Hyper-Calvinism Like Arminianism

Following from some posts concerning the definition of hyper-Calvinism, I wish to offer a refutation of the doctrine while drawing out a surprising implication - namely that hyper-Calvinism is closer to Arminianism than hyper-Calvinists (or Arminians) would like to think.

One of the key errors of hyper-Calvinism is the idea that because fallen men are not able to repent and believe on their own, that therefore fallen men are not obligated to repent and believe. Hyper-Calvinist Lewis Wayman put it this way: "What Adam had, we all had in him; and what Adam lost, we all lost in him, and are debtors to God on both accounts; but Adam had not the faith of God's elect before the fall, and did not lose it for his posterity; therefore they are not debtors to God for it while in unregeneracy" (A Further Enquiry after Truth, p. 51). The implication of this, of course, is that if fallen men are not obligated to repent and believe, that we are not obligated to tell them of their need for faith and repentance. Thus, evangelism is ruled out. However, the fundamental principle of this error is the following principle (which I call the principle of ability-responsibility): The duty to do X implies the ability to do X. That is, if one is charged with doing X, then one must be able to do X. There are things which people are able to do for which they are not responsible, but there are no things for which people are responsible that they are unable to do. Yet, this is the very idea that underlies Pelagianism and Arminianism. Except in those systems, the statement is put the other way: Because God requires men to repent and believe, they must be able to do so. Hyper-Calvinism is just the opposite: Because men are unable to repent and believe, God must not require it.

Now, the Pelagian/Arminian reasons that because God requires X of man, man must be able to do X. Thus, man must not have lost the ability to do X in the Fall (Pelagian), or man has had this ability restored through "prevenient grace" (Arminian). The fundamental error behind of all this thinking is the notion that God can only hold a man responsible for something he has the ability to do. This, I contend, does not logically follow. There is nothing inconsistent with God holding a man responsible for something he can't do, as long as God holds him responsible for it. God's decision to hold a man responsible is what grounds a man's responsibility (Gordon Clark makes a good argument for this position in this essay). To say that man is only responsible if man has a "free choice" is to promote a dualism of sorts, where God is bound to honor the abstract principle of ability-responsibility above Himself. Does not God have the freedom and the right to create some for mercy, and others for destruction (Rom. 9:19-23)? Yet even here, both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists are wrong, for they fail to distinguish between natural ability and moral ability. Every man has the mental and spiritual faculties to believe, thus every man is naturally able to do what God commands. Yet, no fallen man has the moral ability to believe, as his will is set against the things of God (Rom. 8:7). Thus, he has the faculties to do what is required, but can never bring himself to doing it, because of his hatred of God. Thus, even if responsibility were based upon ability (in the natural sense), neither the Arminian nor the hyper-Calvinist would have room to say that man is not responsible for what God has commanded of him.

Thus, both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists err on the same point, just in different ways. The hyper-Calvinist error has a corollary which is even more insidious, however. Despite clear commands to preach the Gospel to all (Matt. 28:18-20, Mk. 16:15), the hyper-Calvinist takes his principle of ability-responsibility, and puts it above the commands of Scripture. Thus, the man-centered principle of ability-responsibility is more authoritative than Scripture, and the supposed "inability for some people to do X" means that we should disobey God's commands to declare to men their responsibility to do X. Thus, hyper-Calvinism is at its core anthropocentric, honoring man's ability over God's commands. On the other hand, Arminianism is at its core anthropocentric, honoring man's ability over God's explicit Word. Thus, when Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him (Jn. 6:44a), they either disbelieve it (ignoring it and shoving it off to the side), or in a spectacular show of eisogesis, jump over to Jn. 12:32 and exclaim: "But God is drawing all men!" Of course, if every single person is drawn (and not just all kinds of people), then every single person will be saved (Jn. 6:44b), and thus the Arminian declares himself to be a Universalist, at least implicitly. Thus, we see that the Arminian places man's ability over the Word of God in doctrine, while the hyper-Calvinist places man's ability over the Word of God in practice. The Arminian must deny the doctrine of the Word of God at some point, either directly, or by interpreting Scripture in such a way as to make it contradict itself (implying Universalism). The hyper-Calvinist must deny the commands of the Word of God at some point, either directly, or by interpreting Scripture in such a way as to make various commands meaningless.

