Debate on Calvinism. White/Hunt

[Josheb]

First, I wish to express my thanks. Your posts demonstrate thoughtfulness and competency. I generally appreciate what you communicate. I say this because the forum can easily become overly negative, and sometimes a critique is void of the positives. I don't wish to err on the side of negativity, so I hope you truly hear me when I say thank you.

I appreciate that.

As a general rule I endeavor to always

1. Affirm that which bears integrity with well-rendered scripture,
2. Ask questions about that which is either unclear or I do not adequately understand, and
3. Refute that which does not bear integrity with well-rendered whole scripture.

I believe most here will attest to that practice. The problem is agreement and affirmation can be expressed with a few words. A simple "Amen!" a "," "^^^Whats/he said^^^," "I agree," or "Yep," will suffice whereas questions are sometimes (often?) perceived by the recipient as interrogation and not an appeal for more information. Defenses are easily triggered. Disagreement must be substantiated and that may take many words and (because of the necessity of whole scripture) many verses. And I, for better or worse, am prone to length .

I have appreciated both the kind words and the time taken to express the appreciation but let's be done with it. I trust your words (and will do so until evidence gives warrant not to do so). Let's get on with the topic at hand.

Second, I completely agree that unconscious people do not possess a choosing faculty. They are blind to objective reality, and they are completely contained within their subjective world. They may be dreaming, or they may not.

Then the sinner's will is irrelevant.


And if volition is irrelevant then everything in the debate pertaining to ANY agency of the sinful will is a red herring , but few acknowledge the fact and its logical necessity .

Third, I'll try to place my critique in the form of a question. Do you really think that the depravity of sinners is adequately characterized by being unconscious? My response to this question is no. I'm interested in how you handle this question.

No. I do not believe the analogy of an unconscious drowned person is adequate.

I believe the accurate depiction is death AND enslavement, not mere unconsciousness. I am being benevolent when using the analogy of the unconscious. Scripture is quite blunt and explicitly so: we are dead in sin and transgression and the Bible defines sin in several ways, three of which mean we are lawless, unrighteous, and have no faith. There are other definitions scripture provide but those three are generally sufficient for correctly understanding sin and the concept/doctrine of total depravity (the inability to do anything salvifically veracious or effective). Posts 27-30 HERE in @Carbon's op on the premise of God violating the sinner's will elaborate and clarify the nature of the soteriologically depraving effect of sin.

This is kind of important when it comes to Hunt because Hunt is not truly Reformed Arminian. He's more Wesleyan or possibly Traditionalist and he does not appear to know that about himself (at least I have never read him cite his differences).


It is not death OR enslavement. Sin kills and THEN sin enslaves the dead sinner. It's both, both simultaneously, not either/or. It's a pile on, and a pile on that increased in severity every moment of the corpse's animated plod through what he wrongly imagines is a life of life. The sinner is dead, and his end is destruction. He can do NOTHING to stop it. Only God can change that condition.

The question is, "Does God do so at any point involving the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's sinfully dead and enslaved will, and if so when and to what degree does He does?"

My answer to that question is "No, God does not use ANYTHING sinful, He does not use anything of the sinner - including the sinner's will - and, therefore, there is no degree great or small until after God has regenerated and indwelt that sinner, bringing from death to life."

Will is irrelevant. It is a red herring.


Happy to answer any other questions but my answer to any question on the agency of the sinner's will in salvation is going to end with "The will is irrelevant." I'll fill in the details as needed.

 

[His clay]

. . . .
Then the sinner's will is irrelevant.


And if volition is irrelevant then everything in the debate pertaining to ANY agency of the sinful will is a red herring , but few acknowledge the fact and its logical necessity .

No. I do not believe the analogy of an unconscious drowned person is adequate.

I believe the accurate depiction is death AND enslavement, not mere unconsciousness. I am being benevolent when using the analogy of the unconscious. Scripture is quite blunt and explicitly so: we are dead in sin and transgression and the Bible defines sin in several ways, three of which mean we are lawless, unrighteous, and have no faith. There are other definitions scripture provide but those three are generally sufficient for correctly understanding sin and the concept/doctrine of total depravity (the inability to do anything salvifically veracious or effective). Posts 27-30 HERE in @Carbon's op on the premise of God violating the sinner's will elaborate and clarify the nature of the soteriologically depraving effect of sin.

This is kind of important when it comes to Hunt because Hunt is not truly Reformed Arminian. He's more Wesleyan or possibly Traditionalist and he does not appear to know that about himself (at least I have never read him cite his differences).


