. There is no specifications of who this anyone is, so it essentially is wide open. There is no reason to believe this hypothetical construct is being issued strictly to believers."
That's nice. It need not be addressed strictly to believers, if it is addressed to believers at all, which it must be by virtue of the fact that the consequence includes loss of a part in the city of God (which unbelievers have no part in), then it already poses problems for eternal security. Josh continues,
"However, this text is a hypothetical construct, and not an actualization. The text says if anyone tampers with God's word, they won't go to heaven. That statement is infallibly true. However, the text does not say that true believers do add and take away to God's written revelation, it doesn't say that they desire to do so, nor does the text indicate that they even have the ability to do so. Joshua Thibodaux however reads this into the passage. Such a reading into the text is the result of unwarranted presuppositions."
And Josh falls into one of the fallacious defenses that Calvinists end up using concerning this and other warning passages: he simply makes it of no effect. God has warned everyone, including and especially believers, against tampering with His word under penalty of expulsion from His kingdom, but if one states that such a warning is strictly hypothetical and such a consequence impossible, then you have plainly made it void by your doctrine.
Let me clarify: Has any true believer ever done this? I don't know. But I contend that it is possible, and that if a Christian did so then he would lose his place in the kingdom of God as it plainly states; logically then, Christians ought to heed this viable warning with dreadful consequence. According to Mr. Hitchcock's teaching this is not actually possible for a believer, and God would never actually take away anyone's part in the holy city despite wording to the contrary; logically then, Christians should not worry about this impossible scenario with an absurd consequence. Chalk that one up with the Pharisees' doctrine of Corban.
-------
August 12, 2007 - Josh Hitchcock finishes up his comments on Revelation 22:19. He starts out with my assertion that Revelation 22:19 is addressed especially to believers since it mentions those to whom it is addressed having a part in the holy city,
No, it does not need to be addressed to believers by virtue of anything. While the offer of the gospel is offered to all people, so this warning goes out to all people as well.
Which lands cleanly beside the point. The gospel does indeed go out to all men, but only those who are saved have any part in God's eternal kingdom, therefore believers especially are being addressed here when it speaks about their inheritance in God's kingdom being taken. Josh then throws up his hyper-defensive forcefields here and begins banging feverishly on the silly button:
This passage does not pose problems to eternal security, because nowhere does it say true believers have, desire, or have the ability to take or add away from the biblical text, and have lost their salvation. This again, is a presupposition that is read into the text, to continue to hold an unwarranted position, not supported in the text.
Uh...yeah. I wonder, how does Josh expect God's word to state a warning that actually is possible for believers to violate?
[how it should be worded] "...and if thou messest with mine book, I shall blot thine name from the book of life. And, oh yeah, by the way, this is actually possible for you even if you are saved, and if you don't keep following me, you just might become conceited and actually try doing this, so, you know, be sure to pay attention and stuff instead of just writing this off as something that can only happen to wannabees. 'Kay?"
The very fact that God is issuing a warning to those with their names in the Lamb's book of life should give us a clue. Josh then goes after my assertion that he makes the warning void by his doctrine,
Actually this is not true, I do not deny the effectiveness of this passage, but I do not read into the passage a presupposition that this is especially to believers. I do not make this warning void, but I do not presuppose it means anything other than what it says.
The consequence is having one's part in the holy city taken, that is what it says.
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:19)
By saying this is a hypothetical situation, which it is, because of the word “IF”, which is pretty important, does not mean the consequence is impossible. But to presuppose that this teaches true believers can lose salvation, is not warranted in anyway.
Logically, to say that a believer could never fall away does render the consequence listed here (and therefore the warning itself) totally impossible, so that is in effect what he is saying. The warning delivered to us with its consequence cannot be both impossible and effective at the same time, hence my assertion that he makes it of no effect. Josh finishes up his arguments with,
So, Joshua concedes that he has no proof that believers have ever done this, nor does he have proof that they will, or can. Yet, he holds on to the possibility that this is the case, not on the basis of the text, but on the basis of his presupposition that one can lose his salvation.
"No proof that they can"? Right. Let's see, God gives a warning, the given consequence of ignoring it can pertain only to those who believe; logically, the warning is addressed specifically to we who believe. Oh wait, wait, but it doesn't specifically state right there in the text, "Oh yeah, and it's possible for you to do this." Ho ho! What a blunder on my part! I just assumed that because God was giving us a warning not to do something with the most dreadful penalty imaginable attached that it might be actually possible for us to do it! I'm starting to see how the logic in Calvinism works now!
*Ahem* Forgive my sarcasm, but that is just wrong. One can call it 'presupposition' till the cows come home, if God gives a warning aimed primarily at those who possess a part in the holy city, then those of us who have a share therein will not do well to completely write off the possibility of our suffering the warning's consequences. Josh finishes with a little spiel on my use of 'presuppositions' that I won't waste time answering and will just pretend I didn't hear.
