How To Debate A Calvinist: Part 5 – By John Immel
The following is part five of a five-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s fourth session at the 2017 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young
| Click here for part one Click here for part two |
Click here for part three Click here for part four |
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem has become a synonym for all things evil with humanity. Self-esteem has become a function of pervasive depravity. Therefore in the Calvinist world, the goal is for man to loath himself.
There are a series of cultural myths I want to address first. The first one is that good self-esteem is effectively to have no self-esteem; that to have self-esteem is essentially narcissism. But here is the dirty little secret: we all have self-esteem because we all pass judgments on ourselves. What we are really talking about in the issue of self-esteem is what judgment do I apply to my own existence? We all apply moral verdicts to our actions, thoughts, and values.
The second myth involves the pop-culture definition, that self-esteem equals moral absolution. Really, we treat self-esteem more as a coping mechanism that refuses to apply any moral judgment to any personal aspects. It is a fraud. We cannot help passing judgments on our immoral behaviors. Blanket moral absolution is an illusion.
The other option is self-esteem equal self-absorption. This is a singular preoccupation with an internal life openly rejecting existence and the inter-dependencies of all people and things. This is the brute who cannot conceptualize his existence outside his own reality. He is an exploiter and a destroyer because he wants to consume for his own fulfillment at the expense of everyone else.
Does this type of person really exist? Perhaps, but there are very few, and they are usually cultural aberrations. But it is a common mythology that is handed down, and as long as you accept the premise that this is what self-esteem looks like, you will be inclined to believe that any variation of individuality in self-esteem is really this archetypical description.
The last myth is that self-esteem is the by-product of social affirmation; that it can be created by participation trophies, smiley faces, or amoral acceptance of other people. But kids who receive participation trophies know instinctively that they didn’t do anything to earn it, and so ultimately is has no meaning. No matter how many times you pat someone on the back and tell them “good job”, at the end of they day the individual cannot help but to pass judgment on what he really did or did not do.
These myths are not self-esteem because they either render no judgment from the self or require no value from the self. Each of the five pillars in the web of tyranny is designed to make you pass the harshest judgment you can on your own existence.
The following is a quote by Nathaniel Branden from his book, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem:
“Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”
The web of tyranny is designed to persuade you to lay down your happiness. It is designed to persuade you that you are not competent to understand reality for yourself. Self-esteem persuades us that it is ok to be happy.
I remember some years ago when I was still trying to wade through everything, when I was praying I found myself really, really happy about whatever. And then I would find myself praying and apologizing for being happy because I was scared of the equation that if I was in fact happy that it represented some error on my part. That’s how deeply ingrained these doctrines had become. For many people, as they come out of these doctrines, one of the biggest things that will betray them is the fear that they are not allowed to be happy and that if they are in fact happy there is something spiritually and morally wrong with their existence.
How often do we find ourselves second-guessing ourselves the moment we realize we’ve had success in something? And how many times when we have sat in church has the guy sitting in the pew next to you or the guy standing up in front of you talking to you told you that if you have an achievement it isn’t yours? What makes you think you have any claim to the content of your achievement? It is all designed to beat you down and to eradicate any sense of self-respect.
One of the challenges we have in the modern age is that, as human beings, we have become very good at insulating ourselves from the danger of nature. Most of us live at a level of prosperity that the rest of the world and the whole of humanity has never known. We are inclined to think that it is a given, but it is not. What are considered to be luxuries are the by-products of a long chain of intellectual conclusions that has produced such prosperity.
But the world is profoundly dangerous. Most of us would be hard-pressed to last a week alone in the woods. But the way we are built is to take the content of nature and conform it to our existence, which is exactly right and proper. So when given over to the elements we must first, and almost immediately, figure out how to keep nature from killing us. But the imperatives of day-to day survival today are not the same as they were a hundred years ago. So for us it seems foolish to discuss real peril when it comes to the failure of making individual choices.
But the fact of the matter is that it isn’t any different. If we fail to make rational choices to achieve and have success and fulfill happiness we will die. Just because we are insulated at the moment doesn’t mean we will be insulated forever. The survival standard is exceedingly high. There is fantastic danger in failing to understand this.