It is not death OR enslavement. Sin kills and THEN sin enslaves the dead sinner. It's both, both simultaneously, not either/or. It's a pile on, and a pile on that increased in severity every moment of the corpse's animated plod through what he wrongly imagines is a life of life. The sinner is dead, and his end is destruction. He can do NOTHING to stop it. Only God can change that condition.

The question is, "Does God do so at any point involving the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's sinfully dead and enslaved will, and if so when and to what degree does He does?"

My answer to that question is "No, God does not use ANYTHING sinful, He does not use anything of the sinner - including the sinner's will - and, therefore, there is no degree great or small until after God has regenerated and indwelt that sinner, bringing from death to life."

Will is irrelevant. It is a red herring. . . .

I omitted some of the post to keep focused upon the singular issue. Is the will relevant? You have expressed that it is a red herring. However, I wish to point out your nuance, and then I'll critique.

(1) Josheb's Nuance regarding will relevancy
In response to my comments about the state of a person, who is unconscious, you respond "Then the sinner's will is irrelevant." You further elaborate. "And if volition is irrelevant then everything in the debate pertaining to ANY agency of the sinful will is a red herring."

In response to my question, "Do you really think that the depravity of sinners is adequately characterized by being unconscious?" Josheb responded, "No. I do not believe the analogy of an unconscious drowned person is adequate." Josheb then went on to elaborate upon the nature of depravity. People are dead in sin in three ways: lawless, unrighteous, and faithless. The sinner is unable to act in any way that would benefit himself salvifically. Death and enslavement also characterize the sinner. Josheb closes by asking a question, answering the question, and giving a final statement. Q = "Does God do so at any point involving the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's sinfully dead and enslaved will, and if so when and to what degree does He does?" A = "No, God does not use ANYTHING sinful, He does not use anything of the sinner - including the sinner's will - and, therefore, there is no degree great or small until after God has regenerated and indwelt that sinner, bringing from death to life." On account of this question and answer, Josheb gives a final statement, "Will is irrelevant. It is a red herring."

(2) Critique of Josheb's comments
First, I will state a few points of agreement. This is important, for it communications what is not at issue. I fully agree that the illustration of the unconscious person does not adequately portray human depravity. I agree that lawlessness, unrighteous, and faithless are good descriptors of the depraved condition. I agree that the sinner is unable to act in any way to benefit himself salvifically; we both agree with the enslavement of the will. We also agree that death describes the sinner.

Second, I'm going to point out a difference in scope in Josheb's response. Note Josheb's statement utilizing the words, "everything in the debate;" note the expansiveness of the statement as involving everything in the debate. Later, during the Q & A portion, Josheb is very narrowly focused upon the ultimate cause of salvation. Since the sinner can only contribute sinful deeds; only God can be the ultimate cause of bringing the sinner from death to life; and on account of this narrowed scope, Josheb concludes the irrelevancy of the will.

Again, it is a rather significant shift in scope from "everything in the debate" to the ultimte cause of one being brought from death to life.

Third, my critique is of what I perceive to be an over-generalization with respect to the will. The debate about the will is rather large; it is not simply limited to who is the ultimate cause of bringing the sinner from death to life. The debate also pertains to Josheb's descriptors of depravity. People utilize their wills to sin (as Josheb agrees, since unconsciousness does not adquately describe depravity). In what way do they utilize their wills to sin? This is a huge issue in the debate. The libertarian advocate would minimize, mitigate (prevenient grace), or deny federal and/or seminal headship found in Adam. This is precisely because they are seeking to maintain human responsibility for sin under the libertarian freedom paradigm. While I am in agreement with the depravity Josheb described, the libertarian freedom advocate may deny it alltogether to maintain their view of human responsibility. The libertarian advocate would push against Josheb's view of depravity by pointing out that his view of human depravity reduces people to non-responsible slaves, and so Josheb's view of salvation is pointless, since God would be saving people who don't need to be saved, since they aren't responsible for being forced to sin (given the assumption of the correctness of lib freedom).

