The Adventures of Bayou Bully
J.C. Thibodaux
Yes folks you heard right, I am now officially a bully. After a maliciously benign post at Arminian Perspectives and two blatant acts of self-defense on my part against Mr. Belvedere's charges of inconsistency, I am now apparently to the stage of bullying the entirety of Triablogue. And here I thought I was just some guy in front of a computer who liked to discuss theology. By the title conferred upon me by Triabloguer Paul Manata, I can only conjecture that he deems me some crazed Cajun Kung Fu master who can propagate such preponderous proportions of punishing polemical pwnage, that I'm now pushing the Triabloggers around despite being outnumbered 8 to 1. I think he's just trying to wage some kind of bizarre psychological warfare on me. But despite my 1-man ganging up on them, Paul to his credit still somehow managed to summon the courage to answer my challenge. So here we go,
Clearing things up
Mr. Manata puts out not a few misconceptions, which I shall briefly clarify before I get to the meat of the matter.
Before we begin, we can at least pause and point out the dubious nature of this claim. Apparently Thibodaux hasn't read much on the philosophy of science. Many times "the facts" are accepted and given their status by virtue of the dogmatic hypothesis ruling the day. There are paradigm shifts which allow certain "facts" to be accepted as facts. Or, the idea that there are no theory-independent observations. Perhaps this isn't the case, but it is hotly debated and Thibodaux just asserts one side of the story, without apologetic.
Which is why I was careful to qualify them as "established and indisputable facts," (e.g. the earth is round, things fall down rather than up), not what some merely suppose to be facts, such as Darwinism.
Again, this seems fairly obvious. But before we look at fact 3 we should pause and note the facts 1 and 2 weren't exegetically demonstrated from the Bible.
Nor had I any intention of doing so, they were simply reminders and basic premises for those who already believe them. Someone who doesn't already recognize those facts has bigger issues to deal with than this debate.
As for his objections concerning my definition of 'believers,'
This (fact 3) is also vague. What is meant by "believers?" Is it a mere "professing" believer? Is it one of God's elect? Is "falling away" taken to mean "apostasy." The sin from which it is "impossible to restore them again?"
and,
We should define what a "believer" is. When the reformed speak of a "believer" in the context of "perseverance of the saints" they distinguish said person from someone merely professing belief. There were both here.
It's not hard to understand from the wording I employ, "believers falling away from God and into condemnation;" it would be somewhat hard for one who believes to fall away from God if he never were with God, or fall into condemnation were he already under such consigned.
He also cites the fact that I don't present the other side completely,
Three evidences (allegedly) against it are produced, none of the evidence for it is allowed to speak. Does this feel like an honest evaluation of a "hypothesis?" Like a fair trial? Or more like a Kangaroo court. A travesty of justice? We're obviously reading a biased report masquerading as honest and open inquiry.
Which I don't recall being under any obligation to do. This was quite by design: I present my side (and preempt a few arguments from the other) then present it to the other side so they can show theirs. It's not like I'm not giving them a chance to defend their views; indeed, I invited them to, so I'm not sure what his beef here is.
The initial comments were just the obligatory fluff one must stuff his readers with so as to give the appearance of "scholarly" work.
Scholarly? I actually wrote it with laymen more in mind. I sincerely question your definition of the word 'scholarly' if you'd accuse a work containing the phrase 'Giant earthworm' of trying to sound overly scholarly.
"Putting us on" is a question begging epithet.
Here he employs a decontextualization, as no insult was intended or implied, as it was merely an expression. The original quote was, "All inherent problems aside, even if this were the case and God were simply 'putting us on,' so to speak, for the sake of our living righteously...."
Thibodaux beats up on a straw man by implying that we believing in "the presumption of perseverance of the saints." We believe that Jesus will cause us to persevere. We do not have a presumption. We do not believe that if we've said "the sinners prayer" then we're "all good in da hood." We believe that we will persevere as long as we trust in Jesus Christ. The moment we stop trusting in Jesus, and trust in the presumption of perseverance, then we've been side tracked. We've given an evidence indicator that we don't really belong to Christ in the first place.
I implied nothing of the sort. The wording of the challenge was such that it addressed both the cheap grace and lordship salvation views of eternal security, as both have the common denominator that it is not possible for one who was once saved to perish, but in no place do I equate the two.
Now for his actual arguments. Mr. Manata employs several basic themes to his arguments, grouped here for convenience.