So why do we need self-esteem? The answer is simple. Self-esteem is the need for a consciousness to learn to trust itself. I talk about making choices in my last chapter of Blight in the Vineyard. After people have been subjected to going to pastors and constantly vetting the content of their lives through the minds of others, it is hard for them to find a way to make even the most mundane decisions in life. For many people, the choice of whether to go to the store to just buy ice cream will come with this enormous emotional and intellectual hurdle. You can so atrophy your ability to make choices in this world that you will NEVER be able to trust your own consciousness. That is why these doctrines are so destructive.
A volitional consciousness, one that must make choices, is a mind that must choose to think…or not; must choose to be rational…or not. Man is not automatically reality-focused. Man must intentionally orient his consciousness towards the elements of his life. This is the fundamental of life and death.
This begs the question, how do we actually go about building this self-esteem?
The Practice of Living Consciously
This is a respect for the facts of reality. This is being able to look at reality, understand what it’s telling you, and then arrive at the correct conclusion without evading or hedging. It is a determination to be present in each moment of action. In other words, you are confronted with a fact of reality, it demands your attention, and you determine just to be there with that.
This is hard to do, because you are typically doing one of two things. Either you are reflecting on something that happened in the past or projecting out to where you want to go in the future. How many things could be solved if we just dwelt on what needed attention at the present moment?
Living consciously is being eager to acquire information, knowledge, or feedback that impacts our lives. This goes to one of the myths about self-esteem that assumes that you don’t have any ability to critically evaluate your moral action. But someone who is conscious in the moment does so because he knows that moral action is the better choice and advances his success.
The Practice of Self-Acceptance
This is the zealous quest to see ourselves inside and out. It is taking responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, and actions without evasion, denial, or disowning – and also without self-repudiation. This is the common trap that gets so many people to accept the premise that pervasive depravity is true. Contrary to the doctrine, we are very aware of what happens inside of us. And so we say to ourselves in a self-reflecting moment, “Yeah, I know that’s wrong. And since I know it’s wrong and I’m thinking it anyways, that must mean I am morally depraved.” No, what it means is you have to be able to successfully identify yourself where you are. It is not a catastrophic moral failure to recognize an error inside yourself.
We need to give ourselves permission to think our thoughts and experience our emotions. They are what they are. We need to look at our actions without necessarily liking, endorsing, or condoning them. This is the virtue of realism applied to itself. This is our barometer of moral action. Once we can identify ourselves and assess ourselves where we are then it becomes trivially simple to figure out how to correct our course of action.
The Practice of Self-Responsibility
I’ve identified an error, so now what am I going to do about it? We are the author of our choices and our actions. We are responsible for life and our well-being. We are responsible for the attainment of our goals. We cannot borrow someone else’s moral action to get to where we want to be. We are responsible to find ways to exchange value to achieve our goals. This is crucial. If I have a goal that I cannot achieve myself, then it is my job to give somebody else value to help me get there. They do not have an obligation to help me just because. We are responsible to answer the question, “What needs to be done?”
The thread binding all of these is a respect for reality. It is this respect that Calvinist doctrine seeks to undermine at all costs. I call this “spiritual crack”: the endless determination to make you fundamentally dependent on their leadership at every turn and in every instant and at every moment. It is designed to make you addicted; to so erode your self-will that you cannot possibly do anything else. It is evil personified.
Calvinists want you to feel helpless in the face of reality. If you are helpless in the face of your own reality, you will be willing to embrace theirs. They want to inspire you to withdraw and escape. They want you to feel hopeless so that you will beg them to make a new reality. The doctrines are designed to make you hold yourself in the highest suspicion.
Take the doctrine seriously and it will so erode your ability to make a decision that it will render you impotent. Most people intellectually cheat. They smuggle in self-esteem and put on a good face in church. But over time, it will erode your commitment to your own capacity and your own achievements to the point where you become functionally useless at whatever you do best. You end up losing respect for your own existence.
This is what opens you up for such profound exploitation. Once they have you doubting your own existence there are no longer any personal boundaries. People can do whatever they want to you. What objection can you make? What objection WILL you make since you don’t value yourself to draw a boundary? How can you expect moral action out of anybody else? This sets up a standard at church that everybody can use you for whatever purpose, and at any point that you object, you must be the sinner; you must be the problem.
