J.P. Holding's Total Depravity: A Calvinist Responds (II of III)

Holding

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

I would also note as well that John 6:65, which I previously included in the above, does not say that God enables people to believe -- I think that that is a Calvinist reading of the verse. Indeed the connection between belief and the Father's permission is not specified -- it's just as well to say that the Father has to act as an access-granter because people can and will join the movement under false pretenses that no man can discern, which would make much better sense under the client-patron relationship understanding.

Response

A discursive review of James Patrick Holding's writings reveals that he is radically enamored with social-science criticism to the point that it is almost an idol. Holding fails to realize that Jesus did not adopt the mindset of the cultural mileu in which He found Himself. While it is true that understanding the social context of Scripture can help enrich our understanding of the text, it is nowhere near the silver bullet Holding seems to think it is. 

The client-patron relationship has nothing whatever to do with rightly understanding what Jesus is getting at in John 6. First of all, the assumption is that people actually want to join, but do so under false pretenses. Such an understanding of “joining” the Christian group not only contorts total depravity, but flattens membership in the Christian community to some sort of sociological expression. This is not anywhere close to orthodox soteriology. A look at John 6:64-65 clearly indicates that Jesus is explaining why some men do not believe. Jesus says, I have given you the truth, but some of you do not believe. The reason you don’t believe is because it has not been granted to you by my Father to believe. In other words, the only way men can believe in Christ is if God grants them faith! That is simple, basic exegesis 101. The Greek phrase “dia touto is well attested in the NT, showing up some 64 times. Perhaps Mr. Holding would be well served to take a discursive look at this construction before he introduces social science theories into his interpretation of this passage. Nonsense!

Holding

I can honestly interpret Genesis 6:5 under no different principles. This is undoubtedly exaggeration for effect, for of course one cannot literally have thoughts of the heart that are continually evil (for we must all sleep sometime); certainly the hearts of these antediluvians were wicked and depraved, but whether this means that they were depraved to the extent that total depravity requires simply cannot be determined from this verse -- much less can it be said that this automatically applies to all men throughout history, although it offers persuasive evidence that it is so. Nor does this verse say anything either way about whether men were unable to behave otherwise.

Response

Holding demonstrates severe inconsistency here. In this case, he allows room for hyperbole but in John 12:32, he insists on a more wooden-literal approach. It seems abundantly clear to me that Holding’s hermeneutic is a hermeneutic of convenience. He switches up his method wherever he finds it convenient so that he can hold to his theological bias. If he were consistent, he would insist on a literal approach to this text the same as he did on John 12:32. The truth is that context determines the meaning of a text more than any other single factor. Suffice it say the inconsistency is obvious in Holding's methodology. There is no rhyme or reason why we should take John 12:32 quite literally and why we should not do so here.

Holding

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This verse offers a standard Ancient Near Eastern exaggeration for the purpose of expressing a point: That we're sinners and we express it from even the youngest age; in this case, David expressing the utter depth of his own sin, in light of events with Bathsheba. While I in no way mean to imply that our sin is not serious or extensive, it is no more legitimate for the Calvinist to use this verse as they do than it is for the Skeptics (who make the same arguments using it), and the verse in no way says that we can't make a right choice.

Response

The comments here are quite obscure. I am not clear what Holding is arguing this text means. Is this a denial of original sin? Is Holding a full-blown Pelagianist? It is hard to say based on these comments. David is not exaggerating his sin to express a point. He is uttering a divinely revealed truth: he was born in iniquity. Before he was even out of his mother’s womb, he was a sinner. Moreover, Calvinism does not contend that we cannot make a relatively right choice. It contends we cannot make right choices as God sees right choices. Our choices, while unregenerate, always contain an element of idolatry and self-worship in one way or another. Our righteousness is as filthy rags before a holy God. What is Holding saying here? It is not clear. This interpretation is another product of social-science criticism. This method has a very strong tendency to ignore the divine nature of Scripture and impose on the writers of the text the same rules one would impose on every other text. The Scriptures are not like every other text. The Scriptures are God revealing Himself to mankind with the goal of transforming the lives of men who read the divine revelation that is Scripture. Holding fails to account for this fact repeatedly.

Holding

 

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

As we know, Jeremiah is known for his hyperbole for the sake of emphasis, as is quite the norm in an oral culture; moreover, this verse has the structure of a proverbial saying and should therefore be read in that light. It cannot carry the absolute sense that a Calvinistic argument requires. (This also applies to two other verses from Jeremiah that have been used [Jer. 4:22, 13:23].)

Response

Once again, Holding displays his hermeneutics of convenience to argue that we are not all that bad. The heart really isn’t deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked! Jeremiah is merely using hyperbole. This verse is not a proverb and should not be read as such. It is in the middle of a prophetic utterance.

Feinberg comments, "In OT usage the heart signifies the total inner being and includes reason. From the heart come action and will. Notice the connection between "heart" and "deeds" in vv.9-10. Some think v.9 is a personal confession of the depths of Jeremiah's heart (so Cundall); others refer the text to Jehoiakim or Zedekiah. Actually, the passage best fits all humanity. The human heart is desperately corrupt and, humanly speaking, incurable...Who can plumb the depths of the heart's corruption and sickness? Even its owner does not know it." [Feinberg, Charles. TEBC w/NIV. 486]

Holding

-Oliver Wendell Holmes

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Palmer [Palm.5P, 17] points to this verse and argues:


A baby never desires or decides to be born. He never contributes an iota to his own birth. In the whole process from conception through birth, he is completely passive and totally unable to control his birth. In a similar fashion, the unbeliever cannot take one step toward his rebirth.