Argument from diversity of opinion
Apparently, the fact that some scholars have different views on the interpretation of certain passages is supposed to be substantial evidence against my case.
And just what are these "clearly established facts?" He assumes below that his understanding of the warning passages are among the "clearly accepted facts" of Scripture (see fact 3). But this isn't the case, at all. For starters, one could point out Four Views on The Warning Passages in Hebrews, for starters. One could peruse the multifarious commentaries on the book of Hebrews for a glimpse at just how "unclear" about these "facts" scholars are.
(why is 'unclear' in quotes?) and,
As I noted above, a brief survey of the Christian literature on the subjects of the warnings seem to indicate that this is not something that is among the "established and indisputable" facts.
and,
If Thibodaux wants to say, "Oh but it is, and that all those theologians debate it vigorously is of no consequence to me," then we must point out that reformed theology is an established and indisputable fact of Scripture, and so Thibodaux's theories must make nice with that particular biblical teaching.
and,
Is Thibodaux's interpretation of this text "established and indisputable?" C. Blomberg notes thirty-six different interpretations (Blomber, Matthew, 1992, 94).
The third fact I listed was, "The scriptures provide multiple warnings against believers falling away from God and into condemnation." I welcome him to cite any solid scholarly evidence against this or the other points. Any debates from scholar or layman are welcome in reply, I simply ask that you cite the specifics of your evidence, not simply the fact that some scholars debate the subject. Good arguments require specifics, as opposed to what Mr. Manata has done in merely pointing out that there are differing opinions and insisting that reformed theology is indisputable.
The Law and Sanctification
If Jesus is giving the full (or correcting the abuse of) meaning of the law of God, then that law holds for believer and unbeliever alike. Thus Jesus would be giving an objective basis in terms of which God's judgment on the law-violator is carried out.
Yes, but he also speaks of doing so in terms of escaping hell fire or suffering it, hence this passage's relevance to the discussion.
A "believer" escaping corruption by battling sin is called "sanctification." The Bible implies that those being sanctified will be sanctified. That if they're battling sin, truly, then they will end in heaven, with Christ:
True, those battling sin will end in heaven with Christ -- provided they remain in Christ and thus continue battling sin. My point is that if they cease to do so, then they will not inherit eternal life, which none of the passages he cites speak against. Here are his citations:
"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy because of His great love with which His loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:1-7).
Which says nothing about the possibility or impossibility of ceasing to continue in the process of sanctification.
"Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Heb. 10:13-14).
This text is often misinterpreted as saying that once sanctification is done, it cannot be undone because we've been made 'perfect forever.' This was not what the author was saying, he was indicating that Christ's sacrifice only needed to be performed once as opposed to the yearly sacrifices made under the old covenant (see the preceding context, note verses 3 and 11).
"being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phi. 1:6)
I agree, I actually cited this in my challenge. God is faithful to His covenant to continue His work in us until we are as Christ by writing His law on our hearts, but this does not imply that such working is unconditional or that it's impossible to turn away from God, especially considering the warnings given against doing so. Scripture cannot be interpreted by the cancellation method. God is faithful, yet remaining in His covenant is conditional; so if we remain in grace, God continues to sanctify us. If one has broken covenant with God, then the promises of the thereof no longer apply to him or her.
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness" (1 Pet. 2:24)
Um, again I agree. How this is supposed to guarantee that sanctification is irrevocable is never explained.
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace" (Rom. 6:1-14).
Same as above.
The hypothetical argument
Mr. Manata also tries to establish the possibility that Jesus was merely speaking His warning in Matthew 5 hypothetically.
As a hypothetical, this can be said to believers and be a true statement, yet nevertheless fail to undercut perseverance of the saints. Thibodaux tries to say Jesus' claims would be pointless if this could not actually happen to an elect Christian. I take it as undisputed that: if you tell someone the truth, you've been sincere or genuine with them.
After giving a brief discourse on if-then statements, he argues,
Therefore, going back to the issue at hand, it is true that IF the true believer does such and such, he will go to hell. This can be a true statement qua conditional statement, and this can be true even though no elect person would ever do such and such.
1) If you tell someone the truth, you have been sincere with them.
2) When Jesus says what will happen to someone IF they do such and such, he is telling the truth.
3) Therefore, When Jesus says what will happen to someone IF they do such and such, he has been sincere with them.
4) If you've been sincere with someone what you've said isn't pointless.
5) Jesus was sincere.
6) Therefore what Jesus said wasn't pointless.