To overthrow their effort you must fall in love with that which exists; you must fall in love with reality. And then you must fall in love with your place in reality. You must live consciously, accept the responsibility of your life, and accept yourself.
Now go forth and take action for your own life!
~ John Immel
| Click here for part one Click here for part two |
Click here for part three Click here for part four |
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
What is apparent in this discussion to those who have any spiritual discernment is the truth of Isaiah 5:21, “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” It is obvious that since you make no appeal to Scripture, you depend upon your own reason, which is in itself corrupted by the fall of the human race in Adam, as taught in Romans 5:12-21. With regard to man’s wisdom as compared to God’s wisdom, I urge you to study 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, and 2:1-2. “Christ crucified” is the wisdom of God, as compared to fallen man’s foolish reasoning. Consider James 1:5, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
LikeLike
Hmmm, you sound an awful lot like your buddy Martin Luther who called Reason a noxious whore who should have dung spread in her face. Yet God made man with a capacity for reason as part of being made in His image, and that is how God always appeals to man. What you fail to realize is that scripture can have no relevance whatsoever apart from reason. Otherwise how can anyone know if scripture is true apart from reason? The answer is, they cannot. Scripture is only true insofar as it is reasonable. Any discussion of scripture apart from reason is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Yes, man was created in the image of God, and therefore he has the capacity to reason, an ability that the brute creation does not have. But what you fail to realize is that fallen man’s reasoning ability has been corrupted by the entrance of sin into human nature. 2 Corinthians 2:14 describes the corrupted reasoning of the natural man, or the unregenerate, who regard the cross of Christ as foolishness: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” It takes a miracle of the grace of God for anyone to see any glory and beauty in the cross of Christ. My question to you is, Do you see any glory and wisdom in “Christ crucified” as described in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31? What does it mean to you? Is the crucified, buried, risen, exalted, glorified, and enthroned Lord Jesus Christ precious to you? Have you ever come to Him by faith as a lost, guilty, Hell-deserving sinner, seeking mercy?
LikeLike
This is nothing more than ancient pagan philosophy. From as far back as Thales in 600 BC the beginning metaphysical assumption was that man was fundamentally flawed and therefore incapable of perceiving truth and needed truth dictated to him. (Incidentally, our resident church historian, John Immel, has a fantastic series on this, too!) This is no different from what you have posited here with your scripture stacking. This is not a Biblical idea, this is a pagan idea. If man’s reason is flawed, if man cannot even trust his own capacity for reason, then he has no way of knowing if his reasoning is sound or even if his reason begins with him or is merely determined by some outside force. If that is the case then reason is irrelevant and we are right back to authority all over again which doesn’t require reason, only force. So your so-called “biblical” argument is flawed from the its very premise.
LikeLike
Andy, your argument has no Scriptural support. Not once have you referenced or quoted from the Bible. Rather than refer to “ancient pagan philosophy,” why not consider the state of fallen man as portrayed in the verbally-inspired Word of God? For example, consider how the Bible pictures fallen man: [1] an enemy and rebel against God (Romans 8:7-8); [2] under the reign and power of sin (Romans 5:21, 6:16, John 8:34); [3] under the power of Satan, held captive by Satan, and blinded by Satan (Ephesians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, 2 Timothy 2:24-26, Revelation 12:9); [4] under the sentence of death, spiritual, physical, and eternal (Romans 6:23, Hebrews 9:27); [5] facing the judgment of God (Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 20:11-15); [6] under the wrath of God (Romans 1:18, John 3:35-36); [7] hearts and minds blind, corrupt, and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiastes 9:3, 8:11); [8] with a darkened understanding, unable and unwilling to return to the true God (John 6:44, Romans 3:11, Ephesians 4:18, 1 Corinthians 2:14).
It is only through the sovereign grace of God that any lost sinner is ever saved. How about you? Are you saved? My friend, do you know the Lord Jesus Christ? “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). Has this happened to you? If it has, you will rejoice with me, rather than argue over some “ancient pagan philosophy”!
LikeLike
Let me pick up the discussion from another angle. Ok John Roden, the Bible is your authority; very well. And, I have read the Bible and have answered the question from it on how I am saved. And, my understanding of the Bible regarding how to be saved utterly disagrees with Calvin on every point. Do you have a problem with that?