Thus, both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are two sides of the same coin: the anthropocentric religion of man. They may hold to different doctrines in many areas, but when it comes down to the fundamental issue of man-centeredness vs. God-centeredness, both commit the same error of putting the ability of man over the Word of God, either in doctrine or in practice. In contrast, Biblical Calvinism puts the Word of God over all things, including the ability of man, both in doctrine and in practice. The Biblical Calvinist, though he may not always be successful because of the noetic effects of sin, earnestly seeks to accept all of Scripture, and not just faulty surface interpretations of various verses, but the non-contradictory divine system of Truth that underlies the whole of the revealed Word. This is the essence of eternal life, as Jesus said in a prayer to the Father: "this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (Jn. 17:3). As Biblical Calvinists, we seek to know God through His Word. Though we are imperfect at this, it is our fundamental principle of faith and life. On the other hand, Arminianism, hyper-Calvinism, and all other anthropocentric systems seek not to know God in His Word truly and fully, but to know Him only inasmuch as He respects the idol of man's ability. Of course, there is not much of God that can be known in such a fashion, and it is not surprising that such systems are often devoid of life (except for those adherents who truly believe the Word, but are inconsistent with their theological assertions). Thus, we call all men to repent of anthropocentric theology, and to drink deep of the living water, given freely to all who believe, of the only true and sovereign God, who is above all things (including the will of man), and who is forever praised.

Soli Deo Gloria!

A Hyper-Calvinist Witnessing

There is a humorous video on Youtube falsely titled "Calvinist Witnessing." It is falsely so called, because the antagonist in the video does not espouse the doctrines of Calvinism, but rather those of hyper-Calvinism. This he does by denying man's responsibility to repent and believe the Gospel. The Gospel is also mangled, because it is not presented Biblically, as "Christ died for all who will believe" but rather "Christ might have died for your sins." The latter is incomplete, and says nothing about how one may be saved. Thus, this video is timely, because it follows in the vein of the previous post, comically demonstrating the errors of hyper-Calvinism in living color.

The Definition of Hyper-Calvinism

A common tactic of misinformed Arminians is to accuse consistent, Biblical Calvinists of being hyper-Calvinists. This often is nothing more than theological mudslinging, as there is no substance to such accusations. Indeed, most of the Arminians who launch such accusations (at least in my experience) are uninformed about what a hyper-Calvinist really is. Even seminary professors, far from being immune to this misunderstanding, are some of its worst proponents (case in point: Norman Geisler in Chosen but Free - he equates hyper-Calvinism with supralapsarianism, an inexcusable mistake for a professor of theology). Nonetheless, there is an objective definition of Hyper-Calvinism, and Turretinfan has devoted an excellent blog post to the matter:

Defining Hyper-Calvinism

May this help to clear up misunderstandings, past, present, and future.

Against Dispensationalism

Against Dispensationalism - the title of a website devoted to calling Christians to unity in the faith, and out of the theological errors regarding the Church, Israel, and eschatology that are based upon little more than the imaginative writing and Scripture-twisting of J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, and L. S. Chafer - otherwise known as the theological system of Dispensationalism. The site lists 95 theses which contest many of the arguments of Dispensational theologians, and offer refutations to their claims. I would highly recommend them to all Christians, both to those who do and do not ascribe to Dispensationalism. The theses are found here:

