But, then, let me remark further, while there is this temptation not to declare all the counsel of God, the true minister of Christ feels impelled to preach the whole truth, because it and it alone can meet the wants of man. What evils has this world seen through a distorted, mangled, man-moulded gospel. What mischiefs have been done to the souls of men by men who have preached only one part and not all the counsel of God. My heart bleeds for many a family where Antinomian doctrine has gained the sway. I could tell many a sad story of families dead in sin, whose consciences are seared as with a hot iron, by the fatal preaching to which they listen. I have known convictions stifled and desires quenched by the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from man and makes him no more responsible than an ox. I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! may the Lord save you from the voice of the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error.C. H. Spurgeon, Revival Year Sermons (London: Banner of Truth, 1959), 88; “The Minister’s Farewell,” in The New Park Street Pulpit Sermons, 6 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1860), 6:28. Also cited in Robert W. Oliver's History of the English Calvinistic Baptists: From John Gill to C. H. Spurgeon (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2006), 14–15.
Bio:
Wiki
I am presently reading through Oliver’s book above. It is based on his “doctoral dissertation submitted to the Council for National Academic Awards in 1986 under the title, ‘The Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community among the English Calvinistic Baptists from 1770 to 1850.’” (xiii)
I am presently reading through Oliver’s book above. It is based on his “doctoral dissertation submitted to the Council for National Academic Awards in 1986 under the title, ‘The Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community among the English Calvinistic Baptists from 1770 to 1850.’” (xiii)
26 comments:
I believe the Spurgeon quote is in reference to hyper-Calvinists, correct?
Tony,
You should see the comments section on Triablogue's web site under the heading "Counterfactuals"...
James,
What's triablogue's link? Please post it, that is if Tony allows it. Thanks
Grace
Sixtus,
Yes, the quote references hyper-Calvinistic ideas and imbalances. He rebukes antinomian teachers who undermine duty-faith, or mans responsibility. He also seems to take a shot at supralapsarianism. I posted it because of his bold denunciation of those who deny duty-faith.
James,
Thanks for the reference. I see the slanderous comments (link for Gracie) now.
Tony,
Do you plan to respond to the Triablogue comments? Or post a response in their combox? Steve Hays has written a post about Amyraldism and "4-point" Calvinism as well. Why do you state that the comments that were originally made amount to slander? Could it not be that they misunderstand your position? Was anything said that you think was purposefully deceptive and untrue?
Hi James,
You ask:
1) Do you plan to respond to the Triablogue comments? Or post a response in their combox?
I haven't decided yet. At this point I am more inclined to keep studying primary sources and providing documentation on my blog.
2) Steve Hays has written a post about Amyraldism and "4-point" Calvinism as well.
I've seen it.
3) Why do you state that the comments that were originally made amount to slander?
Because many things Gene reports about me are completely false and he attacks me personally.
4) Could it not be that they misunderstand your position?
Yes. However, not only do they misunderstand my position, Gene flat out states falsehoods.
5) Was anything said that you think was purposefully deceptive and untrue?
I don't know Gene's motives. I don't think that he's being "purposely deceptive" at all. I do think that he's very confused and states things that are untrue, but I may point out what I mean later. I am also curious about who the anonymous questioner is. That person states falsehoods. They may be anonymous to men, but not to God.
Slander: n 1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another 2: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name.
Tony,
This is just my opinion, but I think you should respond to at least correct the record. Otherwise T-blog readers are left with only what was posted there if they don't know about your blog. I guess you have more self control than me....
