Dave, in my last post I tried to show why I was confused about your position due to some contradictory statements you have made. Aside from that, there is another reason why, more than being confused, I am not convinced of your "main" viewpoint you tend to hold, that is, monergism. This other reason is that I feel you have given no adequate reason to perceive a biblical basis of your belief nor have you given adequate logical reasons, based on biblical principles, for your belief. Also, you have either completely disregarded or not adequately addressed some significant problems that I (or Drew) have raised. And, most of the time, if a problematic issue is raised you disregard its relevance by derogatorily labeling me (or Drew) as being "philosophical." I will try to show these things in the rest of this post. This is not an attack on you Dave; this is an attempt to convey to you my perspective on the discussion.
The Anti-Intellectual/Anti-Philosophical Mantra
Seeing as how Drew was not understanding your point, supposedly because he was being "intellectual" (when that became a bad thing I don't know), you said,
- since you like to approach this study mainly from an intellectual stand point . . . (p. 1)
I had not problem with this from the start, but it later became your mantra and primary outcry against our viewpoint. In the same post as your above comment you said,
- I thought that maybe you would like . . . to see the intellectual and Biblical folly from the arminian position . . . (p. 1)
Now, why you insist on labeling viewpoints that don't coincide with yours as being "intellectual" or "philosophical" is beyond me, and, to be honest, seems slightly belittling.
Later on, in talking negative about Theodore Beza (Calvin's son in law) you say,
- . . . it was Beza who wanted to take Calvins work [and] systematically fit it into a philosophy. Sound familiar? (p. 3)
Once again, we have the suggestion that a viewpoint is wrong because it is "philosophical." There is no reason given for why Beza might have been wrong, just that he doesn't agree with you (or a viewpoint congruent with yours), so his (Beza's) view must be philosophical. And, further in the same post, while commenting on Arminius, you describe his stance (which is Arminianism) as being,
- [a] philosophy of libertarian free will. (p. 3)
Finally, you go on to say the following to Drew and me:
- Your philosophies make God's word a stumbling block for both of you. (p. 3)
And you end by saying this, in regards to God's sovereignty and man's free will:
- you claim that unless it can be comprehended by your standards of justice which are not perfect, that it cannot be accepted as truth[.] (p. 3)
These final two comments seem to be an attempt to suggest that we (Drew and I) are not basing our viewpoints on the bible. This is just incorrect. It is
because I am basing my viewpoint on the bible that I do not agree with yours. For example, if someone claimed that God was not fair, it would be
because I base my belief on the bible that I would say that can't be true (because the bible says otherwise). This brings me to the next issue.
Avoidance by Irrelevant Scripture
This is related to the above section, because here I will show how you often avoided giving satisfactory answers and sometimes any answer at all by simply citing or referencing some irrelevant scripture that implied that I (or Drew) was being too "philosophical."
I raised a point when I asked, "Why would God toy with some and send them a 'general' call and arbitrarily send an 'inward' call to a randomly selected elect?" Clearly this is a relevant question to your position. Notice, I am not questioning the bible or God, because the bible never says anything about or makes any distinction that would imply that God makes "general" and "inward" calls. (I will talk about your purported biblical basis for this later). In answering this, you give very little clarification, and your response is extremely inadequate. But, to make up for this, you follow it with,
- . . . 'who are you to question Him?' Remember that's what got Job into trouble. (p. 2)
First, I am not questioning God. I am questioning your position. The bible or God never says anything about general or inward calls. There is one verse in the whole bible that maybe could support your view (Matthew 22:14). Maybe, and only taken out of context. But, if your just going to list verses and not analyze them and put them into context then we can say God supports slavery, God supports stoning your children, God supports killing unbelieving sinners, God supports the "an eye for an eye" mentality, and so on and so forth. In fact, most commentaries interpret the passage, given its context, in a way opposed to the notion of "general" and "inward" calls. Biblegateway.com's commentary does this (see
here). Also, all of the relevant commentaries
here, except for Gill's (GIL), oppose an interpretation that includes the concepts of "general" and "inward" calls. Also, I viewed all the biblical commentaries I have at home and none of them supported your out-of-context interpretation, which suggests general and inward calls. When entirely put into context, because the verse is the end to a parable in Matthew chapter 22 (from verses 1-14), the interpretation doesn't suggest general and inward calls, as the vast majority of biblical scholars agree. Now of course, upon viewing this you will label
all these commentaries as being "philosophical." So, now you abandon the overwhelming majority of
biblical scholars for
your view. Which sounds more
philosophical?
As the discussion continues, Matthew 23:37 comes into the picture. The verse states the following: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but
you were not willing!" Clearly there is absolutely nothing in this verse to suggest this call was a general one, as opposed to an inward one. So again, after giving an inadequate response you list some irrelevant scripture, which has nothing to do with general or inward calls. I looked at all the passages you listed: John 6:35-40, John 10:11, John 10:14-18, John 10:24-29, John 17:1-11, John 17:20, John 17:24-26. Not one dealt with the issue of Matthew 23:37. So, again, when a powerful point is raised you have dodged it by cited some scripture(s) not pertinent to the issue raised.