95 Theses Against Dispensationalism

I wholeheartedly endorse both the Preface and 91 of the 95 theses. I am somewhat puzzled by thesis number 35, as it doesn't really matter what philosophers say about the laws of language, if those laws can be deduced from Scripture. Nonetheless, I think the point of this thesis is valid, in that if Ryrie can't explicitly state and defend the "received laws of language," he has no business talking about them. I'm also a little uncomfortable about theses 92-93, and 95, without some further clarification. Faith is the alone instrument of justification, and repentance is, as the word means, a change of mind. Thus, repentance, with respect to salvation, is primarily changing one's mind about Christ, from unbelief to belief. Now, belief in Christ will produce repentance for one's sins, since if one believes that Christ is God, one will believe that He is objectively worthy to be obeyed, and thus one will turn away from sins. But such repentance from sins flows from belief in Christ, and I fear that too many today, in response to the heresy of "sinner's prayer" evangelism, go too far in the other direction, and lay heavy psychological burdens of so-called "repentance" upon those who would come to Christ, making them perform certain subjective, psychological, works before they can be saved. This too, is heretical. Salvation is simply justification by faith (which is simply believing the Gospel - not faith plus "non-meritorious works"), and no matter how many people stumble over the simplicity of this doctrine, the truth of the matter does not change. So with those caveats in mind, I would also tentatively endorse those other theses inasmuch as they contest the common Dispensational notion that a person can simply say the sinner's prayer, and then go off and live the rest of their life as an unbeliever, and yet still be saved (as a "carnal Christian"). Such a thing is most definitely not to be found in Scripture.

So, I hope these theses are of benefit, and may they serve to help the Church of Christ to attain to the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13), by turning from erroneous beliefs to the eternal truths of God's unchanging Word.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Back to Blogging

It's been a few months since I've written anything here, and I'd like to apologize for that, for those of you who actively follow this blog. I do honestly wish that I could write more than I do, which is why I end up posting an explanation/apology whenever I've been absent here for a while. I believe that God can glorify Himself through the declaration of and contention for His Truth in the blogging of His servants. Thus I have every intention to continue blogging, to this end, as time and God's providence permit.

These last few months have been particularly busy in the vocational and personal spheres, and continue to be busy. However, I also reached a point where I needed to spend a few months in theological study before moving forward in blogging. Issues such as the current justification controversy have been particularly pertinent, as also coming to a theology and philosophy more consistent with the Doctrines of Grace. As a matter of fact, I ascribe my recent absence here to the favorable providence of God, as I was prepared to write some things in my evilbible.com post series that, while arguing against the errors of atheism, would ultimately have contended for sub-Biblical (and thus anti-Biblical) assertions. I would rather write nothing than write foolishly, and the wisdom of the world is the height of foolishness (1 Cor. 1:20).

With that said, I intend to finish the evilbible.com series as time permits (I have at least 10 more posts planned), and then proceed to blog on other topics as the Spirit leads. I do hope and pray that this blog will be of benefit to some, but most of all, that God will glorified in every word that is here written.

Soli Deo Gloria!

The Impossibility of God, Part II: The Description of God

This post continues a series begun here.

According to Docterman, "before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it." I wholeheartedly agree. Before considering arguments for and against the coherence of the idea of God, a theological description of God must first be provided. Being a Reformed Baptist, I take my theological description of God from the Bible, and confessionally, from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF), which I believe to faithfully and consistently represent the Scriptural truth on this matter. The section of the confession dealing with the doctrine of God can be found here, along with Scriptures cited in support of the confessional statements.

For our purposes, let's also consider Docterman's description of God. After all, if there are differences between our descriptions, then any arguments predicated upon those differences would not necessarily be acceptable to those of a Reformed Baptist persuasion. Indeed, in such a case, we would need to resolve the difficulty, or at least clarify terms and statements, before moving forward.

Docterman begins his "definition of YHWH" by stating that "Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just." First, it should be stated that Christians haven't endowed God with anything, but rather claim that God has revealed Himself to man, and that His self-revelation includes these attributes. As for the attributes listed here, I have no disagreement.