Tony,
I'm the anonymous questioner at the T-blog site. I read here that you believe I have made false statements. Could you please advise me what those were? I will happily apologize both here and in the comments section of that T-blog post. I wasn't trying to slander you or anyone else. I was interested in what Steve's position was with regard to your doctrinal positions, and I articulated those positions as I have understood them based upon what you post on your blog. So I will gladly stand corrected if you care to elaborate, and make that correction public knowledge as I stated above.....thanks
You said:
"At this point I am more inclined to keep studying primary sources and providing documentation on my blog"
Should you not be making the biblical case for your position instead of quoting some theologians who perhaps had a different understanding of these doctrines than is generally accepted? I mean isn't this just illustrating that some men in the past disagreed on the subject rather than that it proves your position positively? If you have already written a biblical defense of the subject please point me to the correct post as I'm new to your blog. Thank you!
Hi James,
I understand what you’re saying and there are good reasons to reply, but you should be able to tell that Gene Bridges comments about me are nasty. I suspect that any reply to comments from me will degenerate quickly into more personal attacks etc. I am weary of spending a lot of time on the internet engaging in those kinds of “discussions.”
That's interesting. EvanMay removed the Triablogue comments by Gene Bridges that he posted. I wonder why? I assume that Gene didn't want those private email comments about me posted afterall. I did, however, save them to a word document for future reference.
Hi Anonymous, (aka Jon Unyan),
First, I don’t know why you have chosen to comment in Anonymous mode now, Jon. You’ve used your name openly before, but you’re wanting to hide on Triablogue and and on my blog when making these recent comments. There’s no need to deny that you’re Jon Unyan from Albany, New York.You should realize that SiteMeter gives a lot of information about visits to my blog, even your IP address and ISP.
Second, here are the statements that I think are false:
You said on Triablogue:
“The thing is when he talks about Christ's death being sufficient for all, and that if God had elected 10 more people than He originally intended, that Christ's wouldn't have to atone for any more sin because of His death being of infinite value, Tony is talking about a completely hypothetical situation.”
No, I am not talking about a “completely hypothetical situation.” If you wish to try to refute my position, at least make sure you understand it. You’ve spent a lot of time reading posts on my blog and I am glad that you have. However, you could have asked me some questions to see what I mean before you go out and misrepresent my views.
Christ actually and really bore the sin of the whole world when he died. There’s nothing hypothetical about that. It’s true that I think that Christ’s death was of infinite value (just like the vast majority of Calvinists think, including John Owen) because of the dignity of his person. Do you think that Christ would have had to suffer more if more people had been elected? If so, that’s the error of commercialism and equivalentism. It’s not a case of so much suffering for so much sin.
All sin deserves the condemnation of death (X). Every sinner has committed sins of different sorts with varying degrees of wickedness. All of it, however, deserves death and condemnation. Christ came and bore that condemnation (X) in the place of the whole world of sinful humanity. Thus, his death is sufficient to save any given sinner. All they must do is believe and they will find that there’s healing power in his blood. Only the elect believe and are healed because the Holy Spirit grants them moral ability to believe. The non-elect do not perish for want of a satisfaction, but because they do not believe in the all sufficient savior. That is my position and there’s nothing hypothetical about it.
You said on Triablogue:
"I've also noticed that when speaking about "high" Calvinists he seems to equate them the hyper-Calvinists (even though he knows the differences between them, he just thinks it's a matter of degree). The differences, though they may be considered by degree, are actually quite significant."
This comment particularly bothered me since Gene said the same thing, i.e. that I accuse high Calvinists of being hyper-Calvinists. Good luck finding a single post or entry anywhere on the internet where I have done that. Anyone that I’ve called hyper-Calvinist has either: 1) Denied the universal love of God or 2) Denied common grace or 3) Denied free or well-meant gospel offers or 4) Denied duty-faith. There is a dispute about John Gill, but I contend that he denied free offers and duty-faith. I can support that claim from the primary sources.
Notice, however, that you speak in the plural. You say that when I speak of “high CalvinistS …(plural). What high Calvinists are you talking about? Please provide links and quotes from my posts where I have done what you accuse me of doing (i.e. “equating high Calvinists with hyper-Calvinists)? Can you support this utterly slanderous assertion, Jon??? If not, then OPENLY and PUBLICALLY retract it (even on Triablogue) as you promised that you would. I will be looking for your citations of my posts or for your retraction and apology.