I fully agree that God is the ultimate cause of a sinner being brought from death to life. Only God can change the enslaved sinner's trajectory. But "everything in the debate" is quite a bit larger, and it does involve the will and choices, and thus the debate cannot simply be reduced down to statements of the will's irrelevance. We fully agree with, "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13 ESV) But the debate over the will involves so much more. Why are sinners judged guilty if they are forced to sin by their natures (the lib freedom advocate might ask)? How could one be responsible for Adam's sin (the lib freedom advocate might ask)? If a person cannot do otherwise, due to the decree in Calvinism, then how can a person be held responsible (the lib freedom advocate might ask)? The lib freedom advocates might point to their view as the only view by which loving relationships can be maintained, since only their view allows for people who can do otherwise.

I would also point out that another key descriptor of sin is "missing the mark," and this is accomplished via volition. The very nature of how human beings are judged as responsible for their sin is involved in the debate. My personal tactic is to perform a reduction to absurdity type of argument where I demonstrate the utter incoherence of libertarian freedom logically, its contradiction with explicit scripture, and unlivable nature. Thusly, it no longer is a criteria for anything at all, other than a display of the noetic, sinful proclivity of assuming autonomy from God. After, performing the reduction to absurdity, I follow the Van Tillian method (transendental critique + positive biblical worldview assertion) of establishing human choice-making and responsibilty upon biblical grounds.

Critique simplified and summarized: The will debate is not irrelevant because the issues involve more than the simple monergistic act of God bringing sinners from death to life. The sinner's will is relevant, precisely because "unconsciousness" does not adequately describe man's sinful condition; hence, people use their wills within the confines of their depravity. In my view, libertarian freedom is irrelevant because it is not a sustainable view of human choice-making, responsibility, and genuine human action. Hence, a more biblical view, compatibilism, is on the table for properly understanding the will and its relevance to the issues.

 

[Josheb]

I omitted some of the post to keep focused upon the singular issue. Is the will relevant? You have expressed that it is a red herring. However, I wish to point out your nuance, and then I'll critique.

(1) Josheb's Nuance regarding will relevancy
In response to my comments about the state of a person, who is unconscious, you respond "Then the sinner's will is irrelevant." You further elaborate. "And if volition is irrelevant then everything in the debate pertaining to ANY agency of the sinful will is a red herring."

In response to my question, "Do you really think that the depravity of sinners is adequately characterized by being unconscious?" Josheb responded, "No. I do not believe the analogy of an unconscious drowned person is adequate." Josheb then went on to elaborate upon the nature of depravity. People are dead in sin in three ways: lawless, unrighteous, and faithless. The sinner is unable to act in any way that would benefit himself salvifically. Death and enslavement also characterize the sinner. Josheb closes by asking a question, answering the question, and giving a final statement. Q = "Does God do so at any point involving the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's sinfully dead and enslaved will, and if so when and to what degree does He does?" A = "No, God does not use ANYTHING sinful, He does not use anything of the sinner - including the sinner's will - and, therefore, there is no degree great or small until after God has regenerated and indwelt that sinner, bringing from death to life." On account of this question and answer, Josheb gives a final statement, "Will is irrelevant. It is a red herring."

(2) Critique of Josheb's comments
First, I will state a few points of agreement. This is important, for it communications what is not at issue. I fully agree that the illustration of the unconscious person does not adequately portray human depravity. I agree that lawlessness, unrighteous, and faithless are good descriptors of the depraved condition. I agree that the sinner is unable to act in any way to benefit himself salvifically; we both agree with the enslavement of the will. We also agree that death describes the sinner.

Second, I'm going to point out a difference in scope in Josheb's response. Note Josheb's statement utilizing the words, "everything in the debate;" note the expansiveness of the statement as involving everything in the debate. Later, during the Q & A portion, Josheb is very narrowly focused upon the ultimate cause of salvation. Since the sinner can only contribute sinful deeds; only God can be the ultimate cause of bringing the sinner from death to life; and on account of this narrowed scope, Josheb concludes the irrelevancy of the will.

Again, it is a rather significant shift in scope from "everything in the debate" to the ultimte cause of one being brought from death to life.

Third, my critique is of what I perceive to be an over-generalization with respect to the will. The debate about the will is rather large; it is not simply limited to who is the ultimate cause of bringing the sinner from death to life. The debate also pertains to Josheb's descriptors of depravity. People utilize their wills to sin (as Josheb agrees, since unconsciousness does not adquately describe depravity). In what way do they utilize their wills to sin? This is a huge issue in the debate...............

I appreciate the effort and the analysis, but the fundamental point is being dodged.

