If at First You Don't Succeed, Triablogue, Triablogue Again...
J.C. Thibodaux
This article is a part of a dialogue over the Challenge to Reformed Theology by Scriptural Fact. It is in response to a post at Triablogue. Mr. Manata's comments below are italicized.
Paul Manata tries again at a reasonable response, this post notably more fuming than the last, in which he resorts to some rather oddball and immature tactics. The beginning of the post is very memorable, which is not always a good thing,
J.C. Thibodaux issued a "challenge to T-bloggers." He did so with all the gusto of Ravishing Rick Rude's midsection, yet upon inspection, his muscular challenge feels more like the Pillsbury Doughboy's midsection. His response to my answer to his challenge was even at the caliber of the response one gets from touching the Doughboy's tummy: "Hee-hee."
You know, I've been in several informal debates now, and I can honestly say that this is the first time I've ever had a male opponent even mention the prospect of (putting 2 and 2 together from the title) tickling my tummy, or offer any commentary concerning another man's anatomy for that matter. Next he begins creatively inserting some motives into my statements,
Also, note that Thibodaux tries to appeal to the pity of his audience. He can't be a bully because he's outnumbered 8 to 1.
'Pity?' Interesting thought. Of course I would technically have to be losing for that to work....
Well, let's note that (a) I used to be a bully and I would frequently pick on large groups of people. None were strong enough to stand up to me.
This applies to me how again?
(b) This was Thibodaux's challenge! He's the one who challenged all of us. Now he tries to play that role of a martyr?
The challenge, if you recall, was issued as part of my response (in case anyone wanted to take up a real debate) to a critique written against a post I made on Arminian Perspectives, which was not addressed to or aimed at anyone from Triablogue. In other words, Triablogue came to me. Forgive me for standing up to you and meeting you head-on.
I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who tried to mess with a bunch of bayou gators, I'd call him stupid.
Oh yeah, 'stupid.' There's a big touche' if I've ever heard one. Did he come up with that one all by himself? Now if we can dispense with the revisionist history and ad hominem, we can move on to more substantial poin-- never mind, let's just work with what he's got. He actually argues quite a few ridiculous concepts, which I'll list further below for strictly comedic purposes; for now let's stick with his comments that resemble meaningful.
The Purpose of Warnings
He states concerning warnings,
But we are to "tremble at the threatenings." Indeed, Reformed theology has always taught that if you don't "tremble at the threatenings" then you don't have saving faith: "By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come" (WCF XIV:II). Therefore, not taking the threatenings seriously, but presumptuously thinking that we are set, that we have already taken hold of the prize, is an evidence-indicator (a fruit --> root inference) that we never had saving faith in the first place. The threatenings cause us to grab hold of Christ. Holding on to Jesus is the only way to heaven. Thus the threatenings are means of salvation (or, of reaching glorification).
If you say "tremble at the threatenings," then try to explain that the consequences of threatenings could never actually occur to whom they were delivered, then you have produced dissonance aplenty, as you are in effect telling us to tremble at a sheer impossibility. So reformed theology yields a rather confusing view that despite its noble sentiment in commanding to heed the admonitions of God, its cardinal doctrines undermine them by leaving no real reason for those that are not elect to tremble at the warnings given (as the consequences already and irrevocably apply to them, the heeding of any warning being unable to reverse it), nor the elect to do so since it also holds that the consequences of such warnings could never apply to them at all. So whether you're elect or not, Calvinist doctrine still renders them void of any real meaning.
Lastly, the purpose of the warnings for believers is that they are means to keep them in the faith. Keep them trusting in Jesus. Take them in a nonchalant way, provide and evidence-indicator that you're not saved. Saved people trust in Christ. Saved people believe that if we do X, then Y will happen. So we don't do X, thanks be to God.
But concerning warnings with a damning consequence written specifically to the saints, you believe that Y can't happen, which drives your belief that X can't happen either. So Calvinists end up making the possibility of an apparently possible condition contingent upon its consequence. Interesting logic.