LikeLike
Paul, how can I answer that if you don’t give any specifics? Have you noticed that I have not quoted or referred to John Calvin at any point in this discussion? If your testimony of salvation agrees with Scripture, then I certainly would have no problem with that. I refer you to 2 Corinthians 4:6, “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Has this ever happened to you? Has the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, having been crucified, suffering substitutionary atonement for your sins, ever been revealed to you? Do you know Him, and is He precious to you? If so, we can rejoice together, whether or not we agree with Calvin on every point!
LikeLike
No John, according to Scripture, I am not saved by an atonement. My sins are not merely covered, according to Scripture, I am saved because my sin is ENDED.
LikeLike
Andy,
by his own definition his reason is flawed. He can’t follow your logic because he has abandon logic as a matter of principle. He is therefore left intellectually aimless on the tides of doctrine blown about by his intellectual superiors. This is why he must cling so desperately to authority.
You will never undermine John’s implicit tautology: “I believe it because it is biblical. It is biblical because I believe it.” because he has no capacity at introspection. By doctrinal definition his self examination is flawed because he is morally corrupt. To remain faithful to his intellectual subordination he can never give credit to a rational assessment of his ideas therefore his doctrine has sprung fully formed in his head.
I recommend using his continued comments as fodder for other articles but trying to disabuse the willfully epistemological vacant of their vacancy is a fools errand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, could you be more specific, according to Scripture, in describing how your sins are ended? Surely you must refer to Christ being the propitiation for your sins, according to 1 John 4:9-10, “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the PROPITIATION for our sins.” Propitiation is defined as “that priestly work of Christ wherein He removed God’s anger and wrath by the covering over of our sins through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God, thus securing our acceptance before God. . . . Christ accomplished His work of propitiation when He was consumed by God’s wrath and anger as He was lifted up on the cross as the SUBSTITUTIONARY SACRIFICE for the people of God. The apostle Paul viewed the propitiatory character of Christ’s death as being necessitated by the justice and righteousness of God, 1 John 4:9-10.” (“Studies in the Atonement,” by Robert A. Morey).
LikeLike
Salvation is not a covering for sin; according to Scripture, one is saved if he or she is righteous, and you are not righteous if your sins are only covered. Unless your sins are ended, unless your sins are “taken away,” unless your sins are cast as far as the east is from the west, you are still under condemnation.
LikeLike
My personal testimony of salvation is at the link below. Yes, the Lord taught me total depravity experientially first, before He saved me by His sovereign grace. I later learned the truth of unconditional election, rejoiced in it, and continue to rejoice in it, that God would ever choose to save such a sinner as I. Maybe this is casting pearls before swine, but on the other hand, maybe the Lord will be pleased to use it for His glory.
– link removed by moderator –
LikeLike
Here’s the problem with “unconditional election”: one can NEVER know for sure if he is one of the elect until the final judgment. That’s Calvin 101. So, since you believe in “unconditional election”, in which of the three classes of “elect” would you classify yourself? Calvin taught that there were 3.
At any rate, holding a determinist view such as unconditional election only reveals your own rational inconsistency. You cannot on the one hand hold to your calvinistic view of election and on the other hand claim to have ANY salvation testimony whatsoever. There is NO human agency in election whatsoever. You cannot even claim to KNOW anything. I understand that this concept probably goes right over your head, and that is because the majority of your statements are simply repeating other men’s thoughts as you have consistently cited in your own comments. You have demonstrated that you do not have the ability to think for yourself or even carry on an intelligent discussion without resorting to proof-texting and hijacking quotes from other authors.
LikeLike
Remember, he has jumped the Calvin ship to another “authority.” Nevertheless your point still sticks: consistent with the soteriology of “Sovereign Grace” or the “Gospel of Sovereignty” is the idea of one final judgment where “final justification” is revealed. Well, that can only be the white throne judgement where everyone standing there is condemned because it is a judgment according to the condemnation of the law.
LikeLike
I will make reference to something John Immel said in part one of this series:
“If at any point they want to reject any point of Calvinism, they are rejecting the roots of orthodoxy. You will see this comment consistently:
‘Calvinists don’t believe everything that John Calvin said…The Bible says blah, blah, blah…’
This is a glittering gem of colossal ignorance. It kills me every time I see it. I guarantee if you read anybody’s blog and you take somebody to task you will get a similar response. Pay attention to this. This is the formulation. They will identify themselves as Calvinists, and then they will pretend that they don’t believe what Calvin said. Suddenly they are independent thinkers and Biblicists. This is a gambit to what they believe they control – Biblical interpretation.”