-------
August 12, 2007 - Gordan finishes his answer of the challenge, this response being a bit more strained than his last discourses. He begins his defense with,
"The only way that this passage threatens Calvinism at all is if certain words are taken a certain way. For instance, the “everyone” and the two “anyones” must be seen as speaking of the saved only.
And,
"And, as an aside, I can’t resist pointing out that our Arminian friends have themselves committed the error they so detest in Calvinists. That is, they’ve taken very inclusive and universal sounding words like everyone and anyone and declared that these are really only speaking of the elect! Ah, irony…it’s a beautiful thing."
Well actually, as I've pointed out in my previous defenses, it need not apply to only the saved to contradict eternal security, it need apply to only them period, for if such a warning is applicable to any believers, then the Calvinist doctrine falls like so many cards.
"But, my assumption here is that the Arminian is hung up on the wording of the main text above, “God will take away his share,” which, you could argue, sounds like the one in question is losing something he previously had. It’s his share, and so on.
In answering this, I’d ask, “Who would want to mess with the words of the Scripture, to add some or remove others?” The only answer I can come up with is false teachers, either those who think God is speaking directly to them so as to correct what John wrote, or those who think they’re smart enough to figure out what the text ought to say. (As opposed to what it does say.)"
Yes, a false teacher would want to tamper with the word of God, but this defense only works if one makes the assumption that a false teacher never could have been saved. Not a very viable defense, as 2 Peter indicates that some of the worst false teachers will be apostates who once knew God,
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)
As stated above, if Revelation 22:19 applies to believers at all, then eternal security has suffered its deathblow, and it is simply impossible to escape the fact that the wording employed (one's part in the holy city being revoked) makes it clear that while the warning is delivered to everyone who hears, it applies specifically to those who believe, as those who do not believe have no share in God's kingdom. Gordan then provides a bit of interesting history concerning the formation of the canon, which while interesting and informative, is beside our point. He continues,
"So, back to our warning, I think it is specifically this group that is in mind (though the warning is universal.) It is as if Christ was saying to them, “You think you’ve got a portion, or share, in Me? We’ll see about that.” Christ is simply dealing with them in accordance with their own confession. You think you’re on your way to the heavenly city? Mess with these words, and get back to Me on how that works out for ya, buddy. That sort of thing.
Aside from this group, the warning certainly does apply to the individual members of the true covenant community, as I’ve discussed here in the last two posts and their comments sections. Everyone in the Church confesses faith, but some of them may not really have it. How can we tell? Well, here’s one way: if they take it upon themselves to edit the Word of God, we can be fairly sure that the "portion" or "share" they now claim in the book, or tree, of life is not going to be there for them in the end. So the warning is also applicable even within the Christian community.
Regardless of what creative spin is put on it, if the warning is indeed universal as he states above, then it logically applies to believers as well, which spells contradiction for eternal security. To say that only a person who had never been saved would tamper with holy writ is to beg the question of Perseverance of the Saints. He concludes,
"It is clear from all the above that this passage need not be saying that it is possible for a true Christian, one of the elect of God, to lose his salvation. In fact, I would contend that a great deal more clear, more didactic passages would have to be contradicted in order to claim that.""
Hmmm...more clear, eh? Let's see: "You mess with book, you out of kingdom." Seems pretty self-explanatory. I address the rather silly "non-didactic book defense" elsewhere. It's also odd that he changes it from God taking what they have into taking what they 'claim' to have. If that were the case, then shouldn't it be written something like, "He who tampereth with the words of the prophecy of this book hath no part in the tree of life or the holy city...", instead of this odd wording that "contradicts" so many other passages? Frankly, that warning says it is addressed to everyone, then that everyone includes those who believe, myself included. To say that it could not actually be violated by (and therefore not really apply to) me or any other believer would be a foolish reaction to such a stern warning of the Most High.
Omake!!
As a bonus, Gordan gives his comments on the challenge itself:
Just to say: it is hardly objective.
Hmmm...Let's look again at a brief synopsis of the challenge in summary format:
Matthew 5: If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off because it's better to be maimed than damned
Hebrews 4: Be diligent to enter into God's rest lest you fall like unbelieving Israel
Revelation 22: If you take away from the book, you will lose your place in God's kingdom
Yeah, I'm definitely reading stuff into there. He goes on,
He didn't merely come and say, "Hey, what do you crazy Calvinists think about these three passages? I'd like to hear your ridiculous answers, so I can crush them. ...But as a part of his challenge to us, he also made it plain that he had already heard some Calvinist answers. And they didn't impress him. And so, part of the challenge was, oh, by the way, you can't answer like these other guys did. And, if I don't like your answers, they can't possibly be correct.
They're free to answer as much like the other guys as they like, I just gave them a heads-up as to some of the more ridiculous defenses I've seen employed. Whether I like an answer or not has no bearing on its correctness, it's whether it can stand up to logical and scriptural scrutiny or not. He also comments,
But I knew when I started that the Challenge was going to be won or lost, not back at his site, but in the hearts and minds of folks who read.
Which is not exactly correct, for matters of truth are settled by what is taught in the word of God, not by how many people believe or disbelieve it.
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.