I have been following Michael Patton's Theology Program available on the web mainly to get a comprehensive review on Theology. His work is nothing short of commendable and would be a really great resource for anyone wishing to get into forming their personal systematic theology.
I wish to point out, however, that Michael is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, a known bastion for theologians with Calvinist leanings and a dispensational view of the end times, both of which I have rejected in my own theological journey mainly because there are more personal philosophical presumptions than biblical foundations to support these.
One example in fact is their discussion of Perseverance in the Soteriology phase of their program. Like any true Calvinist, they would point out the Arminian side presumably without bias, then point out the Calvinist side presumably with good hermeneutics and then make a rebuttal against the Arminians but NEGLECTING to make an equivalent rebuttal against the Calvinists and not really because of their personal bias but more because they find difficulty in divorcing themselves from classical reasoning and erecting a straw man (the Armenian view which we also do not fully subscribe to because it has the same Classical roots as Calvinism) and also make their conclusions based on the controversial and mostly unbiblical Calvinist TULIP.
So consider this a supplement to that part of the program where we present a complete rebuttal to the Calvinist view they presented on security of salvation. Note again that we are not Arminian. Arminianism has failed to successfully respond to Calvinism even historically since Calvin simply reacted to Arminius' propositions. In this rebuttal, we are forced to respond to both from a Covenant-Relationship perspective. It is true that our theology is closer to Arminian doctrine and so there will be more issues against the Calvinist view here.
We will be using Michael Patton's outline for our rebuttal. I will be using a rarely used argument in formal circles but which I often use and that of stretching a false proposition to its logical extreme to expose how ridiculous it will become or how much better it is for that side to just keep quiet. No offense meant but if most philosophical propositions did this, we would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff in many instances.
For those new to the covenant-relationship theology, feel free to read related articles in this site.
TTP: Eternal security is a necessary and logical outcome of total
depravity and unconditional election. If one were to deny eternal
security, he or she would also have to deny the clear teaching of
Scripture on both of these doctrines
Rebuttal: This is a fallacious argument since it assumes that TULIP is correct biblically and we have already pointed out that it is not (See Relational Theology's response to the Five Points of Calvinism). The TULIP doctrine easily falls simply by preponderance of biblical evidence if you will. A true interpreter should NOT discount that and an honest interpreter either attempts to synthesize those logically or reject one. There is no middle ground if we work from our hermeneutic principle that God is the greatest communicator simply because He is God, an obvious tautology but most theologians take it for granted and presume to re-interpret God's words to conform to theological bias.
Calvin's problem is that he only has half the Bible. He ignores Old Testament precedents in favor of New Testament declarations. Now if the NT is a completion of the OT, then why are we creating doctrine by ignoring the "seed"? In fact, technically, the "real" word of God is the Torah because God told Moses to write down his words. The rest of the Bible is either history or what the prophets claimed that God told them to do. To simplify the concept, we consider the whole OT as part of God's word because Jesus and the apostles did. Now, the New Testament writings are instructive indeed but the writers were mostly Jews first speaking Greek instead of Greeks who happen to speak Hebrew creating a huge gap in perspective.
So if one were a Jew of that time, his ONLY SCRIPTURE is the Old Testament, even Christ and the apostles confirm that. Christ even said that not one jot or tittle will pass away from the Law until all are fulfilled. Calvinists tend to think that Christ TOTALLY fulfilled the Law and have since limited their doctrines to only NT sources. Now, since the new heavens and new earth of Isaiah have NOT YET been fulfilled, that obviously means that OT covenant principles are as applicable to the church as it was to Israel. Even those pertaining to justification have not been superceded but instead simply explained clearly and simply facilitated by the atonement through Jesus Christ, and the redemption program simply completed, by the Lamb of God. Now, the concept of the "elect" is not significantly different from the "chosen" people. In the same way that the "chosen" were rejected by God, He can and will reject the elect if they prove unfaithful.
TTP: John 10:25-29
“Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do
in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you
are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they
follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, 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.’”
I wish to point out, however, that Michael is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, a known bastion for theologians with Calvinist leanings and a dispensational view of the end times, both of which I have rejected in my own theological journey mainly because there are more personal philosophical presumptions than biblical foundations to support these.