This is exactly the point, John here thinks he control Biblical interpretation because he keeps trying to hit us over the head with it. He doesn’t want to discuss ideas; he can’t. He doesn’t have any of his own. All he has is authority.
Under normal circumstances we would have deleted these comments since he is not addressing anything specific to the article but rather wants to engage in a debate over the “authority of scripture”. But since his comments provide yet another anecdotal example of someone engaging in the Calvinist Happy Dance he’s getting a pass.
LikeLike
You are not answering the question, but furthering John Immel’s point: instead of answering an interpretive question, you are jumping to authority rather than, “come, let us reason together.” You come here lecturing us about the gospel, but can’t answer the simplest of soteriological questions. If your sins are only covered, you are still in your sins and under condemnation, so, are your sins only covered by Christ, or ended once and for all time by Christ? It would seem that you don’t even know enough about the true biblical gospel to even answer the question.
LikeLike
Paul, according to 1 John 4:9-10, God the Father loved me and sent His Son to die for me on Calvary’s cross as a propitiation for my sins. Since the Lord Jesus has satisfied the justice of God by His substitutionary death in my behalf, my sins are pardoned and forgiven. Being justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood, I have peace with God (Romans 5:1), being reconciled to Him by the death of His Son (Romans 5:10). Therefore I am no longer under condemnation. My sins have been washed away in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. See Revelation 1:5.
If you have a better definition of propitiation than the one I quoted from Dr. Morey, I would like to hear it. How about going to a Greek lexicon for your definition? I assume that you have studied New Testament Greek, and have ready access to the tools necessary for that definition. If not, I can supply you with that information.
With regard to assurance and election, every born-again believer may be assured of His election, according to 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5. Please refer to that passage. In addition, Romans 8:29-30 provides blessed assurance of having been chosen and predestinated by God. If we know that we have been effectually called and justified by the grace of God (vs. 30), we may follow the chain back to its source in vs. 29, which speaks of God’s foreknowledge and predestination. Knowing, therefore, that I have been justified by faith in Christ, I am also assured that I have been elected by God the Father before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4). The passage also gives blessed assurance that all those who have been foreknown and predestined in eternity (Ephesians 1:3-4)–and called, and justified in time–will certainly be glorified in Heaven, enjoying eternal life.
Further, every born-again believer who believes in the Bible doctrine of election may have the assurance of his salvation because the Spirit of God bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God (Romans 8:16). Again, 1 John 5:12-13 provides blessed assurance that we have eternal life. I encourage you to read these passages carefully.
Your problem is that you reject unconditional election because you cannot by reasoning reconcile it with man’s responsibility. You think you are as smart as the infinite God, and since you cannot by finite reason–which is corrupted by the fall of the human race in Adam–reconcile the two truths, you reject God’s elective grace. We must accept both, whether we can reconcile them or not, whether they seem reasonable to us or not.
I would encourage you at this point to read and consider carefully Romans 9:16-24. Do you object to God’s absolute right and prerogative to show mercy to whom He wills, according to vs. 18: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”? Paul has anticipated your objection, and phrased it for you in these words: “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” (vs. 19) Paul then proceeds to answer your objection in vss. 20-24:
“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
LikeLike
So then John, based on your reply here, do you believe in the Protestant doctrine of double imputation?
LikeLike
Yes. The sins of God’s elect were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us (2 Corinthians 5:21). I am waiting for your definition of propitiation, as it is used in 1 John 4:10. By the way, what is your church affiliation? Are you affiliated with the Church of Christ? Do you hold the Pelagian doctrine? It would be nice if I knew something of the background of those with whom I am discussing this issue.
LikeLike
My background is the authority of the Bible as you have advocated; what are these other authorities you are talking about such as “Pelagian” etc.? So, to answer your question John, I believe in justification by new birth which holds to the belief that salvation/justification is a finished work within the believer leading to a transformation from life to death meaning that the believer is truly righteous as a state of being. Believers such as myself are not merely declared righteous, WE ARE RIGHTOUS. This differs from your gospel that believes justification is a PROCESS, or beginning justification, justification experienced subjectively (the Justification by Faith redefinition of biblical sanctification), and final justification. The righteousness of the “believer” is only a “legal declaration” according to your gospel and sanctification is the process that moves one from point A of justification to point B of justification via a process only obtained in the institutional church. As one’s only declared righteous, so-called believers remain “God’s enemies.” So, the primary difference between your gospel and mine follows: I believe salvation is finished and final with the believer while you believe salvation is a process.
LikeLike
Pelagianism is defined and refuted at this link: https://www.gotquestions.org/Pelagianism.html Paul, I assume that you are associated with a local church, and have been baptized. Surely you are not ashamed or afraid to reveal these pertinent facts about your background? Is it too much to ask what denomination or group you are a member of? And why have you taken it upon yourself to define what I believe? I will be glad to clarify and correct your erroneous statements about what I believe in my next reply. I will use Scripture on every point. However, I noticed that you had no Scripture references to support what you say you believe. Please, if we are going to discuss Bible doctrine, let us use the Word of God as our source! My reply will come a little later today, as time permits.
LikeLike
You assume incorrectly John. My wife and I contribute to a fellowship of home fellowships that have no organization name. Secondly, you aren’t going to correct me on anything because I read your book. You deny that you propagate a progressive justification and we can start with page 84 of your rag that you published. You want to deny that you believe so-called believers remain totally depraved and enemies of God? I have those page numbers also. I don’t need to cite Scripture to backup my assertions concerning your doctrine, I only need to cite what you, yourself wrote. You might rather want to slip out the back door of this blog quietly while you merely look like an idiot; striving for moron status will accomplish nothing.
LikeLike
And Paul, there is the money shot. (comment @ 4:40 June 11) This is exactly what I said happens when debating a Calvinist. By capitulating to John Roden’s premise and discussing “Scripture” you have entered the very arena he presumes to own.
His last comment is all about vetting your “authority” to comment on all things “biblical.” He doesn’t accept that you have any authority and is now demanding you justify yourself. Actually more precisely he is trying to shame you into self justification. e.g. “Surely you are not ashamed or afraid to reveal these pertinent facts about your background?”
Pertinent facts? Pertinent to whom? Relevant to what end? And the answer is the purpose of the “facts” is to disqualify you from authority. Hence the questions: Member of a local church? this is a way to measure your authenticity as a Christian. If you are not “part of the body” or more precicely if you are not “submitted to the local church” you have not deferred your sinful independent thinking and are left to believe heresies. If you are not authentic you can’t possibly have authority.
What is your denomination? This is a demand to know your theological pedigree. If you are not part of the right pedigree you can’t possibly have the authority to write what you write. IF you don’t proof text every thought that wanders into your head you most certainly don’t have the authority to comment on What the bible says.
And certainly the greatest condemnation of your authority is the link on Pelagianism. This link does two things keeps him from having to “answer” your questions because Pelagianism has already been answered and refuted AND it places you squarely in the Pelagian doctrinal camp which means John (while having not said it overtly) presumes that you are a heretic. And heretics NEVER have authority to discuss scripture.
Everything John says from here will be to demand you separate yourself from Pelagian doctrine. If you cannot (or will not) he will do his blog version of wringing his hands over your eternal state but summarily condemn your positions of no consequence and vanish into the ether.
Why? Because he is consumed by his own tautology; “I believe it because it is biblical. It is biblical because I believe it.”
Paul, John Roden’s arrogance is as vast as his intellectual vacancy and as wide as the evil he represents.
LikeLike
“I believe it because it is biblical. It is biblical because I believe it.”…because _________fill in the blank said so. To disagree with the authority is to claim independent ability to reason which is where the predeterminism comes in. Man cannot comprehend reality so reality must reach down and save him, but if reality saved everyone, man would assume he can know reality which would steal glory from God. Welcome to the Heidelberg Disputation 101.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You say you believe in justification by new birth. Can you provide Scriptural proof for that statement? You cannot, because justification is NOT by new birth, but according to Romans 3:28, 4:3-8 and 5:1, we are justified by faith, i.e., by means of faith in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Can you define justification? Justification is a legal declaration by God in which He declares the believer in Christ to be righteous, based upon the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. See the passages cited above as proof. You are confusing justification with regeneration or the new birth, which are 2 different and separate actions performed by God in and upon those whom He has chosen to salvation, His elect. Regeneration or the new birth is not justification. It is the impartation of spiritual life to the spiritually dead sinner (Ephesians 2:1-6). While regeneration and justification occur simultaneously, they are not the same.