Just because the debate is huge does not mean it is justified. The size of the debate, the size of the "issue" is not a measure of the debate's veracity. Everyone, including me, is well aware a "debate" has endlessly ensued for the last 500 years (longer is we go back to Pelagius and Augustine). The question never asked is, "Is there any justification for the debate?" Those who subscribe to toal depravity - whther they are monergist or synergist - must answer, "No, the entire debate, regardless of its enormity, is unjustified." The moment agreement regarding the death of the sinner is acknowledged the debate pertaining to the will is over.

I agree that the sinner is unable to act in any way to benefit himself salvifically; we both agree with the enslavement of the will. We also agree that death describes the sinner.

If the sinner is unable to act then his will is irrelevant. If the sinner is enslaved then his will is irrelevant. If the sinner is dead then his will is irrelevant.

And monergist should look the synergist in the eye and say, "You are arguing a red herring when you bring up the sinner's will. The sinner's will is irrelevant."

No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.

That argument had been going on since Pelagius. It has nothing to do with Arminius. Arminius would have looked Pelagius in the eye and told him he was full of dross; in the sinful state the will of the creature is powerless, and it cannot effect any good apart from grace. That is what Arminius argued.


The reason this is important as far as this op goes is because Hunt was not a very good Arminian. The reason this is important in the debate is because the moment the irrelevancy of the will is asserted all the Arminians separate from all the Provisionists/Traditionalists/Pelagians and then it's just TDers arguing a red herring with those who think the red herring is valid.

Let's also clear up a minor detail. I specifically specified the debate pertaining to the agency of the sinner's will is a red herring. I did not say any other divide, or any other point was irrelevant.

And if volition is irrelevant then everything in the debate pertaining to ANY agency of the sinful will is a red herring , but few acknowledge the fact and its logical necessity ..............

Everything in the debate may not be a red herring, but everything pertaining to any agency of the sinful will is. Assuming the agency of the sinful will does not prove the veracity of the sinful will; it simply begs the question.

Third, my critique is of what I perceive to be an over-generalization with respect to the will. The debate about the will is rather large; it is not simply limited to who is the ultimate cause of bringing the sinner from death to life.

No, it is not large. If TD is true then there is no volitional agency over which any debate can occur. The debate is not about the kind of agency or the degree of agency, but the existence of the agency. Saying "it is not simply limited to who is the ultimate cause of bringing the sinner from death to life" is a sentence filled with error. It assumes a lack of simplicity to justify the larger size of the debate. That's a circular argument. It assumes the simplicity is due to limiting the debate to causality. That's not the problem. If TD is correct then there is no causality on the part of the sinner; there's no causality to debate.

The correct viewpoint is the debate about the will is small and it is simple. Does the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner have and salvific volitional agency? It's a simple question. It's a binary inquiry that can and should be answered, "Yes," or "No," and if the answer is "No," then the entire debate is over. If the answer is "Yes," then the immediate response should be.....

Prove it.

It is that simple. It's that small. It is that definitive. That is the essence of the "debate." Until the synergist can prove volitional agency, they do not have a foundation upon which any argument can be built and the entire debate pertaining to the sinner's volitional agency in his own salvation is a red herring. Assuming volitional agency before proving its existence begs the question.

 

[Josheb]

If the guy laying on the beach is dead, instead of drowned and unconscious but still alive, then that makes things worse for the synergist. I'm not happening upon someone I need to revive or resuscitate; I am happening upon someone I need to resurrect. That's a huge difference. If dead sinners could resurrect themselves, we would not be having this debate.

Romans 6:4-7
Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

Ephesians 2:4-6
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...

Colossians 3:1
Therefore, if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Salvation from sin and wrath is very much about dying and being resurrected. I've read writings that cover many centuries, and few make note of this fact. Those that do are not synergists. Synergists avoid the fact what we are talking about is resurrection now and resurrection later. It's hard to fathom the synergists willfully ignore this fact because then we'd all (synergist and monergist alike) have to admit their dishonesty. The alternative is just as difficult because if they lack an awareness of this problem then we'd all, likewise, have to admit they were all ignorant. Until the dead sinner lying on the beach can crucify himself (perform his own rescue breathing and breathe new life into himself) he cannot resurrect himself. He cannot bring himself from death to life no matter how much non-existent will is asserted, no matter how powerfully it is asserted. None of that can be done without first asserting the existence of volitional agency. No agency? Then the will is irrelevant.

It really is that small, that plain, and that simple.

