The Electrum
Those who are beginning to study the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism tend to entertain two related but mistaken assumptions. The first is that the debate involves only two primary positions. The second is that the more extremely one implements either position, the more distant one must be from the other position. The first of these assumptions is simply untrue. The second is true, but only to a point.
Like visible light, positions in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism form a continuous spectrum. Every Christian who has an opinion on the issues can be located somewhere along that spectrum. The issues that define the positions, however, are not necessarily those that one might expect.
Participants in this debate will be found arguing about divine sovereignty versus human freedom, about the ordo salutis, about the extent of human depravity, about the role of prevenient grace, and about whether election is unconditional, conditional, or corporate. To be sure, all of these questions are important, but they eventually lead to one critical problem. That problem is the definition of divine foreknowledge.
Divine foreknowledge is the hinge upon which all the other debates turn. One’s definition of foreknowledge will determine whether one ends on the Arminian or Calvinistic side of the debate—and everyone who expresses an opinion is on one side or the other.
Arminians see God’s foreknowledge as His foresight. God looks ahead through the corridors of time and sees what free people will choose. For Arminians, divine foreknowledge is essentially reactive.
For their part, Calvinists see God’s foreknowledge as causative. God’s foreknowledge does not passively observe the future, but rather shapes it. God’s foreknowledge makes things happen. According to Calvinists, foreknowledge is not so much God’s foresight as it is His forethought.
Once a definition has been chosen, the other pieces of the puzzle fall into place almost unavoidably. If God’s foreknowledge is causative, then election must be unconditional. If election is unconditional, then divine calling has to be efficacious. That being so, prevenient grace cannot have reversed the volitional effects of depravity. In other words, most of the Calvinistic system follows with logical certainty from a particular definition of foreknowledge. The exception is the negative side of particular redemption—i.e., the denial that Christ provided redemption for the non-elect.
By the same token, most of the system of Arminianism necessarily flows from viewing God’s foreknowledge as foresight. The exception here is the denial of eternal security. Just as some Calvinists affirm a universal provision of redemption, some Arminians affirm eternal security.
This observation implies that shades and gradations exist on both sides of the dividing line. Strict Calvinists affirm limited atonement, while moderate Calvinists do not. Strict Arminians deny eternal security, while moderate Arminians affirm it.
In other words, the debate involves not two, but at least four positions. These are strict Arminianism, moderate Arminianism, moderate Calvinism, and strict Calvinism. Beyond these four, other positions stretch out both sides of the spectrum.
Much ink has been spilled over the phenomenon of hyper-Calvinism. Unfortunately, this term is generally used as a bare pejorative. The abuse of the term, however, should not be allowed to obscure the fact that a genuinely hyper-Calvinistic position does exist, though its adherents sometimes prefer to call it “High Calvinism.”
What are the characteristics of a hyper-Calvinist? Four particularly bear mentioning. These include the denial of common grace, the adoption of a supralapsarian order of the decrees, the acceptance of a doctrine of reprobation or double-predestination, and a refusal to make a free offer of the gospel. More extreme versions of hyper-Calvinism might also teach the doctrine of eternal justification or a form of antinomianism. To the extent that a person holds these four beliefs, that person is going beyond traditional Calvinism as defined at Dort, and that is what makes the position hyper-Calvinistic.
A corresponding position exists on the Arminian side of the spectrum. This position does not really have a label, but for sake of designation it could be called hyper-Arminianism. How does this position differ from historic Arminianism?
Traditionally, Arminianism and Calvinism take similar views of depraved human nature. This similarity is evident in Article Three of the original Arminian Articles, which affirms,
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Theological students who encounter this statement for the first time often mistake it for a Calvinistic affirmation. It is not. For both traditional Calvinists and traditional Arminians, the will has been so affected by the fall that humans, left to themselves, are utterly incapable of any positive response toward God (in other words, they have lost the moral ability to believe). The difference between Calvinists and Arminians consists in how they solve this problem. According to Arminians, God restores some element of moral ability to all humans as an aspect of prevenient grace. Calvinists believe that God restores full moral ability, but only to the elect as part of saving grace.
This original disabling of the will is what hyper-Arminians deny. In their mind, every human being already has complete freedom of will in every sense, and is always and fully able to choose God at any time. Effectively, hyper-Arminianism denies that depravity has affected the human will. (This position is sometimes mistaken for Pelagianism, but Pelagian theology also denies the imputation of original sin.)
In today’s debates, hyper-Arminians often prefer to call themselves Biblicists. They usually insist that they are neither Calvinists nor Arminians. In one sense, they are right: their position is much more extreme than historic, traditional Arminianism. Nevertheless, their definition of foreknowledge places them firmly on the Arminian side of the spectrum.
So does their insistence upon a libertarian definition of freedom. By this definition, the will is not free unless one might actually make the contrary choice. For Calvinists, however, freedom consists in the ability to do what one chooses without constraint or restraint. Most Calvinists have believed that the will can be shaped and even determined in a number of ways without damaging genuine freedom. The debate between libertarianism and compatibilism corresponds closely to the divide between Arminianism and Calvinism.
This debate also propels some Arminians into an even more extreme position. They reason that if God knows our choices in advance, then we necessarily will make the choices that He foresees. If we will necessarily make a particular choice, however, then it is not really possible to make the contrary choice. In other words, even with a “soft” definition of divine foreknowledge as foresight, libertarian freedom becomes impossible.
The logic of this position is really air-tight, and it results in a pretty abysmal choice. One can affirm foreknowledge and remain biblical, but sacrifice reason. Or one can deny foreknowledge and remain logical, but be forced to reinterpret Scripture in radical ways. Those who deny foreknowledge are known as Free Will Theists or Open Theists. For the most part, Open Theists insist that their theology is simply the logical extension of the core ideas of Arminianism.
Opposite to Open Theism is a position that denies any form of human freedom and subjects every event and decision to “hard” determinism. In extreme versions of hyper-Calvinism, this position makes God so much the author of sin that humans bear little or no actual responsibility for their acts. All Arminians and most Calvinists are horrified by these ideas, just as all Calvinists and most Arminians are horrified by Open Theism.
At this point in the spectrum, an odd thing happens. On one end of the spectrum, hard determinism turns into fatalism (choice is merely an illusion, but people are really ruled by fate). On the other end of the spectrum, freedom becomes so loose as to become virtually random, and therefore essentially a matter of chance, luck, or fortune. But fate and luck are simply different names for the same thing. In other words, the two ends of the spectrum meet. Someone who goes far enough in either direction will end up in exactly the same place.
In the present essay, I am not trying to argue for one direction or the other. Nevertheless, I would like to draw out certain lessons. First, understood in these terms, all Christians who express an opinion end up in some version of Calvinism or Arminianism. Second, more than two positions are possible. Both Arminianism and Calvinism have moderate and extreme versions. Third, it is not proper to critique any position by pointing to its extreme expressions, for the most extreme expressions of both directions are identical to each other. Fourth, there is no one distinctively “Biblicist” position. People from extreme hyper-Calvinists to hyper-Arminians (and perhaps many Open Theists) believe that they are deriving their conclusions from the text of Scripture—and invariably the advocates of one view think that the advocates of all the others are overly influenced by extra-biblical considerations.
Nevertheless, some positions are more biblical than others, and that leads to a final observation. The issues that come into play in the “electrum” are of different kinds. Some of them are serious enough to affect fundamentals of the faith. Any position that makes God the efficient cause of sin is blasphemous. Likewise, any theory that denies exhaustively definite foreknowledge constitutes an implicit denial of the gospel. Furthermore, any theory that makes ultimate salvation dependent upon human work or merit damages the very foundations of the faith.
Having said that, Christians of good will should not impute these extreme theories to the more moderate expressions of Calvinism or Arminianism. To say that every Arminian is an Open Theist or a Pelagian is slander. To suggest that Calvinists necessarily make God the author of sin—as if God Himself induced people to do evil—is to engage in distortion to the point of deception. Each position needs to be understood in its own terms and represented fairly.
Other points of argument, however, are of lesser significance. The definition of foreknowledge is important, but it is an issue over which Christians may charitably disagree. The same is the case with the position of faith and regeneration in the ordo salutis, the definition of election, and the role of common grace in restoring the moral ability to choose God. To be sure, these questions matter a great deal, but they are not the sort of questions over which Christian fellowship and cooperation must fracture. We should be able to discuss such things without raising tempers and voices.
Those discussions would be more fruitful if they began with a spirit of curiosity. A Calvinist ought to wonder how an Arminian can hold the system of faith together with putative integrity and consistency, and the Arminian ought to wonder the same thing about the Calvinist. Therefore, the first step in the discussion should not be to look for evidence that the other is wrong, but to discover those parts of the system that make it seem right. Even if we want to refute another position, the first step toward being able to do that is to learn to articulate it in a convincing way. If each of us would extend this courtesy to the other positions in the “electrum,” we might often change the character of the debate.
