One of the most common accusation that is hurled by Arminians and other non-Calvinists against Reformed theology is that it promotes fatalism. It is not uncommon to hear an Arminian charge that we teach that God “hinders people from coming to repentance when they really want to” and that believers are “forced to love God.”[1] Of course, nobody who actually knows what the doctrines of grace entail would actually make such statements. The Bible is clear enough on how people become saved: Men are by nature sinful and in rebellion against God (Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9), and are rendered incapable of even desiring to come to Him because of this inclination (John 6:44, 65, Romans 3:10-12, 8:5-8), which is why it is necessary for Him to change their hearts and minds (Ezekiel 36:25-27). It is only after this change of heart takes places that a person becomes willing to come to Christ.

That being said, statements such as “whosoever will may come” are totally compatible with a Reformed understanding of salvation. In fact, John Calvin himself made a statement similar to this in his commentaries. He writes:

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone.[2]

Not only this, but he refutes the very idea of fatalism. In his Institutes, he points out that the belief that people are forced by necessity to worship God is a heathenistic doctrine that has nothing to do with Christianity in any way:

To this fault they [i.e. the heathen] add a second—viz. that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate. To impiety, and to it alone, the saying of Statius properly applies: “Fear first brought gods into the world,” (Theb. lib. 1).[3]

When one takes the time to study the writings of Reformed theologians, one will quickly find that there is nothing fatalistic about the doctrines that are being propounded. Nobody should ever accuse the doctrine of predestination with fatalism, for the simple reason that the former is accomplished according to God’s eternal purposes and takes into account the man’s will and responsibility, whereas the latter teaches that whatever men become happen simply by virtue of blind, purposeless chance, and that their wills and desires are ultimately irrelevant, if not non-existent. Loraine Boettner said it best in his section on fatalism in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, so I shall end this note with a quote from there:

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas, while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man. Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love, mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance which nothing can shake.[4]

End Notes

1. These are, of course, statements that I have personally heard from Arminians at some point or another, so I can personally testify that these accusations are regularly hurled against Calvinists.
2. Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts – Volume 1. 2:14-21. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.ix.iii.html.
3. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. I:4:4. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.v.html.
4. Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. III:1. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.v.i.html.

See Also

• Fisher – Refuting Lou Ruggiero on Calvinism

This resonates strongly with my love of Psalm 51 and serves as a reminder that we are all of us in good company.

“The bows of the warriors are broken, but those who stumbled are armed with strength.” – 1 Samuel 2:4

There is an oxymoron throughout the Bible. It says that brokenness is strength. How can this be? How can brokenness be strength? In order to use men and women to their fullest extent, the Lord has to break His servants so that they might have a new kind of strength that is not human in origin. It is strength in spirit that is born only through brokenness.

Paul was broken on the Damascus road. Peter was broken after Jesus was taken prisoner. Jacob was broken at Peniel. David was broken after his sin with Bathsheba. The list could go on of those the Lord had to break in different ways before they could be used in the Kingdom.

When we are broken, we see the frailty of human strength and come to grips with the reality that we can do nothing in our own strength. Then, new strength emerges that God uses mightily. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

Do not fear brokenness, for it may be the missing ingredient to a life that emerges with a new kind of strength and experience not known before. Pray for a broken and contrite heart that God can bless.

by Os Hillman

This is what Muslims don’t want you to know about the textual history of the Qur’an.

‎”The application of simple forensic techniques reveal an earlier text that had been washed off and overwritten. Although the hidden text revealed no contradictory meanings, words have been changed, verses and whole chapters rearranged.”