The non-Arminian synergist refuses to accept the beached man analogy. That synergist has a dancing dead man. It does not matter, though, because when asked to provide a verse explicitly assigning soteriological causality to the hypothetical dancing dead man the answer is crickets chirping. Hypothetically, if there were such a verse the anyone could post it so I could ask everyone, monergist or synergist to post the verse explicitly assigning salvific causality of any kind to the sinfully dead and enslaved sinners will. Once the silence ensues the discussion then becomes, "Why do you believe a doctrine for which no explicit scripture exists and one that can be made solely by inference?"

Now that is much different debate, and a much larger debate. That is the debate had by Hunt and White. A reader of that debate can turn to just about any page in that book and pick two verse used (one used by White and one used by Hunt) and look up the verses in the Bible to see which person made the verse say something other than what is stated. White easily wins that comparison and once that is realized the problem of inference because the salient point, not the volitional agency of the dead man's will. Red herrings and straw men.

If the monergist can get the synergist to acknowledge there is no explicit scripture and the synergism is entirely inferential then the entire debate changes. Then the debate becomes about why it is sinfully dead and enslaved humans think they can help God. We've been doing that since Genesis 3:7. It is the problem to be solved, not salvation from the problem to be solved. Synergism is no different than the tower of Babel, a temple made of stone, or trusting wealth or chariots.

 

[Josheb]

I fully agree that God is the ultimate cause of a sinner being brought from death to life.

Why add the qualifier "ultimate"?

Why not say, "God is the cause of a sinner being brought from death to life"? Isn't the causality of God compromised if qualified that way?

Only God can change the enslaved sinner's trajectory.

Trajectory is not the problem. Tajectory is a red herring.

But "everything in the debate" is quite a bit larger, and it does involve the will and choices, and thus the debate cannot simply be reduced down to statements of the will's irrelevance.

That is true when qualifiers and trajectories are added.

I would also point out that another key descriptor of sin is "missing the mark," and this is accomplished via volition.

A dead man without a bow or arrow ignorant of the target can apply all the non-existent agency he can muster but he'll never hit the target. It is impossible for him to do so. His dead and enslaved will is irrelevant. This becomes all the more apparent when the "mark" is identified.

The mark is divine perfection.

Matthew 5:48
Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Since, logically speaking, the finite can never reach or accomplish the infinite everyone should readily admit the complete lack of a foundation in synergism. It's impossible for good and sinless living humans to reach God. Make the good and sinless man not-good and sinful to the point of his mind thinking futile and incapable of pleasing God, darken his heart, give hm over to his lusts and then make him dead in sin and further enslave him to that mind-eviscerating, heart-darkening sin while he's already dead and then tell me the basis for thinking he can hit the mark of divine perfection.

The very nature of how human beings are judged as responsible for their sin is involved in the debate.

Only for the synergist building his doctrine on inference.

My personal tactic is to perform a reduction to absurdity type of argument where I demonstrate the utter incoherence of libertarian freedom logically, its contradiction with explicit scripture, and unlivable nature.

Oh, I do appreciate you saying that, and I want to commend that endeavor, but it has been poorly executed here. The posts are filled with red herrings, begged questions, construction fallacies, and more. The size of a debate is no proof of its veracity. The moment that argument was asserted everything else (at least everything built on that premise) failed. There is no nature to be discussed if sin is fatal. If the mark is divine perfection, then scripture or no scripture, explicit or inferential - all of it become irrelevant simply because the finite cannot reach the infinite.

Thusly, it no longer is a criteria for anything at all, other than a display of the noetic, sinful proclivity of assuming autonomy from God.

I like that. I hope you do not mind if I borrow it for myself.

Can the same be said on the human side of the equation? Is there any autonomy of sinful man? Can, or should, it be assumed? The sinfully dead and enslaved man is - by definition - not autonomous. How then is any degree of independent (or liberated) volitional agency possible? Perform the reduction of absurdity argument on that/

After, performing the reduction to absurdity, I follow the Van Tillian method (transendental critique + positive biblical worldview assertion) of establishing human choice-making and responsibilty upon biblical grounds.

I very much like Van Til. That is why I endeavor to get at the synergist's presuppositions and not debate the meaningless or irrelevant.

Critique simplified and summarized: The will debate is not irrelevant because the issues involve more than the simple monergistic act of God bringing sinners from death to life.

That is a false-cause argument. The existence of more issues does not make the issue of the will relevant. Qualifying monergism to "monergistic act bringing sinners from death to life is a straw man. Monergism is much more than that and if God is the sole Agent who can cause new life from death, then human agency is irrelevant. Look at your own argument and apply your tools accordingly.

