Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

« Previous Entries

On Omniscience

Posted by Cory Tucholski on June 15, 2009

Rey wonders out loud: “Where in the Bible does God declare that he is omniscient?” He then answers his own question: Nowhere. God never declares himself to be omniscient, or all-knowing. So we have to ask ourselves, must God declare something about himself for it to be true about himself? And, must something directly appear in the Bible for it to be true about God, or is it acceptable to deduce it from related Scriptures and/or natural theology?

Before we dive into these questions, it must be stated that I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture: that the Bible we possess is inspired and inerrant, and sufficient for all of the activities listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The problem in this entry is that Rey, the target of the criticism that I will present, doesn’t believe in inerrancy, nor does he believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Rey cherry-picks verses as inspired and uninspired to fit with what he believes about God. This is idolatry of the highest order.

That means that this criticism will likely fall under heavy fire from Rey in the form of rejecting the verses that I use as inspired.

It is not, mind you, that Rey rejects inspiration. He rejects plenary inspiration. He doesn’t believe that all of what we possess of the Bible is inspired, but he has yet to explain his system for accepting or rejecting verses.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Father, God, Theology, Trinity | 5 Comments »

No Reformed Writers Deny That Salvation is by Faith

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 25, 2009

Since I haven’t written in a while, I was surprised to find that Rey had posted an entry in his blog, since his posts generally respond to my own. This time, it looks as if things will be the other way around.

Normally, I ignore Rey but this time he has posted something that is such an obvious error that I can’t pass it up. He says that Hebrews 11:6 is proof that Calvinists cannot be saved as long as they are Calvinists. That simply isn’t true, and if Rey did his homework on the Reformed position, he’d know that. Far from disproving Calvinism, this verse actually solidifies the Reformed position!

First of all, faith is a gift from God. Don’t believe me? Check Galatians 5:22-23, which lists the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Those who have the Holy Spirit produce the listed fruits, which are gifts from God. Notice that faith is on that list! Unless God grants you faith, you can’t have it in the first place.

The Reformed position grants that people can seek God, but not apart from his drawing us (Jn 6:44). Those that are seeking God apart from that drawing (the non-elect, in other words) are seeking God for selfish motives. They don’t want to know God, they want the benefits of knowing God. This is not really diligently seeking God.

Regeneration, which precedes salvation and always produces a saving faith, is monergistic (i.e. it is God’s work only, with no human involvement). However, once regenerated, the sanctification process is synergistic (i.e. requires human involvement). This means that the person has a saving faith, and now will diligently seek God (having his heart inclined to God).

So far from disproving the Reformed position, this verse is actually perfectly consistent with it.

Posted in Calvinism, Theology | 5 Comments »

Answering Objections to the Identity of First Beast

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 18, 2009

There are three basic objections to the idea that the papacy is the Antichrist. The first is easy to answer from Scripture, the second is a legitimate point that isn’t as easy. The third is complicated to explain. The first objection is that Scripture clearly refers to one man of sin, a future personal opponent of Jesus Christ. The papacy is an institution, not an individual. The second objection is that the pope is often an example of moral living, and generally does no evil. The final objection is that, because Catholicism is Christian, the pope is not denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Eschatology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Sin, Theology | 6 Comments »

I Can’t Take a Day Off!

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 16, 2009

It seems I can’t even take a day off from blogging without something major happening. It appears as though I’ve been issued a challenge, and Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor said that atheists are less than human! More on the Cardinal in another post.

There are three fallacies with the challenge. First, Rey wants to know how Calvinism can be true and Wesley’s words false. When was the last time we assigned infallibility to Wesley? We believe that the Bible only is infallible, therefore Wesley is simply wrong, which brings us to the other two fallacies.

What obligates God to save a sinner in the first place? Arminian theology assumes that everyone starts with an “A” in class and by our sins we move to an “F.” But that isn’t the case. Humankind is born into sin, and we start with an “F.” We have no desire of our own to move to an “A,” and we don’t live our lives with that intention. Natural man, in his natural state, supresses the knowledge of God and tries to live for himself. The wonder of it all is that God saves any of us rebellious, undeserving sinners! Nothing obligates him to do so; he would be just to let us all burn in hell for the sins we commit everyday. But that isn’t what he’s done; instead, he lovingly predestines some to glory. The Bible’s focus is never on the ones that perish, but always on the ones who are saved. That’s where we should keep our eyes: on the ones that God will save.

Which is why Calvinism believes in evangelism as strongly as it does. Since we don’t know who the elect are, we should never lose an opportunity to reach out to someone with the gospel. God might use you to draw one of his elect to himself. Some might ask, as Wesley does, why bother if the elect are already decided? To that I say, turn your Bibles to Judges 3:28, where it is said that the Lord has given the enemy into Ehud’s hands. That doesn’t mean that Ehud and the Israelites simply sat down on the ground and said, “Why bother? God already gave us the enemy.” No, they fought the battle anyway, even knowing the outcome.