Thus we do not "mess around." We do not "take things lightly." We "cling to Jesus Christ." We pray that he will keep us in the faith. That we would not deny him. That our profession would be genuine.
I didn't say that you did, but neither should you make the word void by writing off the warnings that God gives to the saints as impossibilities.
When I stated, "Indeed, he's not denied the warnings, simply any real possibility of their consequences occurring to whom they were delivered, hence making them void."
His second claim commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi and the fallacy of false dichotomy. I've already answered his "no purpose" argument by bring up means. Also, to assume that the warnings have only the purpose of showing that it is possible for an elect to fall, or nothing, he leaves out a third possibility - that of a means to bring us to salvation.
Mr. Manata imports false assumption into his argument, as I do believe that the warnings are a means of salvation, the problem with his view is that they can only be so effectively if one believes them to be genuine and possible to violate.
Concerning Jesus' warning in Matthew 5, Mr. Manata writes, This passage simply tells us how we are to battle sin. We wage violent war against it. If you don't cut off an eye, then you're not willing battle your sin in any serious way. If you're not willing to do that, then you are not a believer. "How can we who have died to sin continue to live in it," asks Paul. So, if one didn't do these things, then this is an evidence-indicator (fruit --> root inference), that one was never saved in the first place. That's the Reformed interpretation. You're not going to convince anyone with an argument that uses dubious premises that assume an Arminian understanding.
Indeed Christ is telling us how and to what extent to battle sin, but there's no indication within the text of a contrast between differing types of people here. The nature of His warning,
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
is such that it could only be specifically addressing those who believe, since the issue of battling sin is irrelevant for those who have no saving faith, and would have no bearing on their escaping hell. It is not a contrasting description, but a prescription, as well as a powerful warning to those faithful to Him.
He tried to answer me on Hebrews 4, His assumption that they are "sincerely following Christ" is vague. People can be sincerely wrong. But, if he means that they have genuine saving faith, let him show it, not assert it.
Which I already did, in that the author of Hebrews is addressing those who have believed (vs 3), and have Christ as their High Priest (vs 14).
'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.'
I anwered, '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).'
I think he recognized that point, To be sure, there is an already/not yet aspect to "the rest." But if we have believed, then we have trusted in the work of Christ, and no longer rely on our work, hence we are resting in Him.
Yes, but not in the sense described here.
It is interesting to note that those who worked on the OT days of atonement were put to death. Only those who "drew near" to the priest and "rested" from their work were saved. The parallel is unmistakable.
Actually, it's likened to a Sabbath rest (vs 9), comparable to when God finished His work of creation and rested. It's not ceasing from 'relying on' works, but ceasing from 'doing' works as God did when He rested (which Christians are not to cease from doing until our glorification), and therefore can only refer to the eternal rest.
Those who believe WILL take hold of that final rest. The only ones who failed to enter were people who heard the good news. There is no argument that a true believer could fail to enter forthcoming.
As I pointed out, many who heard the good news also drank of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), yet they did not enter into His rest. If it is speaking of eternal rest and also speaking to we who have believed that are entering, then such a warning against falling after Israel's example is a powerful argument.
He tries to salvage some credibility in the scriptural arena, His response to my citing Ephesians 2:1-7 is mind numbing. Thibodaux says,
"Which says nothing about the possibility or impossibility of ceasing to continue in the process of sanctification."
Ephesians actually brings up the reverse of Thibodaux's problem. Read what the Spirit, through Paul, says to those who have been saved: "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)." He "made us sit in the heavenly places" and that "in the ages to come" he would show us all the riches of His grace. But how could God say this if it was possible that each and every single person saved could (contrary to the decree) all deny him?
Because He already foreknows that such will not be the case.