All Mortal Vanities, Begone
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
All mortal vanities, begone,
Nor tempt my eyes, nor tire my ears;
Behold, amidst th’eternal throne,
A vision of the Lamb appears.
Glory His fleecy robe adorns,
Marked with the bloody death He bore;
Seven are His eyes, and seven His horns,
To speak His wisdom and His power.
Lo! He receives a sealèd book
From Him that sits upon the throne;
Jesus, my Lord, prevails to look
On dark decrees and things unknown.
All the assembling saints around
Fall worshipping before the Lamb,
And in new songs of gospel sound
Address their honors to His Name.
The joy, the shout, the harmony,
Flies o’er the everlasting hills
“Worthy art Thou alone,” they cry,
“To read the book, to loose the seals.”
Our voices join the heav’nly strain,
And with transporting pleasure sing,
“Worthy the Lamb that once was slain,
To be our Teacher and our King!”
His words of prophecy reveal
Eternal counsels, deep designs;
His grace and vengeance shall fulfill
The peaceful and the dreadful lines.
Thou hast redeemed our souls from hell
With Thine invaluable blood;
And wretches that did once rebel
Are now made favorites of their God.
Worthy forever is the Lord,
That died for treasons not His own,
By every tongue to be adored,
And dwell upon His Father’s throne!
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
Were I a betting a man, I would wager that nobody “exposing” hypercalvinism at that conference (and using “Calvinism” interchangeably with the term) will demonstrate an accurate understanding of either Calvinism or Hypercalvinism. I would love to be wrong about that. But I don’t think I am.
As for ridicule… I wonder which is worse, mocking an event that purports to “expose” what it does not understand or an event that purports to “expose” what it does not understand (thereby distorting what it claims to be exposing)?
(But for my part, I didn’t ridicule anyway… I just posted the ad. True, I expresses my doubts with the heading “To straighten us all out” or something like that. But is my negative opinion “ridicule”?)
About systems:
If we believe the Bible is inerrant and that all revealed truth agrees with all other revealed truth, systematizing is both our duty and our blessing… and biblical theology is in no way “superior” to systematic. We cannot handle the Word well without both.
In our systematizing, do we arrive at conclusions by logic that are not revealed in the text. Yes, we do. I’m not sure how I feel about that. We employ logic whenever we read a sentence. I do think we need to hold the extrapolations of our systems with less confidence that we hold the biblical premises that support them.
But if a necessary inference is not authoritative, we might as well not read the Bible either… it’s the same process less formalized.
As for ridicule… I wonder which is worse, mocking an event that purports to “expose” what it does not understand or an event that purports to “expose” what it does not understand (thereby distorting what it claims to be exposing)?
(But for my part, I didn’t ridicule anyway… I just posted the ad. True, I expresses my doubts with the heading “To straighten us all out” or something like that. But is my negative opinion “ridicule”?)
About systems:
I don’t think in terms of opposites, but of emphasis. So I would offer in opposition to ‘systematicness’ ‘biblicism’ (this is partly to get Mike Riley’s goat!). But, seriously, I would suggest that what is called ‘biblical theology’ is superior to ‘systematic theology’ and should be understood as a check on the confidence we place on the human portions of systematic theology.It remains true that the opposite of systematicness is randomness and the more we move away from one, we move toward the other. “Biblicist” is quite often a term people use to defend a cherry picking approach to theological principles.
If we believe the Bible is inerrant and that all revealed truth agrees with all other revealed truth, systematizing is both our duty and our blessing… and biblical theology is in no way “superior” to systematic. We cannot handle the Word well without both.
In our systematizing, do we arrive at conclusions by logic that are not revealed in the text. Yes, we do. I’m not sure how I feel about that. We employ logic whenever we read a sentence. I do think we need to hold the extrapolations of our systems with less confidence that we hold the biblical premises that support them.
But if a necessary inference is not authoritative, we might as well not read the Bible either… it’s the same process less formalized.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
No system is able to achieve 100% internal consistency regardless of the machinations.So you think the Bible is not internally consistent?
[Andrew K.]I realize there are other issues with respect to John 6. But we were talking about v. 44. Regardless of one’s system, you have to interpret the passage grammatically. Ted is just wrong in making the AND connect the pronouns. That’s not the way the sentence works.Now, if the one drawn does not come, how then is he raised?Further, isn’t v44 parallel to v37, suggesting the “drawing” action of G-d be interpreted in light of the “giving” in v37? We wouldn’t say that all are “given” would we?
For those who have Bibleworks, check Randy Leedy’s diagram of the verse. The conjunction coordinates the two main clauses: “No man can come to me” and “I will raise him at the last day”. The ‘exception’ modifies “No man can come to me”. That’s the way the sentence works. It doesn’t say whether there are some who are drawn who don’t come. It says those who come are drawn. There is a big difference between the two ideas.
All I am arguing for here is to letting the Bible speak as it was intended to speak.
@Larry:
[Larry] So you think the Bible is not internally consistent?The Bible isn’t a system. It doesn’t present itself systematically.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The Bible isn’t a system. It doesn’t present itself systematically.The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth, which is a system. Therefore, the Bible has no contradictions because God has no contradictions. It is incorrect to say that there are no systems that are 100% correct. God’s is.
Roland would be more accurate to say that our understanding of a system is always liable to flaws due to our own limitations and the noetic effects of sin.
If the Bible were a system, we wouldn’t need systematic theologies.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I think I have to admit at this point that posting the “Exposing Hyper Calv” conference ad probably didn’t help the conversation. I don’t apologize for my opinion of the event, but I regret posting in this particular thread, which was mostly pretty thoughtful (if not “exciting”) up to that point.
(But FWIW, I don’t believe that a) ridicule is always wrong, or b) that it’s wrong to point out the ridiculous quality that already exists in something.)
But let’s not lose site of the value of Kevin’s post. He makes a strong case for distinguishing “hyper Calv” from “regular Calv” and the difference is important. But the central idea is whether the nature of foreknowledge is the key… and maybe Caleb is right that it’s really the nature of the will that is key. Though I think the two end up being almost the east and west sides of the same key.
[RP] Wrongdoing is never justified by comparison, which this type of specious questioning tends to promote. One can always find another worse than himself but all are guilty in God’s sight. Wrong is wrong…Sarcasm very tempting here. (Perhaps I should put “of course I believe wrong is wrong” in all caps and bold?) I’ll resist…. My point in asking “which is worse” was not to teach that a wrong makes a right. Rather, the point was to reveal that the ridicule charge is pretty thin. I.e., if we suppose for the sake of argument that posting the ad and questioning the event’s value is ridicule, which is worse, ridiculing an event or misrepresenting a doctrine?
(But FWIW, I don’t believe that a) ridicule is always wrong, or b) that it’s wrong to point out the ridiculous quality that already exists in something.)
But let’s not lose site of the value of Kevin’s post. He makes a strong case for distinguishing “hyper Calv” from “regular Calv” and the difference is important. But the central idea is whether the nature of foreknowledge is the key… and maybe Caleb is right that it’s really the nature of the will that is key. Though I think the two end up being almost the east and west sides of the same key.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Don Johnson] If the Bible were a system, we wouldn’t need systematic theologies.That’s an interesting idea. But there are some problems.
First, “internal consistency” doesn’t require a system. It’s just the idea that everything an entity asserts is consistent with everything else. So an inerrant Bible has to be internally consistent.
But secondly, I think there’s a difference between a system existing and a system being apparent. Since we all accept—I assume—that God is orderly and nothing about Him is random, there must be a system. Our efforts at systematizing truth are really just a way to make the system that is there simpler and more clear to minds like ours.
Mathematicians used to talk about “chaos theory,” but then many of them (most?) decided to start calling it “complexity theory,” because they discovered that what seemed chaotic was actually orderly in a far more complex way than they realized. Try to analyze what happens to the surface of water when you drop a pebble in it, for example.
So I’d suggest that good systematic theology is about simplifying the system that exists in God’s revelation, not creating a system that isn’t there.
So, whether we agree with the Arminian system or the Calvinist system or some hybrid, the idea of “system” is a good thing.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think we are getting into a side-track here. I don’t think anyone commenting here would say the Bible is inconsistent or that God’s truth is inconsistent. But God didn’t present his truth in a systematic way. And, I suspect, he didn’t present ALL truth.
Back in #63, you said:
However… as I think about it… there are competing viewpoints in Biblical theology also, so my assertion may be somewhat overstated.
Back in #63, you said:
[Aaron Blumer] If we believe the Bible is inerrant and that all revealed truth agrees with all other revealed truth, systematizing is both our duty and our blessing… and biblical theology is in no way “superior” to systematic. We cannot handle the Word well without both.I’m not convinced that systematizing is our duty. It is what we do, but whether it is a duty or not, I’m not sure. Warfield would say that systematic theology is the queen of the sciences, superior to other forms of theology - and all other sciences (if I remember him right). But I disagree. There are truths that the Bible presents in tension. Systematic theologies compete in how they resolve the tension, and in that competition betray their weakness. They can’t know for certain that their resolution is correct. Hence my notion that Biblical theology is superior. It stops where the Scripture stops.