You commit this fallacy again in responding to another point I raise. I say the following: "Even if we disregard double predestination, does your other proposal (that 'God does not elect the [unregenerate] to damnation' but '[h]e passes them by, leaving them in their unregenerate state') sound like that of a ALL-loving God?" Of course, again you offer some inadequate response and then ended by citing Isaiah 55:8, which says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' says the LORD." Again, this verse is not relevant to the question I have raised concerning
your view, and not what the bible says. So, you continue to avoid difficult questions concerning your view by saying just trust God. I have no problem trusting God. My issue isn't with God, its with
your unfounded assertions about Him.
Inadequate Responses Due to Unfounded Assertions or Complete Avoidance
In one of my posts I said, "I [believe], contra Hendryx, that God's grace is not a sufficient cause of salvation, and that it must be met with choice in order to be fulfilled." You responded:
- The choice falls under grace also.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Your faith is a gift from God. And so nobody would misunderstand, Paul tells us that "and that not of yourselves" "it is a gift from God". (p. 2)
Ironically, the verse you cited supports
my viewpoint, and you just followed it with unfounded assertions like "The choice falls under grace also" and "Your faith is a gift from God." I proved these to be unfounded assertions in a following post when I said, "Whoa. I know of no bible commentary that depicts Ephesians 2:8 as saying faith in this passage is the gift from God. What then is grace and salvation in this passage? It is clear from a cursory reading, and from a more detailed analysis, that grace, and therefore salvation, is that which is a 'gift from God.' Faith is that through which salvation is received. Norman L. Geisler said it best in his Systematic Theology: Volume Three: Sin, Salvation when he noted that grace, and thus salvation, is a gift provided for all; but it is only applied to those who have faith, that is, those who accept the gift." I also went on to show your incorrect interpretation with more detail in my post.
Now, in one of my
posts, I listed five verses which clearly indicated, against what Hendryx claimed, that the bible indicates people rejecting God. Now, let's look at you responses.
In response to Matthew 23:37 you say the following:
- This is a general call, and also shows the compassion of Jesus. We know that all that the Father gave Jesus (Sheep) heard the inward calland [sic] came to Him ( true faith), and that Jesus would not lose one of them. John 6:35-40, John 10:11, John 10:14-18, John 10:24-29, John 17:1-11, John 17:20, John 17:24-26.
I already talked about the irrelevancy of the John verses you cited, but you claim that the verse speaks of a general call. Where? Please show me where this unfounded assertion is derived from. There is absolutely no basis for this. (Could it be your philosophical presupposition?)
In response to Luke 7:30 you say the following:
- Again, speaking of the general call.
Once again, where in the world is that conclusion drawn from? Luke 7:30 says, "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." Nowhere here is there a mention of general or inward calls, you just assert it. And, your assertion is unfounded.
In response to John 5:40, which says, "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life," you say:
- Why were they not willing? Again, see the scripture above "John".
You claim the John verses have the answer, but I have already talked about the irrelevancy of these John verses. So here your avoidance of directly answering the issue raised amounts to an insufficient response.
In response to Acts 7:51 and 2 Peter 3:9, you do the same thing. You claim them to be talking about the general call only. But, again, this is just an unfounded assertion, because there is absolutely nothing in these verses that imply any distinction between a general or inward call.
Now, I raise another point to which your response doesn't suffice. I note that Hendryx (who you agree with) says, "We either desire Christ or we despise him, and if we choose Him, this is the result of sovereign grace . . ." Then I say, "But according to Irresistible Grace and monergism, we do not choose Him, He chooses us, we are merely affected by His choice." You then response by simply saying,
- I don't see a problem here as you do.
Well, sadly there is a big problem, and it should be evident. Monergism holds that man has no choice, hence the notion of
unconditional election or
Irresistible Grace. So, you cannot hold to monergism (which says man doesn't choose, God does) and still agree to the statement that man chooses Christ.
I then go on to say, "You cannot support monergism and say that we choose God, because we play no part in the role of salvation according to monergism." You respond by saying,
Okay, if you believe that, you do not hold to monergism and you have just contradicted many other statement you have made. (I showed this in my previous post.)
I showed that you had made contradictory statements when I said, "This is self-contradictory. You make two statements here: (1) man's will is used to reach an outcome and (2) mans will doesn't determine the outcome. Those two statements aren't reconcilable." You responded by simply saying,
Well, unfortunately, it does not make sense in reality. You claim a monergistic view in (2) and a synergistic view in (1). Because I was becoming confused as to what your position was, I asked you to expound on this "role" when I said, "I'm having a hard time [understanding] what role we play if it isn't causal. Could you please expound on this 'role.'" You avoided this question completely. I am still waiting for you to explain what "role" man plays (and still maintain a monergistic viewpoint).
Conclusion
I have tried to show you why I am confused at your viewpoint and why I feel your answers and position are inadequate. Of course, you could persuade me by giving adequate answers in place of all the prior inadequate responses you gave. Until then, your position doesn't hold up and is based on unfounded assertions and, dare I say, philosophical presuppositions. And, it is also based on the necessity to misinterpret biblical verses and force
ad hoc connotations.