Though this relates to the "U" aspect of TULIP as well as "T", let's consider it now. I asked here at one point whether Palmer is getting his biological facts straight; I have never understood that a baby is a totally passive bystander in the birth process, but rather, does a little struggling of its own instinctually, which would rather reduce the impact of Palmer's analogy, since no one thinks instincts have anything to do with conversion.


As it turns out, a science-minded reader has told me that, indeed, Palmer is wrong: A baby even determines when it will be born, for it secretes a hormone that induces labor.


But I rather think the analogy Palmer draws is stretched anyway. The metaphor of new birth is appropriate; how else would the idea of a new creation be better expressed? In order for this argument to work, Palmer has to show that there was no better analogy available which would have illustrated both a new creation and a active choice behind the matter. Otherwise, he is simply stretching the analogy for his own purposes -- and we may next ask questions like, "What is conception analogous to?"

Response

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I read these comments. These have to be some of the most incredible comments I have ever read. A baby secretes a hormone that causes labor to begin. So this secreting of the hormone is an act of the will? The baby actually cogitates that it is now time for me to leave this place and enter the world. Let’s see, where did I leave that packet of hormone I was given a while back? Really? Can anyone take such a statement seriously?

I am curious as to what exactly is a “science-minded” reader? If this person were a scientist, I am sure Holding would parade his credentials around for all to see. We are left wondering what a "scientific-minded" reader is. My guess is that a “science-minded” reader is someone who is curious about science and that is about the extent of it. In that case, I would be inclined to say that many of us are “science-minded” readers. I know I am. Dr. Craig Bissinger, a Gynecologist admits that they are still not certain what actually triggers labor. Science is nowhere close to reaching a consensus on what really triggers labor. One thing seems abundantly clear: it is not the will of the baby that actually triggers labor and to infer that it is seems to me to be quite ridiculous. Even if it were true that the baby secretes a hormone to begin the process, that is not at all an active role in the birth process. The release of the hormone is outside the infants control. Moreover, if one really wanted to use Holding's analogy, they would have to say that the born again experience is in deed initiated by man and he only needs to doctor's help completing the birth process. Is that biblical soteriology? I would submit that such an analogy is the equivalent of full-blown pelagianism.

By now it is painstakingly obvious that whatever view J.P. Holding has regarding total depravity, it is not the view shared by the reformed community. We conclude our views of J.P. Holding's views on depravity in our next blog. Holding says he is going to write a book about Calvinism. That is exactly what we need: one more person who does not understand Calivinism writing about why something they don't understand is wrong.

"We more frequently require to be reminded of the obvious than informed."

-Samuel Johnson

"We need education in the obvious more than the investigation of the obscure."



J.P. Holding's Total Depravity: A Calvinist Responds (I of III)

Holding's definition:

What is the exact meaning of "total depravity"? Here are the points it generally offers, which one will find repeated in various forms throughout works in favor of TULIP:



• Sin corrupts the whole person -- emotions, will, and intellect.
• Although this is so, we are not as bad as we could be; we could be worse. We are, as Palmer puts it, not as intensively evil as possible; but we are as extensively evil as possible. [Palm.5P, 9] For example, while we as individuals may lie and cheat, this does not mean that we will go as far as murder.
• We are incapable of a truly good act of our own selves. Any good deeds we do (outside of Christ) is merely a "relative" good deed. A truly good deed is done for the glory of God; unbelievers are incapable of this.
• The supreme point following from these three: We are unable of ourselves to turn to Christ to be saved.

Response
It is my opinion that Holding would have been better served to simply have referred to a proponent of Calvinism to define what is meant by total depravity. It is my view that this is precisely where unnecessary confusion enters the confab. That being said, I turn to Herman Bavinck to offer some help.



• The teaching of Scripture, after all, is not that every human lives at all times in all possible actual sins and is in fact guilty of violating all God’s commandments.
• Sin, however, is not a substance. It does indeed inhabit and infect all of us, but it is not and cannot be the essence of our humanity.
• When we are taught that as a result of sin humans are incapable of any good and this inability is called “natural,” this does not refer to physical necessity or fatalistic coercion. What humans have lost is the free inclination of the will toward the good. They are now no longer want to do good; they now voluntarily, by a natural inclination, do evil.
• Finally, one must bear in mind that Scripture and the church, in teaching the total depravity of humanity, apply the highest standard, namely, the law of God. The doctrine of the incapacity for good is a religious confession. [Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 3, 119-123]


Dabney states, “The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists of the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.” Dabney, Systematic Theology. 321]


The Westminster Confession states:


They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; (Gen. 1:27–28, Gen. 2:16–17, Acts 17:26, Rom. 5:12, 15–19, 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45, 49) and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (Ps. 51:5, Gen. 5:3, Job 14:4, Job 15:14)


From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, (Rom. 5:6, Rom. 8:7, Rom. 7:18, Col. 1:21) and wholly inclined to all evil, (Gen. 6:5, Gen. 8:21, Rom. 3:10–12) do proceed all actual transgressions. (James 1:14–15, Eph. 2:2–3, Matt. 15:19)


Holding’s last bullet does not quite meet the definition for total depravity. Man is not only incapable of himself to turn to Christ, even with help he is so utterly depraved that he cannot turn to Christ. This is like saying that a dead man can drink water if only he has some help. Not exactly! Dead men can’t drink water. They are dead. What they need is to be resurrected first!