This text appears to teach that those "made alive" will all "be with Jesus in the ages to come." Furthermore, if you were made alive, then do you die, and become alive again, and then die, and then become alive again, and then die, and then alive again, and then die, and then be made alive again, and then die, and then be made alive again, ad nauseum. This seems absurd.
I believe no such thing either. One who is in sin is given space to repent (such as in Revelation 2:21) before falling away entirely, though after which renewal to repentance is impossible.
When he asked about Hebrews 10:13-14, I responded, 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).
This is extremely simplistic.
Wow, that's a brilliant objection, which I would thank our astute detective for pointing out. Did he think I was giving him a short answer, or writing a commentary? I don't recall parsimony being a major exegetical error.
It is true that the author is referring to the one-time sacrifice of Christ as opposed to the yearly sacrifices by the OT high priests, but what do we draw from this? The OT sacrifices could never save, "because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (v.4). This is contrasted with Christ's. For, "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 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" (vv. 12-14). Thus we see that the death of Christ took away the sin of those it was made for. He therefore continues, "The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."
What, does God write his law on their minds, and then erase it, and then write it, and then erase it, and then write it, and then erase it, ad nauseum. This is where Thibodaux's position leads.
More of the "saved, unsaved, saved again, unsaved again" canard. He continues, Those who "have been made perfect" is in the perfect tense, the present passive participle is used. Thus the status of God's people (this is the covenant I will make with THEM) is expressed in timeless terms (see France, 247).
That argument from tense is fraught with problems, since the present participles only indicate presently ongoing action, not irrevocably ongoing action, Galatians 1:4 being a good example.
The "emphasis is being laid on the fact that by the same sacrifice those who have been cleansed and 'perfected' are now eternally constituted God's holy people" (ibid). What we have here is the fulfilling of Jeremiah's prophecy. The bringing about of the Covenant of Redemption. God's plan to save his people, who He foreknew and loved from the foundation of the world. Those who the lamb was slain for from the foundation of the world. The OT law and sacrifice was a "reminder of sin," this sacrifice is the "removal of sin." He remembers their lawless acts "NO MORE." This is why there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
Through such lengthy discourse my answer of what being made 'perfect forever' means still meets no real objection, nor has he made any headway in his points, since simply citing evidence for the covenant of grace between God and man does not constitute evidence that it is unbreakable. Which brings us to,
Assurance and the Covenant
When he confronted me on Philippians 1:6, I replied, "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."
Perhaps if you're a synergist. But it is God who brings this to completion. He (not us) began the work and He (not us) will bring the work to completion. The Calvinist can have assurance, not the libertarian.
This gets funnier as it goes along. First he claims, "We wage violent war against it. If you don't cut off an eye, then you're not willing battle your sin in any serious way. If you're not willing to do that, then you are not a believer," now he states that a Calvinist can have assurance at a level that I apparently can't. A Calvinist could have assurance, assuming he knew for sure if he was saved (in which case the warning passages again would prove utterly moot). But, as many Calvinists will acknowledge, men may also fall under 'evanescent grace,' and be to a superficial degree reformed for a time, even believing themselves to be among the elect, without ever actually being saved. So the question then is how does one who believes know, not have a warm and fuzzy feeling, but know for a fact that he or she is not simply under evanescent grace rather than saving grace? Even Mr. Manata admits in trying to explain away the warning passages,
Lastly, the doctrine is that the saints will persevere until the end. It is possible that we, individually, could be fooling ourselves. It is possible that we may not be saints.
He continues, He cannot demonstrate the possibility of an elect, regenerate Christian falling away since the Bible says this won't happen:
John 6:38-40, 44 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Jesus says everyone who comes to him, who believes on him, will have eternal life.
Yes, provided we remain in Him. It is indeed not God's will that He lose any, but this does not preclude men from acting out of line with God's will and displeasing Him.