However… as I think about it… there are competing viewpoints in Biblical theology also, so my assertion may be somewhat overstated.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Aaron Blumer] So I’d suggest that good systematic theology is about simplifying the system that exists in God’s revelation, not creating a system that isn’t there.Well said!
So, whether we agree with the Arminian system or the Calvinist system or some hybrid, the idea of “system” is a good thing.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Just in case that I haven’t made it clear, OF COURSE THE BIBLE IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT!As you have done here, I think you would be better off just saying “I was a bit imprecise in my original statement and I need to clarify.” IMO, going hard after me and insinuating some tactics to me simply for asking a question is not a good way to go about it, particularly when you end up agreeing me with in the end.
The problem is that our comprehension, understanding, and interpretations may not be.
Larry, I don’t think any theology professor would agree with youActually, I don’t know any theology professor who would disagree with me but I may not know enough. I think most would say that the Bible is the revelation of God and is perfectly internally consistent.
If the Bible were a system, we wouldn’t need systematic theologies.
The claim that the Bible is not a systematic textbook is really beside the point. No one is claiming that it is. But the Bible reveals to us truth that came out of a system, or can be put into a system if you prefer. The reason is because God only has one system of truth and every truth corresponds and fits into every other truth. That, by definition, is what a system is … It is a correlation of truth into a coherent whole.
Of course God hasn’t revealed it all to us, but everything that he has revealed is true, and it is all non-contradictory. We are limited by finitude and sin so we are unable to fully comprehend the system of God’s truth, and in fact, we may never be able to since we will always be finite. But there is no contradiction in God’s truth. It is 100% internally consistent.
[Don Johnson] I realize there are other issues with respect to John 6. But we were talking about v. 44. Regardless of one’s system, you have to interpret the passage grammatically. Ted is just wrong in making the AND connect the pronouns. That’s not the way the sentence works.I only have one question then. What is the antecedent (the word, idea, person, etc. being referred to) of the pronoun “auton” in the second independent clause of the compound sentence in John 6:44? Restated, when the verse says “I will raise HIM,” to whom is the HIM referring?
For those who have Bibleworks, check Randy Leedy’s diagram of the verse. The conjunction coordinates the two main clauses: “No man can come to me” and “I will raise him at the last day”. The ‘exception’ modifies “No man can come to me”. That’s the way the sentence works. It doesn’t say whether there are some who are drawn who don’t come. It says those who come are drawn. There is a big difference between the two ideas.
By the way, I have Bibleworks, and I know how to diagram a verse too, and I diagrammed the verse before asking the question. I ask to give you the opportunity to comment on your treatment of the verse.
A helpful quote from Augustine on the paradoxes of Grace and the freedom of Choice.
[St. Augustine] We should remember that it is He who says, “Turn ye and live,” to whom it is said in prayer, “Turn us again, O God.” We should remember that He says, “Cast away from you all your transgressions,” when it is even He who justifies the ungodly. We should remember that He says, “Make you a new heart and a new spirit,” who also promises, “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you.” How is it, then, that He who says, “Make you,” also says, “I will give you “? Why does He command, if He is to give? Why does He give if man is to make, except it be that He gives what He commands when He helps him to obey whom He commands? There is, however, always within us a free will,—but it is not always good; for it is either free from righteousness when it serves sin,—and then it is evil,—or else it is free from sin when it serves righteousness,—and then it is good. But the grace of God is always good; and by it, it comes to pass that a man is of a good will, though he was before of an evil one.
On Grace and Free Will Chapter 15
Forrest Berry
Dr. Bauder does not appear to normally employ fallacies for his arguments but his statement…:
First, understood in these terms, all Christians who express an opinion end up in some version of Calvinism or Arminianism.…is a rather classic example of a false dilemma combined with an extremely narrow definition.
Since the following material from Dr. Bauder was quoted, I thought that it would be appropriate to post it “with” the prior context.
Opposite to Open Theism is a position that denies any form of human freedom and subjects every event and decision to “hard” determinism. In extreme versions of hyper-Calvinism, this position makes God so much the author of sin that humans bear little or no actual responsibility for their acts. All Arminians and most Calvinists are horrified by these ideas, just as all Calvinists and most Arminians are horrified by Open Theism.I would also point out the first two sentences.
At this point in the spectrum, an odd thing happens. On one end of the spectrum, hard determinism turns into fatalism (choice is merely an illusion, but people are really ruled by fate). On the other end of the spectrum, freedom becomes so loose as to become virtually random, and therefore essentially a matter of chance, luck, or fortune. But fate and luck are simply different names for the same thing. In other words, the two ends of the spectrum meet. Someone who goes far enough in either direction will end up in exactly the same place.
In the present essay, I am not trying to argue for one direction or the other. Nevertheless, I would like to draw out certain lessons. First, understood in these terms, all Christians who express an opinion end up in some version of Calvinism or Arminianism.
Those who are beginning to study the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism tend to entertain two related but mistaken assumptions. The first is that the debate involves only two primary positions.I would suggest reading carefully and comparing. Is Dr. Bauder really presenting an unnuanced either/or when he says that they end up in either one or the other?
I certainly did read this but his qualifier appears to me to have no real effect on his conclusion which is that everyone still is some form of the two. He can say it is a “mistake” to assume that the debate “involves only two primary positions” but when all is said and done and you wind up concluding “all Christians who express an opinion end up in some version of Calvinism or Arminianism” you have just established two primary positions which demands that everything fall in between. I believe this scale is both greatly ineffective and a false dilemma.
Alex, if it is not true that “understood in these terms, all Christians who express an opinion end up in some version of Calvinism or Arminianism,” then what else is there? What is another option using the terms as Bauder has laid them out?
Well if we use the terms “as Bauder has laid them out” then certainly his scale has no room for any other considerations. I am saying his scale, his reasoning, employs a false dilemma with narrow definitions.
I believe that one can find relationships between varying schools and yes, some might happily identify themselves as “semi-this” or “hyper-that”. But other schools of theology as it relates to ordo salutis, divine sovereignty and human volition and so on, are possessive of proprietary positions and arguments, so much so that their identification with these two schools by others in order to subordinate them in such a binary way, fails to appreciate and respect their distinctions and theological autonomy.
I certainly can list systems that reject identification with either school but that is irrelevant. What is overriding is the principle of the matter which I believe invalidates Bauder’s approach as it relates to his scale. However, do let me say that because I reject the scale does not mean that I don’t recognize the value of many points in the article.
I believe that one can find relationships between varying schools and yes, some might happily identify themselves as “semi-this” or “hyper-that”. But other schools of theology as it relates to ordo salutis, divine sovereignty and human volition and so on, are possessive of proprietary positions and arguments, so much so that their identification with these two schools by others in order to subordinate them in such a binary way, fails to appreciate and respect their distinctions and theological autonomy.
I certainly can list systems that reject identification with either school but that is irrelevant. What is overriding is the principle of the matter which I believe invalidates Bauder’s approach as it relates to his scale. However, do let me say that because I reject the scale does not mean that I don’t recognize the value of many points in the article.
[Caleb S] I only have one question then. What is the antecedent (the word, idea, person, etc. being referred to) of the pronoun “auton” in the second independent clause of the compound sentence in John 6:44? Restated, when the verse says “I will raise HIM,” to whom is the HIM referring?Hi Caleb
Just a quick response… after my flurry of activity this am, I headed off for a long day and it isn’t over yet.
The antecedent of both uses of auton would be the one who comes to the Father.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him [the one coming to me] ,
AND I will raise him [the one coming to me] up at the last day.”
FWIW
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So, Don, is it two groups or one?
Roland,
It’s your modernistic paradigm, man. :D …
Seriously, I don’t want to get too deep here with you, but to your first point, whether you label something or not, it shares characteristics with things that already have a label. Take for instance being Baptist (which I am). I can say “I am not a Baptist” but when you look at what I believe and practice, it becomes clear that rejecting the label means nothing. So yes, everything fits into the spectrum at some point as Bauder has defined it. I am not sure why that is a problem. You can say you aren’t Arminian, or Pelagian, or Calvinist or whatever, but at the end of the day, when your beliefs align with what those labels stand for it doesn’t really matter that you deny the label.
To your second point, I think Don is going to say that they are two groups … that the group “drawn” is not the same as the group “raised up.” In other words, I imagine knowing Don a bit that he will say that all are drawn, but only those who come are actually raised up.
It’s your modernistic paradigm, man. :D …
Seriously, I don’t want to get too deep here with you, but to your first point, whether you label something or not, it shares characteristics with things that already have a label. Take for instance being Baptist (which I am). I can say “I am not a Baptist” but when you look at what I believe and practice, it becomes clear that rejecting the label means nothing. So yes, everything fits into the spectrum at some point as Bauder has defined it. I am not sure why that is a problem. You can say you aren’t Arminian, or Pelagian, or Calvinist or whatever, but at the end of the day, when your beliefs align with what those labels stand for it doesn’t really matter that you deny the label.
