Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 3/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
3. If Protestants discount the Church's binding authority because men are sinners, then they obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too!
Short Rebuttal
Yes, of course. Nevertheless, Scripture is able to speak clearly.
Longer Rebuttal
The fact that men are sinners is true. However, Scripture still speaks clearly to sinners. The Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation - Scripture itself says so.
- TurretinFan
Monday, April 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
“3. If Protestants discount the Church's binding authority because men are sinners, then they obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too!”
Dave has found a big hole in the Calvinist theology. Calvinism teaches men are depraved sinners, yet we are to trust men from the depraved pool can be inspired to write inerrant and infallible texts about mysteries that go beyond human understanding.
The fact is that if Calvinism is correct, then we can have no confidence in the texts of the OT or the NT, because every text is thoroughly agenda driven and full of sinful ideas, let alone the agenda driven interpretations of depraved men, who read the text.
It’s an either or game for the Calvinist. Either –
1 All men are depraved and therefore men cannot write a text without containing sinful errors and men cannot interpret the text without sinning, yet Calvinism says inspired scripture has been written and it has the correct interpretation of the text, which is not sinful.
2. Men are not depraved (which is not Calvinism) and men can write inspired texts and correctly interpret the texts. But this option proves Calvinism is wrong because men writing and interpreting texts from God are acts of men that are not sinful and therefore man is not depraved.
Either way, with the existence of scripture and a correct understanding of scripture, Calvinist is stumped and shows Calvinist theology to by a human invention.
Evidently Calvinism is not the apostolic faith.
JM
"Dave has found a big hole in the Calvinist theology."
Not really ...
"Calvinism teaches men are depraved sinners,"
Scripture teaches that. Actually, Rome doesn't deny this.
"... yet we are to trust men from the depraved pool can be inspired to write inerrant and infallible texts about mysteries that go beyond human understanding."
Even a donkey can bring God's word.
"The fact is that if Calvinism is correct, then we can have no confidence in the texts of the OT or the NT, because every text is thoroughly agenda driven and full of sinful ideas, let alone the agenda driven interpretations of depraved men, who read the text."
This is a non sequitur. This comment simply denies that the Holy Spirit can inspire sinful men to produce his infallible and inerrant Word. Such a simple denial is both contrary to Scripture and reason. It is contrary to Scripture in that we see King Saul prophesying, and it is contrary to reason since we ourselves can use tools that are less than ourselves to communicate what we want to communicate. A pen doesn't have to know English to communicate it - even more so, a sinner does not have to be divine in order to be a spokesman for God.
"It’s an either or game for the Calvinist."
It's not a game for those of us who take theology seriously.
"Either – 1 All men are depraved and therefore men cannot write a text without containing sinful errors and men cannot interpret the text without sinning, yet Calvinism says inspired scripture has been written and it has the correct interpretation of the text, which is not sinful."
Addressed above.
"2. Men are not depraved (which is not Calvinism) and men can write inspired texts and correctly interpret the texts. But this option proves Calvinism is wrong because men writing and interpreting texts from God are acts of men that are not sinful and therefore man is not depraved."
Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, since we rely on the motion of the Holy Spirit to produce the prophecy, it is not necessary that the men be, as they usually were, holy men of God (men who had been regenerated from their state of total depravity by God's grace) but they could also be men like King Saul.
"Either way, with the existence of scripture and a correct understanding of scripture, Calvinist is stumped and shows Calvinist theology to by a human invention."
The invalidity of the argument used to slur Calvinism in this way has been demonstrated above.
"Evidently Calvinism is not the apostolic faith."
Judged according to Scripture, Calvinism is one aspect of the apostolic faith. Judged according to Scripture, Romanism is not the apostolic faith.
-TurretinFan
“FT- Scripture teaches that. Actually, Rome doesn't deny this.”
Rome does deny it. A man in the state of mortal sin can do a good act through actual grace. If this is not so, then men cannot be brought to repentance before justification. The very act of being brought to repentance is a good act before a man is brought out of mortal sin. We also see Pagans keeping some of the commandments, even though they are unbelievers. Therefore they also can and do good acts, even whilst unregenerate.
Rome makes a clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural in reality that is hardly ever discussed. A good act can be any moral act that is either moral naturally good or supernaturally good. Men in the state of mortal sin can do supernaturally good acts that do not merit justification, such as an act of charity towards neighbor, without loving God above all things or without faith. We see this within humanism, whereby charitable organizations are set up that do good to others without belief. This is so because God acts within men with both sanctifying grace just justifies and actual grace that moves men to do good, but does not justify.
"... yet we are to trust men from the depraved pool can be inspired to write inerrant and infallible texts about mysteries that go beyond human understanding."
FT- Even a donkey can bring God's word.”
A donkey is not a sinner. If men are always depraved, then they always sin, so the text written must be full of sins. When a sinner writes Gods word, he is not sinning and this shows men are not depraved sinners. Men are moved by God in a way that prevents them from sinning.
"The fact is that if Calvinism is correct, then we can have no confidence in the texts of the OT or the NT, because every text is thoroughly agenda driven and full of sinful ideas, let alone the agenda driven interpretations of depraved men, who read the text."
This is a non sequitur. This comment simply denies that the Holy Spirit can inspire sinful men to produce his infallible and inerrant Word. Such a simple denial is both contrary to Scripture and reason.”