John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
Jesus gives his sheep eternal life, and they will never perish. But Thibodaux thinks it is possible that they could perish. Thibodaux has the reverse problem: It seems meaningless to tell sheep that they will never perish if they very well may. Since "they shall never perish" is a Greek Construction (ou me plus aorist subjunctive) is may be translated more explicitly "and they shall certainly not perish forever" (Grudem, ST, 789).
It is not a nonsensical statement to tell someone that they will never perish in the strongest possible terms if the understood condition of remaining in Him is currently being fulfilled. The difficulty Mr. Manata is having is in his view of assurance and conditionality. When faced with statements of both assurance (definite statements of "I will" or "I will not"), and condition ("if you"), the statements of promise and assurance don't render the conditions void, they are contingent upon fulfillment of the conditions. So if Christ says "you will never perish," it does not nullify the conditions He also states such as "abide in me," nor the consequence of not fulfilling the stipulations. A good example of this sort of guarantee to a promise with an understood condition is found in Deuteronomy 31:8,
Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. (Deuteronomy 31:8),
God is faithful to do all that He has promised (as He strongly assures Israel in verse 8), with the understood condition that they remain in covenant with Him, for just nine verses later He speaks of what happens when they forsake it,
Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? (Deuteronomy 31:17)
No matter how strong a statement of assurance is given, if it is conditional, then the assurance is only meant for those abide by such stipulations. Or as Christ states in Revelation 2:10b,
"...be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life."
Or to put it simply, a thousand statements of assurance at the highest level do not void a single statement of conditionality. Conditions clarify covenantial promises, strong promises don't mitigate their own conditions.
Believers have the Holy Spirit. Therefore:
Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
We thus have a guarantee of eternal life. How could God guarantee us eternal life if it rested upon such a shaky ground as our libertarian will?
Not free will alone, but grace to endure as well, for no one could endure without God, which you'll recall from my post that B. Belvedere first responded to.
Next Paul tries to hit me with Romans 8, 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.
To which I replied, "Of course no created thing can separate us from Christ." To which he retorts,
Thibodaux can't follow out his syllogism:
[1] No created thing can keep us from attaining everlasting life as found in being united to Christ.
[2] True believers are created things.
[3] Therefore, true believers cannot keep us (themselves) from everlasting life as found in being united to Christ.
QED
Perhaps he missed the point of my citing John 15 and Romans 11. It does not say, as premise 1 of Paul's syllogism states, that "no created thing can keep us from attaining everlasting life as found in being united to Christ," but that "no created thing can separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ our Lord." Thus a true believer being a created thing cannot of his own power force God to void His love and favor, but if he violates the terms of God's covenant and despises His goodness, the Sovereign God Himself will cut the offender off, the result being that he won't obtain eternal life.
Remaining in the covenant is conditioned on the extra nos faith we have in the object of our faith, Jesus Christ. This faith is not of ourselves, it too is given. God makes sure that we continue to express faith, and this is how He is able to "bring what He started to completion."
Faith is indeed given by God, though there is a synergistic aspect to holding to it, for it is also written,
Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. (1 Corinthians 16:13)
and warns,
But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. (1 Timothy 5:11-12)
and yes, it even cites examples,
Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:19-20)
He also presented the scripture, '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.' (Romans 6)
To which I could only reply, "Um, again I agree. How this is supposed to guarantee that sanctification is irrevocable is never explained."
Um, by putting your little thinking cap on. Try it again with the bolded portion. I just reverse your problem. It would be absurd to tell people that they will CERTAINLY be resurrected unto glory if they can just denounce their new life!
Unless of course the certainty of the promise is contingent upon the given of remaining in union with Christ. For even if we do escape the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ, those that fall back into it are worse off than before (2 Peter 2:20).
He goes on, Given his argument from "that just wouldn't make sense" he must remove the rug he's standing on. For, "it just doesn't make sense" that someone would guarantee someone something he couldn't guarantee. Of, that he would say that they will certainly never perish, if indeed they may!