The sinner's will is relevant, precisely because "unconsciousness" does not adequately describe man's sinful condition; hence, people use their wills within the confines of their depravity.

That is correct; he's not unconscious; he's dead and his corpse is enslaved. People do use their wills within the confines of depravity, but never in an effort to solve that problem. They do not use their will within the confines of depravity to not be depraved salvifically. The use of the will is not a point of disagreement. That's another straw man. The point of disagreement is the use of the will within the confines of depravity to no longer be within the confines of depravity. The argument asserting a depravity-confined will can itself out of its depravity confinement is nonsensical. At its essence is the absurdity of the problem being the means to the solution.

In my view, libertarian freedom is irrelevant because it is not a sustainable view of human choice-making, responsibility, and genuine human action. Hence, a more biblical view, compatibilism, is on the table for properly understanding the will and its relevance to the issues.

I think I said this before, but while I tend to agree that depends on how "libertarian freedom" is defined. I reject the premise prior to conversion from death to life, or regeneration. I say "or" because while I conflate the two, I know some do not. Regeneration precedes faith. Both are gifts from God, and nothing can be willed by the sinner apart from those gifts (and all the others God bestows upon those He saved. Any synergism occurring after conversion (and I think the options few) still has its impetus in God. Apart from Him neither the dead and enslaved sinner, nor the indwelt regenerate can do anything salvifically meritorious.


Thanks for bearing with me and thanks for giving my brain a workout.

 

[His clay]

"And if volition is irrelevant then everything in the debate pertaining to ANY agency of the sinful will is a red herring." (quote taken from P#41)

In my analysis (post #42), I mistakenly reduced a heavily qualified sentence down to "everything in the debate." I do wish to apologize to @Josheb for doing this. It was truly unintentional. As should be obvious, there is a remarkable difference between (1) everything in the debate and (2) everything in the debate pertaining to sinful agency. Oddly enough, my reductionism of Josheb's position led to a larger scope than intended by Josheb.

In my defense, however, I did make it a rather significant point to address the nature of sinful decisions and the rather large scope this entails in the debate.

At the present time, this small response is all I have time for. But I felt it urgent to address a point where I misstated Josheb's position. I hate it when others misrepresent me, so I must be hyper-vigilant to keep from doing that to others. I hope to address more at a later time.

 

[Josheb]

"And if volition is irrelevant then everything in the debate pertaining to ANY agency of the sinful will is a red herring." (quote taken from P#41)

In my analysis (post #42), I mistakenly reduced a heavily qualified sentence down to "everything in the debate." I do wish to apologize to @Josheb for doing this. It was truly unintentional. As should be obvious, there is a remarkable difference between (1) everything in the debate and (2) everything in the debate pertaining to sinful agency. Oddly enough, my reductionism of Josheb's position led to a larger scope than intended by Josheb.

In my defense, however, I did make it a rather significant point to address the nature of sinful decisions and the rather large scope this entails in the debate.

At the present time, this small response is all I have time for. But I felt it urgent to address a point where I misstated Josheb's position. I hate it when others misrepresent me, so I must be hyper-vigilant to keep from doing that to others. I hope to address more at a later time.

No worries. No blood, not foul .

Let me add.... I am fully aware many Christians think the sinner's will is relevant. The debate between White and Hunt would not exist, otherwise. I am also aware most synergists do not say the sinner's will is causal (but some do), but from the monergist point of view the will is irrelevant and some monergists do not (seem to) understand that is the logical necessity of monergism. Nor do they take that conclusion further to preclude the many questions they ask about human volition. In recent days I have been asked several questions about the human will knowing those asking know I think the sinner's will irrelevant. For example, I was recently asked whether or not I thought God does what God does against the human will.


The sinner's will is irrelevant!


For or against, the will is irrelevant. The moment we start thinking about the will, the moment assertions and inquiries about the will ensue, without explaining why the premise has been abdicated without justification. We speak of salvation in ego-centric terms, "I got saved," or "'Our' salvation," but the greater truth is salvation is God's and God's alone. The only salvation anyone has from sin and wrath is the salvation God gave them. He did not give it to us because we were kind, or cool, or faithful, happened to be having a 'good' day, or wearing a particularly appealing cologne. We were dead in sin, rotting away that way, a stench in creation, and there is nothing in the sinner deserving or in any way warranting God giving the sinner anything.

