Quotes to Ponder

[vernecarty]

This is a common argument used by some folks of Calvinist persuasion to argue against such verses as I John 2:2.

It is actually an informal logical fallacy called argumentum ad misericordium.  This simply means that Best is using language calculated to arouse negative feelings in the hearers.  It offers no information about what God can or cannot do.

The Bible itself offers far more cogent commentary on whether 1 John 2:2 teaches universalism. In fariness to H, he has done a pretty decent job elsewhere giving exegetcial and hermeneutical reasons why this is not necessarily the case Tom. eg

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Few who make the argument you do would argue that Peter is teaching universalism in the above verse.
Best's contention that a  redemption that is conditional for all but absolute for none is dishonoring to God has to do with far more than just an appeal to emotion. It has to do with the fundamental question of whether the atonement was efficacious enough to deal with the sin of unbelief- that is after-all the sin that sends men to hell. Think about it...

Verne

[golden2]

 Isaiah 29
20  For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
21  That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
22  Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
23  But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.
24  They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

[H]

     "In discussing the design or extent of the atonement, there are three key doctrinal terms which are related to the priestly sacrifice of Christ on earth, that is, to the finished work of Christ. These terms are redemption, propitiation and reconciliation. Evangelical Arminians and Calvinistic "four point" universalists or modified Calvinists hold that there is a universal design of the atonement which provides salvation for all mankind without exception or which places all of Adam's posterity in a savable state. They contend that there is a twofold application of these three doctrinal terms — an actual application for those who believe, a provisional application for those who die in unbelief. The historic "five point" or consistent Calvinist asserts that these terms have no substitutionary reference with respect to the non-elect. In contrast to the former who hold to an indefinite atonement, the consistent Calvinist, who holds to a definite atonement, sees no purpose, benefit or comfort in a redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate or a reconciliation that does not reconcile, which would be the case if these terms were applicable to the non-elect.
     For those who have wrestled with the extent of the atonement, they are acutely aware that there are three problem verses which the five point Calvinist must scripturally answer if he is to consistently sustain a biblical position before the modified Calvinist that the saving design of the atonement is intended by the triune God only for the elect. These verses are II Peter 2:1, which pertains to redemption; I John 2:2, which pertains to propitiation; and II Corinthians 5:19, which pertains to reconciliation. If the particular redemptionist can scripturally establish in any of these verses that God's design of the atonement does not extend to the non-elect, then the theological case for the unlimited redemptionist crumples. In summary, if universal propitiation in I John 2:2 cannot be biblically established, then what purpose does a universal redemption in II Peter 2:1 or a universal reconciliation in II Corinthians 5:19 serve? Can it be true that God the Son redeemed the non-elect for whom God the Father's wrath will never be propitiated (satisfied or appeased) by virtue of Christ's death or that God the Father has been reconciled by virtue of Christ's death to the non-elect upon whom His condemning wrath eternally abides (John 3:36)?"

Taken from "PROPITIATION IN I JOHN 2:2 (A Doctrinal Study on the Extent of the Atonement)" by  Dr. Gary D. Long
http://www.the-highway.com/1Jh2.2.html

P.S. Dear Tom, I would like to challenge you to click on the above link and read the whole article, and then point out any weaknesses you see in his arguments. (But maybe start a new thread rather than continuing on this one.)

[vernecarty]

    "In discussing the design or extent of the atonement, there are three key doctrinal terms which are related to the priestly sacrifice of Christ on earth, that is, to the finished work of Christ. These terms are redemption, propitiation and reconciliation. Evangelical Arminians and Calvinistic "four point" universalists or modified Calvinists hold that there is a universal design of the atonement which provides salvation for all mankind without exception or which places all of Adam's posterity in a savable state. They contend that there is a twofold application of these three doctrinal terms — an actual application for those who believe, a provisional application for those who die in unbelief. The historic "five point" or consistent Calvinist asserts that these terms have no substitutionary reference with respect to the non-elect. In contrast to the former who hold to an indefinite atonement, the consistent Calvinist, who holds to a definite atonement, sees no purpose, benefit or comfort in a redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate or a reconciliation that does not reconcile, which would be the case if these terms were applicable to the non-elect.
     For those who have wrestled with the extent of the atonement, they are acutely aware that there are three problem verses which the five point Calvinist must scripturally answer if he is to consistently sustain a biblical position before the modified Calvinist that the saving design of the atonement is intended by the triune God only for the elect. These verses are II Peter 2:1, which pertains to redemption; I John 2:2, which pertains to propitiation; and II Corinthians 5:19, which pertains to reconciliation. If the particular redemptionist can scripturally establish in any of these verses that God's design of the atonement does not extend to the non-elect, then the theological case for the unlimited redemptionist crumples. In summary, if universal propitiation in I John 2:2 cannot be biblically established, then what purpose does a universal redemption in II Peter 2:1 or a universal reconciliation in II Corinthians 5:19 serve? Can it be true that God the Son redeemed the non-elect for whom God the Father's wrath will never be propitiated (satisfied or appeased) by virtue of Christ's death or that God the Father has been reconciled by virtue of Christ's death to the non-elect upon whom His condemning wrath eternally abides (John 3:36)?"