-Narrator

‎Further Reading:

• ‎Sujit Das – Ancient Qur’anic Manuscripts of Sana’a and Divine Downfall

(HT: @Shinar_Squirrel)

Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today published an opinionated response to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler who seized upon Congressman Anthony Weiner entering “treatment” to make a point about Jesus Christ being the only answer for the problem of sin. Mohler tweeted the following on June 11, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Grossman’s scurrilous opinion piece about Mohler began by describing his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at Jews like Weiner and other non-Christians.” That sounds rather scandalous, does it not? But if you remove her spurious histrionics about Jews it loses all its force. For instance, consider if Grossman had instead described his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians.” But that risks representing Mohler and his tweet accurately—gasp!—which targeted Weiner as a person, not as a Jew. And in a subsequent blog post Mohler also points that out. “I never mentioned Judaism,” he writes. “Rep. Weiner’s problem has to do with the fact that he is a sinner, like every other human being, regardless of religious faith or affiliation” (emphasis mine).

As she goes on to characterize Mohler’s tweet (in this and another article), notice how persistently Grossman harps on Jews and Weiner being Jewish:

• “… an evangelism tactic … aimed at people like Jews such as Weiner …”
• “What he told the Jewish congressman was …”
• “So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a Jewish person in crisis as a sermon springboard … Right?”
• “He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is Jewish …”
• “… a turn-or-burn message addressed to a Jewish person …”

The fact that Weiner is Jewish was never a relevant point in Mohler’s tweet. And if she were to give it even a moment’s thought Grossman ought to realize that. The relevant point was that Weiner as a person struggled with a particular sin and chose to seek “treatment” to make himself well, which can never work apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on behalf of all believers. She can make a big fuss about this person being Jewish or that one being Muslim but at the end of the day she has a battlefield full of straw men of her own making, none of them being relevant to Mohler’s gospel point which stands irrespective of the religion of this or that person, Weiner included. It is about people inescapably being sinners regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and so forth.

Consider the following rewrite and notice how her opinion piece loses just about all of its scandalous punch when the spurious histrionics about Jews is removed (the underlined text indicates where I made a change):

One of the nation’s top Southern Baptist leaders takes sexting-pol Anthony Weiner’s case as a chance to throw an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians. … This reads as an evangelism tactic, riding in on the Weiner headlines but aimed at people like Weiner, Woods, and many others, such as Weiner’s wife, who hold different ideas about salvation, different approaches to atonement.

And a rewrite of her follow-up piece:

What he told the congressman was, “There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” … So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a person in crisis as a sermon springboard to preach to his known flock to return to traditional faith. Right? But he didn’t begin “Dear Christians…” He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is a sinner … Evangelism is Mohler’s job description: He is charged with preaching the Good News, as Christians believe it, to the world and using every vehicle he can, even the sad case of #Weinergate in Twitterspeak… So, it would be no surprise if many read a message that starts, “Dear Congressman Weiner,” as a turn-or-burn message addressed to a person in the public domain.

All of a sudden Weiner being Jewish is irrelevant—as it always was. With all of her spurious histrionics about Jews removed, all of a sudden Grossman is reporting about an evangelist addressing a sinner about the necessity of being in Christ in order to “make himself well” (which Weiner’s spokesman Risa Heller said his aim is). Apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ no “treatment” will save him from his carnality and sin. This goes for everyone, completely irrespective of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth.

References:

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 12). “Baptist to Jewish Weiner: Christ is the only ‘treatment’.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 15). “Baptist leader stands by ‘Christian love’ for Weiner.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Mohler, Albert (2011, June 14). “Theology, therapy, Twitter, and the scandal of the gospel.” AlbertMohler.com.
http://www.albertmohler.com

Among the various threads I participate in at AtheistForums.org was one started by a Muslim user who had a particular question for Christians. I thought I would share my response to him here at the Aristophrenium.

I’d like to hear from Christians what original sin is, because I can never understand why God would allow the sin of a father (Adam) to be committed to the son (humanity). I’ve heard reasons from others to believe why this is wrong, but can anyone prove why it is right?

The question of original sin is somewhat difficult to discuss with non-Christians because it is a theological issue that is settled exegetically (i.e., study of the biblical texts); if one denies the Scriptures as divine revelation, the whole matter becomes rather moot (but their denial is a product of original sin). Outside of the biblical texts I suppose one could define original sin however they like, although the fact that such a person is talking about original sin at all would be quite odd, since it is quintessentially a biblical concept. While the term itself is not found in the Scriptures—it was actually coined by Augustine of Hippo—the concept is deeply biblical, rooted in the theology of salvation (soteriology).