What seems confusing is that you say I equate them but then say that I think they differ in matter of degree. That doesn’t make sense. Either they are equal or not equal. If I say they are equal, then they can’t differ in matter of degree. If they are not equal, then they must differ on some point in matter of degree. Either I equate them or I do not. Which is it???
You said on Triablogue:
"He also will generally trash good men like Piper, Sproul, Mohler, MacArthur, etc. because he thinks they knowingly use deceptive language when touching upon the extent of the atonement…"
I have “trashed” these men? This is more slander. In my T4G post, I was critical of the language they were using in the articles that they think expresses the gospel. I explained this to you in that blog entry in a detailed and lengthy way, yet you go on to say that I personally “trash” these men. While I think they used misleading langauge, I do not think they are bad men. I am not saying they are dishonest. I read and recommend their books to others. If I thought they were men worthy to be trashed, then I would not do that.
No one has said that I misinterpreted their articles. When they say that Christ “died for sinners,” they really mean that “Christ died for only the elect sinners.” Thus, while there seems to be a broad and universal scope to Christ’s death for “sinners,” it really isn’t. The T4G articles implicitly exclude other Christians who are not high Calvinists on that point. They are virtually equating the gospel with the view that Christ died for the elect alone. There were men at the Synod of Dort who could not sign the T4G articles in good conscience. Martin Luther could not sign it. I would contend that John Calvin could not sign it since he thought that Christ died for the whole world. That was my point. I did not “trash” the authors and signers of the T4G articles post as you suggest, Jon. Even if it was the case that I trashed them in my T4g post (which I deny that I did), it still wouldn't follow that I "generally" trash them as you so slanderously suggest.
Tony,
What about the theological part of his comments (personal comments aside)? And why would you need those comments for future reference anyway?
Tony,
You posted your last comments while I was posting mine, so I didn't see them before. I'll read your comments more thoroughly later and respond, but I just wanted to defend this Jon Unyan cause he isn't me. I'm not even using my home PC and I'm not from Albany, NY. I've never posted under my name. Hope this doesn't get you in trouble...
Hi Dave,
Not only are there disputes about what the text of scripture says about these subjects, but there are also disputes about what certain Calvinistic thinkers have said throughout church history. Believers should not only be honest and diligent in their study and use of sacred scripture, but they should also be this way when it comes to historical theology. Many of my posts are calls for other Calvinists to be diligent and honest with post-Apostolic primary sources. If Calvin or other Reformed thinkers say that Christ died for the whole world, then we should at least be honest enough to acknowledge that, even if we disagree. I have no problem with someone saying that Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, Ussher, Davenant, Edwards, Bunyan, C. Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd and R. L. Dabney were wrong. At least be honest with what they’ve said.
There is a failure to acknowledge a stream within Reformed or Calvinistic camps that said that Christ died for all mankind. Owenism has eclipsed earlier American Calvinistic thought, as well as the broader paradigm of the early Reformed thinkers such as Musculus and Calvin.
So, at times I will deal with controversial passages from the bible, but I am also dealing with historical theology. What’s interesting is that when I am dealing with biblical theology, my critics will sometimes switch to historical theology and accuse me of being non-Calvinistic. Then, when I am dealing with historical theology, they will switch and cry out for biblical exegesis.
"Anonymous,"
I await your citation(s) of my posts where I do and say what you accuse me of. If you cannot provide them, then retract and apologize for your comments with the same openness with which you slandered me.
Tony,
I think it would have been the better part of wisdom to have contacted you personally to have given you the opportunity to clarify your statements. I apologize, I admit that it just didn't occur to me and I didn't view my comments as slander. So I acknowledge my oversight there.
Now in response to your comments:
You said:
Christ actually and really bore the sin of the whole world when he died. There’s nothing hypothetical about that.
Me:
I disagree. To say that Christ died for sinners who ultimately end up in hell is NOT recognizing the infinite value of Christ's death. Is it just of God to punish His Son for the sins of those who are yet unjustified in His sight? What point would there be in Christ's sufferings on the cross for those who end up not being saved?
You said:
Do you think that Christ would have had to suffer more if more people had been elected?
Me:
This is the hypothetical. More people haven't been elected, so I don't even have to answer the question. God set the number in His sovereign grace, choosing some and not choosing others. Christ has the names of the elect written on the palms of His hands. Their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
You said:
If so, that’s the error of commercialism and equivalentism. It’s not a case of so much suffering for so much sin.
Me:
Where is "commercialism and equivalentism" condemned as an error? As far as I know there are two solid reformed theologians that disagree with you for every one you can cite that supports your position. What ecumenical council, what confession or creed do you cite to support this assertion? What Scriptures consistently exegeted leads us to a clear confirmation of your position? Why didn't Edwards, Polhill, Ussher, Dabney, Schedd, etc. take up this great cause if, in fact, this was such an error in their day?
I've done a fair amount of reading and I don't recall this error being refuted vehemently or railed against by the orthodox.
You protested these remarks:
"I've also noticed that when speaking about "high" Calvinists he seems to equate them the hyper-Calvinists (even though he knows the differences between them, he just thinks it's a matter of degree). The differences, though they may be considered by degree, are actually quite significant."
Me:
I realize you understand the doctrinal differences between high and hyper Calvinists, however I think you're blind to the fact that when you refute one you make no qualification with regard to the other. Why do you think Gene, Evan, and others whom I know personally, pick this up from you? Are they all just misunderstanding what you're trying to say? For example, see your post "Caricatures of Hyperism". What impression do you think a post like that gives of high Calvinists?
Further you objected to these comments:
"He also will generally trash good men like Piper, Sproul, Mohler, MacArthur, etc. because he thinks they knowingly use deceptive language when touching upon the extent of the atonement…"
Me: I admit that the word "trash" was too harsh and that word has more negative connotations than I should have expressed. For that I'm sorry. However, you stated even in your response that you think they use misleading language. The impression I got by the way you framed it in your post was that these men were being insidious. Using the word "misleading" usually means leading away with deceit. However, since I have not seen that you post against them generally, or appear to have a personal vendetta against them, I apologize for having said that you "trash" them. I will also make this apology on T-blog on the post in question. I would also say that you should equally request a public apology from Gene and Evan, since they pretty much said more than I was willing to...
Tony,
I was reading one of B.B. Warfield's works called "Jesus Christ the Propitiation for the Whole World" in Vol. 1 of his "Selected Shorter Writings" with reference to 1 Jn 2:2 (pp. 172-174) and found the following comments,
"Nor is it easy to understand what can be meant by saying that men, all whose sins, as they occasionally emerge ("and he is," not was, "a propitiation") are covered from the sight of God by the death of Christ, nevertheless perish; and that because of rejection of the divinely appointed mediator of salvation. Is not the rejection of Jesus as our propitiation a sin? And if it is a sin, is it not like other sins covered by the death of Christ? If this great sin is excepted from the expiatory efficacy of Christ's blood, why did not John tell us so, instead of declaring without qualification that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world? And surely it would be very odd if the sin of rejection of the Redeemer were the only condemning sin, in a world the vast majority of the dwellers in which have never heard of this Redeemer, and nevertheless perish. On what ground do they perish, all their sins having been expiated?
The expedient made use of by many commentators in their endeavor to escape from this maze of contradiction is to distinguish between Christ as our "Advocate" and Christ as our "Propitiation", and to connect actual salvation with him only in the former function. Thus Richard Rothe tells us that "the propitiation in Christ concerns the whole world," but "only those in Christ have an advocate in Christ," with the intimation that it is Christ's advocacy which "makes the efficacy of his propitiation effective before God." In this view the propitiation is conceived as merely laying a basis for actual forgiveness of sins, and is spoken of therefore rather as "sufficient" than efficacious--becoming efficacious only through the act of faith on the part of the believer by which he secures Christ as his Advocate.....His propitiatory death on earth was for all men; his advocacy in heaven is for those only who believe in him. Here, there is a universal atonement taught, with a limited application, contigent on actual faith...