To your second point, I think Don is going to say that they are two groups … that the group “drawn” is not the same as the group “raised up.” In other words, I imagine knowing Don a bit that he will say that all are drawn, but only those who come are actually raised up.
I don’t want to get in a back and forth here but just a couple of quick issues.
I actually think the better response is “Until I know what you mean by a label, I don’t know if it applies to me or not.” I have said this before about fundamentalism. Until I know what you mean by fundamentalism, I don’t know if I am one.
However, in direct answer, I have read a bit of what Don has said before. I may be wrong. I don’t know. That’s why I said I think. I don’t know.
BTW, it doesn’t bother me that you predicted what I was going to say. I am just confused as to why you didn’t seem to like it when I did it but don’t seem to mind it when you do it.
And now, I am way further into this than I intended to be. :(
Now, I expect that you will first say there is no internal consistency here and I possess internal contradictions.To quote you, how can you know someone so well that you can predict their response?
I hold these are apparent paradoxes,Most of you say puts you on the one side of the spectrum apart from one thing and apart from some stuff you omit here. But again I think you miss the point. The fact that you reject a label does not mean that the label does not apply. The label describes a belief. If you hold the belief, then the label applies whether you like it or not. Remember the old line about a rose by any other name … You can reject the label because at the end of the day, what matters is what you believe.
I actually think the better response is “Until I know what you mean by a label, I don’t know if it applies to me or not.” I have said this before about fundamentalism. Until I know what you mean by fundamentalism, I don’t know if I am one.
Larry, I have a very simple question for you. What were Christians before Calvin and Arminius?The same thing they are now. Remember, the labels describe beliefs. The labels themselves are irrelevant. This is like asking what did someone die of before the disease that killed them was called diabetes? The answer: diabetes. We just had a different name for it, or no name at all.
Larry, how can you know someone so well that you can predict their response?Apparently, you and I are similar in this regard since you did it as well.
However, in direct answer, I have read a bit of what Don has said before. I may be wrong. I don’t know. That’s why I said I think. I don’t know.
You are deterministic.Why do you insist on labeling me? I thought you didn’t like labels.
There’s a certain distaste in my mouth when one says, “I know what someone else is going to do.”Did you have this distaste when you predicted what I was going to say that there was “no internal consistency here and I possess internal contradictions”?
BTW, it doesn’t bother me that you predicted what I was going to say. I am just confused as to why you didn’t seem to like it when I did it but don’t seem to mind it when you do it.
My point is that there are two groups globally—those who come and those who don’t.Yes, but the question, as always, is why are some in one group and not in another. The way that we answer this question puts us on one side or the other.
All are drawnThis was what you omitted above which very clearly puts you in one camp. There is one side of the spectrum that uses language like this.
However, only one group, those who come, is addressed here.Actually that is the point of the discussion and that’s what I was asking Don. I think there is only one group here, but based on what you just said, you seem to think there are two. Since all are drawn and those who come are raised up, the “drawn” and the “come/raised up” equals two groups. The second, for you, is a subset of the first.
And now, I am way further into this than I intended to be. :(
I had a theology professor who taught the Cults class at my college. When it came to the study of JWs and Mormons and how to witness to them he challenged us to understand that the first step was understanding the definition of terms. One can not have a conversation when the definitions of terms are not clarified. A JW may say “I believe that Jesus is the Son of God,” but all of us understand that they define their terms differently then we do.
It is my experience that here in lies the problem. When discussing the abstract, the need to agree on term definition is excelled. Two of us may be able to gaze upon a rose and call it two different things, but the definition of the terms we use are the same because we are defining something that is not abstract. A rose is still a rose despite any change in term.
That argument can not be used when it comes to labels. Being a Baptist is an abstract thought. The term Baptist can and has changed definitions and still can change definitions based on the context of its usage and the culture that is behind the user of the term. So in order for us to discuss being a baptist, we have to agree on the basic definition of the term. So in short I CAN reject a label and have it mean something, because the label may not fit the definition I have for that term/label.
I.E - I have been in a church that believes that in order to be a true Calvinist one must agree on all five points of TULIP in their historical definitions. I have also been in a church that believes that in order to be a true Calvinist one must only agree with one point of TULIP in their historical definitions. The term Calvinist then changes definition based on culture and context. I am a 4 point believer of the points of TULIP in their historical definitions, so am I a Calvinist?
It is my experience that here in lies the problem. When discussing the abstract, the need to agree on term definition is excelled. Two of us may be able to gaze upon a rose and call it two different things, but the definition of the terms we use are the same because we are defining something that is not abstract. A rose is still a rose despite any change in term.
That argument can not be used when it comes to labels. Being a Baptist is an abstract thought. The term Baptist can and has changed definitions and still can change definitions based on the context of its usage and the culture that is behind the user of the term. So in order for us to discuss being a baptist, we have to agree on the basic definition of the term. So in short I CAN reject a label and have it mean something, because the label may not fit the definition I have for that term/label.
I.E - I have been in a church that believes that in order to be a true Calvinist one must agree on all five points of TULIP in their historical definitions. I have also been in a church that believes that in order to be a true Calvinist one must only agree with one point of TULIP in their historical definitions. The term Calvinist then changes definition based on culture and context. I am a 4 point believer of the points of TULIP in their historical definitions, so am I a Calvinist?
Tim Lyzenga
There is no natural underlying scheme of theological reality matching Arminianism and Calvinism.Then why has this won the day in orthodox evangelical theology for centuries? Are you suggesting that all these people have no sense of theological reality?
Yeah, you did catch me out on this one and you’ve made the most of it. I dug a pit and fell into it. I ought to have said, “In light of these things, you may say that I am inconsistent or have internal contradictions.”I actually wasn’t bothered by it in the least. I just thought it was strange, but perhaps that was just my modernism rationality kicking in :D (It’s a joke.)
Well, no one compelled you to respond. You made the choice.I had no choice. I was dragged kicking and screaming against my will. It was irresistible and I am totally depraved enough to give into it.
In Jn 6.44, only one group is in view, those who are drawn and come and are raised.
As to the question whether all are drawn, I am not sure I would say that, except in the most general way. No one is without excuse because of general revelation, so one could argue, I suppose, that all are drawn to some extent. But I think that is irrelevant to the main points of the doctrine.
I do think there are at least some drawn who do not come, but I really don’t want to debate the point. In this thread, so far, I am only interested in discussing Jn 6.44. I am not really interested in interminable discussion of the age old debate. I just want to call people to let the Scripture speak. I don’t see why the Calvinist has to twist Jn 6.44 to buttress his position. The most we can say about it is that while it leaves open the possibility that some could be drawn who do not come, it doesn’t say that ONLY those who come are drawn. What it does say is those who come are drawn and are raised.
As to the question whether all are drawn, I am not sure I would say that, except in the most general way. No one is without excuse because of general revelation, so one could argue, I suppose, that all are drawn to some extent. But I think that is irrelevant to the main points of the doctrine.
I do think there are at least some drawn who do not come, but I really don’t want to debate the point. In this thread, so far, I am only interested in discussing Jn 6.44. I am not really interested in interminable discussion of the age old debate. I just want to call people to let the Scripture speak. I don’t see why the Calvinist has to twist Jn 6.44 to buttress his position. The most we can say about it is that while it leaves open the possibility that some could be drawn who do not come, it doesn’t say that ONLY those who come are drawn. What it does say is those who come are drawn and are raised.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
What am I missing? How can one miss the two groups in John 6:44? When Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless…”, isn’t it obvious that He says there are some who cannot come?
He says that no one can come without a special drawing by the Father. That is the doctrine of total depravity, or spiritual inability. Men, left to themselves have no ability to come to Christ. It takes a special work of God in the soul to enable men to come to Christ. There are two groups, those who are left to themselves and cannot come to Christ, and those who are drawn by the Father, and therefore can come, and do come. That is effectual calling, or irristable grace. We know it is effectual because those who are thus drawn are raised by Christ, so all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ.
If that’s twisting the text, then I must have a convoluted mind, because I can’t understand this text any other way. Help!
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
He says that no one can come without a special drawing by the Father. That is the doctrine of total depravity, or spiritual inability. Men, left to themselves have no ability to come to Christ. It takes a special work of God in the soul to enable men to come to Christ. There are two groups, those who are left to themselves and cannot come to Christ, and those who are drawn by the Father, and therefore can come, and do come. That is effectual calling, or irristable grace. We know it is effectual because those who are thus drawn are raised by Christ, so all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ.
If that’s twisting the text, then I must have a convoluted mind, because I can’t understand this text any other way. Help!
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
What am I missing? How can one miss the two groups in John 6:44?My question was about whether those who are “drawn” are a different group than those who “come,” or whether it is only one group: “those who are drawn who also come.”
[RPittman] No, it isn’t obvious for one with no preconceptions.There is none so blind as him who will not see… his own preconceptions!