One example in fact is their discussion of Perseverance in the Soteriology phase of their program. Like any true Calvinist, they would point out the Arminian side presumably without bias, then point out the Calvinist side presumably with good hermeneutics and then make a rebuttal against the Arminians but NEGLECTING to make an equivalent rebuttal against the Calvinists and not really because of their personal bias but more because they find difficulty in divorcing themselves from classical reasoning and erecting a straw man (the Armenian view which we also do not fully subscribe to because it has the same Classical roots as Calvinism) and also make their conclusions based on the controversial and mostly unbiblical Calvinist TULIP.
So consider this a supplement to that part of the program where we present a complete rebuttal to the Calvinist view they presented on security of salvation. Note again that we are not Arminian. Arminianism has failed to successfully respond to Calvinism even historically since Calvin simply reacted to Arminius' propositions. In this rebuttal, we are forced to respond to both from a Covenant-Relationship perspective. It is true that our theology is closer to Arminian doctrine and so there will be more issues against the Calvinist view here.
We will be using Michael Patton's outline for our rebuttal. I will be using a rarely used argument in formal circles but which I often use and that of stretching a false proposition to its logical extreme to expose how ridiculous it will become or how much better it is for that side to just keep quiet. No offense meant but if most philosophical propositions did this, we would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff in many instances.
For those new to the covenant-relationship theology, feel free to read related articles in this site.
TTP: Eternal security is a necessary and logical outcome of total
depravity and unconditional election. If one were to deny eternal
security, he or she would also have to deny the clear teaching of
Scripture on both of these doctrines
Rebuttal: This is a fallacious argument since it assumes that TULIP is correct biblically and we have already pointed out that it is not (See Relational Theology's response to the Five Points of Calvinism). The TULIP doctrine easily falls simply by preponderance of biblical evidence if you will. A true interpreter should NOT discount that and an honest interpreter either attempts to synthesize those logically or reject one. There is no middle ground if we work from our hermeneutic principle that God is the greatest communicator simply because He is God, an obvious tautology but most theologians take it for granted and presume to re-interpret God's words to conform to theological bias.
Calvin's problem is that he only has half the Bible. He ignores Old Testament precedents in favor of New Testament declarations. Now if the NT is a completion of the OT, then why are we creating doctrine by ignoring the "seed"? In fact, technically, the "real" word of God is the Torah because God told Moses to write down his words. The rest of the Bible is either history or what the prophets claimed that God told them to do. To simplify the concept, we consider the whole OT as part of God's word because Jesus and the apostles did. Now, the New Testament writings are instructive indeed but the writers were mostly Jews first speaking Greek instead of Greeks who happen to speak Hebrew creating a huge gap in perspective.
So if one were a Jew of that time, his ONLY SCRIPTURE is the Old Testament, even Christ and the apostles confirm that. Christ even said that not one jot or tittle will pass away from the Law until all are fulfilled. Calvinists tend to think that Christ TOTALLY fulfilled the Law and have since limited their doctrines to only NT sources. Now, since the new heavens and new earth of Isaiah have NOT YET been fulfilled, that obviously means that OT covenant principles are as applicable to the church as it was to Israel. Even those pertaining to justification have not been superceded but instead simply explained clearly and simply facilitated by the atonement through Jesus Christ, and the redemption program simply completed, by the Lamb of God. Now, the concept of the "elect" is not significantly different from the "chosen" people. In the same way that the "chosen" were rejected by God, He can and will reject the elect if they prove unfaithful.
TTP: John 10:25-29
“Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do
in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you
are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they
follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, 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.’”
Rebuttal: This is a simple statement we subscribe to about assurance and stability of our salvation but guaranteed ONLY WHEN WE ARE IN CHRIST. In relational theology, biblical relationships are analyzed to get different angles on relationship. For example, when sheep are used to describe the elect, the context is the shepherd's vigilant care for the sheep and has nothing to do with situations where the sheep may wander away from the fold of its own careless accord and either be eaten by wild animals or fall into a ravine and die. In this case, the shepherd's vigilant care is mostly a description of a present state and has little bearing on any future consequence.