Taken from "PROPITIATION IN I JOHN 2:2 (A Doctrinal Study on the Extent of the Atonement)" by  Dr. Gary D. Long
http://www.the-highway.com/1Jh2.2.html

P.S. Dear Tom, I would like to challenge you to click on the above link and read the whole article, and then point out any weaknesses you see in his arguments. (But maybe start a new thread rather than continuing on this one.)

Thank you H. This is a tour 'de force!
Verne

[Oscar]

H,

Long wrote,

" Can it be true that God the Son redeemed the non-elect for whom God the Father's wrath will never be propitiated (satisfied or appeased) by virtue of Christ's death or that God the Father has been reconciled by virtue of Christ's death to the non-elect upon whom His condemning wrath eternally abides (John 3:36)?"

I'll have to get back to you on your linked artcile later, but in case you didn't notice, Long does exactly the same thing that best does.  It is another example of a logical fallacy.

When Long says "can it be true" what he really means is something like, "since God would never do that, it can't be true."  

This is the fallacy of petitio principii or "begging the question".  It means that the person arguing a point has sneaked what he is trying to prove, (his point),  into his premesis.

What Long is saying is "since God would never do that, we know that he would never do that".  

If at any point a fallacy occurs in a logical chain...the conclusion is invalidated.   Now, the conclusion could possible by true for another reason, but the argument in which the fallacy ocurred is invalid.

I have a lot more to say about Old John C and his ideas, but they will have to wait.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog 1st Class

[vernecarty]

H,

Long wrote,

" Can it be true that God the Son redeemed the non-elect for whom God the Father's wrath will never be propitiated (satisfied or appeased) by virtue of Christ's death or that God the Father has been reconciled by virtue of Christ's death to the non-elect upon whom His condemning wrath eternally abides (John 3:36)?"

I'll have to get back to you on your linked artcile later, but in case you didn't notice, Long does exactly the same thing that best does.  It is another example of a logical fallacy.

When Long says "can it be true" what he really means is something like, "since God would never do that, it can't be true."  

On the contrary, he is inviting us to examine such a proposition on its merits. Furthermore the "since God would never do that, it can't be true"  statement is not really that far-fetched a logical vehicle for arguing a point and most certainly not necessarily always a logical fallacy as you suggest. If any proposition involves God telling a lie, or denying Himself, for example, the above statement would be clearly valid.  

This is the fallacy of petitio principii or "begging the question".  It means that the person arguing a point has sneaked what he is trying to prove, (his point),  into his premesis.

What Long is saying is "since God would never do that, we know that he would never do that".  

If at any point a fallacy occurs in a logical chain...the conclusion is invalidated.   Now, the conclusion could possible by true for another reason, but the argument in which the fallacy ocurred is invalid.

I have a lot more to say about Old John C and his ideas, but they will have to wait.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog 1st Class

I take it then Tom that the proposition that:

...God the Son redeemed the non-elect for whom God the Father's wrath will never be propitiated (satisfied or appeased) by virtue of Christ's death  AND that God the Father has been reconciled by virtue of Christ's death to the non-elect upon whom His condemning wrath eternally abides (John 3:36)".

you consider to be true? You must if you disagree with Lang.

It seems to me that you are focusing on how the argument is being made and not what is being said.
If you agree with the above proposition as stated why don't you simply say so instead of attacking the style in which the argument is presented? The proposition is either true or false. Make your case either way...
A defense of the above proposition as true, presents formidable logical and theological obstacles ergo the interrogative "could it be true?". Simply put, Long is saying if it could, go ahead and prove it to me. I agree that the way he frames the issue suggests that he considers the fallacy of the proposition to be self-evident and certainly not because he is begging the question. The man was a very able thinker! We would of course have to follow his development of his position. It would be a good excercise to take it apart piece  by piece...
Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

You are correct in stating that Long is appealing to what he considers to be self evident truth in his argument.  The problem is that he hasn't demonstrated that it is self evident.  Therefore his argument DOES beg the question.