Where did you get the idea that I believe that justification is a process? It is a one-time action, not a process. The believer is declared righteous in justification through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ at the point in time in which he believes and trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is his standing before God. His actual state, however, is a different matter. The believer is far from perfect in his life— in word, thought, and deed—when he believes in Christ and is justified. However, God’s purpose is to conform him to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29), and therefore by the work of God in his heart (Philippians 2:12-13), he is made practically righteous in his life through the gradual process of progressive sanctification as he grows in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18, 2 Corinthians 3:18). If you believe that the believer is made perfectly righteous in his life, without any sin, that is the heretical doctrine of sinless perfection, held by John Wesley. If you say you live continually without sin in word, thought, and deed, you are seriously deceived as to what the Law of God requires.
Therefore, not only have you confused justification with regeneration, but you have confused justification with sanctification.
You say you believe salvation is “finished and final with the believer,” and I assume you mean that takes place in this life. Such a statement reveals your ignorance and lack of understanding of God’s eternal purpose in the salvation of His elect. Not only do you claim sinless perfection, but you leave no room for the final phase of salvation which is glorification, the state of sinless perfection which characterizes those in Heaven, “just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23).
By the way, I do not believe the born-again believer is totally depraved. It is clear from Romans 7:14-25 that Paul struggles with indwelling sin, but it is also clear from Romans 8 that by the Spirit of God dwelling within he achieves victory over the dominating power of sin. This victory, however, is not sinless perfection, as you apparently believe.
Regarding arrogance, your statements have not the slightest support from Scripture, and you have not bothered to quote any. To assume such authority without the support of Scripture is the height of arrogance, my friend. Apparently you have spent little time studying the Word of God, and have a very limited acquaintance with it. “Logic” and “reason” is useless unless your logic and reason is supported by the Word of God. Rather than calling me an idiot, you should be ashamed of your own arrogance. Only those who cannot refute their opponent resort to name-calling!
LikeLike
“You say you believe in justification by new birth. Can you provide Scriptural proof for that statement? You cannot, because justification is NOT by new birth, but according to Romans 3:28, 4:3-8 and 5:1, we are justified by faith, i.e., by means of faith in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Can you define justification? Justification is a legal declaration by God in which He declares the believer in Christ to be righteous, based upon the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.”
Blah, blah, blah. Where to start? “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” So, people who do not sin are righteous, and why are they righteous? Read the text…duh. Secondly, the Bible doesn’t say Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us; it says through Christ the Father’s righteousness is imputed to us through His seed being in us because, you know, that’s why He is the “Father”…duh. If we are only declared righteous, God’s seed is not in us which makes us unrighteous…duh. On page 84 you have the age-old “Golden Chain of Salvation.” Uh, what’s a chain? Clue: justification isn’t finished at the first link. On one page you say clearly that WE ARE (speaking of Christians) sinners and enemies of God. That’s first person plural in the present tense unless you fancy yourself an author and don’t include yourself in that sentence even though grammatically it does include you. Must I go on? And perfectionism? That accusation comes from not understanding the law’s relationship to the new birth. Yawn, please go away. Post again if you wish but be advised that I probably won’t post it.
LikeLike
It’s Ok. I won’t be posting here again, because it’s a waste of time to attempt to teach someone who knows it all. By the way, I have been reading Randy Seiver’s blog about you. He’s got your number, so there is little more that I could add to that.
LikeLike
Thank you, and good riddance.
LikeLike
Attention conference speakers who may not know what you are going to speak on: if you take what JR has said here and compare it with his book, it would make an excellent series on how these guys deliberately mislead people about what they believe. I can help you with the points. Or, some of you who are contributors here can put something together and we will present it.
LikeLike
I’m really considering this for the conference. Ive seen it before but this exchange really put a fine point on the deliberate misleading. hummm . . . I’m pondering . . .
LikeLike