Holding:

I have now concluded that all 4 of these points are true according to Scripture -- and therefore, I affirm that the T in TULIP is valid. However, I must qualify by saying that while it is valid, it is not supported by as many Scriptures as some are wont to think. Originally this essay was to explore the doctrine as expressed in the epistalory literature, but since it seems that "T" is clearly affirmed (in the first verse to be examined below) I see no need, at present, to proceed further.

Response

It is remarkably unclear what Holding means by this comment. The use of the word valid causes some concern. An argument can be valid but still untrue. All that is required is that the conclusion proceeds from the premises in order for the argument to be valid. However, in order for an argument to be both valid and true, the premises must be true and carry through to the conclusion. The qualification Holding mentions, namely, that total depravity is not supported by as much Scripture as some are “wont to think” makes absolutely no sense whatever. If you agree that Scripture teaches total depravity, then why bother with such a qualification? Perhaps there is more to Holding’s qualification than meets the eye. This is an indication that Holding is up to something more than just affirming his belief in total depravity (something which I doubted from the start of this paper).

Holding on the use of Certain Passages

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.



I will begin, therefore, with the verse that clearly does teach total depravity. Palmer [Palm.5P, 16] tells us, "Here is total depravity: man cannot choose Jesus. He cannot even take the first step to go to Jesus, unless the Father draws him." This is indeed total depravity, but there is a factor involved that looks to shift the matter back to individual choice. Jesus goes on to say in John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The Greek word behind "draw" in the two verses is the same. Note the connotation that this word can have:


Acts 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers...


James 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?


This word has the connotation of being brought somewhere by force if needed, and against the wishes of the "draw-ee." This verse does indeed teach the doctrine clearly.


But once John 12:32 is thrown into the mix, something is indicated which may throw the matter back into human hands -- at God's sovereign directive and because of His actions. How are men drawn onto Christ? We know and all agree that the Holy Spirit is the "drawer" on men. But Jesus says that all men will be drawn unto him. So what does this lead to?


A logical syllogism: All men are drawn to Christ. The Holy Spirit works this function in all men. But clearly not all become Christians, and these verses only say that one cannot make the choice without the drawing first.


Even Yarborough, writing in favor of Calvinism in Still Sovereign, admits that this can refer to a "more general attraction that, say, renders persons accountable but not yet regenerate in other" and tries to make "all men" mean "all elect men" [as below] with no justification other than a pre-conceived application of Calvinism.


Therefore, practically speaking, while we absolutely must have God's prodding to come to Him, we are all getting that prodding -- just like you can't decide on a path without information on the path first. Geisler [Geis.CBF, 6], citing Sproul, observes that the question now is whether God gives the ability to come to Him to all men, and we discuss that more here.


I should note one response to this verse, which says that "all men" means "men from all nations" rather than literally "all men." This seems an all too obvious contrivance to save the doctrine of irresistible grace; in the previous verse Jesus speaks of judgment of the kosmos and the prince of the kosmos. It is the burden of the Calvinist to prove that "all men" [in fact, only "all" is actually in the text; "men" is implied] means "men from all nations" or "elect men".


Response
And there you have it. Before we can even get started, Holding reveals that he in fact, does not adopt the “T” in TULIP. The definition he immediately places on total depravity fails to meet the reformed doctrine in any way whatever. We can do without this kind of intellectual dishonesty in the Christian community. Holding is not the only one guilty of such dishonesty. I know a good many men, men that I respect who do the very same thing. I find it quite troubling to hear men say they believe in certain points of Calvinism or that they are even Calvinists when they are not. I do not know why these men cannot simply state plainly their disagreement with the doctrine and get on with it. In response to Holding’s overly wooden literal interpretation of John 12:32, many, many men have offered adequate rebuttal. Holding misses the entire context of John 12:32. White, in response to Dr. Geisler’s Chosen But Free points this out in his book, The Potter’s Freedom. The context is that some Greeks had come seeking Christ in v. 20. Jesus is about to end His public ministry and he utters these remarkable words. The gospel will go out to all men, not just the Jewish nation. No longer is God going to extend covenant blessings and benefits only to the Jews predominantly. He is going to include Gentiles from all people groups. Holding contends that the Calvinist is wrong to say that “all” here means “all kinds." However, he gives no reason for why such an interpretation should be rejected other than calling it bias. He assumes he is right and quickly moves on, in typical Arminian fashion. The truth is that Holding interprets this verse exactly the same way that Universalists interpret it. Scripture must interpret Scripture. If we interpret this Scripture literally, we have a world of explaining to do. The only two possibilities are all men quite literally, or all kinds of men. If Christ meant all men without exception rather than all men without distinction, then we are left to wonder how. Even Holding admits this drawing is from the Holy Spirit. And this must also involve the preaching of Christ! And the timing of this drawing begins when Christ is lifted up at Calvary. However, most men died for centuries without ever having heard of Christ. Christ died on Friday. He was resurrected on Sunday. Does Holding actually contend that on Monday, all men everywhere were drawn to Christ? It is even true today that there are numerous people groups who have never heard the name Jesus! It seems obvious to anyone without an axe to grind that this text simply means that the gospel is going out to all men without distinction.