A self evident truth is a proposition who's opposite is inconceivable.  For example "All circles are round".  If a circle had any other shape, it wouldn't be a circle at all.  It would be something else.  Therefore the proposition, "all circles are round" is self evident.
(I wonder if the proposition, "George G. is a nice man" is self evident?  Is its opposite inconceivable?)  

Long is arguing on the basis of two things; The Calvinist teachings on election, and the forensic, (legal) theory of the atonement.

However, there are other theories concerning the atonement.  For example the satisfaction theory.

The Greek Orthodox have another, very ancient, theory of how the atonement works but I can't think of the name for it right now.

So, Long's question is referring the reader to a "truth" which is disputed.  Therefore, it hasn't been established as self evident.  

I will go to another post to describe some problems I see with Calvinism.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog 1st Class

[Oscar]

Verne,

Here are some thoughts on Calvinism.

The fundamental problem I have with Johnny C and friends is that they pontificate at great length about things that no man can know.  They seem to think that they do, in fact, understand that which cannot be understood.

Let's look, for example, at their ideas on election.  They claim that God does not take into account what people do in electing them.

Now, notice I said what people do, not what they will do.

That is because God has revealed Himself as an omnicient, omnipresent being.  He does not exist in the time plane of the universe.  He is transcendant over all space, matter, energy and time.  All time is present to Him.  He was, is, and will be...from OUR perspective...but He is all these things at once!  So He knows all things, as present.

Now, according to Calvinists, He does not take into account the actions of people when He elects.  First of all, remember that I said elects, not elected.  To us, it is elected. Because we live in linear time.
But, to God, He elects, because all time is present to Him.

Now, how does God's "time" if such a concept even applies to God, inersect with ours?

NO ONE KNOWS!

We have pretty good evidence that our universe was created with 9 spatial dimensions and one of time.
In order to create something so complex, God has to be even more complex.

Now, how much more?  NO ONE KNOWS!   Therefore any theory founded in a supposed understanding God's mind and ways is stumbling out of  the starting gate.

Why do I believe we don't know God's ways?  The Bible very clearly says so!

Romans 11:33 "Oh, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how UNSEARCHEABLE are His judgements and UNFATHOMABLE His ways."

Calvinistic ideas about election are based on an "understanding" of God's unfathomable ways.

Isaiah 55:9.  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts."

We don't understand how God thinks.

Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children."

We understand some of what has been revealed to us, but we don't even have absolute knowledge of that!  In addition, there is a realm of knowledge that is "secret" from our viewpoint.

Now, I am well aware that many Calvinists would take this as a challenge and weigh in with tome after tome of arguments.

So, I just hold up a question to be answered first.

How does a being that is all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, all time transcending, and all-creating, think and do things?

If you don't know the answer to that question, you really don't have much to say about issues that fall into that category.

When I say "you" Verne, I don't mean you personally.  I mean anyone that attempts to expound these subjects.

So, I remain very skeptical of anyone of any theological persuasion who claims to understand what divine revelation clearly states is not understandable.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Virulent Dog 1st Class (a term used for people like me by John Calvin. Well, I did promote myself to first class.  I got tired of being just a run-of-th-mill virulent dog.)

[vernecarty]

Verne,

Here are some thoughts on Calvinism.

The fundamental problem I have with Johnny C and friends is that they pontificate at great length about things that no man can know.  They seem to think that they do, in fact, understand that which cannot be understood.

Let's look, for example, at their ideas on election.  They claim that God does not take into account what people do in electing them.

I hope we can move this to new thread like H suggests. I have never subscribed to any system of "name" philosophy  Tom Calvinistic or Armenian. The best I can do is look at the propositions  of each and see whether my feeble mind can establish whether or not it comports with Scripture. Take your statement above for example. I did not know that it was in particular a tenet of Calvinism. I can however look at my Bible and see if there is anything there that comments on the stated proposition. I then look at the book of Romans that seems to indeed speak quite pointedly to what you have presented as an example. I guess I am just too simple to do anything but read and believe.

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.  

Unless I completely miss Paul's meaning here Tom, the truth of the proposition you presented is not left to our speculation but is explicitly stated here.
I agree that there are depths that we cannot know. In fact I think this is the key to understanding these kinds of debates. We are given to an either or mentality when the fact is that both sovreignty and accountability are taught by God's Word. The imagined antagonism is entirely man- made and due to mortal limitations. Good points though Tom.
Verne
p.s Virulent??!! I have been called similar things but Calvin could not have had you in mind my friend...