Nay, God can guarantee eternal life, as He has already promised to all who obey Him (Heb 5:9). But just as in any covenantial agreement, the guarantee thereof only applies to those remaining within the covenant. A 100% faithful first party in a covenant does not indicate that a covenant cannot be broken by the second party, in which case the first party is under no obligation or guarantee any more than if the second had never entered it.
He cited Hebrews 6 to prove another point, 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 replied, "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."
He apparently can't follow arguments too well. I, as well as other reformed thinkers, argue that those who do in fact leave were never true believers in the first place. I gave an argument showing that the two types of people, those who would fall away vs. those who stay, are different kinds of people, not just a single lump of "believers."
Oh I followed the argument, fortunately plenty of light spilled in through the many holes. Proving that some supposed believers are false professors (which is doubtless true) does not preclude the possibility of true believers falling away.
Next we learn that I can't possibly be right because the facts I present would contradict their premises,
Salvation is 100% of God. We maintain that the denial of the perseverance of the saints is due to holding to a synergistic model of salvation. We maintain that those who have once been united with Christ, will always remain united. Your argument must assume an Arminian theory of the atonement, which we reject.
So now what I say can't possibly be true because it might contradict other premises you hold? The solution isn't difficult: Some of your premises may be incorrect.
You thus have disputed and hotly debated hidden premises upon which your argument rests.
Hidden premises? All I'm doing is making a case, I can't help it if the facts happen run over your premises. I have presented the fact that Christians are warned against falling away and the implications thereof as evidence against a specific doctrine. If my point is indeed valid evidence against that doctrine, then the the premises and/or reasoning the doctrine was derived from must yield to fact, not vice-versa.
He then goes into elephant-hurling mode, We hold that if Jesus died for a person, then he took their punishment. He was punished in their stead. For them. They received his righteousness and have been declared innocent by the Father. On a daily basis they have a high priest who intercedes for them, this intercessionary work of Christ cannot fail. We don't have a failure Jesus. We hold that the Spirit's regenerating work cannot be reversed, just as I cannot revert to an infant, and then a conceptus. Salvation is of grace, and we cannot out-sin grace.
We've heard all this before. Thanks, I agree that Christ was punished in our stead; Christ won't fail, but man can fail to remain in the covenant; the Holy Spirit certainly can depart from someone who has so fallen, who would then fall from a state of life into death; and it is plainly stated that men do fall from grace, especially if they turn to another gospel.
Logic
Then he tries to tutor me on logic. When he used the syllogism,
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.'
I replied,
'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.'
Let's note that his first sentence isn't a verse in the Bible,
Neither were any of his premises...we'll see more on this topic further down.
so it's unclear how he's using "the clear and undisputed facts of Scripture.
Also, what is the problem with 4? Is it a false premise?
It's a not necessarily true premise, which does not necessitate that it be false. Pretty basic logic.
He notes about my example of a ridiculous warning against splitting the earth with a hammer, That seems odd. Perhaps it is only false when the antecedent and the condition are both impossible. But that is not clear, at all. Part of his counter-analogy gains its force from the fact that we know the earth will not split asunder. Thus we can go ahead hit it with a hammer. But if we do so, and the consequent doesn't happen, then it is FALSE. It will not have a true truth value if the antecedent is true while the consequent is false.
He misses the point again, for if enough physical force of impact were applied to the earth, it would indeed be split. I also did not state that one could not hit with a hammer at all, but if one were to hit it hard enough that it would split. He misunderstands the parallel I'm drawing.
But we cannot truly denounce Jesus Christ and make it to heaven. Thus his counter argument was an argument from analogy, minus the analogy.
Not analogy, parallel, for the exact same form of warning that he contends the biblical warnings constitute is employed, i.e. a pointless warning against a theoretically possible event conditioned upon the ridiculous.
He thus hasn't responded to my argument. Not only that, his assumption isn't based on the Bible.
When his argument catches up to the conversation I'll consider doing so.