The basic issue here is that classical theologians have some difficulty accepting that when God created man in his OWN image, it most importantly meant that he did NOT create robots but autonomous creatures who are endowed with free will, and the ability to exercise faith, hope and love apart from the help of God precisely because these have been fully endowed to man at this creation. In fact, it is empirically and historically obvious that man has the COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT ability to either love God or hate God!
The basic issue here is that classical theologians have some difficulty accepting that when God created man in his OWN image, it most importantly meant that he did NOT create robots but autonomous creatures who are endowed with free will, and the ability to exercise faith, hope and love apart from the help of God precisely because these have been fully endowed to man at this creation. In fact, it is empirically and historically obvious that man has the COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT ability to either love God or hate God!
The Calvinist presumption that the image of God was completely corrupted at the fall of man is a true statement but must be qualified. If by corrupted, we have lost the ability to love and have faith. then it is a very unbiblical concept. How many verses in Scripture propose that those abilities were lost? Perhaps one or two, at most three. Now, how many verses in Scripture depict that God favored some people because they were seeking after God? Abel, Enoch, David, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, etc, etc. etc. It is true that the Calvinist verses may even be declarations BUT one cannot honestly and intelligently junk the rest of Scripture for an interpretation that contradicts preponderance.
God is the greatest communicator and hence, sincere God-seeking men do not need seminary to understand his word to a great extent (which is only limited due to our current readings being translations and paraphrases instead of the original transmitted word and in the appropriate total context of their transmission).
Quite fortunately, God uses relationship analogies to make his propositions relevant and meaningful. Having said that, there is no relational analogy at all that supports the "once saved, always (unconditionally) saved" proposition of the Calvinists. In fact there are more illustrations in Scripture of the other way. In fact, "once lost, always lost" is more biblical!!! Even the prodigal son never renounced his father nor family, nor did he willfully shame the family name and had he done so, the result would have been different as we shall explain below.
Take the illustration of marriage for example. In the context by which the word of God was transmitted, divorce is ideally an irreparable status in the marriage. Read Jeremiah 3:1-3. In the case of Hosea, God simply illustrated how he looks at his people and how he would deal with them as his people. However, the context of Jeremiah 3 is a statement of what was the prevailing practice or tradition of that time.
Another illustration is the father and son relationship since Scripture tells us in John 1:12 that those who receive Christ are children of God. In the practice and tradition of that day up to the time of the Romans and even up to today, the stability of relationship is highlighted in the family concept. A son may violate so much of the father's will but will remain a son regardless. However, it was also practiced at that time and even today that when the son shames the father or the family or the family name, they may be disowned by the father and disowning was a permanent state and cannot be reversed since the inheritance has been redistributed to the other siblings. Even Esau could not recover his birthright though he sought it with tears according to Hebrews 12.
A kingdom citizen who is a traitor to the kingdom and betrays or renounces his citizenship in the context of when the Bible was written, forever loses his citizenship and its privileges.
Now Hebrews 6:4-8 is really a clear declaration of "once lost, always lost"! Now look at it this way, the "once saved, always saved" belief can only quote indirect verses which can easily be refuted compared to the "once lost, always lost" view which has BOTH a clear declaration in Scripture as well as empirical relationship analogies to illustrate as well as support the proposition. Aside from that, the "once saved, always saved" proposition is overwhelmed by preponderance of Scripture against it!!! Like I stated in another blog to challenge the P of TULIP, "Since when was perseverance a responsibility of God instead of a responsibility of man"? And what happened to the divinely created and endowed free will of man at the creation when he was created in the image of God. Compare this to John's declaration of "lostness" in 1 John 5:16,17. This is again, a clear declaration and does not need further interpretation unless the foundational theology of the exegete is flawed.