It is obvious that such a view can be held only at the cost of emptying the conception of propitiation of its properly expiatory content, and shifting the really saving operation of Christ from his "atoning" death on earth to his "intercession" in heaven....No support is given this elaborate construction by John; and our present passage is enough to shatter the foundation on which it is built....that the atonement is to be conceived as universal while its application is particular, and that expiated while believers only enjoy the benefits of this expiation. The "advocacy" of our Lord is indeed based here on his propitiation. But it is based on it not as if it bore merely an accidental relation to it, and might or might not, at will, follow on it; but as its natural and indeed necessary issue....The efficacy of the advocacy rests on that of the propitiation, not the efficacy of the propitiation on that of the advocacy....The propitiation accordingly not merely lays a foundation for a saving operation, to follow or not follow as circumstances may determine. It itself saves..."
Suffice it to say without typing a few pages, he considers the correct biblical intrepretation of the passage to be that Christ died to save a world, and that world consists of every redeemed sinner through all time. The article is probably on line if you don't have the book, but I thought it was pertinent to our disagreement...
Anon said:
“Tony,
I think it would have been the better part of wisdom to have contacted you personally to have given you the opportunity to clarify your statements. I apologize, I admit that it just didn't occur to me and I didn't view my comments as slander. So I acknowledge my oversight there.”
Thanks for your apology and for your desire to communicate with me about these matters. This is more than can be said of those posting at Triablogue. They have made no effort to contact me. However, your apology still seems incomplete when it comes to a serious point, as my comments below will indicate.
Anon said:
“Now in response to your comments:
You said:
Christ actually and really bore the sin of the whole world when he died. There’s nothing hypothetical about that.
Me:
I disagree.”
I know that you disagree, but that wasn’t the point I was making. You said that I am arguing a hypothetical, and not that you think my position is hypothetical. From my standpoint, it’s not. So, you misrepresented me on this issue in your comments at Triablogue.
Anon said:
“To say that Christ died for sinners who ultimately end up in hell is NOT recognizing the infinite value of Christ's death.”
This is not an argument that I used or statements that I’ve made. I won’t address this point further here since it just seems to be unrelated to anything I’ve said.
Anon said:
“Is it just of God to punish His Son for the sins of those who are yet unjustified in His sight?”
Of course it is not unjust. Even your position would have to admit that it is just of God to punish his Son for the sins of those who are “yet unjustified in His sight,” unless you want to maintain the error of eternal justification. Christ died for your sins when you were “yet unjustified in His sight.” If you think it’s unjust for God to do such a thing, then show how it is unjust.
Anon said:
“What point would there be in Christ's sufferings on the cross for those who end up not being saved?”
One of the points is to demonstrate the love of God for all humanity (see John 3:16). Another point is to ground the free and well-meant offer of the gospel. When we say to all the unbelieving who hear the external call that “if you repent, you will be saved,” God really means it. There is really a sufficient remedy available for them in Christ’s satisfaction. God doesn’t make sham offers. Also, if God says in his word that Christ bought some false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1) who probably finally perished, who are we to deny it? There are plenty of indications in scripture, as most Christians in church history have recognized, that Christ died for all of mankind. God clearly wills the salvation of all when he declares that He desires their repentance and desires to send the gospel to all the nations via the church.
Anon said:
“You said:
Do you think that Christ would have had to suffer more if more people had been elected?
Me:
This is the hypothetical. More people haven't been elected, so I don't even have to answer the question.”
If you answered the question, then you would be revealing whether or not you really think Christ’s death is sufficient for all sinners. That’s the point of my hypothetical question. I can staunchly say no, Christ would not have had to suffer more if more people had been elected. The vast majority of Puritans (if not all of them) would say that Christ’s death is of such value that it could save billions of worlds.
You’re failure the answer the question is dodging the point. If it’s a case of so much suffering for so much sin as commercialism maintains, then he would have had to suffer more if more had been elected. Charles Hodge didn’t dodge the question. He said, “All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood.”
Anon said:
“God set the number in His sovereign grace, choosing some and not choosing others. Christ has the names of the elect written on the palms of His hands. Their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.”
Why are you stating these things? Are you under the impression that I would disagree with the above points? Nothing I’ve said is to the contrary.
Anon said:
“You said:
If so, that’s the error of commercialism and equivalentism. It’s not a case of so much suffering for so much sin.
Me:
Where is "commercialism and equivalentism" condemned as an error?”
The vast majority of Calvinists, even those at Dort, affirmed the all-sufficient nature of Christ’s death. Those who affirm commercialism and equivalentism cannot logically affirm what Dort argues. At least men like Tom Nettles openly says he believes in limited sufficiency. I spoke with Tom Ascol about this on the Founders Blog and he understands how Nettles’ view is a departure from Dort. Dort says:
ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
ARTICLE 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Furthermore, The Heidelberg Catechism says:
37. What do you understand by the word "suffered"?
A. That throughout his life on Earth, but especially at the end of it, he bore in body soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race, so that by his suffering, as the only expiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from ever lasting damnation, and might obtain for us God's grace, righteousness, and eternal life.
Anon said:
“As far as I know there are two solid reformed theologians that disagree with you for every one you can cite that supports your position.”
Are you sure you want to say this??? I will name John Calvin, Wolfgang Musculus, Bullinger, John Davenant, Edward Polhill, Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, C. Hodge, R. L. Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, A. A. Hodge, Andrew Fuller, J. P. Boyce, J. I. Packer (see his intro to Owen’s Death of Death) and Curt Daniel just for starters. Where are your 32 “solid Reformed” theologians who affirm equivalentism??? Now, I am not saying that men like A. A. Hodge and Packer agree with my view of the intent of Christ’s penal satisfaction, but they do concur against commercialism/equivalentism. I could also throw in Thomas Ascol’s name as one who opposes a commercial view. Curt Daniel says this in his History and Theology of Calvinism:
“Reformed theology does not teach “Equivalentism”, namely, that Christ suffered just so much and shed just so much blood in proportion to the number of the elect. Rather, we believe that Christ’s blood, sufferings and death were of infinite value and therefore of universal sufficiency. In the famous words of Charles Hodge, “All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood.”
History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 364.
Anon said:
“What ecumenical council, what confession or creed do you cite to support this assertion?”
Once again, I would appeal to the Synod of Dort and the Heidelberg Catechism as listed above. What creed can you cite in favor of your view, assuming you maintain Equivalentism?
Anon said:
“What Scriptures consistently exegeted leads us to a clear confirmation of your position?”
The scriptures declare that blood (life) is required for the forgiveness of sins, not money. We should see that when the bible uses debt payment language for our guilt before God, it is speaking metaphorically. An analogy is being made between commercial debt and penal debt. Also, I would appeal to John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 as teaching that Christ died for all mankind, and that his death is sufficient to save all mankind. If it’s the case that he suffered so much for so many elect sins, then his death could not save more than he suffered for. This would undermine the basis for the free offer of the gospel, as men like C. Hodge, Dabney and Shedd have argued. If the bible teaches that God freely and sincerely offers Christ as the sufficient savior to all that hear the external gospel call, then this argues against Equivalentism.
Anon said:
“Why didn't Edwards, Polhill, Ussher, Dabney, Schedd, etc. take up this great cause if, in fact, this was such an error in their day?”
They ALL did when they affirmed Christ’s all sufficient satisfaction. In fact, Polhill, Dabney and Shedd EXPLICITLY argued against it in their Systematic texts. See the links below.
Anon said:
“I've done a fair amount of reading and I don't recall this error being refuted vehemently or railed against by the orthodox.”
I’ve given some names of several Reformed theologians who have strongly argued against commercialism. I would encourage you to read them.
Edward Polhill on the Proportion of Christ's Suffering
Andrew Fuller Against Commercialism
Some Wisdom from Charles Hodge
Shedd Quotes
Anon said:
”You protested these remarks:
"I've also noticed that when speaking about "high" Calvinists he seems to equate them the hyper-Calvinists (even though he knows the differences between them, he just thinks it's a matter of degree). The differences, though they may be considered by degree, are actually quite significant."
Me:
I realize you understand the doctrinal differences between high and hyper Calvinists, however I think you're blind to the fact that when you refute one you make no qualification with regard to the other.”
This is what I am referring to when I say your apology is incomplete. The above statement(s) by you are completely false.You have absolutely NO support for these assertions. Either support them with documention of openly apologize for this particular slander. An apology on this subject is also lacking at Triablogue. This actually angered me the most, believe it or not.
Anon said:
“Why do you think Gene, Evan, and others whom I know personally, pick this up from you?”
If they pick it up from me, it must be because they are poor readers or something. They cannot support their assertions that I “equate” high’s with hypers ANY MORE THAN YOU CAN. Either support your case with clear documentation from things I have said or withdraw these comments.
Anon said:
“Are they all just misunderstanding what you're trying to say?”
I don’t know about others, but that’s CLEARLY the case with what Gene Bridges wrote in his slanderous private email that ended up on a blog. He reported having conversations with me that didn’t even exist. He seems very confused to me. The only brief interaction I’ve EVER had with him is on the Strange Baptist Fire blog of his on John Gill and Hyper-Calvinism. I've never had ANY interaction with him other than that.
Anon said:
“For example, see your post "Caricatures of Hyperism". What impression do you think a post like that gives of high Calvinists?”
If they are high Calvinists who can read in a fair manner, I don’t see how they can pick up what you suggest AT ALL. If you think you can show from that post how I confuse or equate high Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism, then set forth your case. I am aggravated by your continued slander on this matter.
Anon said:
“I would also say that you should equally request a public apology from Gene and Evan, since they pretty much said more than I was willing to...”
First, I didn’t request your apology until you contacted me on my blog. I didn’t seek you out or post over there. People who do things wrong should seek out those they have wronged as soon as possible. You contacted me and apologized for some matters, and your specific apologies are accepted, even though it’s not yet complete (see the high/hyper equation slander issue above). Secondly, I could tell that Gene’s comments were quite nasty in nature. I don’t think they want to engage in civil dialogue on these subjects so I will leave them alone. They should seek me out to apologize but they have not done so. They have been in some communication with David Ponter and have apologized to him (but I know almost nothing about this interaction), but they haven’t said a single thing to me about what they posted. Given the way Gene spoke about me (in a private email to others mind you) when he hasn’t really ever interacted with me (apart from the brief StrangeBaptistFire thing), I don't’think I want to discuss theology with him. It was a nasty and slanderous post by someone who does not know me or accurately understand my position(s).
I’ve been delayed in replying to your post because 1) I’ve been busy with other things lately 2) I don’t want to spend more time repeating things that I’ve already posted about on my blog 3) It’s very time consuming to try to adequately answer all the questions you’ve put to me 4) I am just weary of trying to interact with hostile high Calvinsts who misrepresent me here and elsewhere. I’d rather spend my time quietly doing research and posting my findings these days. I will try to respond to the Warfield quote as soon as possible.
