Explanation: The crash interrupted my review of Laurence M. Vance's The Other Side of Calvinism, but I still have most of the stuff written for it. I don't remember where I was in the book when Tweb crashed, though. So, either the stuff below overlaps what I'd posted before or there is a gap. If you think there is a gap, please let me know where I was in the book.
Drat, too long >10000 characters. I will have to post the second half next Friday evening. Sorry!
eta: I see the
formatting does not work now. Sorry.
Here goes . . . the first half of what I had intended to post.
First I will repeat the last paragraph of my last post (if my memory serves):
Second, let me quote V's summary in Chapter 10--Perseverance of the Saints--that covers the first four petals of the TULIP creed:
New Testament Salvation (a section of the chapter on Irresistible Grace)
V summarizes his understanding of the Calvinist position on salvation:
One of the problems with that, V says, is that many[? my word, based on my understanding of what V says] Calvinists claim or imply that their system is the only one that "teaches salvation is solely the work of God."
V quotes the following Bible verses to prove that "the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is the basis of our justification and spiritual blessings, is given after a man believes": Romans 4:22-24; "a man has life because he believes; he does not believe because he has life": John 1:12, John 20:31, Romans 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:26; "God saves those who believe": John 3:16, John 6:47, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9; but not people who don't/won't believe: John 3:18, John 8:24.
V avers contra the Primitive Baptists that the word of God is the necessary means whereby anyone is saved and cites these verses: Romans 10:17, 1 Cor. 4:15, James 1:21, 1 Peter 1:23. Let me point out Romans 10:1-16 and 10:18-20. And also look at the verses in Psalm 19 that come before its fourth verse.
Whether or not V's position on all those questions is correct or not, Calvinists do have a problem with their arguments. IMO they have not made others' positions seem untenable and their own positions tenable.
Infant Salvation in Irresistible Grace (Chapter 9)
Obviously the Bible cannot answer all the questions people may have, particularly this question: Would any infant, imbecile, or heathen ever get to heaven? And if the answer is yes, then which one or ones? Why those and, if that is the case, not others?
V shows at least one Calvinist who averred that all infants, all imbeciles, and all heathen is in heaven or will go there. And consider what the Westminster Confession of Faith has to say on the subject: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable [sic]of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." (section X.III). Will the proof texts for that quoted passage be adequate to prove it? Let's see.
But before we examine those texts, let me point out that Gordon H. Clark in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, says that the Bible does not answer the question, declaring, "For all the Confession says, all may be lost or all may be saved." I think he meant also that the answer might lie between those extremes, but we would never know what the answer is.
Now, the proof texts plus my counterpoints: Luke 18:16--Jesus didn't say that the Kingdom belongs to the children that He called for. Acts 2:38,39--The last verse certainly does seem to clinch the Calvinist argument. But the promise is conditional. The first verse spells what one must do or go through to get the gift of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the children will grow up and thus become able to receive the Holy Spirit. Maybe some far-away people will get the Good News someday (not now).
Again obviously those questions posed above cannot be answered with a diligent search of the Bible. So why go on with the section on infant salvation? It seems to show that the Calvinists are wrong at least here. It seems to me the speculative nature of Calvinist theology if not downright inconsistency with the Bible can be clearly seen. For one thing, as we'll see, Calvinists appear to preach that God uses two means of salvation, one of which is specific to infants, imbeciles and heathen. Proof texts and my counterpoints: John 3:3,5--Jesus' words to Nicodemus certainly does not answer those questions above; also recall Clark's words above. 1 John 5:12--no comment except to express puzzlement why that was cited. Romans 8:9--If the Spirit of God is in you, sin no longer rules you. It is the Spirit of God that rules you. If it does not live in you, you do not belong to Christ. What about the poor person who is unable to understand the Bible or the Good News? No go?
There are more verses, but I think the paragraph just above shows the lack of support for the Calvinist position. But V goes further, citing John 8:24, John 14:6, and Acts 4:12, to assert, "That any man in the Church Age could be eternally saved without believing on Jesus Christ is a direct contradiction and overturn of Scripture."
There is more in the infant salvation section, but I am not interested in any minority position taken by a Calvinist or a few Calvinists. I cry, On to evangelism!