The Calvinist view implicitly and erroneously proposes that man loses his free will after salvation. Although biblically, and in fact, man surrenders his free will at salvation but being still human will continue to have both the propensity and God-given freedom to take it back. This is why the John 15 concept of "abiding in the vine" is so very important indeed, since abiding has to be willed (willingly) by man in order to be supported and empowered by God and willingly abiding is our only God-given assurance of eternal security. God can but WILL NOT work on an unsubmitted heart, Christian or NOT. We hear about so many mothers praying for their sons or daughters for years before these get converted which is well and good. However, for every son that gets converted, I am willing to bet that there are hundreds or even thousands that never do! God does not perform miracles on an unsubmitted heart. He would try to court them in response to prayer but he would be violating his own mandate at creation if he performed "magic" on an unwilling, unsubmitted heart thus violating the will of his creature and downgrading his creature from human to robot.
The same is quite true with any Christian. God will still NOT work on the Christian's unsubmitted heart although the Christian may undergo a period of chastisement and disciplining to soften that hardened heart.
That heart whether submitted or not CONTINUES to have the freedom and free will to reject God. Once he willfully rejects or shames the name of God, Hebrews 6 applies to him. Moreover, there is no Scriptural evidence of the unforgiveable sin but it would not be mentioned by the Lord Jesus if does not exist. There is nothing in Scripture that limits the commission of the unforgiveable sin to only non-Christians and it is quite logical and biblical to assume that even Christian's are capable of committing such sin simply because they continue to have that God-given free will to do so! Look at Bart Ehrman, for example and so many other atheists who were formerly Bible-believing Christians!
That is why we have to submit ourselves to God (Romans 12:1-2) moment by moment. God works his work of sanctification and transformation ONLY ON A WILLINGLY SUBMITTED HEART. This confirms the hymn, "Take my Life and let it be", a prayer of willing submission to God's transforming power....YES!!!
The Calvinist concept of the elect violates the preponderance of Scripture on the primary responsibilities of man contradicting evangelism and relegating it to a hypocritical act of obedience and the whole work of redemption becomes a total sham in a grand screenplay. Of course, they continue to justify this with all their non-biblical jargon, which is quite expected. Interestingly, Israel claimed to be THE CHOSEN people (quite synonymous to THE ELECT) but look at how God dealt with them! Was that unconditional or conditional based on their behavior towards God? Calvinists should take a clear hint that being CHOSEN or ELECTED by God has no guarantees apart from man's response to God's love. That means that the realization of election is highly and perhaps, completely, dependent on man's responsibility. Like I stated previously, these Calvinist claims are completely devoid of empirical or practical examples to confirm their veracity and there are many practical examples to the contrary. Again, if God is the GREATEST COMMUNICATOR he should be able to speak plainly in a way that a simple man should understand almost without a doubt. There will always be Dathans and Abirams among the CHOSEN and there will always be Judas Iscariots (chosen by Christ himself!) among the ELECT .
The other problem here is based on the classical assumption that God's sovereignty excludes ALL kinds of RISK.
... to be continued.
God is the greatest communicator and hence, sincere God-seeking men do not need seminary to understand his word to a great extent (which is only limited due to our current readings being translations and paraphrases instead of the original transmitted word and in the appropriate total context of their transmission).
Quite fortunately, God uses relationship analogies to make his propositions relevant and meaningful. Having said that, there is no relational analogy at all that supports the "once saved, always (unconditionally) saved" proposition of the Calvinists. In fact there are more illustrations in Scripture of the other way. In fact, "once lost, always lost" is more biblical!!! Even the prodigal son never renounced his father nor family, nor did he willfully shame the family name and had he done so, the result would have been different as we shall explain below.
Take the illustration of marriage for example. In the context by which the word of God was transmitted, divorce is ideally an irreparable status in the marriage. Read Jeremiah 3:1-3. In the case of Hosea, God simply illustrated how he looks at his people and how he would deal with them as his people. However, the context of Jeremiah 3 is a statement of what was the prevailing practice or tradition of that time.
Another illustration is the father and son relationship since Scripture tells us in John 1:12 that those who receive Christ are children of God. In the practice and tradition of that day up to the time of the Romans and even up to today, the stability of relationship is highlighted in the family concept. A son may violate so much of the father's will but will remain a son regardless. However, it was also practiced at that time and even today that when the son shames the father or the family or the family name, they may be disowned by the father and disowning was a permanent state and cannot be reversed since the inheritance has been redistributed to the other siblings. Even Esau could not recover his birthright though he sought it with tears according to Hebrews 12.