With Arminianism, we have no confidence that anyone can be saved. It is up to the reprobate sinner to decide to let Christ into his heart. Apart from that invitation, God can do nothing. Calvinism teaches the opposite. With Calvinism, we have confidence that many will be saved because God promises to save his elect, fully and completely.

Bottom line here is that God acts with and through us, not over and against us. Ehud still had to fight the battle, even though God gave the enemy into his hand. We still have to preach the gospel, because that is the means by which God will bring his elect to himself. We still have to fight the good fight, just like Ehud did. The Israelites saw no contradiction here, and neither should we.

Finally, what necessitates that God love everyone equally? Are you telling me that God loves Christopher Hitchens–a man who wrote a book entitled God is not Great and is outspoken in his rebellion against God–with the same love as a Christian who loves God first in his life and tries to keep his commands? That reduces God’s love to subhuman capacity. Humans are able to love at different levels. God commands it! I’m supposed to love my wife as Christ loved the church. However, I’m not supposed to love my neighbor’s wife that same way. The love I feel for my wife is very different than the love I feel for my daughter. If humans, made in the image of God, are able to love at different levels and intensities, why can’t God? Why can’t God love some of his creations more than others; so much more, that he elects them and saves them for eternal life with him?

Predestination is not a doctrine of hate, despite how Wesley and others see it. Predestination is God’s ultimate expression of love for the sinner. We love him because he first loved us.

Posted in Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 17 Comments »

The First Beast of Revelation 13 Demystified

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 11, 2009

The pseudonymous TurretinFan, both on his blog and on Alpha & Omega Ministries, has identified a number of arguments that Protestants should avoid when addressing the errors of Catholicism. While I agree with much of the list, I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify one particular argument that we should avoid, and that is arguing that the Pope is the Antichrist.

TurretinFan rightly points out that there are major historical reasons for believing that the Pope is the Antichrist, the Beast of Revelation 13:1-10. It is extremely difficult to articulate those reasons in a short conversation for a few reasons. First, most people are ignorant of the rampant symbolism in Jewish apocolyptic literature. It is difficult to build a firm foundation so that they understand all of the issues at hand in the time often alloted for these short witnessing moments.

Fortunately, with a blog post, that restriction is gone. This article will answer, once and for all, why we Protestants who understand these issues will never submit to the papacy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Eschatology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Theology | 7 Comments »

On Original Sin

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 9, 2009

Many Christians deny the doctrine of original sin on the basis of Ezekiel 18:19-20:

Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The question before us is this: are we held responsible for Adam’s sin? If so, why? Does it not clearly say in Ezekiel 18 that the soul that sins shall die, and that the wickedness of the wicked will be on himself?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Heresy, Sin, Theology | 12 Comments »

Here’s a New Spin on an Old Debate

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 6, 2009

Rey, who also goes by Beowulf2k8, has been challenging me on how free our free wills really are. Being Reformed, I hold that God can and does influence our free wills for good and for ill. Rey believes that if God influences us in that way, that we are not truly guilty of committing sin.

Let’s back a step up and look at this from a different perspective. John Piper, still thoroughly Reformed, has a different take here. Piper wonders, “Does God lead us into temptation?”

Piper feels that God guides our every step (Prv 20:24). The same Scripture that asks God not to lead us into temptation (Mt 6:13) also says that God doesn’t tempt us (Jms 1:13). He wouldn’t, but he doesn’t have to. As it turns out, every step we take is a temptation to do wrong. God leads us through temptations (cf. Mt 4:1), but he doesn’t tempt us.

Each temptation that God leads us through is an opportunity to glorify him by doing the Christian thing: not yielding to the temptation. Don’t pray for a life free of temptations. That’s unrealistic. Pray instead that you won’t yield to the temptations that will come your way.

Posted in Sin, Theology | 2 Comments »

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 4, 2009

Rey says:

So, Calvinism teaches that God is the author and finisher of evil, thus making sin no longer sin but transforming it into obedience, and hence Calvinism is the most supremely evil position a person can take in theology.

How many times do I have to respond to this? Read my last post again. Better yet, have someone read it to you. Loudly and slowly. Until it sinks in. Look up any unfamiliar words. Try not to drool on the dictionary that you use for that.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, emphasis my own:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Read the Scriptural proof of the last point: “nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” The verses cited are as follows (KJV instead of my beloved ESV):

  • Acts 2:23: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.
  • Matthew 17:12: But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
  • Acts 4:27-28: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,  For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
  • John 19:11: Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
  • Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.

Despite the fact that God foreordains all that will come to pass, he is not the author of sin. I don’t see how that can be made any more plain.

According to you, Cory, “What Calvinism does teach is that God has an eternal decree, from the beginning of time, that everything that would happen does happen.” So, your position is really not that man is the author of evil while God merely allows it to go on, but that God decreed each and every instance of evil that has ever happened to happen. You know that you are saying that God is the author and finisher of evil. BUT you also that saying such a thing is evil and blasphemous. Therefore, you try to say it without people realizing it, hoping that you can both convince people that God is the author and finisher of evil and yet also convince them that this isn’t what you are really saying, all at the same time. That is classic Calvinism, “God’s the author of evil, but you didn’t hear it from me, wink wink.”

What a load of crap! You have so failed to deal with the gradations of “foreordain” that your reply is of no value. As any idiot with a tenth-grade reading level can comprehend, I am saying that God allows evil as a negative decree and not as a positive one. Negatively allowing something falls well within the parameters of “foreordaining” the same, without making God the author of said event.

Your real argument is: “I don’t understand how God can decree every event on planet earth from the beginning and still expect us to accept blame for sin, so God has no eternal decree.” Then, you punctuate that argument with “neener neener!” and a raspberry. Next you’ll be asking me to pull your finger.

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Theology | 4 Comments »

Amusing…

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 3, 2009

No matter how many times I say it, Rey keeps repeating the same error over and over again. So I have decided to write a post that keeps everything pure and simple, so that I (hopefully) won’t have to say this again.

Calvinism does not teach that sovereignty is the same as micromanagement. Calvinism does not teach that God is a Hollywood screenwriter who has written a screenplay that becomes life as we know it. Calvinism does not teach any of that stuff! Yet Rey continues to repeat these same errors over and over again.

What Calvinism does teach is that God has an eternal decree, from the beginning of time, that everything that would happen does happen. This can be either positive or negative, or some shade between.

If this decree is positive, it means that God declares what is going to happen, he purposes it and does it.

If the decree is negative, it means that God allows something to happen. Orthodox Calvinism views evil this way: it isn’t something that God positively does, it is something that he negatively allows for his own unsearchable purpose.

Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, does view evil as something that God creates in the life of the sinner. I’m no hyper-Calvinist.

There are many gradations in the action of foreordaining. It can be a positive thing that God purposes and does, or it can be a negative thing that God allows. It may also fall in-between the two extremes in a way that we don’t understand this side of eternity. God either purposefully does something, or purposefully allows something to happen. Either way, he is foreordaining it in a sense, and not micromanaging every detail.

So, please, Rey, stop repeating the error that I’m teaching that God micromanages everything. In fact, I have explicitly written against it in this latest series of posts sparring with you.

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Theology | 2 Comments »

Is Free Will Subject to God’s Sovereignty?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on May 3, 2009

Rey, otherwise known as Beowulf2k8, has leveled more criticism my way. He has two posts, here and here, that criticize my own Reformed view of the Bible. The second was meant as pure sarcasm, and as such I will not be addressing it. The first one I will address after I clarify a few things.

First, Rey did not adequately respond to Genesis 50:20. He said that Joseph was not an oracle of God, so therefore it represents his erroneous opinion of what God is doing in his life. I countered with the fact that Joseph was an oracle of God, evidenced by the fact that he interpreted dreams, and therefore his opinion in this matter would carry some weight. This statement of God meaning someone’s free will evil for the good of all is inconvenient to Rey’s position that God doesn’t influence human free will.

Second, Rey did not respond to the litany of verses that show God does influence human free will. Among others that can be cited, I specifically cited the following verses (emphasis mine):

  • Exodus 4:21: And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.”
  • Joshua 11:20: For it was the LORD’s doing  to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.
  • Isaiah 63:17: O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways
    and harden our heart, so that we fear you not    ? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage.
  • Romans 9:18: So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Third, Rey does not contend with the litany of verses cited in favor of God making the decision for Christ for us (emphasis mine):

  • John 1:9-13: The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.   He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.  He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of a human decision nor of the will of man, but of God.
  • 1Pet. 1:3:   Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
  • John 6:44:   “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
  • John 6:61-65:   Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?  What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!  The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.  Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.  He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
  • Acts 2:45-47: And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.   And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,  praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
  • Acts 16:13-14: And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.   One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

Fourth, Rey does nothing with my philosophical discourse on God’s foreordination. Rey merely continues to perpetuate the error that Calvinism teaches that God reduces human beings to puppets. He does this with no evidence from any Calvinist document that allegedly teaches this.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Apologetics, Calvinism, Heresy, Theology | 3 Comments »

« Previous Entries