Evangelism, a section of Chapter 9
How tough it would be for a Calvinist to go from answering questions regarding infant salvation to questions regarding evangelism? You can preach to your wee bairn until you're blue in the face, but it will just coo and gurgle back at ye. Then why try to win souls? At least one Calvinist has noted that the duty of evangelism seems at least at first glance to be a big round peg that won't fit into a small square hole (Calvinism) (my metaphor).
V is evidently well versed in Calvinist literature, yet he has not shown any good argument from it to consider evangelism as a necessary part of Calvinism. It seems, at least to me, that we are indeed commanded to bring the Good News to people including the heathen. Would any Calvinist dare to challenge that assertion? V does believe that evangelism and Calvinism do not go together. By the way, part of V's own position is this: "The free offer of salvation in the Gospel is the heart of evangelism." And he asserts that anyone following the TULIP system punctiliously in every way must reject any offer that is part of evangelizing (my slightly inexact paraphrase). Anyone who totally accepts the doctrine of Irresistible Grace should be challenged to explain why it would nevertheless be worthwhile to try to win souls and proclaim the Good News to the non-elect. V, however, seems to show by numerous quotations that as a rule Calvinists insists that there is "no conflict between soul winning and [Calvinist] doctrines of grace." He even says that the Westminster Confession has the same dichotomy in Section VII.3; perhaps he is right in that it does not mention any necessity for human evangels to bring the Gospel to the ignorant. Let me note that V asserts that the best example of a human evangel is Paul. Presumably V thinks that if one is faced by an opportunity to bring the GoodNews to some ignorant person, one should take it.
Romans 10:14 and 10:17 and 1 Thess 2:16 appear fatal to the Calvinist position--I mean, either the assertion that Calvinists do not do evangelizing or the assertion that evangelism has a natural place in Calvinism.
V asserts that the theology and ministry of "Paul was rather unlike the theology and ministries of modern Calvinists," citing Romans 11:14, 1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Cor. 9:22, Phile. 10.
Drat, too long >10000 characters. I will have to post the second half next Friday evening. Sorry!
eta: I see the
...
Here goes . . . the first half of what I had intended to post.
First I will repeat the last paragraph of my last post (if my memory serves):
Let me summarize some paragraphs, thus: Faith is not a work. The elect are saved by faith and not by works. Salvation by faith is a gift from God. But we should now move on to the next section of this chapter (Chapter 9).
Second, let me quote V's summary in Chapter 10--Perseverance of the Saints--that covers the first four petals of the TULIP creed:
The depravity of man is a biblical doctrine, but as we have seen, the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity is not. Likewise, although the doctrine of election is also scriptural, the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election is certainly not. The third point of Calvinism. Limited Atonement, is so controversial and difficult to defend that many Calvinists reject it. Although salvation is unquestionably by grace, the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible Grace, as proven in [Chapter 9], teaches salvation by another Gospel.
New Testament Salvation (a section of the chapter on Irresistible Grace)
V summarizes his understanding of the Calvinist position on salvation:
If men are dead in sin to the extent that they are unable to believe on [sic for in?] Jesus Christ of their own free will, yet God has elected some to salvation, atoned for their sin, and wills for them to be saved, then the only way any of then can and will be saved is by quietly waiting for God to overpower their will and regenerate them so that they can repent and believe the Gospel.
One of the problems with that, V says, is that many[? my word, based on my understanding of what V says] Calvinists claim or imply that their system is the only one that "teaches salvation is solely the work of God."
V quotes the following Bible verses to prove that "the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is the basis of our justification and spiritual blessings, is given after a man believes": Romans 4:22-24; "a man has life because he believes; he does not believe because he has life": John 1:12, John 20:31, Romans 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:26; "God saves those who believe": John 3:16, John 6:47, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9; but not people who don't/won't believe: John 3:18, John 8:24.
V avers contra the Primitive Baptists that the word of God is the necessary means whereby anyone is saved and cites these verses: Romans 10:17, 1 Cor. 4:15, James 1:21, 1 Peter 1:23. Let me point out Romans 10:1-16 and 10:18-20. And also look at the verses in Psalm 19 that come before its fourth verse.
Whether or not V's position on all those questions is correct or not, Calvinists do have a problem with their arguments. IMO they have not made others' positions seem untenable and their own positions tenable.