A kingdom citizen who is a traitor to the kingdom and betrays or renounces his citizenship in the context of when the Bible was written, forever loses his citizenship and its privileges.
Now Hebrews 6:4-8 is really a clear declaration of "once lost, always lost"! Now look at it this way, the "once saved, always saved" belief can only quote indirect verses which can easily be refuted compared to the "once lost, always lost" view which has BOTH a clear declaration in Scripture as well as empirical relationship analogies to illustrate as well as support the proposition. Aside from that, the "once saved, always saved" proposition is overwhelmed by preponderance of Scripture against it!!! Like I stated in another blog to challenge the P of TULIP, "Since when was perseverance a responsibility of God instead of a responsibility of man"? And what happened to the divinely created and endowed free will of man at the creation when he was created in the image of God. Compare this to John's declaration of "lostness" in 1 John 5:16,17. This is again, a clear declaration and does not need further interpretation unless the foundational theology of the exegete is flawed.
The Calvinist view implicitly and erroneously proposes that man loses his free will after salvation. Although biblically, and in fact, man surrenders his free will at salvation but being still human will continue to have both the propensity and God-given freedom to take it back. This is why the John 15 concept of "abiding in the vine" is so very important indeed, since abiding has to be willed (willingly) by man in order to be supported and empowered by God and willingly abiding is our only God-given assurance of eternal security. God can but WILL NOT work on an unsubmitted heart, Christian or NOT. We hear about so many mothers praying for their sons or daughters for years before these get converted which is well and good. However, for every son that gets converted, I am willing to bet that there are hundreds or even thousands that never do! God does not perform miracles on an unsubmitted heart. He would try to court them in response to prayer but he would be violating his own mandate at creation if he performed "magic" on an unwilling, unsubmitted heart thus violating the will of his creature and downgrading his creature from human to robot.
The same is quite true with any Christian. God will still NOT work on the Christian's unsubmitted heart although the Christian may undergo a period of chastisement and disciplining to soften that hardened heart.
That heart whether submitted or not CONTINUES to have the freedom and free will to reject God. Once he willfully rejects or shames the name of God, Hebrews 6 applies to him. Moreover, there is no Scriptural evidence of the unforgiveable sin but it would not be mentioned by the Lord Jesus if does not exist. There is nothing in Scripture that limits the commission of the unforgiveable sin to only non-Christians and it is quite logical and biblical to assume that even Christian's are capable of committing such sin simply because they continue to have that God-given free will to do so! Look at Bart Ehrman, for example and so many other atheists who were formerly Bible-believing Christians!
That is why we have to submit ourselves to God (Romans 12:1-2) moment by moment. God works his work of sanctification and transformation ONLY ON A WILLINGLY SUBMITTED HEART. This confirms the hymn, "Take my Life and let it be", a prayer of willing submission to God's transforming power....YES!!!
The Calvinist concept of the elect violates the preponderance of Scripture on the primary responsibilities of man contradicting evangelism and relegating it to a hypocritical act of obedience and the whole work of redemption becomes a total sham in a grand screenplay. Of course, they continue to justify this with all their non-biblical jargon, which is quite expected. Interestingly, Israel claimed to be THE CHOSEN people (quite synonymous to THE ELECT) but look at how God dealt with them! Was that unconditional or conditional based on their behavior towards God? Calvinists should take a clear hint that being CHOSEN or ELECTED by God has no guarantees apart from man's response to God's love. That means that the realization of election is highly and perhaps, completely, dependent on man's responsibility. Like I stated previously, these Calvinist claims are completely devoid of empirical or practical examples to confirm their veracity and there are many practical examples to the contrary. Again, if God is the GREATEST COMMUNICATOR he should be able to speak plainly in a way that a simple man should understand almost without a doubt. There will always be Dathans and Abirams among the CHOSEN and there will always be Judas Iscariots (chosen by Christ himself!) among the ELECT .
The other problem here is based on the classical assumption that God's sovereignty excludes ALL kinds of RISK.
... to be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment