Muslim Questions to a Calvinist

Bassam Zawadi over at The Muslim Debate Initiative posted 5 questions for Calvinists.  I have included the questions and my answers below. May they be edifying. 

---

Question 1: How does God determine the elect? I understand that it is His sovereign will, but is it arbitrary? If not, then how and why not?

Answer 1: The purpose of election is the glory of God. Therefore he chooses based not upon arbitrary pointing but upon his own good pleasure. I am sure you have done things that often appeared arbitrary to those who did not understand or know what you were doing, until the purpose was complete. Read Romans 9:18-23 for more on this.

---

Question 2: Isn’t it unfair and unjust for God to create some human beings as totally depraved (despite them having free will, He purposely created them totally depraved) and then abandon them by not electing them and turning them into reprobates?

Answer 2: This commits what is known as the equal-ultimacy fallacy and is also covered in Romans 9:18-23.

---

Question 3: Isn’t election and not Jesus dying for the sins of people the ultimate cause and foundation of salvation? If yes, then doesn’t that demote the importance of Jesus dying for our sins and shouldn’t the main message of the gospel be figuring out how to know you were elected?

Answer 3: How do you know if you are elected? By looking to Christ. You must remember that we were chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. God ordained that our election be by the means of Christ and him Crucified. The only way to be sure of our election is to repent and believe in Christ as our savior, and by faith look to him as the assurance of your calling. The only way to be elect is if Christ saved you, the only way to know is faith, which is a gift of God. How you know you're elected, and how God knows you are elected are two different things.

---

Question 4: Could the elect in reality be thought of as having sought forgiveness? I ask this because it appears that they weren’t really doing any “seeking”, but were themselves sought out and chosen by God to be forgiven. Please comment.

Answer 4: No, none of us were seeking God when he found us. John teaches us that we cannot even see the kingdom of God before we are born again from above. Paul tells us we were dead men whom God made alive in Christ Jesus. It is hard for a dead man to seek anything, but once made alive that man can repent and seek forgiveness.

---

Question 5: How would you respond to this Arminian argument: Calvinism is built upon the premise that fallen man is “too far gone for even God to be able to reach him [thus necessitating an Irresistible Grace].” However, ask the Calvinist, “Is it simply too difficult for God to enable an unregenerate sinner to receive Him, without using an Irresistible Grace?” If Calvinists answer, “no,” then the Total Depravity argument becomes moot, and then it’s no longer a matter of man’s depravity, but man’s accountability, when enabled by God’s prevenient grace. However, most Calvinists reluctantly answer, “yes,” thus making God to be the one who has Total Inability, that is, the total inability to reach fallen man without resorting to an Irresistible Grace, and thus it is the Calvinist who is shown to be the one denigrating God’s power.

Answer 5: This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of irresistible grace, probably brought about by the name of the tulip loving Dutch. Irresistible grace does not mean that it cannot be resisted but that it can overcome all resistances. Once we settle this we realize the absurdity of this question. Allow me to rephrase: 'Is it simply too difficult for God to overcome an unregenerate sinner's resistance to receive Him, without overcoming an unregenerate sinner's resistance to receive Him?'  Proverbs 18:17

---

Soli Deo Gloria

A Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not "Crazy"

Do I have your attention? Good Recently Yashar Ali wrote an article by the same title. In this article he states that men are conditioned to "gaslight" women. "Gaslighting," he explains, finds its origins in the 1944 film Gaslight where the main character tries to convince his wife she is crazy by causing his gaslight to flicker. Or something. He then boldly claims this is what men do when they disregard a woman's emotions by saying "you're over reacting" or the like.

Now I am not a feminist, mainly because I believe there are biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women, go figure. The most obvious one is women can bare children and men cannot. Now if you ask me that is a pretty big difference between the sexes. However in an effort of fairness, not wanting to stereo-type all women as being able to bare children, we must ask ourselves why it is that when a heterosexual man shows up to meet another heterosexual man say half an hour late for a dinner, say beer and wings at B-Dubs, it is no big deal to either party. However when the same man shows up to meet a lady friend, girlfriend, spouse, 30 minutes late, it is a huge deal to the woman and not a big deal to the man? Different wiring. She has invested time, effort, etc, into this meal the two were going to spend together, she is emotionally attached to it. He is running late from work and it is just an average Tuesday to him. They both have different emotional wiring for what this meal means. Her reaction is different than the friends, thus his response is different. Lets look at another example, one more stark in contrast.

A man in a bar is pissing you off, then smashes your beer to the ground in the heat of the argument. (Probably over who's football team is better. See men can be emotional.) The man who had his beer smashed promptly punches the other in the face. Now if what Yashar is trying to say is that we should treat men and women identically. In a heated emotional argument about why Joe isn't home at 5:30 for dinner, Joe should pop Judy in the face, the same way he would any man that got in his face for being home half an hour late. I am sure this is not what Yashar is intending to have happen, however this is the problem with many forms of feminism, (of course those that hold that men are inferior to women would also say is is wrong for an inferior being to strike a superior one), the logical trajectory leads to a point where it will eventually decay into misogyny. Women will be treated by men as men treat men, which is barbaric at times.

An alternative is of course the biblical modal of man and woman, where though both are equally human beings, they are functionally different, (hence they, generally speaking, have different biology, physiology, and psychology). This would mean that men treat women differently than men. Back to our first example, the man is treating the man and the woman the same, if the late man to dinner was given flack about being late from the early man, I dare say he would "gaslight" the early man too. "Dude, quit being such a whiny little ..." Or something to that effect. The problem is not that men treat men differently than women, it is that men treat women the same. The solution is a return to treating men and women differently, not pressing men to treat women even more like men.

The Human Condition - or I'm a Hipster and I Know It.

It's unfortunate that these days I seem to be almost entirely unable to find stimulating intellectual discussions. Now I understand that saying such is not only arrogant but also offensive to a majority of the people I converse with on a daily basis; even so, I don't think it is untrue or that many of them would disagree. Talk about nothing often fills my days and nights. It's quite silly when I think about it. However this concept kept coming up over and over and over. It was this subject of the human experience. Well (insert something bad or good here) is all part of being human. We know that X is part of the human condition. Now I have come to expect such talk from non-Christians, they come from a different set of presuppositions and a different understanding of the world. Yet it is Christians who are spouting off this nonsense.

Now before you all get on me for being harsh, insensitive, or just a jerk allow me to explain. Most of the comments I am talking about stem from that old adage, "to err is human." Let me be frank here. No. To err is not human. It is not human to make mistakes. It is not human to screw up. It is not human to fail. It is in losing our humanity that these things happen. Do I have your attention? Good. You see the problem with the idea "to err is human" it must be universally true for all humanity. Now before you jump in and say Matt everyone makes mistakes! Let me remind you of the one man, one Human, that never made a mistake. never erred. Jesus.

Unless we have a very weak Christology every statement we make about all of humanity we must also make about Christ when concerning what it is to be essentially human. Something that is part of the human condition, say a body, can be said of Christ. Jesus did have a body. Go figure he was fully human. So then we must ask did Jesus sin? No. So being sinful isn't essentially part of the human condition. Making mistakes isn't essentially part of the human condition. Failing isn't essentially part of the human condition. Jesus never failed. Some might look to the cross as a failure. A great guru died nailed to some Roman lumber, but if that was the plan from before the foundation of the world can we really say he failed? Let's be real people.

So what about this less than human bit. The adage should read "to err is less than human." The essential nature of man is to be image bearers of God. The one man, Jesus Christ, did this perfectly, he was the True man, as it were. Now if we are to reflect God, be His image in this world, then whenever we deviate from, or obscure that image, by erring, making mistakes, failing, we in a very real sense, become less human. Put another way our essential nature is marred by our fallen nature. I'm not so mean as to say there is nothing called grace in the omnibenevolent God of scripture, I am merely pointing out that, "to err is less than human," or as Peter put it "Men, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction."

The Dan Phillips and His Witty One Liners!

So it's been a while what wanna fight about it? So, now that that is behind us, Today I was rolling through my feedburner and came across a short one sentence post directed at continuationist's by Dan Phillips. Continuationists are those who believe that the spiritual gifts exist to the present age and were not simply signs for the early Church. I rarely weigh in on such topics as my own theology in such places isn't entirely set. That being said Dan Phillips over at team pyro ought to be more careful with his words. Here allow me to quote the entire post for you.

"The very fact that "continuationists" acknowledge the need to make their case to Christians by argument is, itself, a devastating and sufficient refutation of the position." - Dan Phillips of Pyromaniacs (Emphesis Original)

Did you catch the problem there? Now I don't think Dan is intending to slam argumentation, he is a Calvinistic Dispensationalist after all. Two things that are argued pretty widely in the Christian tradition. Rather I think he is saying, "If continuationists actually had these spiritual gifts then why don't they simply demonstrate them. If they did wouldn't the argument be over? I don't think so, honestly. The bible is clear in its teaching on other hotly debated topics. Lets choose one Dan and I, for the most part would agree on. The Sovereignty of God in Salvation. Now scripture is quite clear on this point. John 6 being a classic text in this regard; however, when showing such a text to someone, even someone in the church, who cannot or will not believe this. Case and point. The second reason this concept must be rejected is that it would limit God to a toy used to show off to other Christians.

Perhaps the toughest thing to do here is admit that one group is less sanctified in this specific understanding of scripture than the other. Note I did not say one group was less sanctified in general, but just as a consistent Calvinist would say in the area of Soteriology my Arminian brother or sister is less sanctified than my Calvinistic one, so too both the Continuationists and Cessationists must view their brothers and sisters in Christ this way, as siblings needing help.

P.S. I rank this topic way way way lower on my list of importance than Soteriology, so don't slam me for the comparison.

So you wanna be a rock star?

It is interesting how often we, as young Christians, rationalize our sin with the sins of others especially the sins of older Christians. We can plainly see their hypocrisy yet our own escapes our eyes. I am the chief sinner among this younger generation in this respect. Partly because I have a strong background in theology, and mostly because I am evil. Just to use an example, we as younger believers often don't fellowship with other believers in a corporate (aka going a building where believers gather on Sundays) setting because, "they gossip," "I don't have to be part of a church to be a Christian," "They are too judgmental," etc. However we so often fail to realize that we by making these excuses we are also being very judgmental. We don't like their sins, they don't like ours but neither of us are willing to examine ourselves first. We find it much easier to point out the sins of others. It also gives us this wonderful satisfaction, makes us feel morally superior. I'm a better person because I do this and not that. In a word bullshit. You're a prideful person who is substituting one sin for another. Get over yourself and shame those other, older Christians by your good works so they will see them and glorify your Father who is in heaven. I'm not a rock star, You're not a rock star, there is only one, the Rock Himself, Jesus Christ.

---

P.S. A buddy of mine and I came up with this analogy for post-modern philosophy but it also seems to work for post-modern off the cuff theology. Post-modern off the cuff theology is like midgets standing on the shoulders of giants punching them in the head. Lets try not to be these midgets.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 5)

Conclusions

Some of us fall by the wayside, and some of us soar to the stars, and

some of us sail through our troubles, and some have to live with the scars.

- The Circle of Life - Elton John Version.

The philosophy behind and expressed Disneyʼs The Lion King is expressed in a ways that not only explore the different elements of many different philosophical views, but also answers the questions as to which are better. On the philosophy of religion level of the film, while there is a clash of eastern verses western ideas, the film replies that the western religion is more correct than the eastern; however eastern religion does have its place in the world. The making of this pluralistic society is expressed in the final scene where Timon and Pumbaa are seen on Pride Rock with Simba and Rafiki. All of these views come together in a climactic moment, the baptism of Kiara. Though Simbaʼs responsibility has beaten out Timonʼs “Hakunah Matata” there is still a place for Hakunah Matata, just not in itʼs pure form. The reason the film resonates with the soul so well is because of this melding of worlds. It provides a catalyst for the discussion of religion in a pluralistic world.

Furthermore the film itself asks a number of questions of the audience before giving the aforementioned answers. Questions such, is it okay to simply run from the past or leave it behind? Such a question assumes much however the philosophy behind such an idea is quite important. It presupposes a past, and in doing so argues that the past can and does affect us. This is perhaps a linchpin in the entire philosophy of Hakuna Matata.

Finally the film encourages discussion with regards to the values of a society. What sort of ethic does a society seek to promote in the children of its age? What does
being a good father look like? Ought we be a care-free society as long as its not hurting anyone? While the film does provide answers to many of these questions within, it brings these ideas to the the minds of the viewers and in some sense helps them think through the issues.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 4)

Value Theory

There's a calm surrender to the rush of day, when the heat of the rolling world can be turned away. An enchanted moment, and it sees me through, it's enough for this restless warrior just to be with you.

- Can You Feel The Love Tonight? - Elton John Version

There are many teachable moments throughout the story. While it does not have a systematic view or expression of ethics there are certain inferences that can be drawn from the film. Each of these ideas has an ethical element to them.¹ The story gives great value to the transcendental idea that there is something greater than oneself. That may be the idea of a kingdom, or even the spiritual life as seen with Mufasaʼs appearance in the clouds. This idea is of great consequence in a modern world that has all but lost the appreciation of the mysterious other. The film, through the use of different spiritualities, restores seeks to restore an appreciation for the other, or at least bring the other back into the philosophical conversation of the day. One might suggest that in some sense it has succeeded since the generation that would have seen this film as children are now embracing the transcendental more readily.

The idea of a father is very important in The Lion King. This is especially true considering the age in which the film was created. Mufasa, while representing God, also represents a good father that is not distant, as was the case in other Disney classics such as Bambi. The importance of the eminent father brings up a discussion of family. Mufasa is intimately involved in the life of Simba, teaching him, protecting him, caring for him. The film opened the discussion of the value of fatherhood and not just masculinity for the sake of masculinity. Interestingly enough, this film promotes an idea many christians sympathize with. That the father is the head of the home, he rules while the mother tends the children and cares for the den. Also interesting is the emphasis on obedience. Simba is disciplined when he disobeys Mufasa and suffers the consequences. This brings the concept of punishment back to the table in a psychology of family discussion.

The film also insists that families have both good and bad members, but they are still family. Even when confronted with the truth of Mufasa murder at the paws of Scar, Simba does not take vengeance, choosing to exile Scar rather than kill him. Simba shows mercy to his family, because family is family no matter how they wrong you. While on the topic of family it would be remiss to leave out the idea that friendship is a good basis for marriage. Simba and Nala are best friends, they are also married at the end of the film.

Perhaps the most important idea in the film to be expressed is the idea that good and evil are real and do not depend upon prospective. Minkoff uses light and dark to draw a clear contrast between good and evil. Scar is the only lion with a black mane. The elephant graveyard is very dark. Pride Rock is only seen at night when Scar is ruler, yet when Mufasa rules it is covered in light. This light returns when Simba regains the throne from Scar; beauty returns to the land.

Everyone dies. In the film both the good father and the bad uncle face the same fate. This seems to show the value of life, and that death is not understandable. Simba shows that he does not understand death when he curls up under the paw of Mufasa after the stampede. Again he is filled with grief at the death of Scar though not to the same extent. However after the death of Scar, Simba knows life goes on. After the death of his father he ran into a life of no worry living. The movie also emphasizes that Hakuna Matata does not work. If it did Simba would not have returned to Pride Rock. Unfortunately the upbeat nature of the song “Hakuna Matata” might detract from this point, for though it was just a stage for Simba, it is a favored song of those who see this film.²

Guilt and dishonesty will keep one from achieving who they ought to be. Simbaʼs guilt and hiding what he thought he had done to Mufasa caused him to go into exile. Furthermore it kept him from his relationship with Nala, at first. It was only after he faced his guilt and was honest about his past that the truth of Scarʼs treachery came to light. There is a great value in honesty and the moralism of the story would say that sometimes shadowy words might appear dishonest at times but they are not necessarily. Simba all but accuses Mufasa of lying because he is not always with him, however Mufasa, with the help of Rafiki shows this as merely a wrong view, not a lie.

---

1.) Christine Evely and Murray Evely. "The Lion King." Australian Screen Education 30 (2003): 143+. Academic OneFile. Web. 16 May 2011
2.) Annalee R. Ward, Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), 30-32