If all-men-without-exception are drawn and it is up to them to make a decision to come, Jesus statement doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. He tells the Jews that they should stop murmuring because ‘no one can come unless they are drawn.’
Since your preconception is that all-men-without-exception have been drawn and it is now up to them to come, why is Jesus telling them they cannot come unless they are drawn, when they could come because (according to your preconceptions) they are included in the all-men-without-exception who can come.
Jesus should have said “stop murmuring, it’s up to you to come since all-men-without exception have been drawn.’
3 times in this chapter Jesus speaks of raising up at the last day. My preconception is that a single group is referenced all 3 times.
[John 6:37-39 NKJV] 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.The father gives to the Son, those given come to the Son, the Son will not cast them out but will raise it up at the last day.
[John 6:40 NKJV] And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”Jesus will raise up at the last day those who see the Son and believe. My preconception is that the CAUSE for seeing and believing is the Father’s giving of them to the Son.
[John 6:44 NKJV] No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.Jesus says that He will raise up at the last day those whom the Father has drawn.
The flow of the passage leads me to conclude that those referred to as drawn are the same individuals that are given and come.
Curtis Hutson, in his booklet http://swordbooks.com/whyidisagreewithallfivepoints.aspx] Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism (online text http://fundamentalbaptistsermons.net/Site6/EBOOKS/Hutson/Why%20I%20Disa… here ) agrees with you and affirms the synergistic view when he writes:
[page 5] Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him…. “But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself. Here the Bible says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”He shows his preconception that the all men in John 12:32 means all-men-without exception (even though the word MEN is not in the original).
All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Saviour. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him.
[John 12:32 AMP] And I, if and when I am lifted up from the earth [on the cross] , will draw and attract all men [Gentiles as well as Jews] to Myself.If my preconception about the 3 uses by Jesus of the raised up phrase is correct, then Hutson is affirming http://www.theopedia.com/Universalism] universalism .
Hmmm… I wonder which preconception makes the most sense of the passage!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian] Since your preconception is that all-men-without-exception have been drawn and it is now up to them to come…I can’t speak for Roland, but that certainly isn’t my preconception. Maybe you have a preconception about the preconceptions of others?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Alex Guggenheim] Dr. Bauder does not appear to normally employ fallacies for his arguments but his statement…:No he’s actually right about that. The article explains how it works… the “electrum” concept puts everybody either slightly or deeply on one side or the other based on beliefs about foreknowledge.First, understood in these terms, all Christians who express an opinion end up in some version of Calvinism or Arminianism.…is a rather classic example of a false dilemma combined with an extremely narrow definition.
To pick up the subthread on systematizing again….
Why I say it’s our duty to systematize. I was explaining this to the congregation at Grace last night.
* Everything God says agrees with everything else God says
* Everything God says about topic A agrees with everything else He says about topic A
* We don’t really understand what He says about A unless our understanding agrees with everything He says about A
In other words, an extremely important element in proper interpretation is how well our interp. harmonizes with everything else revealed on that subject. And we really can’t test things adequately without bringing all that revelation together in some way to see if we are in harmony with it.
That bringing together is what I’m calling a “system.”
(Presumably it would not be random!)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Systematic theology takes all of that data and attempts to ‘harmonize’ the blank spots in between points. If we assemble all the passages to prove that God is Sovereign, and all the passages to prove that man is responsible, we have Biblical theology. When we try to resolve the tension between these two points by reasoning out how they work together, we have Systematic theology.
FWIW
FWIW
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
There is some truth on the position espoused in several posts on this thread that there is a degree of inscrutibility in the paradox of Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Charles Spurgeon likened this to a railroad track, one rail being Divine sovereignty, and the other human responsiblity. He said that looking down the track, we may think we can see the point where they come together, and yet, if we travel to that point, we realize they do not. They continue to run parallel, never touching, all the way into eternity. (Can I get an Amen!)
And yet, when we remember that Spurgeon was a fervent five-point Calvinist, we recognize that he did not consider the “five-points” to be included in the inscrutible elements of this paradox. In other words, though we surely agree that a measure of paradox exists, we will not agree on what doctrines fit into the paradox category. Just because the Bible does not answer every question, and plainly tells us what some things will remain a mystery, does not mean that the Bible does not teach the doctrines labled Calvinism.
I get the impression that some want to say that because there is mystery, Calvinism is not true, or at least cannot be supported by the Bible. Calvinism is thought to be a logical extension of Biblical truth, an effort to go beyond what the Bible teaches. There was a time when I thougt the same. But a funny thing happened as I continued to exegete Scripture in preparing sermons. Little by little I realized that the Bible does teach these truths. I did not think so formerly, because I hadn’t studied long enough nor carefully enough. Yes, there is mystery, but no, Calvinistic soteriology is not a man-made system. It is Bible truth.
It is just as wrong to stop short of what the Bible teaches as to go beyond what it says. It is just as wrong to label revealed truth an inscrutible mystery as to teach human wisdom as Bible doctrine. Obviously, those who do not see Calvinistic doctrine in the Bible will believe it is human logic, not Bible doctrine. If you can’t see it, you can’t see it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not there. It just means that you haven’t been able to see it (yet). No one should say they believe what they are not convinced of from the Bible. But no one should shut the door on what millions of godly Christians have fervently embraced down through the centuries. You could, one day, see what they now see. Maybe not, but it happened to me, and it has happened to many, and who knows, it just might happen to you.
And yet, when we remember that Spurgeon was a fervent five-point Calvinist, we recognize that he did not consider the “five-points” to be included in the inscrutible elements of this paradox. In other words, though we surely agree that a measure of paradox exists, we will not agree on what doctrines fit into the paradox category. Just because the Bible does not answer every question, and plainly tells us what some things will remain a mystery, does not mean that the Bible does not teach the doctrines labled Calvinism.
I get the impression that some want to say that because there is mystery, Calvinism is not true, or at least cannot be supported by the Bible. Calvinism is thought to be a logical extension of Biblical truth, an effort to go beyond what the Bible teaches. There was a time when I thougt the same. But a funny thing happened as I continued to exegete Scripture in preparing sermons. Little by little I realized that the Bible does teach these truths. I did not think so formerly, because I hadn’t studied long enough nor carefully enough. Yes, there is mystery, but no, Calvinistic soteriology is not a man-made system. It is Bible truth.
It is just as wrong to stop short of what the Bible teaches as to go beyond what it says. It is just as wrong to label revealed truth an inscrutible mystery as to teach human wisdom as Bible doctrine. Obviously, those who do not see Calvinistic doctrine in the Bible will believe it is human logic, not Bible doctrine. If you can’t see it, you can’t see it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not there. It just means that you haven’t been able to see it (yet). No one should say they believe what they are not convinced of from the Bible. But no one should shut the door on what millions of godly Christians have fervently embraced down through the centuries. You could, one day, see what they now see. Maybe not, but it happened to me, and it has happened to many, and who knows, it just might happen to you.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] But no one should shut the door on what millions of godly Christians have fervently embraced down through the centuries.Greg, I know you mean to be serious, but this is just funny. I don’t know if there are equal numbers of non-Calvinist Christians or not, but you have to admit there have been many. But what does that all prove?
Your assertion that the Calvinist system is completely revealed truth is just not true. There are points in the system that are clearly derived by logic, not by revelation. (Try the ordo salutis for example.) I believe there are points in the system that are simply contrary to revelation, as well, but I don’t really want to get into an argument about it.
In any case, I think the striving between adherents of either system over something that Christians have argued about for hundreds of years is pretty pointless. Since true believers differ on these points, it can’t be as important as we want to make it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
I specifically restricted my post to the five points of Calvinism. The ordo salutis is not part of basic Calvinist soteriology. As I’m sure you know, not all Calvinists agree on the ordor.
But watch out, it may happen to you yet! :)
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
I specifically restricted my post to the five points of Calvinism. The ordo salutis is not part of basic Calvinist soteriology. As I’m sure you know, not all Calvinists agree on the ordor.
But watch out, it may happen to you yet! :)
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Aaron Blumer]I don’t disagree that his “electum” places everything in between, I am saying that no matter the explanation it is still flawed and based on a psuedo-supremacy of two systems which present a false dilemma and deny the appropriate recognition of proprietary discovery, arguments, and positions of other systems. His schematics may be true for many or some or a few, but not for all. I understand, again, what is being said, I simply reject its oversimplification for the reasons I have stated.[Alex Guggenheim] Dr. Bauder does not appear to normally employ fallacies for his arguments but his statement…:No he’s actually right about that. The article explains how it works… the “electrum” concept puts everybody either slightly or deeply on one side or the other based on beliefs about foreknowledge.First, understood in these terms, all Christians who express an opinion end up in some version of Calvinism or Arminianism.…is a rather classic example of a false dilemma combined with an extremely narrow definition.