John said that Jesus enlightens all men who come into the world in John 1:9. Ananias prophesied that Paul would be a witness to all men about the things he had heard and seen in Acts 22:15. Paul said that we should respect what is right in the sight of all men in Rom. 12:17. Is anything right in the sight of every single man? Paul said that the Corinthian church was like an epistle, known and read by all men in II Cor. 3:2. It is clear that Holding is wrong to force an overly wooden interpretation on John 12:32. It is obvious that Scripture uses the word "all" with a variety nuances. Holding certainly acknowledges this elsewhere in his writings, but for some reason conveniently abandons this approach here. While Holding accuses Calvinists of overlaying a theological grid onto this text, it is impossible to miss that Holding himself places his own on it. Moreover, the problem for Holding is that the Calvinist can easily demonstrate that "all men" is used repeatedly in the NT without the necessary wooden interpretation he demands must be placed on it in John 12:32. If anyone is being inconsistent in their hermeneutic, it seems rather obvious it is Holding. If anyone is allowing extreme theological bias to dictate their hermeneutic, it seems clear that it is Holding. However, I am not one to say that theological hermenuetics is improper. There is a sense in which you cannot separate the hermeneutical process from theological presuppositions. In fact, theological presuppositions are necessary for good hermeneutics. More than that, theological presuppositions are, in fact unavoidably necessary. It is true that there is no neutrality, even in biblical interpretation. But that is a discussion for another post.

The Coherence of Calvinism

I was reading a bit about one internet apologist’s views on TULIP over the weekend, and much to my dismay, but not to my surprise, he described himself as a “one and a half point” adherent. This comes as no surprise to me, given this man’s views on other subjects. One of my previous pastors classified himself as a three-pointer. In fact, I have heard of everything from one-pointer all the way up to a four-pointer. The truth is, as my theology shifted from the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian position I once held to Calvinism, I was, for a brief moment, a four-pointer myself. Actually, what I really was, was someone that did not understand the scheme of reformed thinking just yet. Once I cleared up the confusion in my own mind, the final domino fell, and I became a Calvinist. I have a heavy degree of turbulence in my mind when someone says he is less than a five-point Calvinist. Logically speaking, you are either a Calvinist or you are not. There is nothing in between the two schools. There are those who hold to Calvinism in their soteriology and those who are something else. They may be Arminian, Semi-Pelagian, Pelagian, or whatever. Moreover, there is no such thing as a Calminian. A Calminian is something between a Calvinist and an Arminian. The purpose of this blog is to point out the logical necessity of either believing in the TULIP scheme or not. If you rightly understand any one of the points of TULIP, and you work through the others with logical consistency, you will hold to the entire scheme. What most often happens is that a person latches onto one point, but they misunderstand it or worse, redefine it, and then claim to be less than a five-point Calvinist. Such a practice at best reflects incoherence in a person’s theology and at worse, it demonstrates a lack of respect for the system and subjects it to complete revision, turning it into something that reformed scholars do not recognize as Calvinism at all.

Total Depravity

Total depravity is the assertion that sin has affected every part of man and that there is no part of man that has not been so affected by the fall. Man is “dead” in his trespasses and sin according to Scripture. Total depravity asserts there is nothing in any part of man that would commend him to God in any way. This would include man’s inability to cooperate with God in the offer of salvation. Such cooperation would serve as grounds for boasting which, according to Scripture, is excluded in a right view of salvation. This is the reformed and the Calvinistic understanding of total depravity. If your understanding of total depravity is different, it is not total depravity in the classic sense of the doctrine.

Unconditional Election

The doctrine of unconditional election contends that God chose men to salvation through faith in Christ before He created the first blade of grass. I other words, God had already decided in eternity past who would participate in the bliss of eternity future. Since man is totally depraved, being dead in his sin, God must be the one to choose the ones who will benefit from the work of redemption performed by Christ. Dead sinners will not choose Christ. Moreover, dead sinners cannot choose Christ because they are dead in sin. Not only this, but they are blind. They cannot see the glorious light of the gospel offered in Christ because they are blind. On this point, Scripture is clear. The reason election is unconditional is because dead men could never have met a single condition. We are dead. Sola Gratia!

Limited Atonement

Since men are totally depraved, being dead in this sin, God must choose those whom He will rescue. Moreover, since the work of God is always efficacious, it must accomplish that which God intends it accomplish. Otherwise, we have a frustrated deity on our hands. If God’s design in the atonement can be frustrated by the will of men, then it follows that the rest of His plan may be frustrated. Faith in a sovereign God would collapse. Jesus has atoned for the sin of man. To atone means to satisfy God’s demand for justice and to place one in His favor. Clearly men are dying and passing into eternal torment due to their sin. This can only mean that Christ did not atone for their sin. Otherwise, what basis does God have for subjecting them to eternal torment? The Arminian says Christ atoned for their sin, but they rejected it. This view should be called conditional atonement. However, atonement, by its very definition, cannot be conditional. If it is conditional, it is not atonement and Christ accomplished nothing actually. To atone is to do something with the sin of the objects for which atonement is made! It is sheer folly to argue that Christ atoned for sin and He did not atone for sin in reference to the same event: His death on Calvary. Since God’s work is always efficacious, and atonement actually means to atone, if follows that Christ actually atoned for the sin of those that God unconditionally elected from eternity past. Christ’s work was not wasted. It accomplished exactly what God intended it to accomplish. Dead men were elected by God from eternity past and Christ agreed to atone for their sins at Calvary.