There is an aphorism penned by Paul E. Little that captures the essence of original sin: “We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.” Original sin means quite simply sin derived from our origin; biblically and theologically that origin is “in Adam,” who is the federal representative of all mankind as imago Dei. It is not so much that we are all held accountable for Adam’s sin, as your question alluded to, as that all mankind is fallen as sinners because Adam, our federal head in the economy of salvation, fell into sin; i.e., from a sinful origin comes a sinful lineage, a condition which produces in man every sort of sin. In this same theology of salvation we have Jesus Christ, described in this context as the “last Adam” (cf. the theological dichotomy revealed in the New Testament gospels and epistles); that is, all mankind is represented in one of two camps, such that those who are not “in Christ” thus remain “in Adam,” each being the federal head of those they represent. So that is the meaning of original sin: sin derived from our origin, condemned “in Adam” as sinners until we are justified “in Christ” as redeemed.

As a small number of you may be aware, I have been engaging in discussions with some visitors at The Gospel Coalition in the comments section of Pastor Tim Keller’s recent article, “Sinned in a literal Adam, raised in a literal Christ.” While I disagree with Dr. Keller’s view of the creation account in Genesis, I fully agree with him that belief in a literal, historical Adam is vitally important to a biblical theology of salvation, so the point of this article is not to respond to Dr. Keller. But neither is it to respond to the young-earth creationists who have lit up the comments section at the audacity (or heresy) of Dr. Keller not believing in young-earth creationism.

Rather, the point of this article is to respond to Sola Ratione (the internet moniker of a person who does not reveal a name, gender, location, or anything else) who proposed that since the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming Christians are forced to contend with “a serious problem of evil.” [1] His argument is that if both Christianity and evolution are true then a serious problem of evil is generated by the evidence of hundreds of millions of years worth of suffering. Since an omniscient God know that such suffering would take place, an all-loving and benevolent God would have been repulsed by it, and an all-powerful or omnipotent God could have used a different method, “the evidence for evolution renders Christian theism highly unlikely.”

An interesting problem of evil argument, but no different than any other and just as intellectually bankrupt.

First let us get a trivial point out of the way. Whether God created the world millions of years ago through natural processes (theistic evolutionism) or thousands of years ago through special creation (young-earth creationism), the very same problem exists either way. When it comes to the nature of God (who is perfect in knowledge, power, and love), there is no meaningful difference between millions or thousands of years worth of suffering; namely, it is not as though millions of years worth of suffering is inconsistent with God’s nature but thousands of years of suffering is fine. So whether the Christian is a flat-earth geocentrist young-earth creationist on one end of the spectrum or a theistic evolutionist who is practically deistic on the other or anywhere in between those two, the same problem of gratuitous suffering exists. In other words, contrary to Sola Ratione’s point, the truth or falsehood of evolution is quite irrelevant to the problem he proposes. Whether millions or thousands of years the alleged problem remains the same: the existence of God versus the existence of suffering.

As I pointed out to Sola Ratione, his argument holds only if suffering is gratuitous. And by gratuitous we mean unwarranted or without a just purpose. In other words, suffering is not inconsistent with God’s nature if it is warranted or has a just purpose. So in order for his argument to hold, he must prove that suffering is gratuitous.

It is illegitimate for him to ask Christians to assume for the sake of argument that it is gratuitous, for that commits the fallacy of begging the question; that is, it asks us to assume the very thing to be proved, that the biblical God does not exist. It is invalid for an argument to assume in one of its premises the very conclusion it aims to prove. So how does it beg the question? Quite simply: since gratuitous suffering and the biblical God are mutually contradictory states of affairs, assuming one as possible necessarily involves the other being impossible; for example, in a world where an Immoveable Object is possible, in that world an Irresistible Force is impossible (and vice versa). So then if the question before us regards the possible existence of the biblical God, it is question-begging to enter the question assuming that it is not possible.