Furthermore, he still misunderstands the nature of conditionals (and I don't care if he's a 'computer programmer'). It's "meaning" is wrapped up in the conditional expression of the proposition. For example, God can tell us: "If you are perfect, I will grant you everlasting life." This is perfectly intelligible, yet it is impossible for humans to achieve!
and,
Also, if Thibodaux denies perfectionism, then what does he make of the commands: Do not ever sin once. Be perfect. ?
Such a statement would be useless except as implied condemnation if salvation were not obtainable by any other means (the result never being achievable, for us it may as well not exist), but it actually does find very strong meaning in its fulfillment by Christ, who did in fact achieve such a condition, and thus was divinely able to establish the better promise, "If you believe in Christ, I will account it as righteousness and grant you everlasting life."
We cannot do this in this lifetime. Only when we are glorified. But on Thibodaux's assumptions, it is pointless to command these things since it is impossible for us to obey them! Might as well talk to a rock.
While there is no one who never sins, such a command is not impossible for a Christian to presently keep at any given time, hence it's relevance is still very great. It's not impossible for the condition of fulfilling the command to be true, but rather for it to be always and invariably true.
** If you have allergies to nonsense, stop reading here; if you are pregnant, nursing, or have heart trouble, consult your physician **
When I replied to another one of his little lectures on 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."
he responded, He never said it in that way, but that is his position nevertheless.
Did he just not get that I agreed with the logical form he employed? I arrived at the same technical conclusion he does, noting that it makes sense logically in that it works out, but is in and of itself meaningless.
Paul also shows us more examples of his advanced knowledge of conditionals, This is absurd since no Calvinist has denied that believers cannot be warned. Being warned doesn't imply that you won't persevere.
Which is logically preposterous. I replied, "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."
The first quote is his regurgitating his opening assumption. Remember, it's an extra-biblical one. Thus he cannot prove that we are at odds with Scripture.
It was actually a clarification against Paul's misguided argument, stating that (hearing a warning = impossibility to persevere), which I did not argue for since it is logically invalid.
We also go on a fun series of why I must be wrong because if I my assertion were correct, it would (gasp!) contradict other stuff in their doctrine!
And so we see that, again, you simply assume non-reformed categories. You must deny our conception of covenant, atonement, regeneration, faith, justification, God's sovereignty, etc., for your argument to work.
Okay.
But if those assumed premises are the case, you don't need your critique!
I didn't happen to write this for me.
If what you need to assume where the case, were undisputed biblical facts, there'd be no Reformed theology.
Unless you factor in human error and inconsistency.
Thus your argument only works if we assume a whole host of premises we're not willing to grant.
Your unwillingness to grant a thing is no bar to it being true. Like it or don't, checkmate is checkmate.
This is like the evolutionist asking us to just grant him that life got started from non-life just once, and then he'll show us how the entire package follows. Your critique is nothing but one giant petitio principii.
Not so, for I cite substantial and specific evidence to refute a specific point in reformed theology. The implication that the rest of it could or would logically collapse as well if my point is proven is irrelevant to my address.
Likely due to his stunning lack of answers, much of Mr. Manata's writing was based on quite superficial or downright crazy objections. At this point I normally wouldn't dignify such swill, but this stuff is just too funny to pass up. He got all in a dither about the word 'facts,' so I clarified,
'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.'
I know what you said, I quoted you numerous times. I never mentioned Darwinism.
I clearly never implied that he did, Darwinism is a concept that some people mistake as being indisputably factual; it appears he's trying to misconstrue whatever words he can to take cheap shots.
I'm talking about things that were just as "established and indisputable" as a spherical earth. I'd read something like Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (or even Moreland's Christianity and the Nature of Science), for examples of what I'm talking about.
He cites no specifics to match my examples of course.
Anyway, we'll see how this notion of "established and indisputable facts" serves to undermine your very argument. I was just correcting your ignorance on a subject with my opening comment.