Ex: I can present this system:
Roman Catholic Church……………………………………..Grace Community Church (MacArthur)
In this system I can assign a place for Christian theology which would make them fall somewhere in between, either with one doctrinal topic or all doctrinal topics. But would it be appropriate them to call them semi-Roman Catholics, or possibly hyper-Gracers? No, and most obviously because I cannot presume to place a label on a theological concept forwarded by a person or group that, though it may be similar to another school, may not be derived in part or whole from that school and may in fact possess too great a body of propriety development that would characterize such actions as nothing short of incredulity.
I am certainly not going to lose sleep if this “Calvinist….Arminian” scaling continues, it has by enough people for quite some time but not by all and for good reason. I am disposed to more comprehensive scales, particularly global scaling, as often as possible, particularly when what is in view are all others schools of theology. Clearly there are times and places for one dimensional linear scales, I simply do not think this is one of those times.
Omniscience – A corollary to the doctrine that God is omniscient, is that the group who make up the elect and the group who make up the non-elect are fixed. There can be no movement of individuals from one group to the other, no matter if you hold to conditional or unconditional election. To insist that there can be such movement is to deny God’s omniscience, and affirm some variation of http://www.theopedia.com/Open_theism] Open Theism .
We’ll come back to this in a minute.
Ronald, you seem to be indentifying 2 groups of people in your comments, with 1 of the groups being itself divided into 2 distinct groups. I will use the following names for the groups so as to distinguish them:
Drawn and Not-Drawn, with the Drawn group divided into Given and Not-Given groups.
Drawn – this is the group identified in John 12:32 as “all.”
Not-Drawn – If there is a “drawn” group, it seems logical that there is a “not-drawn” group.
Given – This is the group identified in John 6:37 as the ones who come to the Son because the Father has given them to the Son.
One of the frequent criticisms synergists posit against monergists, is something along the line that the monergistic God is a really, really bad God, because He has created people that He knows will never believe. The argument is not a real criticism of monergism, but is more a criticism of God’s omniscience. But if I have accurately represented your view above, you have a God who draws some who He knows (there’s the omniscience part) will not come, while at the same time not drawing some who will come.
Why doesn’t God just draw those whom He knows will come?
We’ll come back to this in a minute.
Ronald, you seem to be indentifying 2 groups of people in your comments, with 1 of the groups being itself divided into 2 distinct groups. I will use the following names for the groups so as to distinguish them:
Drawn and Not-Drawn, with the Drawn group divided into Given and Not-Given groups.
Drawn – this is the group identified in John 12:32 as “all.”
[RPittman] I am not certain the Amplified Bible has the sense correct. It extends, I think, beyond the Gentile-Jew thing.If I’m understanding you correctly, you are NOT insisting that the “all” here includes every individual without exception, while at the same time NOT accepting the argument from the AMP that “all” refers to Jews AND Gentiles. I’m not sure who you think the “all” refers to here. Is there another group that is not all-men-everywhere, and is also not “Jews and Gentiles?”
Not-Drawn – If there is a “drawn” group, it seems logical that there is a “not-drawn” group.
Given – This is the group identified in John 6:37 as the ones who come to the Son because the Father has given them to the Son.
[John 6:37 NKJV] All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.Not-Given – since I have indentified those who come as having been given, those who do not come are identified as the ones not-given, the ones you have identified as being drawn but not coming.
[RPittman] …it’s the group who are drawn and come to Christ. What you guys can’t seem to understand is that it never mentions those who are drawn and do not come. Just because it doesn’t mention this group does not mean the group doesn’t exist. It’s Christ purpose to speak of this group. In John 6:44, there is simply no data one way or the other—it does not say the group exists or does not.
[RPittman] What is being contested is whether there are others who were drawn and did not come.You admit that the passage is completely silent on this group, but yet insist that such a group exists, so I think it’s safe to conclude that your preconceptions lead you to believe this group exists.
[RPittman] It is a superficial misreading of the text to suppose that these Jews cannot come to Christ because they are not drawn.You insist that of the “drawn” group some will (the given) and some will not (the not-given) come. You also seem to insist that some of the “not-drawn” group may or may not come. Since some of both groups may come (and others may not come) what is the purpose of the drawing?
One of the frequent criticisms synergists posit against monergists, is something along the line that the monergistic God is a really, really bad God, because He has created people that He knows will never believe. The argument is not a real criticism of monergism, but is more a criticism of God’s omniscience. But if I have accurately represented your view above, you have a God who draws some who He knows (there’s the omniscience part) will not come, while at the same time not drawing some who will come.
Why doesn’t God just draw those whom He knows will come?
[RPittman] I’ve been arguing for an apparent paradox all along.Why is there a need for a paradox?
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
The more I read about these two approaches, the more persuaded I become that “biblical theology” done well and “systematic theology” done well are virtually indistinguishable. To the extent that biblical theo. focuses on the differences among biblical writers it ceases to be very biblical—because, though emphases and expressions vary from writer to writer, the Book ultimately has a single Author.
To the extent that systematic theology focuses on “the gaps between verses” (which I take to mean, extra-biblical info? but biblical theo. does this also so…I don’t really know what the difference is supposed to be), it ceases to be very theological, because God has revealed Himself authoritatively only in the Scriptures.
So, remove systematic theology’s weaknesses and biblical theology’s weaknesses and you have essentially the same thing… and it’s both biblical and systematic.
I have yet to see a really good refutation of this argument though…
Both Arminians (classical) and Calvinists have done the body of Christ a service in striving to arrive at understanding of doctrine in a way that compares it thoroughly with the whole witness of Scripture on each doctrine as well as the relationships of doctrines to each other.
Alex… on the validity of the “electrum” idea, and the analogy of a Roman Catholic vs. Grace scale…
Everybody either believes the foreknowledge is seeing in advance what will happen or is determining in advance what will happen. There really are only two possibilities there. Or, to put it another way, everybody either believes God determines everything that happens or doesn’t. One’s answer to that question puts him either on the Calvinistic end of things or the Arminianistic end of things.
As for the Roman Catholic analogy… it fails on multiple levels. You’re comparing a large ancient organization to a single local church. You’re comparing personal entities rather than ideas.
There are ideas that more or less fit in well with the Calvinistic view of foreknowledge and there are ideas that fit in well with the Arminian view. These cluster around their respective centers, so, looking at those ideas, we’re all either closer to Calvinism or closer to Arminianism.
This doesn’t work too well with Catholic and Protestant doctrine, though with the right starting point it could. The central doctrine on that scale would probably have to be one’s view of authority. Does apostolic authority reside in the Scriptures or continue in human form through Rome? Then there are doctrines that fit better with one than the other. So it might be possible to make a kind of scale that way.
Larry already said it well earlier…
To the extent that systematic theology focuses on “the gaps between verses” (which I take to mean, extra-biblical info? but biblical theo. does this also so…I don’t really know what the difference is supposed to be), it ceases to be very theological, because God has revealed Himself authoritatively only in the Scriptures.
So, remove systematic theology’s weaknesses and biblical theology’s weaknesses and you have essentially the same thing… and it’s both biblical and systematic.
I have yet to see a really good refutation of this argument though…
- Everything God reveals agrees with everything else God reveals
- A right interpretation of God’s word on topic A will agree with the whole of God’s word on topic A
- Therefore, we need to bring together the whole of Scripture’s teaching in an understandable way in order to know if our interpretation on topic A is correct.
Both Arminians (classical) and Calvinists have done the body of Christ a service in striving to arrive at understanding of doctrine in a way that compares it thoroughly with the whole witness of Scripture on each doctrine as well as the relationships of doctrines to each other.
Alex… on the validity of the “electrum” idea, and the analogy of a Roman Catholic vs. Grace scale…
Everybody either believes the foreknowledge is seeing in advance what will happen or is determining in advance what will happen. There really are only two possibilities there. Or, to put it another way, everybody either believes God determines everything that happens or doesn’t. One’s answer to that question puts him either on the Calvinistic end of things or the Arminianistic end of things.
As for the Roman Catholic analogy… it fails on multiple levels. You’re comparing a large ancient organization to a single local church. You’re comparing personal entities rather than ideas.
There are ideas that more or less fit in well with the Calvinistic view of foreknowledge and there are ideas that fit in well with the Arminian view. These cluster around their respective centers, so, looking at those ideas, we’re all either closer to Calvinism or closer to Arminianism.
This doesn’t work too well with Catholic and Protestant doctrine, though with the right starting point it could. The central doctrine on that scale would probably have to be one’s view of authority. Does apostolic authority reside in the Scriptures or continue in human form through Rome? Then there are doctrines that fit better with one than the other. So it might be possible to make a kind of scale that way.
Larry already said it well earlier…
I am not sure why that is a problem. You can say you aren’t Arminian, or Pelagian, or Calvinist or whatever, but at the end of the day, when your beliefs align with what those labels stand for it doesn’t really matter that you deny the label.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/2008Marriage.htm The Marriage of Biblical and Systematic Theology
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Everybody either believes the foreknowledge is seeing in advance what will happen or is determining in advance what will happen.Aaron, have you ever studied the way supralapsarians describe the infralapsarian position? They call them arminians directly and indirectly. Calvinist on calvinist crime is quite common.