There's a problem with premise 4, if one impossibility based upon another is sincerely stated, it's still pointless. One could sincerely (albeit absurdly) and truly warn another that if he were to hit the ground hard enough with a hammer, the very globe could be split asunder. While such a statement is technically logically sound, it is devoid of any worthwhile signification as such a condition is impossible for a human being to fulfill. For Christ to be sincere, accurate, and meaningful, the warnings He gives must be possible to violate.
He also goes off into some familiar territory,
God uses verses like this as a means to bring believers to their end, life everlasting.
and,
One could make the case that Jesus is providing instruction that will keep the believer out of hell. Keep him from continuing in a life of sin.
and,
The warnings are means God uses to bring his elect into his eschatological kingdom.
Which was already addressed in the challenge, in that if the purpose of God is to give us a warning with the practical effect of 'making us fear' (or similar effect) so that we endure to the end, then a doctrine that teaches that such a warning is impossible to violate and its consequences impossible to suffer negates any such fear or caution which God's word was meant to instill, making it of no practical effect either.
I hold that some of these people warned are external covenant members. They will be judged more harshly than Joe Shmoe unbeliever. Hebrews 10:30 - The Lord will judge His People. They are false professors, they will not enter God's rest. But, some of them have been graciously put into the administration of the covenant. It is hear that they will hear the warnings and tremble at the threatenings, and flee to Christ. So, even for unbelievers, the warnings can serve as means to bring them into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. For the elect, it will (among other things, like answering Arminians) be used as a means for keeping them in their saving relationship.
'Answering Arminians?' I couldn't quite make sense of that thought. The 'keeping them in their saving relationship,' I address above. As for the warnings being meant for unbelievers, while this could be said of some warnings in scripture, the consequences for the ones I listed specifically can only apply to the those who are saved, as no amount of avoiding sin can help an unsaved person escape hell, the warning in Hebrews was to those who have a heavenly High Priest (4:14-15), and no unbeliever has a part in the holy city to take away (which I stated in the challenge originally).
Ironically, he also says,
You can never be too redundant in telling people that they'll miss out on eternal life.
Which is probably why I reject any doctrine that says it's impossible to miss it if you are already saved...such as eternal security.
Thibodaux has also misunderstood the nature of conditionals.
This humor in that statement is compounded even further considering my profession (Computer Programmer).
The Calvinist can happily agree that IF ANYONE does those things, what is said will follow. That is TRUE. The point is, WILL ANYONE do those things. For Thibodaux to say that it, "makes no sense to say that IF someone S does an action A then X will result, if S cannot (where "cannot" means "given this current decree) A." But this is false. IF we are perfect, we will go to heaven. But, no one can be perfect. Or, it would be true for me to say, "If I could pull money out of thin air, then I'd be a rich man." That doesn't mean that I ever will be able to do that. The point is, a condition can be true if the antecedent is always false. That's juts a point of logic.
I never said that it "makes no sense to say that IF someone S does an action A then X will result, if S cannot [perform] A." Logically it would mean that result X would never be achieved. The logic does indeed parse out, but in terms of inherent net meaning it's useless. Such statements in say, computer language, lack any relevance whatsoever and do nothing but put additional work put on the processor. Or to put it in pseudo-code,
if(false), then
call DoThis();
Assuming the function DoThis() is not called from any other location (or is in similar impossible to reach statements), it then has no bearing on how the program operates and may as well not exist. It is in effect, void. This also holds true in normal speech, hence if the action that a literal warning is addressed against is impossible to perform, the warning itself is effectively void (especially the consequence). It is logically equivalent to saying, "Don't do something impossible, or this event will occur." Complete nonsense. Could it be an idiom of some kind? A conditional statement employing a manifestly impossible condition can be used idiomatically for an emphatically strong negative. Such as when it was said to to Israel in Jeremiah 31:35-37,
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
The word of the Lord here employs several obviously humanly impossible conditions (the sun, moon, stars, and sea ceasing to be, and the heavens and earth being completely explored) to express that He will not forsake Israel as a people. Such is useful for expressing meaning because it draws a comparison between the level of impossibility, the condition being totally unachievable. This device cannot be stretched to fit the warnings that I've cited however, for something as manifestly simple as trying to detract from the book of prophecy, continuing in sin or ceasing to follow Christ is apparently quite possible for anyone who wishes to do so. A like comparison would rather illustrate that it definitely is possible for one to have his or her place in the kingdom of God taken from them, the conditions having no impossibility associated with them.