Irresistible Grace

Following the work of Christ in redemption, we have the work of the application of that redemption by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of those whom God elected and for whom the Son made atonement. All men are dead in sin. God, in His mercy and by His grace, elected from among dead men those for whom Christ would die, and the Holy Spirit would bring to saving faith through irresistible grace. It is not as though God forces men to come to Christ. This is not the sense in which grace is irresistible. Suppose a woman was drowning and she realized that certain death was latching upon her. Further, suppose that someone threw her a life preserver. Do you suppose she would find that life preserver irresistible? I think we know the answer to this question. Suppose a man is in his home and he is being offered a route of escape from someone who has exclaimed to him that his house is on fire. The man refuses the offer, choosing not to believe he should take any action. But then suppose that the rescuer reveals to him the fire that is all around him. Do you suppose he would find the offer of safe passage irresistible? The Holy Spirit is the one who helps us make sense of the gospel, the person and work of Christ! When He does His work in regeneration, the grace that God offers at Calvary is most irresistible! Man, having been transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit receives the offer of Christ instantly because it is obviously the most incredibly gracious offer he has ever seen. The Holy Spirit removes the scales from the eyes and our hearts burn within us. Christ, to the regenerate, is the most irresistible offer we could ever imagine.

Perseverance of the Saints

Finally, the perseverance of the Saints is the most logical of all the points of the Calvinistic system. It was the decision of God to elect, the work of God to provide atonement, and the application of that work to the heart in regeneration to bring man to this place. Would it make any sense for that work to be negated by man after all the work God had done to make his salvation secure? God chose you in eternity past to be His own. He sent His Son to pay the debt for your sin, turning His judgment from you and placing you in His favor instead. In addition, He brought you the good news and applied the redemptive work of His Son to your heart by His Spirit. You have been justified eternally. You have a new heart. A heart of flesh. You are kept by the word of His power, not your own. Your conversion to Christ was not a simple act of your own will so that you can now by a similar act crudely walk away. What a reduction of salvation this is! What a flattening out of something so grand and glorious! There is no greater degradation of the doctrine of salvation and the precious work of redemption accomplished by Christ than the denial of the once for all price He paid and the eternal security that price provides for those who are in Christ.

TULIP must be taken en toto or not at all if one has any aspirations of holding to a rational theological grid. Each point of the Calvinistic system necessarily relies on the truthfulness of the others for their own validity. It any one of them is false, they are all false. If man is not totally depraved, then God cannot in and of Himself choose anyone. He can only invite and hope that man opts in. If grace is resistible, then it follows that the atonement may not actually atone for the one who “chooses” to resist. He will perish in a state subject to wrath, which is what the atonement is supposed to remove in the first place. If perseverance is dependent on man, then grace is resistible, the atonement really didn’t not accomplish anything, God could not have chosen men, and man cannot be viewed as dead in sin. The Calvinistic system stands or falls as a whole. Either you embrace all of it or none of it. In the end, you can say that you are inconsistent in your Calvinism. Many people are, although they refuse to admit it. You could say you are inconsistent in your Arminianism. A great number of people are. Intellectual integrity, in my opinion, would require you to embrace one or the other, or be honest about your incoherence. At a minimum, theological ethics would demand that you leave both systems intact and resist the urge to redefine them in a way that allows you to delude yourself into thinking you are something you clearly are not. In other words, if you are not a Calvinist, don’t pretend to be one. Do not redefine the T, the U, the L, the I, or the P in such a way as to pass yourself off as being something you really aren’t. Those of us who are Calvinists would really appreciate that and we would respect you even more for being honest about it.

The Ground of Christian Apologetics

One aspect of apologetics that has been lacking in the literature, to the point of near extinction, is the ground for the discipline of apologetics itself. [Oliphant-Tipton, Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics, 1]

The apostle Peter issued what is known as the famous apologetic mandate in all of Scripture. What philosophers, theologians, scholars, and apologists miss about this mandate is that Peter was not speaking to philosophers, theologians, scholars, and apologists, not in the technical sense at least. He wasn't even speaking to people that had the wherewithal to become such. Peter was speaking to a community that had been alienated due to their religious beliefs. Specifically, they were under tremendous pressure to abandon the Christian sect and return to the fold of the world. Why then, does it seem that most apologetic training places so much demand on the average person that it nearly makes it impossible to hold down a full time job, manage the affairs of the house, fulfill the obligations of relationship and parenting and still be able to devote considerable time to church service, worship, Christian fellowship, intense discipleship, and the apologetic task? Is it because apologetics actually demands the kind of philosophical acumen and prowess that some apologists portend? At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, I think we give objections to the reality of God more credit than they deserve. Perhaps Christian apologists, philosophers, and theologians should devote more time and energy to making some of the issues in this field easier for the average person to understand. I realize that some will take my comments as an affront to scholarship, but that is not at all what I am saying. As C.S. Lewis said, we need good philosophy if for no other reason than bad philosophy exists. To extrapolate that a bit further, we need good Christian philosophers if for no other reason than to explain to the rest of us what the bad philosophers are actually saying. But what we do not need is what one famous Christian apologist apparently endorses:

Some readers of my study of divine omniscience, The Only Wise God, expressed surprise at my remark that someone desiring to learn more about God's attribute of omniscience would be better advised to read the works of Christian philosophers than of Christian theologians. Not only was that remark true, but the same holds for divine eternity. [Quoted in: Reason and Revelation, 2]



The implication is that theological studies are insufficient to help one grasp the doctrines of God's omniscience and eternality. As a theologian, I cannot help but wonder how and what philosophical inquiry adds to a doctrine that is entirely derived from Scripture, by using sources outside of Scripture. I also have to wonder what the implications of such a view are on the sufficiency of Scripture. If one follows certain critical methods without discernment, the sufficiency of Scripture crumbles. Consider social-science criticism's contention that pastors must be trained in secular psychology and study sociology in order to adequately engage in biblical exegesis. The first question that comes to my mind is, "which school of psychology should one study?" There are literally dozens upon dozens. Moreover, the clear implication is that no one who lived during the first 1980 years of Christianity has adequately understood the text of Scripture because they did not possess a sophisticated and mature understanding of the many sociological and psychological nuances of the Greco-Roman culture. Poppycock!