The issue of whatever or not foreknowledge is causative is only part of the discussion.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] The issue of whatever or not foreknowledge is causative is only part of the discussion.I don’t think anyone has said otherwise. Certainly not me.
My point has been that it is indeed a watershed question and everybody is on one side or the other of it. But yes, on each side there are lots of disagreements over lots of other tings.
Charlie, thanks for the link at http://sharperiron.org/comment/26164#comment-26164
Interesting little article… I wonder how many champions of “biblical theology” know it was invented by a liberal? But I do think it’s redeemable and has an important place.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Alex… on the validity of the “electrum” idea, and the analogy of a Roman Catholic vs. Grace scale…The point of the RCC…Grace scale was to make a point about the deficiency of Bauder’s one dimensional/linear scale which I have already argued against and resubmit the global position (But for the record Grace is not a personal entity as I used it, rather an embodiment of doctrine well and extensively expressed, but again I am not furthering this argument, it was simply to make a point about narrow considerations).
Everybody either believes the foreknowledge is seeing in advance what will happen or is determining in advance what will happen. There really are only two possibilities there. Or, to put it another way, everybody either believes God determines everything that happens or doesn’t. One’s answer to that question puts him either on the Calvinistic end of things or the Arminianistic end of things.
As for the Roman Catholic analogy… it fails on multiple levels. You’re comparing a large ancient organization to a single local church. You’re comparing personal entities rather than ideas.
There are ideas that more or less fit in well with the Calvinistic view of foreknowledge and there are ideas that fit in well with the Arminian view. These cluster around their respective centers, so, looking at those ideas, we’re all either closer to Calvinism or closer to Arminianism.
This doesn’t work too well with Catholic and Protestant doctrine, though with the right starting point it could. The central doctrine on that scale would probably have to be one’s view of authority. Does apostolic authority reside in the Scriptures or continue in human form through Rome? Then there are doctrines that fit better with one than the other. So it might be possible to make a kind of scale that way.
As to the remainder of the issue, I again resubmit that the “Calvinism….Arminian scale” is too incredulous, even when considering the singular topic of foreknowledge. Not because ideas or views are not similar, close, or even holding some tiny element which may be synonymous with these two schools but because the origins of those views may not come from either, hence it is illegitimate and rather arrogant to attempt to define them with a such a relationship. One can possibly use a linear scale but the two integrals ends cannot be and may not be, Calvinism and Arminianism. At this point I am probably reiterating much of my earlier arguments therefore unless a new point arises I will rest for now.
There’s a difference between an argument an a series of assertions… there are a lot of assertions there.
I see one argument though: the two perspectives on foreknowledge (determination or just awareness) and the beliefs that tend to cluster around them—the two perspectives can have different origins. This is supposed to mean that the scale Bauder describes here is “illegitimate and rather arrogant.”
A couple of things about that.
I see one argument though: the two perspectives on foreknowledge (determination or just awareness) and the beliefs that tend to cluster around them—the two perspectives can have different origins. This is supposed to mean that the scale Bauder describes here is “illegitimate and rather arrogant.”
A couple of things about that.
- It’s really not a problem to refer to a theological viewpoint in terms of those who best articulated it or who are most known for defending it, vs. its origins. For example, we call a set of beliefs “Baptist,” but Bapists believe their origin is Scripture. We call a set of convictions “fundamentalism,” but fundamentalists believe their origin is Scripture. In these cases and oodles more, it isn’t helpful to call them “biblicism,” since opposite views both claim their ideas originate from Scripture… and since lots of other ideas also originate form Scripture. So it’s doubtful that trying to lay out the options according to origin is workable.
- What “ism” we give it is ultimately not the point. Bauder’s main interest here is not what we ought to call these ideas but the ideas themselves. Labels are just handles for talking about things (because using a full description every time we refer to them would be really cumbersome). They are shorthand. But he is also talking about a historical conflict between schools of thought and arguing for what the key is to differentiating them. As Larry and others have argued, it doesn’t much matter whether we want to claim a particular label or not. What we actually hold to is still what it is.
- Can anybody prove they have arrived at their views with no influence at all from Arminius or Augustine or Calvin (or Pelagius)? It isn’t likely. These men had such a huge impact on the body of Christ that it’s doubtful anybody was quite the same after their work.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
I think you have summarized things well. We are all influenced by many concepts, usually without realizing exactly what they are or where they came from. They are present in the environment that we live and labor in. Studying theology and church history helps to understand these concepts and their origens. It also clarifies the labels. We tend to be slaves of our present experiences. We tend to attach meanings to lables based upon our exposure to people who wear the label. But many individuals are not good representatives of their labels, especially in the historic sense.
Once we understand that a particular doctrine has a history and a long established historical label, we can shake off some of our prejudices and misconceptions. The label becomes helpful to communicate a particular concept without having to restate and support everything all over again, re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. But that works only if the person we are addressing also understands the lable in its historic sense, not in a distorted manner based upon personal contact with a few individuals.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
I think you have summarized things well. We are all influenced by many concepts, usually without realizing exactly what they are or where they came from. They are present in the environment that we live and labor in. Studying theology and church history helps to understand these concepts and their origens. It also clarifies the labels. We tend to be slaves of our present experiences. We tend to attach meanings to lables based upon our exposure to people who wear the label. But many individuals are not good representatives of their labels, especially in the historic sense.
Once we understand that a particular doctrine has a history and a long established historical label, we can shake off some of our prejudices and misconceptions. The label becomes helpful to communicate a particular concept without having to restate and support everything all over again, re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. But that works only if the person we are addressing also understands the lable in its historic sense, not in a distorted manner based upon personal contact with a few individuals.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Aaron Blumer]To demand someone prove that the aforementioned men did not influence their theology, at all, is something you cannot prove and have no way of proving and is an *argument from ignorance. Now it might be that since you move in Calvinist circles you believe this is cogent since most of your contacts have such men on their lips rather regularly, however you simply cannot prove this is so, hence you cannot make the prescriptive argument.
Can anybody prove they have arrived at their views with no influence at all from Arminius or Augustine or Calvin (or Pelagius)? It isn’t likely. These men had such a huge impact on the body of Christ that it’s doubtful anybody was quite the same after their work.
*For those of you unfamiliar with the term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance] “argument from ignorance” , it is not a discourteous term but a categorical one which classifies a certain kind of informal logical fallacy. I post this to insure no one misunderstands what I am saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance] Argument from ignorance , also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to “prove” the proposition to be either true or false. … In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
I look at as more of a burden of proof thing.
An unstated premise (or maybe I did state it) is that major turning points in the history of theology leave us all influenced in major ways thereafter. It’s not really possible to unhear what we’ve heard or isolate ourselves from others who have been influenced by others who have heard, and so on.
So, given that these men had a huge impact on how everyone has thought after them—on the matters they address—a claim to have arrived at a position on these matters entirely independently is one that seems to need some proving. Whether it can be proved or not is kind of a problem for the ones making the claim… not for the ones questioning it.
An unstated premise (or maybe I did state it) is that major turning points in the history of theology leave us all influenced in major ways thereafter. It’s not really possible to unhear what we’ve heard or isolate ourselves from others who have been influenced by others who have heard, and so on.
So, given that these men had a huge impact on how everyone has thought after them—on the matters they address—a claim to have arrived at a position on these matters entirely independently is one that seems to need some proving. Whether it can be proved or not is kind of a problem for the ones making the claim… not for the ones questioning it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] So, given that these men had a huge impact on how everyone has thought after them—on the matters they address—a claim to have arrived at a position on these matters entirely independently is one that seems to need some proving. Whether it can be proved or not is kind of a problem for the ones making the claim… not for the ones questioning it.And so the claims and assertions on which the prescriptive one-dimensional linear scale are based remains with just that….the burden of proof for its validity. Simply asserting that “these men had a huge impact” does not prove a case since the case is being used prescriptively (meaning including every single person without exception), unless you have a new standard for such definitiveness. The truth is, it cannot be proven, ever. This makes the scale, prescriptively, invalid and reduced to limited or isolated use at best. And I again say it does have some use but not as broadly as Bauder suggests.
[Alex Guggenheim]I would have to agree with Aaron in the following sense. It is an absolute given that you and I and others grew up in a community. Label me post-modern if you wish; but then I reject Cartesian epistemology and human autonomy, which will throw hiccups into the post-modern label. The point is that one grows up in a community. You and I and others hear, and we are influenced in our thinking. We are predisposed to accept certain things and reject certain things. We even have a “way” of thinking that is adopted by where we grew up. So, epistemologically, human interaction in a community is absolutely unavoidable; and so one is shaped in his thinking.[Aaron Blumer] So, given that these men had a huge impact on how everyone has thought after them—on the matters they address—a claim to have arrived at a position on these matters entirely independently is one that seems to need some proving. Whether it can be proved or not is kind of a problem for the ones making the claim… not for the ones questioning it.And so the claims and assertions on which the prescriptive one-dimensional linear scale are based remains with just that….the burden of proof for its validity. Simply asserting that “these men had a huge impact” does not prove a case since the case is being used prescriptively (meaning including every single person without exception), unless you have a new standard for such definitiveness. The truth is, it cannot be proven, ever. This makes the scale, prescriptively, invalid and reduced to limited or isolated use at best. And I again say it does have some use but not as broadly as Bauder suggests.