This becomes obvious when three things are understood: 1) God and God alone made creation, 2) the Bible speaks from beginning to end about people living in a monergistically initiated covenant of one kind or another, and 3) most of scripture the synergist uses to make their inferential arguments are verses written about the already-saved believer and NOT the never-saved non-believer (once those verses are removed the shoddiness of the case is apparent).

Any conversation on the veracity and efficacy of the sinner's will should start with the justification of that conversation. First prove to me the sinner's will is relevant and then I'll discuss its veracity, efficacy, and saliency and the degrees thereof. Everyone assumes relevancy but none prove it. Had White put that to Hunt it's likely, given what most of us have read by Hunt, Hunt would have been slack-jawed speechless or overtly eisegetic (and thereby revealing the faulty foundation upon which synergism is built.

 

[His clay]

No worries. No blood, not foul .

Let me add.... I am fully aware many Christians think the sinner's will is relevant. The debate between White and Hunt would not exist, otherwise. I am also aware most synergists do not say the sinner's will is causal (but some do), but from the monergist point of view the will is irrelevant and some monergists do not (seem to) understand that is the logical necessity of monergism. Nor do they take that conclusion further to preclude the many questions they ask about human volition. In recent days I have been asked several questions about the human will knowing those asking know I think the sinner's will irrelevant. For example, I was recently asked whether or not I thought God does what God does against the human will.


The sinner's will is irrelevant!


For or against, the will is irrelevant. The moment we start thinking about the will, the moment assertions and inquiries about the will ensue, without explaining why the premise has been abdicated without justification. We speak of salvation in ego-centric terms, "I got saved," or "'Our' salvation," but the greater truth is salvation is God's and God's alone. The only salvation anyone has from sin and wrath is the salvation God gave them. He did not give it to us because we were kind, or cool, or faithful, happened to be having a 'good' day, or wearing a particularly appealing cologne. We were dead in sin, rotting away that way, a stench in creation, and there is nothing in the sinner deserving or in any way warranting God giving the sinner anything.

This becomes obvious when three things are understood: 1) God and God alone made creation, 2) the Bible speaks from beginning to end about people living in a monergistically initiated covenant of one kind or another, and 3) most of scripture the synergist uses to make their inferential arguments are verses written about the already-saved believer and NOT the never-saved non-believer (once those verses are removed the shoddiness of the case is apparent).

Any conversation on the veracity and efficacy of the sinner's will should start with the justification of that conversation. First prove to me the sinner's will is relevant and then I'll discuss its veracity, efficacy, and saliency and the degrees thereof. Everyone assumes relevancy but none prove it. Had White put that to Hunt it's likely, given what most of us have read by Hunt, Hunt would have been slack-jawed speechless or overtly eisegetic (and thereby revealing the faulty foundation upon which synergism is built.

Sadly, my work in response has been lost. Windows decided to radically update my computer, and I lost several years worth of work. It was my fault for not backing things up. Ugh.

I'll take some time off and regroup. :/

 

[Josheb]

Sadly, my work in response has been lost. Windows decided to radically update my computer, and I lost several years worth of work. It was my fault for not backing things up. Ugh.

I'll take some time off and regroup. :/

No worries. The thread's not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[David1701]

I just started reading Debating Calvinism with Dave Hunt and James White. It was published in 2004, I became Reformed in 2005 and do not know how I missed it. So to many on here, it is probably old news. To those who haven't read it I recommend it. If it has been a long time a reread might be refreshing. To be honest, I did not begin interacting on forums until a few years ago, and I think I gain more from the book having encountered it after being in the debates online. I find it very helpful in identifying the deflections and logical fallacies and failure to address actual content of opposing posts. I learned to refine doing so in the forums, and it is good to know I am not alone in pointing them out in my exchanges.

In the debate in the mentioned book, we find Hunt doing all the same things we find those opposed to Calvinism doing by way of debate. When the two positions are set side by side as they are in this book, we see a remarkable difference to each approach. That is, the beginning premise by White, and that of Hunt in response to it.. I will just deal with Part One which is Calvinism Affirmed by White, and the response by Hunt, but not the details of it, but the astonishing differences between the two.