But Calvinism teaches all men are depraved after the fall, so that means that every act a man does is depraved. Every act includes writing a text. Yes the Holy Spirit can move men to do good, but this is not Calvinism. That’s my point.
“It is contrary to Scripture in that we see King Saul prophesying,”
So Calvinism is wrong to assert every act of men after the fall is sinful. Thank you for showing us Calvinism is unbiblical.
“ and it is contrary to reason since we ourselves can use tools that are less than ourselves to communicate what we want to communicate. A pen doesn't have to know English to communicate it - even more so, a sinner does not have to be divine in order to be a spokesman for God.”
A pen is a non living non moral being that does not sin. Calvinism teaches all men are 100% depraved. Your examples of men speaking prophecy and writing scripture are examples of men not acting sinfully, therefore Calvinism is unscriptural.
"It’s an either or game for the Calvinist."
It's not a game for those of us who take theology seriously.
"Either – 1 All men are depraved and therefore men cannot write a text without containing sinful errors and men cannot interpret the text without sinning, yet Calvinism says inspired scripture has been written and it has the correct interpretation of the text, which is not sinful."
Addressed above.”
Not without showing us Calvinism is wrong.
. . .
"2. Men are not depraved (which is not Calvinism) and men can write inspired texts and correctly interpret the texts. But this option proves Calvinism is wrong because men writing and interpreting texts from God are acts of men that are not sinful and therefore man is not depraved."
Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”
But the will of man must be used to write scripture, therefore when men do write scripture, they are not sinning, so men are not always depraved as Calvinism teaches.
”Of course, since we rely on the motion of the Holy Spirit to produce the prophecy, it is not necessary that the men be, as they usually were, holy men of God (men who had been regenerated from their state of total depravity by God's grace) but they could also be men like King Saul.”
The point is not that God can use sinful men to speak Gods word, but that Calvinism teaches men are always sinful. These examples show God does move men’s wills to do acts that are not sinful, which is contrary to Calvinism.
"Either way, with the existence of scripture and a correct understanding of scripture, Calvinist is stumped and shows Calvinist theology to by a human invention."
The invalidity of the argument used to slur Calvinism in this way has been demonstrated above.”
Only if you miss the obvious flaw in your argument.
"Evidently Calvinism is not the apostolic faith."
Judged according to Scripture, Calvinism is one aspect of the apostolic faith. Judged according to Scripture, Romanism is not the apostolic faith.
-TurretinFan”
Judged by your arguments, you cannot argue from scripture and be consistent with Calvinism, therefore Calvinism is not from the scriptures, but a fiction derived from a 16th century heretic who believed Christ entered into hell to suffer the punishment of the damned to atone for men’s sins as a substitute, whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner by faith alone. All of which is thoroughly unscriptural, irrational, anti metaphysical, and not found in the church fathers, nor any church council.
According to Calvin –
Jesus was a substitute whereby he took the wrath of the Father on the cross for sins he never committed, therefore both Jesus and the Father are deluded, sinful or stupid, because nobody can be punished justly for a sin he did not commit.
Jesus then dies and enters into hell to suffer the punishments of the damned, therefore both Jesus and the Father are deluded, sinful or stupid, because nobody can enter hell without having committed sin.
We are told by Calvinism that sinners are justified by faith alone whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner, therefore both Jesus and the Father are deluded, sinful or stupid, because the sinner is never righteous, but only the account is righteous and both Jesus and the Father think the sinner is righteous, because only the righteous get into heaven, because in heaven there is no sin.
We are told by Calvinism that sinners are justified by faith alone whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner, therefore both Jesus and the Father are liars because they acted together to only impute a righteousness, but state the sinner is righteous, without actually intrinsically making the sinner righteous.
A simple analysis of Calvinism shows it to be a collection of nominalist irrationality that is contrary to Gods attributes, scripture, the Hebrew mind and good ol’ common sense. Calvinism is thoroughly bogus and the more we look at its doctrines the more absurd it makes God out to be.
. . .
The Goid of Calvinism is an arbitrary despot who justifies some, without their free will (can you believe that!!), without actually making them just (can you believe that!!), but only calling them just (can you believe that!!) and lets the rest of humanity continue in its depraved state, which it had no choice to be in (can you believe that!!), to be damned (can you believe that!!), so Goid could show us how just and powerful he really is (can you believe that!!).
Calvinism is full of whopper errors throughout and it takes a concerted effort to ignore all the absurdities of the false world view to continue in it.
One appeal of Calvinism is its apparent certitude of salvation, yet again, what appears certain on the surface, turns out to be a sham. The Calvinist believes he is saved by faith alone. Sounds simple and certain, but the reality is Calvinism also teaches one is saved by faith alone and cannot lose ones salvation, provided he truly believes. So if we find a Calvinist loses faith or commits a big sin in years to come, then Calvinism teaches that the man was never saved to begin with.
So we have the problem of an apparent rock solid certitude that degenerates into the uncertainty of the unknown future. As we don’t know the future, we don’t know if we will commit some big sin in the future, and if we do commit a big sin then, we know that in hindsight, we were not saved now, but because we don’t know the future, we don’t know if we are saved now. And as we don’t know, then we don’t have any certitude of salvation.
Once again, Calvinism is shown to be an intellectual house of cards that doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny.
JM
Post a Comment