Now, granted that one is shaped by his upbringing in a community, one naturally imbibes certain ideas, which came from past communities, and so on. The very nature of human learning itself argues against a position of having no presuppositions or assumptions being brought to the text. People do not learn in a vacuum! Nor can one see meaning in particulars without a grid. Now, given the impact upon your mind by past generations, then it become perfectly permissible for one to point to a past ideology and show that it has remarkable similarities with yours. In that sense, I would agree that Aaron has a very strong point.
The plea that one can set aside all presuppositions or assumptions and approach the text neutrally is just plain ridiculous (understated). I don’t have the time to argue the point now; however, I would simply refer to one book and then provide a link. The book is “Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings And Analysis” by Greg Bahnsen. If you cannot get your hands on this, then I would suggest the following link titled “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Preusuppositionalism” by Greg Bahnsen.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt034.htm
I agree with the previous post. Everyone comes with a bias because they are a product of the preaching and teaching to which they have been exposed.
Even in fundamentalism today, the Gospel has been distorted in its presentation and many continue lost because they haven’t understood their “lost situation” according to Scripture.
I have been directed to Bahnsen as an excellent extension of Van Til’s work.
DJung
Even in fundamentalism today, the Gospel has been distorted in its presentation and many continue lost because they haven’t understood their “lost situation” according to Scripture.
I have been directed to Bahnsen as an excellent extension of Van Til’s work.
DJung
[Caleb S] It is an absolute given that you and I and others grew up in a community. Label me post-modern if you wish; but then I reject Cartesian epistemology and human autonomy, which will throw hiccups into the post-modern label. The point is that one grows up in a community. You and I and others hear, and we are influenced in our thinking. We are predisposed to accept certain things and reject certain things. We even have a “way” of thinking that is adopted by where we grew up. So, epistemologically, human interaction in a community is absolutely unavoidable; and so one is shaped in his thinking.This is not being argued. However, I will say that this reality then bears the exact opposite of the premise(s) one attempts to use for one-dimensional scaling that identifies only two integrals. This makes Calvin and Arminius even more arbitrary.
[Caleb S] Now, granted that one is shaped by his upbringing in a community, one naturally imbibes certain ideas, which came from past communities, and so on. The very nature of human learning itself argues against a position of having no presuppositions or assumptions being brought to the text. People do not learn in a vacuum! Nor can one see meaning in particulars without a grid. Now, given the impact upon your mind by past generations, then it become perfectly permissible for one to point to a past ideology and show that it has remarkable similarities with yours. In that sense, I would agree that Aaron has a very strong point.Again, this is not being argued if a reasonable or substantial relationship can be demonstrated. Much like the construction of a house. We do not find the first two house builders and arbitrarily set them as primary integrals and assign to all other house builders a kind or type of the two. If we travel the globe no doubt we will discover that there are many proprietary kinds of houses though many use some same fundamental principles. It is not the fundamental principles that make them a special class of something, rather their unique properties, their proprietary elements. And in theology, when such proprietary elements are great, we simply must appreciate them and not allow ourselves to fail to assign to them their unique and unrelated status. Simply distancing them on a linear scale and still insisting they are a “kind” or “type” of two primaries does not accomplish that in the least. Now if it is true in some case, fine, but it isn’t in all cases, hence such a scale cannot be prescriptive.
[Caleb S] The plea that one can set aside all presuppositions or assumptions and approach the text neutrally is just plain ridiculous (understated). I don’t have the time to argue the point now; however, I would simply refer to one book and then provide a link. The book is “Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings And Analysis” by Greg Bahnsen. If you cannot get your hands on this, then I would suggest the following link titled “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Preusuppositionalism” by Greg Bahnsen.No one is arguing that, possibly you are reading this intent into my arguments. And once a principle has been established then one can approach Scripture with such assumptions. What is argued against by most from what I see, since you did bring this up, are the presuppositions derived by means of philosophy/rationalism and not purely exegetical discoveries which establish theological boundaries and certainties. But again I am not arguing that all people always may have all original thought, that isn’t my argument at all.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt034.htm
[Alex Guggenheim] This is not being argued. However, I will say that this reality then bears the exact opposite of the premise(s) one attempts to use for one-dimensional scaling that identifies only two integrals. This makes Calvin and Arminius even more arbitrary.I never said that it was being argued. And that is the reason for having the first sentence in my previous post, which you have omitted here. That first sentence is very key. I even underlined, that I agreed in the following sense. I was introducing material that I thought was vital, that may or may not have an impact on your discussion. Calling it arbitrary does not make it so; the post (124) establishes an individual to a historical connection. The connection is vital if a historical label is to be applied.
[Alex Guggenheim] Again, this is not being argued if a reasonable or substantial relationship can be demonstrated. Much like the construction of a house. We do not find the first two house builders and arbitrarily set them as primary integrals and assign to all other house builders a kind or type of the two. If we travel the globe no doubt we will discover that there are many proprietary kinds of houses though many use some same fundamental principles. It is not the fundamental principles that make them a special class of something, rather their unique properties, their proprietary elements. And in theology, when such proprietary elements are great, we simply must appreciate them and not allow ourselves to fail to assign to them their unique and unrelated status. Simply distancing them on a linear scale and still insisting they are a “kind” or “type” of two primaries does not accomplish that in the least. Now if it is true in some case, fine, but it isn’t in all cases, hence such a scale cannot be prescriptive.Again, I never said it was being argued. That is why I qualified the entire post with the words you left omitted.
With regard to the unifying principle, I have already expressed what I think is a better “line” upon which to evaluate differing theological systems of thought. And when I say “systems of thought” I am saying this in regard to how people think with regard to Scripture. A person has a worldview in their head; the argument is not whether it is there or not, but the argument is over whether or not this worldview is founded upon Scripture. This is what I mean by “system of thought”. And again, with reference to the “line” I have already expressed a “determinism/indeterminism” spectrum with respect to the will. I have problems with the “foreknowledge” continuum because you have the “Open view” “the middle knowledge view” “the Augustinian-Calvinist view” “simple foreknowledge view”. There are several different views of foreknowledge; perhaps Dr. Bauder has a way of viewing them in a much more simplistic manner that focuses in on the key similarities and differences. For me, “determined/undetermined” is very clear, and it gets to the metaphysical/epistemological root of ton of the debate. To the extent this discussion focuses upon “foreknowledge” I will agree with you. However, to the extent that this discussion of the spectrum line focuses upon the will, then I adamantly disagree with you. It is only the sheer volume of time needed to assemble the correspondence of different systems that is keeping me from writing upon the subject. Hence, I have written in shorthand, which may appear arbitrary to you. Perhaps, Dr. Bauder has done the same, but that is obviously speculation on my part with regard to Dr. Bauder.
[Alex Guggenheim]I must confess that I did not make my address clear; I was functioning on a much more general basis on this last comment. I was specifically referring to those who are commenting that they are simply letting the text speak for itself without having any personal preconceptions brought to the text. And “yes” at least one was arguing that. For example: “No, it isn’t obvious for one with no preconceptions.” Such a statement is ridiculous.[Caleb S] The plea that one can set aside all presuppositions or assumptions and approach the text neutrally is just plain ridiculous (understated). I don’t have the time to argue the point now; however, I would simply refer to one book and then provide a link. The book is “Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings And Analysis” by Greg Bahnsen. If you cannot get your hands on this, then I would suggest the following link titled “Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Preusuppositionalism” by Greg Bahnsen.No one is arguing that, possibly you are reading this intent into my arguments. And once a principle has been established then one can approach Scripture with such assumptions. What is argued against by most from what I see, since you did bring this up, are the presuppositions derived by means of philosophy/rationalism and not purely exegetical discoveries which establish theological boundaries and certainties. But again I am not arguing that all people always may have all original thought, that isn’t my argument at all.
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt034.htm
The prior paragraph was with respect to my original intent and aim; this paragraph aims at what you just stated. I’ll state it baldly. There are no exegetical discoveries devoid of philosophy and rational thought. You are right with respect to “rationalism” as related to “empiricism” if they are understood under the autonomous principle. However, Scripture and philosophy overlap. To say that “God created all things” is a metaphysical statement. To say that God created human language is to argue for a philosophy of language, and one is making a metaphysical statement with epistemological ramifications. There is no such thing as a Scripture devoid of philosophical categories. The prior comment does not assume that you are saying that “all people always may have all original thought.” Nor have I ever assumed that of you, though I confess that I may not be entirely following what you mean by the expression.
Discussion