I was clearly speaking of things readily apparent and observable with no substantial conflicting evidence, not equivocating the term "established and indisputable facts" to imply 'what is widely believed' as Mr. Manata is doing.
He then gets all worked up about how I use the word 'believers,' so I clarified again,
"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."
But ever the superficial debater,
One could "be with God" from the standpoint of man, from the standpoint of his profession of faith. Indeed, Hebrews says that the believers "stand" by their "profession" and so to "fall away" may very well be to "deny your profession." Phenomenological language may also be employed (cf. Schreiner, etc). So, it is not at all clear how you meant your phrase.
Which is why I was doubly clear by stating that they fall into condemnation, as opposed to remain in it. I could just see this guy in the first century: "What do you mean by 'believers' in Acts 5:14, Luke?!? Are you speaking phenomenologically or not?!?!?"
He then goes on in an even more farcical grain,
And of course the missing context is that Thibodaux framed his argument as a "scientific investigation."
Now he's just making stuff up. I never even used the word 'science' or 'scientific' in my challenge. It was not meant to be scientific or employ the scientific method as it involves no empirical phenomena. This makes the rest of his rant all the more amusing,
He opens with the idea that we're going to have something like a scientific inquiry, but he argues in the rest of the paper as one trying to persuade people already online with his conclusion.
[still laughing] All I stated there was the idea that, "When in any field of study a hypothesis arises, it must fit the established and indisputable facts," and then gave a loose illustration of the usage of counter-examples in mathematics. My intended approach was to bring to light some scriptural facts that I believe logically contradict Calvinist doctrine, making it unscriptural, not submit some project to a fair. He continues his diatribe,
People in a science lab wouldn't go about "proving" conclusion like Thibodaux does. They wouldn't present a paper suppressing the evidence contrary to their position. (I'm assuming the stated approach claimed by scientists, obviously.)Thus my point, which was rather missed, and missed badly, is that Thibodaux can't even stay consistent with his own opening analogy.
Supress?? What kind of person supressing evidence offers his own up for public scrutiny? Besides, I listed and grappled with a few of the major arguments in the challenge itself, and as in my mathematical example, I showed several clear theological counter-examples to Calvinist doctrine. Mr. Manata is obviously clutching at any straws he can find.
Thibodaux can't follow his own strictures. His argument is that we need to "test the hypothesis of the reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints against the 'established and indisputable facts' found in Holy Scripture." What it means for a fact to be "established and indisputable" is for them to be at the level of "e.g. the earth is round, things fall down rather than up." Just here he cuts his argument's throat. No New Orleans Cajun Voodoo will bring it back to life.
How so? I consider things plainly stated in scripture to be at least that reliable. Don't you?
Now, it is no debate that there are warnings in Scripture. What is up for debate, and what is hotly disputed, is Thibodaux's interpretation of the warning passages.
Or possibly their implications. He is welcome to present the evidence against such as he wishes. Sorry, cheap ethnic slurs don't count.
I didn't merely "point out differences" and conclude that "I've won." I took Thibodaux's way of framing the debate and showed that he's not taking "undisputed Bible passages" and seeing if our "hypothesis" squares with these "undisputed facts."
The first two major facts I present he doesn't dispute, nor the fact that there were warnings that scripture makes to the saints. So exactly what he thinks he's established is something of a mystery.
He then makes the accusation, 'Putting us on is a question begging epithet.'
To which I replied, "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....'"
I didn't say that insult was intended or implied. But when characterizing another's position, one should try to use neutral terms. Thibodaux tells us that he thinks it is pointless to give warnings to people who cannot fall away given God's decree that they won't. To say that God is "putting us on" is to bias the jury towards a premise you rest on in your argument. Why is Thibodaux trying to escape fallacies he's made? Man up to it when caught.