Contrary to classical apologists views on the necessity of evidence and logic, the only valid ground for Christian apologetics is Scripture. It is not autonomous human reason, nor is it found in the amount of evidence one may present for the resurrection of Christ or any of the other miracle claims of Scripture. I agree with Reformed Epistemology's view that belief in God is properly basic. Christian apologetics must proceed on the ground of Scripture alone. Human reason and human interpretation of historical evidence must submit to the Christian ethic. If we undertake scientific investigation and inquiry, it too must submit to the Lordship of Christ and the revelation of God contained in Scripture. I am not suggesting that reason has no role to play whatever. What I am contending is unregenerate human reason can always find a way around God unless God cleanses the mind through regeneration. God uses revelation, not reason to that end. Before you indict me, I am not setting reason over against revelation. I am placing reason under revelation.
Additionally, I am not saying there is no place for theistic evidences. What I am contending is that the ground of Christian apologetics must be Scripture itself. That is where we rest. It is where we begin. It is not merely where we end. We begin with Scripture, continue with Scripture, and end with Scripture. Is Scripture sufficient for the task of apologetics? I mean, really, when we say we believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura, do we really mean that? When it comes to Christian apologetics, do we believe that Scripture alone is sufficient to the cause?

I do not agree with the classical apologist's view that men honestly have no rational sensation that God exists. Nor do I think that men arrive at the truth claims of Christianity by autonomous human reason and the weighing of evidence in traditional theistic arguments. That does not mean that I find reason and evidence useless. Not at all! I simply argue that both reason and investigative methodology must be redeemed and cleansed from the hopelessly damning effects of sin on the human intellect. There is no neutral starting point. Human reason is biased against God from the beginning. So too is the inductive method. There are no brute facts, only interpretation of those facts insofar as human knowledge is concerned. Since the human method for gaining knowledge is fatally infected by sin, we cannot have much confidence in its ability to produce the desired fruit of truth we so desperately seek. We must turn outward, to the Creator who knows the facts as they are for He is the one that created them to be what they are.

I believe Kelly Clark is wrong when he says,

Christian apologists often wave theistic arguments around as if the truth were obvious and the proofs simple. But these sorts of fundamental truths are neither obvious nor simple. [Clark, Kelly James. Reformed Epistemology in Five Views on Apologetics. 283]

I believe the claims of Christ truth regarding the fact of God are obvious. I believe the phrases use by Paul in Romans 1:19 are unambiguous: φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς and ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. The word phaneros, according to Moulton and Millgan means clear, manifest. Louw-Nida says the word, in this context means, pertaining to being clearly and easily able to be known, easily known, evident, plain, clear. The word appears 18 times in the NT. Six times it is translated evident. In Gal. 5:19 Paul uses it to tell us that the works of the flesh are "evident." He uses it in 1 Tim. 4:15, instructing Timothy to be absorbed in these things so that his progress will be evident to all. Space prohibits a more detailed discussion of the meaning and use of this work in the NT as well as the LXX. It is used in Deut. 29:28 (29 NASB) where Moses says the secret things belong to the Lord but the things revealed belong to us. Therefore, it seems clear by the NT usage of this word in the context of the question of the truthfulness of God's existence, that such existence has been made plain to unbelievers and they know it.

The second half of v. 19 says "For God made it plain to them." This is a different form of the same word. The reason that men clearly and plainly know that God is, is that God made it a point to make sure they knew and not only that, but that this knowledge was plain, easy, and simple for men to grasp. When men say, "I do not know if there is a God," or when they say, "I do not believe God exists," or "There is no God," they are not being intellectually honest. At this point, we have one of two options: we can disagree with God and agree with men, giving them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, we can refuse to set aside the revelation of Scripture on the matter and confront the unbeliever with the knowledge that screams loud and clear to them through revelation. The sensus divinitatis and the fact of the material world serve as witnesses on the divine witness stand damning and rebutting the fairy tales of men who perjure themselves under oath in the divine courtroom of the triune God.

I do not wish to impugn reason or evidence. I merely wish to bring both methods under the epistemic authority of faith. The logician and the scientist must always actively submit their methods to faith, to the Christian ethic, to the authority of divine Scripture. There is much use to made of redeemed logic and inductive method, not to mention historical inquiry. We only encounter problems when we attempt to revamp the order of priority in methodology. When we attempt to displace Scripture with modern critical methodology as is often the intellectual temptation for so many in academia, then we begin to encounter unnecessary problems in the field of apologetics and theology. When adjectives like "plain, simple, and clear" are ipso facto pejorative terms, it is time to reexamine the reason for our efforts at their foundation.

The ground of Christian apologetics and theology can only be divine Scripture. Our starting point and ending point is the self-attesting, authoritative revelation we have in the pages of God's sacred writings. These are they that testify to us of Christ and His marvelous grace. It is this Christ who has descended into earth to explain to us all that the Father wanted us to know of Himself. That is what we proclaim to a lost and dying world and it is what we defend against the attacks of the critics, cynics, and skeptics of the world who have proclaimed themselves, to varying degrees, "enemies of faith" as expressed in true biblical Christianity. If the ground of Christian apologetics begins anywhere other than Scripture, it is doomed never to arrive at Scripture as its sole authority for informing us of the nature reality, epistemology, and ethics. Wherever Christian apologetics begin, this will be the authority that it is doomed to serve forever. It is my hope that apologists, theologians, scholars, and pastors will wake up to this truth sooner than later.