Docterman continues: "He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does." Now here, we would disagree, for while the Bible states that God has emotions (anger, grief, love, etc.), there are no verses that state that humans experience all of the emotions that God experience, or that God experiences all of the emotions that man experiences. Certainly, there are no verses that state that God experiences emotions that man experiences, as man experiences them. Indeed, God is a personal God. Furthermore, as we are created in God's image, the fact that God has emotion gives a proper ontological basis for humans to have emotions. However, it would be presumptuous to say that God's emotions are as ours. Furthermore, our emotions are corrupted by sin, and many are brought about by circumstances caused by sin. To say that God has emotions corrupted by sin, as we do, would be blasphemous. It is in this sense, then, that I take the LBCF which states that God is "without passions." God is not without emotions, but inasmuch as God is pure and unstained by sin, He is without sinful emotions as we are.

Docterman continues: "He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future." I agree. However, I would strengthen the statement and say that God has unchangeably decreed all that shall come to pass. I would contend that God does not merely receive passive knowledge about the future, but that He knows the future precisely because He has determined it beforehand. This distinction will be important later.

Continuing, Docterman states that "God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world." First, it should be noted that humans did not themselves being imperfection into the world. Rather, imperfection was God's judgment upon the world, as Rom. 8:20 states that God subjected creation to futility. Secondly, one should be careful about how one defines the terms "perfection" and "imperfection." This will be important later on, and will be dealt with in a later post.

Docterman continues: "Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness." I would agree for the most part, except for the statement that humans must suffer. It is true that we do suffer, but God would be within His rights to kill us the moment that we are born and send us to hell. He would even be within His rights to let us live lives of complete comfort, unaware of the condemnation that awaits because of our sin. However, God has chosen to curse this earth, partially, I believe, as an expression of His displeasure towards sin, partially as an expression to man of the sinfulness of sin, but also partially as a merciful act towards man, reminding man day in and day out of the consequences of sin, so that man might seek God and find mercy in Him. Certainly, if man was left to live in comfort, he would have little incentive to seek God's remedy for sin and forgiveness. Temporal sufferings drive the reality of sin home to the heart. However, I would not call temporal sufferings necessities. I believe that it is logically coherent that God could have decreed an earthly world with death and damnation but without temporal earthly suffering for sinners - however, because He has not done so, there is suffering in this world because of sin.

Docterman continues: "God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin...". Through the cross of Christ and the proclamation of the Gospel, this is true. Continuing, he says "...and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake." I'm assuming that "suffer for his sake" refer's to the Christian's suffering for the sake of Christ. In this case, I would agree for the most part, but disagree with the statement of necessity (i.e. that they must) suffer - logically, God could have decreed a world in which there was no suffering for Christians, but He has not chosen to do so. Finally, I would argue with the choice of words, stating that Christians will be "rewarded" with eternal bliss. Technically, eternal life is a gift of grace, and if it is by grace, then it cannot be a reward, as if it was earned or merited (Rom. 4:4-8). However, if "rewarded" is being used in the sense of "bestowed", then I have no disagreement on that point.

Docterman concludes his "definition of YHWH" with this statement: "All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity." I would agree with statement. It should be noted, of course, that this is not arbitrary, but follows from God's holiness, righteousness, and justice. I would also add that God does not condemn people simply because they don't believe in Him - all are born sinners (Rom. 3:23) and are thus condemned (Rom. 6:23, Ps. 51:5). If one fails to believe in Christ, he is condemned for all of his sin, not just his unbelief, though his unbelief is a serious sin in its own right. Once again, this appears to be a minor definitional issue at this point, but it will become significant later on.

Finishing his "definition," Docterman concludes by saying "I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true." This is indeed a remarkable claim. In future posts, I will evaluate this claim to see how close he comes to making good on it.

The Impossibility of God, Part I: Prolegomena

As part of an initiative spearheaded by Mariano (from Atheism is Dead), I plan to respond to a set of arguments found at evilbible.com, written by one Chad Docterman, that claim that the idea of God is self-contradictory, and therefore, that God does not exist. Such arguments are nothing new, and there is nothing particularly impressive or extraordinary about the argumentation found on this particular site. Many of these arguments have been stated before in various forms, and they have been answered in various forms. Nevertheless, this is a good opportunity to respond to some of the claims of unbelievers, especially on this particular website, in the context of a collaborative effort. So, in light of that, I will attempt to respond in a series of posts, as time permits, to the philosophical arguments presented at this site which purport to demonstrate the logical incoherence of God.