Which is why I purposefully qualified it with "so to speak," as not to give the implication that someone who holds this view deems God a liar. You can whine about being 'caught' all day, get over it: your hook is still empty. No need to tell fish stories.
Mr. Manata also pushes his arguments into the realm of utter ludicrousness. Never mind the fact that an impossible condition renders a literal warning logically meaningless,
The warning passages don't say "the falling away of one of God's elect can be actualized." This is an assumption you're adding to the Bible.
Yeah, God's giving us some warnings of the highest possible magnitude with the worst consequences imaginable, and here I go just blindly assuming there's danger involved -- silly me! Chalk that up there with, "the word 'Trinity' isn't even in the Bible!" and, "where's the verse that mentions offering plates?" I could just see this kind of logic running rampant in the garden of Eden:
Adam: "God said we should never eat from the tree, so watch out."
Eve: "Don't worry, He never said it was actually possible for us to do so."
Satan: "That's right dude, God only warned you against dying as a means to keep you away from the tree, He never stated that you could actualize the antecedent condition, so you technically shall not surely die."
Adam: "Oh, right. Well that's a relief. Hey, I'm starving, when's lunch?"
Such an odd pretended difficulty....
At one point he implies that I set up a strawman by equating perseverance of the saints with antinomianism, I truthfully responded,
'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.'
To which he asserts, Sure you did, and saying-so don't make it so, Thibodaux.
I didn't say so: you did. But we'll let you make the case for your assertion anyway,
For you had stated, "If God's purpose in giving such warnings was to make us live holy unto Him by indicating that if we walk away from Him, He will cast us away, yet you teach a doctrine that states He would never under any circumstance actually do such a thing, then have you not undone the holy fear which God's word was meant to instill in the hearts of His people and again made it of no effect?" To act in such a way, as you say our doctrine would require us to act, is to say that we should be presumptuous regarding our salvation. That we already have it "in the bag."
I did not say that your doctrine would 'require' you to act in any way whatsoever. There can be (for better or worse) dissonance between the logical implications of doctrine and human action, allowing Christians to act in a faithful manner despite error. I did no such thing as you accuse me of, or didn't you read near the end of the challenge?
"I urge you then, brothers and sisters in Christ, don't be carried away by this errant doctrine any longer, nor lulled to complacency by the idea that you are secure no matter how you live, as it simply cannot be reconciled with the teachings delivered to us in scripture."
Note that I distinguish the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints (which I had just been addressing) from cheap grace with the inclusion of the words "nor lulled to complacency by the idea that you are secure no matter how you live," which carries with it the weight of an idea distinctive from the one just addressed. But by denying me any benefit of the doubt and ignoring honest and valid objection to his accusations, Mr. Manata has rashly taken the truth of the matter and now manifestly twisted it, pushing dangerously close into outright lying. There are strict biblical warnings against that kind of behavior as well, and if such blatant distortion is a result of the mixed messages for Christians to 'tremble at the warnings' and simultaneously deny their possibility, then there is little need for me to further argue their practical deficiencies.
Mr. Manata's closing statement is fairly friendly...for Triablogue,
And, I'll pass the hat around at our next T-blogger meeting seeing as you're going to need it for the dental bill considering all those teeth I kicked in. :-)
The only thing lacking bite is his attempt at intelligent rebuttal. But if he seriously thinks that he can make a case by relying on playground-league goading to drag me down to the level of frustration and rage that his use of violent and disturbingly tasteless imagery suggests, he's barking up the wrong tree. For your own sake friend, you might want to cool your jets a bit. Settle down. I'll give you a cookie.
Omake!!
Mr. Manata further reveals the fact that he is just a bit bitter and not apt to debate fairly by posting what ranks as one of the lamest cheap-shots in blogging history about how my theology is not 'associated with the teachings of Jesus', because, "I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." He cites that, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; but apparently has not been very diligent in his Bible study, else he would have gotten as far as the part where Christ Himself says, I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:18)
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.