James White begins his premise as The Eternal Decree of God. He begins by quoting from the 1689 Baptist confession. "God is all-sufficient, and all life, glory, goodness and blessedness are found in Him and in Him alone. He does not stand in need of any of the creatures He made, nor does He derive any of His glory from them.---" White then goes on to address "The Free and Proper Kingship of God," presenting His sovereignty as complete and total over His creation, citing numerous Scriptures that say just that with no equivocation. He addresses "The Counsel of His Will" in the same way. He asks the question "Does the King Reign Over All the Sons of Men." He deals with "Compatibilism" and gives biblical examples with clear explanation. In his conclusion to all he has said, White says,"The truth of God's eternal decree flows from the fact that God as Creator of all things and that everything He does (including the act of creation) is done for a purpose." and "---and as we will see, this divine truth forms the necessary basis for the truth of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." Note, it is all about God. Not once in his statements does he attack a person or a theology or a doctrine. He simply shows what the Bible shows about God as Creator and Sovereign.

Here is how Dave Hunt begins his rebuttal: "White begins his treatise with a ringing tribute to God's sovereignty. The Calvinist knows little else." Immediately he deflects from the issue at hand and goes on the attack of an "ism", White, followed by attacks in MacArthur, and two others, giving quotes on God's sovereignty. He then offers more attacks on Calvinism for exulting God's sovereignty. He offers a few more personal attacks and then shifts the rebuttal to the subject of God's love. He states, referring to the quote from the Baptist confession, "But where is God's love? Not once in the nearly 1300 pages of his Institutes does Calvin extol God's love for mankind, (which may or may not be true. Parenthesis mine.) This one-sided emphasis reveals Calvinisms primary defect: the unbiblical limitations it puts on God's most glorious attribute."

I will pause here a moment to comment on that last statement and how Hunt endicts himself as not bothering with acquiring a biblical theology, but arriving at a portrayal of God that suits his fancy and has no biblical support at all, and he himself being the one that uses a one-sided emphasis. Only love. God does not have a most glorious attribute and it would be impossible for Him to have an attribute that was superior to all His other attributes. All His attributes are equally glorious, all of the time. He cannot love people more than He hates evil, and therefore allow love to accept evil. His wrath against evil is a product of His righteousness. His judgment of sin is equal to His demand for righteousness. He cannot love what He hates. Not to mention the demand upon God to be love is far greater than even the demands we place on our own love. In our lives we discriminate within love. We do not love our neighbors wife in the same way we love our own wife etc. and yet Hunt, and all the countless others who base their objection to the doctrines of election and predestination in Reformed theology on that one thing---it is not fair, and it would not be love unless God loved all people equally and in the same way.

All the arguments following in Hunt's rebuttal, point by point against White, always misstate and/or misunderstand what White has said. Sound familiar? Is this a blindness caused by the overriding tradition, that nearly all Christian's alive today began with? That of "Invite Jesus into your heart and you will be saved."? That of, man chooses whether to be saved or not. A blindness so complete that they are unable to understand what it being said? Or an intentional blindness that refuses to hear and tries to drown it out by repeating the same things and the same scripture over and over, and never closely examines or considers, or responds to, what is being said?

The Reformed Baptist sets a premise, the eternal decree of God, and supports it step by step with Scripture---the self revealed God---and sums up with a conclusion.
The entire thing is based on who God is.

The anti Reformed attacks the eternal decree of God by attacking people and and "ism. Mentions only one characteristic of God, that being love, and that defined by Hunt HImself, not the Bible, except with one isolated scripture, isolated from its context and isolated from the whole counsel of God, "God is love." He never gives any support against the eternal decree of God but attacks White's position by misstating it every step of the way. It does not have God, and His freedom as its center as it should be, since He is the Creator. It has the creature and its freedom as the only concern. In his entire rebuttal on just this one issue, God is in the periphery. And he says all he says, and then does not bother to give a summary conclusion.
"Yet wisdom is justified by her children." (Luke 7:35)

I believe that the problem with Hunt (and others like him) is really very simple: it's not so much lack of exegetical skill (although he certainly does lack that), it's more that he does not receive the love of the truth, so he is given over to deception. This kind of thing is almost always more a matter of the heart than the head, when experienced Christians are involved (it's often more a matter of ignorance, in people who are young in the faith). This is also why people like Hunt are impervious to clear Scriptures and reason - reason is not the issue.

 

[Arial]

I believe that the problem with Hunt (and others like him) is really very simple: it's not so much lack of exegetical skill (although he certainly does lack that), it's more that he does not receive the love of the truth, so he is given over to deception. This kind of thing is almost always more a matter of the heart than the head, when experienced Christians are involved (it's often more a matter of ignorance, in people who are young in the faith). This is also why people like Hunt are impervious to clear Scriptures and reason - reason is not the issue.

Exactly.