This is absurd since no Calvinist has denied that believers cannot be warned. Being warned doesn't imply that you won't persevere.
Of course not. We're all warned, which by that logic would imply that no one would persevere. Rather, a sincere warning addressed to the saints does indicate that it is possible to not persevere.
Since we've never denied the "warning of the saints" then there's no "doctrine" we have to "bring in line with Scripture."
Indeed, he's not denied the warnings, simply any real possibility of their consequences occuring to whom they were delivered, hence making them void.
Appeal to lack of example
Apparently, Mr. Manata also thinks that to establish the possibility of falling away, we not only need to have such a possibility being clearly warned against, but that an example of someone doing so must be cited as well.
Where in any of this do we have an example of an elect person not persevering?
and,
In the broader context we find that those who fell away were never "in Christ." "We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first" (Heb. 3:14). So Thibodaux must show that someone was "in Christ" who "fell away." "Metochos" [partaker] is used in the sense of having a saving interest in Christ since, even as Thibodaux points out, the context is the "rest"/salvation God brings.
and,
I addressed this above. Thibodaux hasn't shown "someone who was saved not persevering."
I never claimed to show such an example here, all I have demonstrated, and all I need demonstrate, is the possibility. One does not need an example to demonstrate possibility if said possibility has already been established.
He also states,
Since there's no logical problem (see (i) above), there's nothing to reconcile. We need to see a passage that says that someone didn't persevere who was saved.
No, one simply needs a passage telling you that it is possible to not persevere, since as shown above, the logic he employs is still extremely problematic as far as the word of God being made void is concerned.
Thoughts on Hebrews
Where is the idea in Hebrews that those who "fall away" are ever of the same kind as those who "truly" believe? Heb. 6 draws the contrast: "7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned." We therefore see that there are two kinds of soil, not one kind. The latter never produced crops. It's of a different nature.
I wasn't expressing such an idea, simply the fact that those who are sincerely following Christ are warned against failing to enter into His rest. The implication he draws from Hebrews 6 is interesting, but the differing land illustration may also represent men who choose differing paths once they receive the word; though whether chapter 6 specifically is talking about the formerly saved or the almost saved is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Who enters that rest? "We who have (past tense) believed" (v.3). How do you enter the rest? "For anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (v.10). How does one "rest from his work?" He trusts in Christ's work. The work of another person. So, those who have truly put their faith in Christ are not trusting in works, they "have believed" and thus "entered his rest."
Here his exegesis breaks down, for we who have believed 'do enter' (present tense), not 'have entered' that rest. The rest it speaks of is not temporal, nor enjoyed in this present life, but speaks of the eternal rest when we pass from this world to be with Christ. Hence it warns us to be diligent to enter it, for what purpose would it serve to tell we who believe ('we who have believed') to strive to enter into His rest if we who have believed have already arrived? Additionally, entering God's rest is not presently achieved, but left to us as a promise that we are warned against falling short of (Hebrews 4:1).
Other arguments
Telling imperfect and unable people to "be perfect" is, some would say, "of no effect at all."
Some would be incorrect, for that is exactly how God expects us to walk. To the contrary, this is the establishment of an ideal and state to which all Christians should strive, and do accomplish while walking fully in the Spirit (not totally sinless perfection, for the sinful nature still remains, but walking in the Spirit and not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh - Galatians 5:16), not some absurd impossibility contingent upon another another absurdity as he is trying to paint the warning passages listed.
Yes, we should all take the Lord at his word. For if we do "fall away" then we were never saved in the first place and all is lost. So, as Hebrews points out, we need to "stand firm to the end.
Yet His word clearly warns those who believe and already have a part in eternal life against falling away.
Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn. 6:44). Thus if we've been drawn by the Father and we come to Jesus, he WILL raise us up on the last day. Thibodaux needs to square his doctrine with Scripture.
Yes, He will, provided we continue in Christ. Why my doctrine won't fit there he doesn't establish. He continues,
Paul said,
"28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. 31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died more than that, who was raised to life is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Thibodaux needs to square his doctrine with Scripture. After all, I'm just squaring his hypothesis with the indisputable and clearly established facts of Scripture.
Of course no created thing can separate us from Christ. Jesus said in John 15:2,
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
And Paul warns in similar fashion,
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Romans 11:22)
It is not we or any other created thing that can separate us from Christ, but the ones that do not abide will be cut off by God the Father.
Thanks Paul for your reply, and bestowing upon me such an awesome nickname! Now about that lunch money...
Copyright © 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.