Infant Salvation in Irresistible Grace (Chapter 9)
Obviously the Bible cannot answer all the questions people may have, particularly this question: Would any infant, imbecile, or heathen ever get to heaven? And if the answer is yes, then which one or ones? Why those and, if that is the case, not others?
V shows at least one Calvinist who averred that all infants, all imbeciles, and all heathen is in heaven or will go there. And consider what the Westminster Confession of Faith has to say on the subject: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable [sic]of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." (section X.III). Will the proof texts for that quoted passage be adequate to prove it? Let's see.
But before we examine those texts, let me point out that Gordon H. Clark in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, says that the Bible does not answer the question, declaring, "For all the Confession says, all may be lost or all may be saved." I think he meant also that the answer might lie between those extremes, but we would never know what the answer is.
Now, the proof texts plus my counterpoints: Luke 18:16--Jesus didn't say that the Kingdom belongs to the children that He called for. Acts 2:38,39--The last verse certainly does seem to clinch the Calvinist argument. But the promise is conditional. The first verse spells what one must do or go through to get the gift of the Holy Spirit. Maybe the children will grow up and thus become able to receive the Holy Spirit. Maybe some far-away people will get the Good News someday (not now).
Again obviously those questions posed above cannot be answered with a diligent search of the Bible. So why go on with the section on infant salvation? It seems to show that the Calvinists are wrong at least here. It seems to me the speculative nature of Calvinist theology if not downright inconsistency with the Bible can be clearly seen. For one thing, as we'll see, Calvinists appear to preach that God uses two means of salvation, one of which is specific to infants, imbeciles and heathen. Proof texts and my counterpoints: John 3:3,5--Jesus' words to Nicodemus certainly does not answer those questions above; also recall Clark's words above. 1 John 5:12--no comment except to express puzzlement why that was cited. Romans 8:9--If the Spirit of God is in you, sin no longer rules you. It is the Spirit of God that rules you. If it does not live in you, you do not belong to Christ. What about the poor person who is unable to understand the Bible or the Good News? No go?
There are more verses, but I think the paragraph just above shows the lack of support for the Calvinist position. But V goes further, citing John 8:24, John 14:6, and Acts 4:12, to assert, "That any man in the Church Age could be eternally saved without believing on Jesus Christ is a direct contradiction and overturn of Scripture."
There is more in the infant salvation section, but I am not interested in any minority position taken by a Calvinist or a few Calvinists. I cry, On to evangelism!
Evangelism, a section of Chapter 9
How tough it would be for a Calvinist to go from answering questions regarding infant salvation to questions regarding evangelism? You can preach to your wee bairn until you're blue in the face, but it will just coo and gurgle back at ye. Then why try to win souls? At least one Calvinist has noted that the duty of evangelism seems at least at first glance to be a big round peg that won't fit into a small square hole (Calvinism) (my metaphor).
V is evidently well versed in Calvinist literature, yet he has not shown any good argument from it to consider evangelism as a necessary part of Calvinism. It seems, at least to me, that we are indeed commanded to bring the Good News to people including the heathen. Would any Calvinist dare to challenge that assertion? V does believe that evangelism and Calvinism do not go together. By the way, part of V's own position is this: "The free offer of salvation in the Gospel is the heart of evangelism." And he asserts that anyone following the TULIP system punctiliously in every way must reject any offer that is part of evangelizing (my slightly inexact paraphrase). Anyone who totally accepts the doctrine of Irresistible Grace should be challenged to explain why it would nevertheless be worthwhile to try to win souls and proclaim the Good News to the non-elect. V, however, seems to show by numerous quotations that as a rule Calvinists insists that there is "no conflict between soul winning and [Calvinist] doctrines of grace." He even says that the Westminster Confession has the same dichotomy in Section VII.3; perhaps he is right in that it does not mention any necessity for human evangels to bring the Gospel to the ignorant. Let me note that V asserts that the best example of a human evangel is Paul. Presumably V thinks that if one is faced by an opportunity to bring the GoodNews to some ignorant person, one should take it.
Romans 10:14 and 10:17 and 1 Thess 2:16 appear fatal to the Calvinist position--I mean, either the assertion that Calvinists do not do evangelizing or the assertion that evangelism has a natural place in Calvinism.
V asserts that the theology and ministry of "Paul was rather unlike the theology and ministries of modern Calvinists," citing Romans 11:14, 1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Cor. 9:22, Phile. 10.
Comment