"Reason that does not begin with God can always find a 'reason' not to end with God"

Science and Christianity

Cornelius Van Til

(Worth Repeating)

The above heading was the topic of one of Dr. Wishart’s recent sermons. According to his presentation Science is indeed at odds with Christianity, if we mean by the latter acceptance of the Bible from cover to cover, with its creation myth, its legend of the Sun’s standing still at the command of Joshua, its absurdity of physical resurrection, etc. Science and Christianity are not at odds if both are understood correctly, if Christianity is made scientific and Science christian. The miracles especially must be done away with. The Church of Mediaeval times believed the story of the Sun’s standing still upon Gibeon and the Moon in the valley of Ajalon. Even the Reformers Luther and Calvin, clung to this antiquated idea, while Calvin is the remote founder of Calvin College.

The insinuation is plain. Calvin College is presented as a mere remnant of Mediaevalism. Turning away from the disorders of this wicked world, its inmates delight in contemplation of the blessedness of heaven. The message of Copernicus has not even reached their ears.

Of course, this presentation of Dr. Wishart is entirely unfair, but it shows that the genuine modernist does feel that there is a chasm between him and the evangelical Christian. Was this not plain from the manifestation of extreme hatred on the part of modernists when the campaign against the abolishment of Free Christian Schools was on? Should we then consider the chasm less deep? Let us not deceive ourselves. Let not the siren of modernism entice us to its fold. When once in its vortex of fashion it is hard to get away. The struggle of Satan to conquer Christ is still continued in the attempts of modernism to undo the evangelical work of the Church. Surely, modernism would not subscribe to being called the enemy of Christ. Certainly not, does it not pray in the Master’s Name? Does it not speak of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man; does it not engage in humanitarian work? Modernism does not see the inconsistency in calling Jesus Master and at the same time denying that He is the Son of God. If Christ was not God, as He allowed Thomas to call Him, He was the vilest imposter that ever lived.

We as students should learn to see in modernism one of the greatest antagonists of Christianity and be ever on our guard. Its creed appeals to the evil within our hearts; its much-praised enlightenment appeals to our imagination; its humanitarian efforts soothe our antagonism. How easily are we led to believe that it is one with us. We know that the heathen are in need of the Easter message; how little do we realize that modernism is in still greater need of this message because it knows the way of salvation but thinks to have superseded it. May our attitude be one of watchfulness and prayer. May we make an earnest attempt to convert modernism to Christianity, to the Christianity of Christ the Savior who is risen indeed.





Cornelius Van Til and Eric H. Sigward, The Articles of Cornelius Van Til, Electronic ed. (Labels Army Company: New York, 1997).

Responding to John Loftus: How to Debunk Christianity

John Loftus says:

So at this point about all I can do is argue that if God exists he is at least partially to blame for people not understanding his will, as I did for a long chapter in The Christian Delusion. This is a serious problem for the Christian faith given the horrible deeds the church did down through the centuries, and the fact that one denomination condemns to hell a different one.

Then Loftus quotes Ingersoll:

Robert G. Ingersoll said:

Every [Christian] sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all.

And for good measure, Loftus call on Neitzsche:

Friedrich Nietzsche said:

A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intention—could that be a god of goodness? Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of truth? . . . Did he perhaps lack intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? Must he not then . . . be able to help and counsel [his creatures], except in the manner of a deaf man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to befall on his child or dog?

Loftus concludes:

Should't this be good enough?

Isn't it self-evident that it isn't enough? When did Neitzsche issue his comments? Its been quite some time and Christianity as well as a million other religions are still here, undaunted by his profound wisdom and keen intellect. I wonder why that is.

Is Loftus right? Is God partially to blame for people not understanding His will? As one who approaches philosophy and apologetics from a presuppositional standpoint, I am always on the lookout for foundational beliefs (presuppositions) that others use to make their claims. Loftus contends that God is partially responsible for other people being misinformed of His will. I do not have Loftus' book, The Christian Delusion in my library. Therefore, I shall have to grapple with what little I have to go on in Loftus' proposition.

First, God is partially to blame for others not understanding His will. I am not sure how one can be partially to blame for this. If God is guilty of communicating His will in an obscure and convoluted manner, then I think that would make God entirely to blame for others not understanding His will.

However if I can communicate my wishes to you in plain language so that you can carry out my wishes, and I do so, that would theoretically get me off the hook. More than that, even if I communicate my wishes to you in language that is rather difficult at times to understand, so long as you had the wherewithal to grasp my wishes, that would still get me off the hook. This is true even if you had to go to great lengths to understand my will. In both cases, not only would I not be partially to blame, I would not be blameworthy at all for others misunderstanding my will.

What is necessary for me to be blameworthy for others misunderstanding my will is for me to communicate it in such a way that they are not able to understand it. Then perhaps, one can say that I am to blame, in some way, for others not being able to understand my will. However, does this get us off the hook of responsibility? Not so much. If you travel to another state or country, how much time do you spend reading and understanding their particular laws? Do you think you could understand them even if you did read them? Do you think that breaking them would be permissible so long as you told the presiding authority that they were partially to blame because you did not understand this act was illegal within that particular jurisdiction.

When a presiding authority issues a legal dictum, do we expect them to make sure that everyone understands the new legislation completely before they start enforcing it? Why not? It is always the responsibility of the legal subjects to understand the law that presides over them so that they can avoid it's wrath.