Therefore reason prohibits Sola Ratione from assuming arguendo that suffering is gratuitous; that is, reason demands that he prove it is gratuitous. And we should note that pointing to cases of suffering does not by itself prove that it is gratuitous. Both he and Christians agree that suffering exists; where we disagree is that it is gratuitous. So by pointing to cases of suffering he has not somehow made his case. To do that he must prove it is gratuitous.

He might try contending that we are justified in assuming that suffering is gratuitous until proven otherwise, shifting the burden of proof onto the Christian, by pointing out that in some cases the presumption of truth is a valid move. To this we may respond by noting that it is an invalid move if doing so ends up begging the question—as it does here with his argument. So reason denies him this avenue, persisting in its demand that he prove that gratuitous suffering exists.

So by reason alone Sola Ratione must prove that gratuitous suffering exists. It cannot be either assumed for the sake of argument nor assumed until proven otherwise, since either is a case of begging the question. So he must shoulder this burden of proof that his argument demands of him. Or he can dismiss the whole matter with a wave of his hand, describing it as “flogging a dead horse,” and go about his business thinking that he has won the day. Since it leaves Christianity entirely unscathed, we may let him enjoy that cookie. It does not reflect well on him, but that matters little to us.

Suffering exists, but given the God we worship we know it is never gratuitous; by the very nature and word of God we are promised that. And people like Sola Ratione have yet to make a coherent and rational case to the contrary, their every attempt being denied by the very logic they supposedly esteem.

As a final remark I want to address a point he raised in his closing comment. I had said to him that if the biblical God is the “open question” before us, then it begs the very question to assume arguendo that the biblical God is impossible (which is exactly what the assumption of gratuitous suffering does and why he must instead prove it). To this he replied that the possible existence of God being the open question before us means that “God may or may not exist” (emphasis his). What he does not seem to realize is that this is not any kind of rebuttal, since that is precisely what “possible” means in the first place! In other words, the question is not God’s necessary existence but rather his possible existence. I think biblical Christianity firmly establishes that the existence of God is necessary, not merely possible, but I have to be willing to set that aside in order to enter the question Sola Ratione proposed. And I did. However, my criticism still stands: assuming arguendo that any suffering is gratuitous assumes necessarily that the biblical God is impossible, which is question-begging when the possible existence of God is the very question. I think Sola Ratione should be grateful for this allowance, since if I were to confront his argument on the grounds of real biblical Christianity his case would be even worse. What I am showing is that even in its weakest case biblical Christianity has nothing to worry about from such problem of evil arguments.

[1] Sola Ratione (2011, June 10). Comment to Keller’s article. See also his own article “An evolutionary problem of evil.”

References:

Sola Ratione (2011, January). “An evolutionary problem of evil.” Sola Ratione [blog].
http://rationesola.blogspot.com

Tim Keller (2011, June 6). “Sinned in a literal Adam, raised in a literal Christ.” The Gospel Coalition [blog].
http://thegospelcoalition.org

On Valentine’s Day, 2011, gay lobby group Australian Marriage Equality, in partnership with the progressive activist group, GetUp!, released a short video advertisement¹ promoting gay “marriage” in Australia. Predictably, they used the standard term employed by gay “marriage” advocates, “marriage equality”, serving the perception that there is nothing equal about the current legal status of marriage. While intentionally innocuous, the term “marriage equality” is nevertheless stuffed with worn-out and rebadged rhetoric: why oughtn’t two people who love each other be allowed to marry?; gender has nothing to do with marriage; its not fair that John and Jim can’t marry each other, but that Dean and Denise can.

Yawn. I’m getting sleepy already.

Yet the proud tag line on Australian Marriage Equality’s website² follows that same hum-drum line: “Marriage is about love and commitment, not your partner’s gender.”

Further, GetUp!³ state on their website for this campaign that “all love is equal and all relationships deserve recognition.”

Well, no. Not all (romantic) love is equal, and neither is marriage founded on love and commitment alone. Marriage is very much a gender-based institution no matter how much organizations like Australian Marriage Equality or GetUp! espouse the “love is all” card. Read the rest of this entry