Tony,
You've made some good points here (not that I agree with your doctrinal positions, but I will look into it further). I have misjudged you and I'm not really the bickering type (usually, anyway). I should have also given a more careful reading to the stuff I mentioned above from you, but I will say that as a high Calvinist I feel like you push us off as unorthodox as hyper Calvinists--whether or not you mean to. I will give your comments a more careful reading and respond as necessary. Let me also say I understand that you're busy, responding to arguments IS time consuming. I'm interested in your response to B.B. Warfield, but there's no big hurry. Sorry to press you on that...thanks
Oh, and were you able to obtain the whole Warfield article? I just typed some of his arguments, but reading the whole article would be helpful...
I just posted this:
A. A. Hodge on Commercialism
"but I will say that as a high Calvinist I feel like you push us off as unorthodox as hyper Calvinists--whether or not you mean to."
This cannot be objectively sustained by anything I have written. You may "feel" that way, but feelings may not correspond to reality, as you know. This is why I have requested a retraction on the point, if you cannot support the assertion with things I have said. I think high Calvinists (as I define that term) are wrong in some matters, and I also think Hyper-Calvinism is wrong on some theological points. But no where and at no time have I ever equated the two, as you suggested that I did at Triablogue. Search my blog, unchainedradio or anywhere else. I have never once equated the two.
Do I think that high Calvinists open the door to hyperism without going through it themselves? Yes, I do think that. I am trying to shut the door and nail it shut by scriptural and logical argumentation. I am not trying to accuse those who I think open the door to more extreme errors of being hypers themselves. Now, if you're honest, you think that way about Arminians and Open View theologians. You probably think, as I do, that Arminians open the door to Open View theology but do not go through the door themselves. Arminians should not be equated with Open View Theists, or labeled as such. What you and I think of the Arminians in that regard, I think of High Calvinists when it comes to hyperism. The highs understandably get bothered by my viewpoint, even as the Arminians get upset when we say that their views logically entail OVT. If the Arminians were consistent with some of the premises of their favorite arguments (and I would say this about highs and all their double jeopary arguments), then they would slip into more serious errors.
See also my post on Herman Bavinck on Equivalency, Sufficiency and Commercialism. He says that, "The Reformed said that Christ’s work by itself was completely sufficient for the atonement of the sins of the whole world so that, if he had wanted to save a smaller number, it could not have been less, and if he had wanted to save a higher number, it would not have had to be greater...Sins indeed are not money debts, and satisfaction is not a problem of arithmetic."
Also this:
"In the case of financial debts, satisfaction indeed cancels out forgiveness, since here what matters is not the person who pays but only the sum of money that is paid. But in the case of moral debts, this is very different. They are personal and must be punished in the guilty person himself or herself. If a substitute is admitted in this situation, the admission of such a substitute and the crediting of his merits in exchange for those of the guilty person is certainly always an act of grace.”
You can add Bavinck to my list of Reformed men who EXPLICITLY reject a commercial view of Christ's satisfaction.
Anonymous said:
"...I just wanted to defend this Jon Unyan cause he isn't me. I'm not even using my home PC and I'm not from Albany, NY. I've never posted under my name. Hope this doesn't get you in trouble..."
I apologize if I am wrong about associating the Anonymous person with Jon Unyan. Jon has emailed me and asked me to clear up this matter. SiteMeter gave me good reasons to make my association to someone from Albany, New York, but one cannot be absolutely certain. I don't think one is necessarily being unethical for remaining anonymous while making blog comments. I just tend to trust people who come out in the open and say, "this is who I am, this is what I have said and this is what I believe." With that said, I am considering disallowing anonymous posts on my blog. One can still use a pseudonym, if they so choose. One does have to be careful with one's personal information on the internet, so I can understand anonymity at times.
Tony,
I post anonymously for a legitimate reason, but I could set up a pseudonym as well. Without addressing some of the matters you brought up in your response I wanted to bring this to somewhat of a close with regard to the last offense (at least I think this was the last one, if not please correct me). I apologize for stating that you view high calvinists and hypers the same. You do make differentiation between them. I tend to think of hypers as cold and unevangelistic, so I guess I overreacted. I will post the appropriate remarks on T-blog...thanks
Post a Comment