The second thing that is necessary for God to be morally culpable for such misunderstandings of His will is that men deserve to understand it in the first place and I think this is really what Loftus may be driving at. In other words, God has a will that men are required to understand and to which they must submit or they will suffer dire consequences. If they cannot understand that will, then it follows that they cannot submit to a will they cannot understand. If this is the case, how can God hold them entirely accountable seeing how He is partially to blame for men's misunderstanding of His will. This is an old argument and has been answered by various men in various ways over the years.

How to answer the argument? The one thing I shall not do is take up the unbelieving presuppositions of John Loftus as many other apologists do. I am a believer and yes, I have an axe to grind and I intend to grind it. Within the framework of my worldview as a Christian, I begin and end with God. I cannot abandon and I will not abandon my epistemic method because it is informed by the Christian ethic. If I abandon my Christian epistemology in an attempt to take up unbelieving methods, what am I proving? Unbelieving methods always lead to the rejection of God because unbelievers have an axe to grind as well. They lie to us when they tell us they are just searching for objective truth here. Sure you are! That is why they spend so much time and money trying to disprove God in every way imaginable.

It is true that in a sense, God is to blame for men not understanding His will. If by blame we mean that in some way, God is primary cause of such conditions. The man who engineered a car to move 150 mph is the primary cause of the person hitting a tree at that speed and dying. But he is not the ultimate cause. He created the car with such capacity. Had he not done so, the person could not have driven it into the tree at that speed and died. However, the person that drove the car into the tree is the ultimate cause of their own death. Make sense?

God created man with the ability to choose disobedience over obedience. Adam chose to disobey. In Adam, we all sin. Adam was as perfect a human as ever lived. If he ate of the tree, who are we to say we would not have. Arrogance! We all have the morality of conscience and we have all sinned in one way or another. We have lied, stolen, sworn, lusted, blasphemed, etc. No one has ever not sinned other than Christ. We are all guilty. No one ever sinned against their will. As punishment for that sin, our ability to understand God's perceptive will has been dramatically impaired. The curse of sin has caused a great breach in our ability to rightly perceive and understand God's will. This curse was delivered to us by God Himself as punishment for Adam's sin. The only hope we have of understanding God's perceptive will now is for God's gracious work to move upon our intellect in a supernatural work called 'regeneration.' And even with that work in the human person, sin still presents unique challenges for even the Christian to fully grasp God's will. Notice I said challenges, not impossibilities.

So yes, God is partially to blame for man not being able to understand His will. He is the one that cursed man for sinning against Him in the garden and this curse led to the current roadblocks in understanding His will. However, because of this, God is not morally culpable for man's inability to understand His will. After all, man has a track record of not carrying out a fraction of the will of God that he does understand. Loftus does not account for this in his proposition. After all, God's will is not a neat little package that you either get or you don't get. Some men understand more of God's will than others. There is no such thing as a man that has not understood some of God's will. Moreover, there is no such thing as a man that has not violated various aspects of the will of God that he did understand. In other words, all men have understood enough of God's will to make them culpable for violating those aspects they did understand. Loftus' abbreviated statement almost infers that understanding God's will is an all or nothing proposition. It is far from it.

Answer Ingersoll

Ingersoll's attack is naive. It does not follow that if two people arrive at a different understanding of a document that the author is to blame. Men must bear the responsibility of properly handling the communication in front of them. I am certain that there have been more than one understanding of Ingersoll along the way. Perhaps he should have been clearer. As to the second question: is God responsible? God did in fact know that these conditions would arise. In fact, they are what they are because of God's decree. While God is not the author of sin, nor is He the cause of sin, he is primary cause of the way things are because He is sovereign. Even the Arminian cannot escape this charge. So he had better learn to deal with it.

Answering Neitzsche

Neitzsche contends that a God of goodness would have made sure that men understood His will. First of all, I would like to understand what Neitzsche means by this word "goodness." It is clear that in Neitzsche, morality is a very thorny issue. He spends a good deal of time attempting to synthesize morality with the rest of his philosophy, in my opinion, without much success. The fact remains that atheism cannot logically account for morality apart from the God that transcends humanity. In that case, Neitzsche has not standard of goodness by which to criticize God for not being clearer about His divine will. As a Christian apologist, I cannot allow Neitzsche to steal from the Christian worldview in order to criticize the Christian worldview. Goodness in the Christian worldview is not violated by God's response to man's sin which is specifically demonstrated in man's deadness to knowing and understanding God's perceptive will in Scripture. Even fallen man retains God's will in the conscience. Thus it follows that this natural revelation serves as the basis of man's indictment for his refusal to acknowledge God's right as Lord over all creation. Man knows right from wrong. He has repeated chosen to engage in actions he knows are wrong. Even the most avowed atheist can heard to "think" that they could be a better person.

Loftus seems to confuse the visible church with Christianity. That's alright, the visible church makes a great target, but it is a mere distraction. I do not waste my time attempting to provide an apologetic for the behavior of the church the same a Loftus probably doesn't waste his time attempting to defend the behavior of individual atheists. It is a non-sequitur. The behavior of religious men, men bearing the name Christian, denominations bearing the name Christ would be a fruitless endeavor and one that would afford little progress in the argument. What I defend are the propositional truth claims made in Scripture. The behavior of unscrupulous men cannot invalidate the eternal truths of Scripture any more than a corrupt small town judge can actually invalidate the laws of the land.

We do not have a frustrated Deity. Let us not mistake a lack of revelation and information for paradox or tension. The tension is located in our own sinful desires to know what God has wisely determined we cannot know. That is, after all, within His right!


Remember: People LIVE what they believe; EVERYTHING else is just NOISE