[H]

1.Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

2.Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also - He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.

John Calvin (in Book 1, Chapter 1 of "Institutes of the Christian Religion")
http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk1ch01.html

P.S. This thread is called "Quotes to Ponder". I am simply posting this here as a quote to ponder. I suggest that those who want to discuss/debate Calvin or Calvinism do so on the "Calvin and Calvinism" thread in the Bible section of the Board. I will repost this quote there to make it easier for those who want to respond to quote it.

[Oscar]

Verne me lad,

You said,
"I guess I am just too simple to do anything but read and believe.

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.  

Unless I completely miss Paul's meaning here Tom, the truth of the proposition you presented is not left to our speculation but is explicitly stated here."

You have the believing part just fine, its the reading part that needs a little work.

1. This passage is dealing with national histories and peoples, not individuals.

In Romans 9 Paul talks about the Jews, the Gentiles, Jacob and Esau, and Pharaoh.

2. Well, aren't those guys individuals?

Check your references.  Verse 12 quotes Genesis 25:23.

That verse says,
"The Lord said to her, Two NATIONS are in your womb, And two PEOPLES are separated from your body; and one PEOPLE shall be stronger than the other; and the older shall serve the younger.

Now,  as far as I remember the Bible doesn't mention any acts of service to Jacob by Esau.

However, David conquered Edom, (Esau's descendants) and made them a tributary state to the United Kingdom.  They rebelled after the division into Israel and Judah.

They were an idolatrous, wicked people.  They stabbed Judah in the back, (read Obadiah) and were cursed by God.

2. Now as to the "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" verse, that comes from Malachi 1:2 which was written in the 5th century BC.  That was AFTER all the above events happened.

3. What about Pharaoh?  God hardened him didn't He?

Check Exodus 10:1-2.

"The the Lord said to Moses, "God to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,
and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson, how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I performed My signs among them, that you may know that I am the Lord."

Pharaoh, was the man in the saddle, but the nation (and its gods) was the purpose.

By the way, to be pharaoh, you first had to commit all the abominations of Romans 1, PLUS claim to be the son of Ra.

That was Pharaoh's spiritual condition BEFORE he was hardened by God.

Notice also that individual Egyptians could escape the judgements if they feared Yahweh.  Gen. 9:18-21.

Verne, do not misunderstand me.  I am not denying divine election and predestination.  

What I am saying is that NO MAN understands what goes on in God's mind, therefore we don't know what he thinks about when he does things.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog 1st class-with bronze leaf.

[H]

1. The law of the Lord is perfect. It is perfectly free from all corruption, perfectly filled with all good, and perfectly fitted for the end for which it is designed; and it will make the man of God perfect, 2Ti 3:17. Nothing is to be added to it nor taken from it. It is of use to convert the soul, to bring us back to ourselves, to our God, to our duty; for it shows us our sinfulness and misery in our departures from God and the indispensable necessity of our return to him.

Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)
(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Psalm 19:7)

[H]

2. The testimony of the Lord (which witnesses for him to us) is sure, incontestably and inviolably sure, what we may give credit to, may rely upon, and may be confident it will not deceive us. It is a sure discovery of the divine truth, a sure direction in the way of duty. It is a sure foundation of living comforts and a sure foundation of lasting hopes. It is of use to make us wise, wise to salvation, 2 Tim. 3:15. It will give us an insight into things divine and a foresight of things to come. It will employ us in the best work and secure to us our true interests. It will make even the simple (poor contrivers as they may be for the present world) wise for their souls and eternity. Those that are humbly simple, sensible of their own folly and willing to be taught, shall be made wise by the word of God, Ps. 25:9.

Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)
(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Psalm 19:7)

[H]

3. The statutes of the Lord (enacted by his authority, and binding on all wherever they come) are right, exactly agreeing with the eternal rules and principles of good and evil, that is, with the right reason of man and the right counsels of God. All God’s precepts, concerning all things, are right (Ps. 119:128), just as they should be; and they will set us to rights if we receive them and submit to them; and, because they are right, they rejoice the heart. The law, as we see it in the hands of Christ, gives cause for joy; and, when it is written in our hearts, it lays a foundation for everlasting joy, by restoring us to our right mind.

Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)
(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Psalm 19:

[H]

4. The commandment of the Lord is pure; it is clear, without darkness; it is clean, without dross and defilement. It is itself purified from all alloy, and is purifying to those that receive and embrace it. It is the ordinary means which the Spirit uses in enlightening the eyes; it brings us to a sight and sense of our sin and misery, and directs us in the way of duty.

Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)
(from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Psalm 19: