Category: Theology

I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends; Mueller & Chambers On The Inconsistency Of Arminianism

“Arminianism, like the Molinist theology on which it drew, is little more than the recrudescence of the late medieval semi-Pelagianism against which the Reformers struggled. Its tenets are inimical to the Pauline and Augustinian foundation of Reformed Protestantism.

In the Arminian system, the God who antecedently wills the salvation of all knowingly provides a pattern of salvation that is suitable only to the salvation of some. This doctrinal juxtaposition of an antecedent, and never effectuated, divine will to save all and a consequent, effectuated, divine will to save some on the foreknown condition of their acceptance of faith, reflects the problem of scientia media. The foreknowledge of God, in the Arminian view, consists in part in a knowledge of contingent events that lie outside of God’s willing and, in the case of the divine foreknowledge, of the rejection of grace by some, of contingent events that not only thwart the antecedent divine will to save all, but also are capable of thwarting it because of the divinely foreknown resistibility of the gift of grace. In other words, the Arminian God is locked into the inconsistency of genuinely willing to save all people while at the same time binding himself to a plan of salvation that he foreknows with certainty cannot effectuate his will. This divine inability results from the necessity of those events that lie within the divine foreknowledge but outside of the divine willing remaining outside of the effective will of God. Arminian theology posits the ultimate contradiction that God’s antecedent will genuinely wills what he foreknows cannot come to pass and that his consequent will effects something other than his ultimate intention. The Arminian God, in short, is either ineffectual or self-contradictory. Reformed doctrine on the other hand, respects the ultimate mystery of the infinite will of God, affirms the sovereignty and efficacy of God, and teaches the soteriological consistency of the divine intention and will with its effects.

Richard A Muller

Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice:
Arminius’s Gambit and the Reformed Response.

Philosophical and Theological Problems with Arminianism in all its various forms.

“1. Free will theology absolutizes the will of man and thereby reduces god to ontological equality with man. The knowledge of god is bound to the temporal actions of men. God cannot know the future acts and actions of men because those actions, products of a libertarian volition, do not yet exist in time. Thus God cannot know the future.

2. Foreknowledge being impossible, God’s knowledge is contingent on future potentials. God must learn from actions of men that occur outside of His mind and independent of His will. God cannot know all things, His knowledge being dependent on the arbitrary and indeterminate choices of the libertarian will of man. Thus god is not omniscient.

3. God then is not sovereign in all spheres and therefore not sovereign at all as sovereignty is understood in the classical Christian sense. God is limited and no longer all powerful. This is not the Christian God who declares the end from the beginning or who works all things after the counsel of His will. This is a god who learns and reacts to events that occur in a creation that has an existence independent of Himself. This God is not omnipotent.

4. Since there are conditions that occur outside of Himself, conditions which of necessity cannot be known in advance, events which He must learn as they occur, God must react and change to adapt to these circumstances. This God is not immutable.

5. In order to keep creation moving towards his desired end, he must of necessity intercede at times and violate the indeterminate will of man. But this is the very will that is said to be inviolable in the soteriological act. This god is compromised and inconsistent. This god is arbitrary and capricious. This god is confused and contradictory.

6. This god, it is said, has died for all men for all time, knowing full well that His plan of salvation will not save all men. So while some men decry the determinate God of Calvinism, they are more than willing to accept a god who knows the future infallibly, knows his plan will be ineffective for the majority of mankind and institutes this plan anyway knowing full well that it’s result will be the death of most who have ever lived.

7. Free will adherents reject a God who determines all things. But they are willing to accept a god who knows all things and chooses to do nothing about them. This is, so they say, because the will of man is free. God knows full well that terrorists will fly a jet into the WTC and chooses to do nothing. He is capable of doing something but values the libertarian will of men above the eternal destiny of all those in the buildings and so chooses, by his refusal to intercede, to consign most of those inhabitants to eternal death. If I observe a crime and have the ability to do something to prevent it or know in advance of it’s occurrence and fail to notify the proper authorities I am as guilty as those that perpetrated the crime. This god is guilty of complicity. He is an accessory before the fact.

8. In the case of open theism, god didn’t know what he was doing or what He would get by doing it (sin, evil, murders, war, untold human suffering on a massive scale) yet was willing to take that chance. This is the god who risks, but exactly who and what were affected by this risk? To add to the conundrum god could not know if there was anything he would be able to do to correct the mess he created. And the open theist suggests that the god of Calvinism is cold hearted and despotic?

9. This god potentially died for no one. The atonement is universal in scope. God has not done anything more for one person than He has done for any other person and the one thing he has not done for those who are lost is to save them. Salvation is for everyone in general, but for no one in particular. This god is dependent and ineffective.

10. Libertarians tacitly reject total depravity. Man is not dead in sin but merely sick. He is inclined to do evil but is not in fact evil. Salvation is a potential that must be appropriated by the individual. Man cannot be wholly dead in sin and make this choice. The potential for good must be present. Man must overcome the inclination to reject God in order to accept the offer of the Gospel. Unfortunately, the Gospel itself, while evidently powerful enough to save those who choose to accept it, is impotent to convert the hearts of most of mankind. Free will theology suffers from its own type of particularism, but it’s an arbitrary particularism dependent on the condition of the individual. Salvation is “available” only for the ethically advantaged.

11. No wonder then that the evangel is often reduced to begging and pleading. God is not going to do anything but offer a potential. MAN is the decisive factor. Man is the determinative agent. We must convince man to make a positive decision for Christ. Better salespersons are more effective evangelists. Solus Christos is lost as salvation is synergistic. Arminianism stands on the same epistemological ground as atheism.”

Mark Chambers

Doug Wilson on How the White Romans Killed Jesus

“But if for some reason you are looking for the instrumental cause, the Romans were the ones who killed Him. To be more specific, white Romans were the culprits (Mark 15:15).”

Rev. Doug Wilson 
Pope of the CREC

*It is true that white Romans were the instrumental cause of Christ’s death.

 
*The Scripture though, lays the blame at the feet of the Jews who were the efficient cause of Christ’s death;

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man [u]attested to you by God with [v]miracles and wonders and [w]signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of [x]godless men and put Him to death.

And again,

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and [r]drove us out. [s]They are not pleasing to God, [t]but hostile to all people, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always [u]reach the limit of their sins. But wrath has come upon them [v]fully.

 
* Keep in mind that the Scripture records that for the White Romans Jesus prayed; “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” The implication here is that the Jews did know what they were doing by crucifying their Messiah.

* This looks to me like Doug Wilson is trying to lessen the responsibility that the Scripture squarely places on the Jews for crucifying their Messiah by seeking to broaden the blame so that the Jews are seen as not being any more culpable than the “White Romans for murdering Jesus, the Christ.

While it is true, and must be preached, that it was the sin of all God’s elect of all races that crucified the Lord of glory, that fact does not make it less true that the Scripture records as a matter of historical fact that the Jews are the ones who God held culpable for crucifying their Messiah.

The good news of the Gospel is that this generational sin can be forgiven of all men, inclusive of Jew and Gentile, who sue for peace with God, in faith, by agreeing with and believing God’s record that Jesus can forgive their sin — both personal and corporate. Jesus has said… “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” This is true for both Jew and Gentile.

Now, having said that, why does Doug Wilson continue to seek to diminish the guilt and responsibility of the Jews for crucifying their Messiah — and this in the face of the Scripture’s clear testimony to the contrary?

And let’s keep in mind that there are at least some Jews who pass all this off as a matter of their stand up comedy routine;

It is interesting here that Sarah Silverman says that “many people try to pass it (the crucifixion of Christ) off on the Romans.” This is exactly what Doug Wilson is trying to do.

The Salvific Malfeasance of Egalitarianism

“Scripture presumes and defends the natural order of things. If we twist nature we’ll twist Scripture too. It’s also Satan’s major point of attack against the church today. That alone should make it (Egalitarianism) a major focus.”

Rev. Michael Spangler

Is the combat against Egalitarianism a matter of battling against a doctrine that affects salvation? Is the battle against Egalitarianism a battle waged in favor of a doctrine of the first order?

Egalitarianism is Christological heresy since if there is no distinctions among peoples as peoples the necessity for Christ to be born of the line of David, of the tribe of Judah is implicitly denied. Egalitarianism would have to say it didn’t matter what people Jesus belonged.

Egalitarianism is theological heresy because in the claim that all men are the same is the eventual inescapable outcome that man and God are likewise the same.

Egalitarianism is anthropological heresy since it denies the distinctions that God Himself makes between men and women and as between the nations.

Egalitarianism is soteriological heresy since implicit in the claim that all men are equal is the parallel claim that all men can be equally saved by other gods equal to Christ. Show me a consistent egalitarian and I’ll show you a universalist.

Allow me to posit that an Egalitarian who refuses to repent of his Egalitarianism can no more be saved than an Arian who refuses to repent of his Arianism, or can no more be saved than someone who refuse to repent of his insistence that we are not saved by Christ alone. Opposition to Egalitarianism is opposition to a teaching that, if allowed in the Church, would abominate the Church.

Social Orders and the Divine

All social orders presuppose some kind of divine. From there a Priestly class of some sort exists that is charged with interpreting the divine, a Political class that legislates into law the divine, a military class that protects the divine, an artist class which incarnates the divine, an educator class that teaches the divine to the upcoming generation, and then the working class which lives out the divine in their families, workplaces, and living.

For example in our humanist culture that which is presupposed as divine is man. That Priestly class which interprets that divine is typically today found among the Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Counselors and all wannabees of that variety. The political class rests in Washington and the State capitals who believe they are God walking on the earth. The military class of global humanism is the US Military which demonstrates its protection of the divine by the welcoming of the pervert and the tranny into the officer class of the US Military, the artist class is seen all around us in the ugliness and slovenliness in which we live, move and have our being.  The educator class exist in our school from Kindergarten to the University level. And our working class reflects this humanism to its very core.

Refuting the Idea that Hate is Bad Form for Christians

Have to be blunt: if you harbor hatred in your heart for Muslims (please recognize the difference between the Muslim people and Islam as a religion) you are sinning. Period. Full stop. As a follower of Christ, hatred is NOT an option, and if your “theology” gives you a place for it, you have been led astray. Repent.

James White

This is magnificent claptrap. This is the kind of stuff that either brain injured people come up with, or people who have been raised as modern Christians. It is the simpering speech used by derelicts, drug addicts, or people with Ph.D’s in some kind of “theology.”

1.) No man can truly love anything without also hating that which has as its animating spirit the annihilation of that which he loves. For example, as James White loves His wife, I suspect that he would hate anybody who assaulted or even degraded the man’s wife.

2.) The idea of “hating the sin, but loving the sinner,” while communicating a wee bit of Biblical thought isn’t the whole word on the matter. After all, God’s Word explicitly tells us that “there is a time and a season for everything under the sun. A time to love and a time to hate.” Do we really believe that Solomon in Ecclesiastes was thinking while writing, “A time to love and a time to hate the sin but love the sinner?”

3.) If we are to hate the sin but love the sinner then why are we not to love the righteous works but hate the righteous?

4.) If we are to be “like our Father in Heaven,” then it would seem that we absolutely must hate the sinner as well as his sin. Throughout revelation God does indeed hate the sinner, along with and because of their sins (Lev. 20:23, Ps. 5:4-6, 11:5, Prov. 6:16-19, Hos. 9:15, Mal. 1:3, Rom. 9:13). Indeed God hates the sinner so much that He casts the sinner with their sin into hell for all eternity (Mt. 10:28).

5.) God hates His enemies so thoroughly that He;

a.) Closed the door of the Ark so His enemies would drown
b.) Showered Sodom & Gomorrah with Brimstone and fire
c.) Totally obliterated the Egyptians in plague and water

6.) Further the saints of old — our Fathers — hated sinners

a.) Joshua’s work on the Canaanites
b.) David’s work on the enemies of God
c.) Samson’s work on the Philistines
d.) Elijah’s work on the Prophets of Baal
e.) Phineas’ Javelin throwing contest
f.) Moses’ dispatching of the Egyptian overseer
g.) Jesus Christ peeled skin with a whip against the Jewish Bankers

7.) Scripture informs me to

a.) “Hate that which is evil, love that which is good.” Rm. 12:9
b.) “Hate evil, O you who love the LORD!” Psalm 97:10
c.) “Hate evil and love good; establish justice in the gate.” Amos 5:15

On the Amos 5:15 passage the Puritan commentator Matthew Poole offers;

“Slight dislikes will do little in this ease, you rulers and judges must heartily hate, and show that you hate, the evil, both ways, doings, contrivers, and abettors of the evil among the people and yourselves;”

Now, those like Dr. James White who insists that Christians are not to hate those enemies of God who hate God and His Christ will instantly run to Matthew 5:39; 

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

This passage refers to just what it says, as it only applies to some kind of petty insult coming from a personal enemy. It seems past obvious that one can’t make this walk on all fours, and yet that is what we get from any number of those reputed to be pillars in the Church. Think about it for a second. Does making this text walk on all fours make any sense at all?

” But I tell you, whoever rapes you in one bodily orifice, offer him another,”

Or
” But I tell you, whoever bludgeons you with a pipe on one side of the skull, turn to him the other side of the skull to bludgeon.”
Or
” But I tell you, if someone abducts one of your children, give him another child to abduct.”

Or

“But I tell you, if someone rapes your wife, give him your daughter to rape.”

Now, all of the above does not mean that we don’t do good to those who are our personal enemies or who dish out to us petty insults. If my neighbor hates me throws paint balloons at me, I may well still bring them some hot chicken soup when they are ill and so show them a kindness. However, if that same neighbor goes after my grandchildren to harm them, they can be sure that fire and sulfur is going to rain down on them.

If you can’t find it in your heart to hate Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or Atheists as they seek to continue to bury this culture is Christ dishonoring laws and customs, you are indeed not right in the head. A lack of hate here communicates that you don’t really love Christ and His Law-Word.