So, before addressing the issue of the logical coherence of God, one must first address the issue of one's presuppositional basis - that is, the intellectual basis upon which one will attempt to show that the concept of God is logically incoherent, or in the other case, that the concept of God is logically coherent. I argue from a Reformed Baptist background, holding the Scriptures as the final authority in matters of knowledge. Docterman does not make it clear what his presuppositions are, but it seems from his writings that his authority in knowledge comes very much from evidence and experience.

Now, at this point, a presuppositional critique could be offered, through the use of transcendental arguments, to demonstrate that rationality itself presupposes the Christian worldview, and that no non-Christian worldview can rationally account for it. Thus, to use reason to argue against the existence of God is akin to arguing against the existence of air, all the while breathing it in and out. However, such a line of argumentation would be beyond the scope of this post, as well this series. However, a nice introduction to the transcendental line of reasoning can be found here, as well as here.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that, from a Biblical perspective, using reason to argue against God, who is the source and ground of reason, is laughably absurd. One might even say that it is foolish. Just as foolish as climbing a tree, and then cutting off the branch that one is sitting on, or just as foolish as arguing against the existence of air while breathing it in. After all, if every man knows God (Rom. 1:18-23), and yet he denies His existence, is this not utter foolishness to deny what one knows to be true? This is why, I believe, that the Bible calls atheists fools: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 14:1). It should be noted that foolishness has nothing to do with intelligence. Some of the smartest people that God has ever created have used their intelligence to argue against His existence. Some of their arguments are intricate, erudite, and clever. Yet, from a Biblical perspective, such a use of one's God-given mental faculties is nothing but sheer foolishness.

Not surprisingly, Docterman objects to this appellation being applied to him, objecting that Christians are rather the ones who are fools, for "the fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries". If this were actually true of Biblically-consistent Christians, Docterman would have a point. Indeed, it is a sad thing that many Christians today, in an attempt to escape intellectual labor (for whatever reason), throw up the mystery card whenever faced with a difficulty. In its own way, that is foolish, especially if the Bible or a properly-reasoned Biblically-consistent worldview provides a solution to the difficulty. However, I would object to Docterman's claim that any Biblically-consistent Christian believes impossible things. Rather, I would claim that atheists in general believe many impossible things, such as the chance emergence of order from chaos, reason from non-reason, life from non-life, and morality from the nihilistic law of the jungle, and then chalk them up to "scientific mysteries". Biblically, that is foolishness.

Lastly, before preceding to answer Docterman's individual objections, I would like to briefly discuss the notion of internal critique (for more detalied discussion, see this post on Rhoblogy). When critiquing a position, one can either critique the position on some external basis (called an external critique), or on the basis that grounds the position being critiqued, in an attempt to show that the position is self-contradictory or incoherent in some way (called an internal critique). Ostensibly, this set of arguments by Docterman is an attempt of the latter sort. However, as we will discover, he often takes pieces of the Christian position in his arguments, and then uses propositions only justifiable on his own presuppositional basis to complete his arguments. Thus, many of his arguments are not valid internal critiques, but are rather external critiques, as they assume as premises certain points that Biblically consistent Christians would not (and should not) accept.

Rather, I contend that if one is to show the Biblically-consistent Christian conception of God to be logically incoherent, that one must do so only using statements that a Biblically-consistent Christian should accept. So, on the one hand, if a Christian demonstrates, logically and rationally from his worldview, using the Bible as the ultimate standard of knowledge, the logical coherence of God and the invalidity of the critiques launched against the coherence of the concept of God, then such a demonstration renders those internal critiques null and void. On the other hand, if an atheist critiques the coherence of God upon some basis outside of revelation, then this also invalid, as it is not arguing against God on His own terms, and thus is a case of setting up a cosmic straw man. So, in short, I will attempt to demonstrate in the next few posts that Docterman's arguments fail, most simply because they are not valid critiques.

Soli Deo Gloria!