taking, for the sake of argument, the doctrine of unconditional election as a presupposition, is Gerster's hypothetical encounter self-consistent?

Sure. It's unconditional election that is the heresy. The Gerstner scenario only makes it blindingly obvious.
Christopher Jones | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 12:57 pm | #

You're not reductionist at all. You have demonstrated a subtlety of thought in this very weblog.

One thing that needs to be cleared up, though. The Catholic Church explicitly condemns semi-pelagianism as a heresy, and does so at least twice in the canons of Trent. I'll leave it to you to figure out where exactly those two anathemas are.

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia article on semipelagianism, fyi: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 13703a.htm
Steve P. | 09.29.03 - 7:35 pm | #

Your dialog was indeed interesting. It does require anyone holding a 5 point Calvinistic position to confront the full force of the position. "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated." Did Jesus die for Esau?

I have likened the difference between 4 and 5 point Calvinism with this story.

A rich man walks through a town. He gives a $100 bill to everyone in the town who comes up to him and asks. Word spreads and all kinds of people come up to him and ask him for their $100. Nobody is turned away.

Four point Calvinism says that when this man leaves town, he still has money in his pocket, because he had a bill for everyone in the town.

Five point Calvinism says that the man's pocket is empty.
Don Curtis | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 7:53 pm | #

Okay. I'll name names: John Calvin, Samuel Ward, John Davenant, Bishop Ussher, Richard Vines, Jeremiah Burroughs, Richard Baxter, Francis Turretin, Herman Witsius, Thomas Boston, Ebenezer Erskine, Ralph Erskine, A.A. Hodge, John Murray, N.B. Stonehouse.

That's just a start and none of them are French.

Ward and Davenant were delegates at Dort. Ussher wrote the Irish Articles that lie behind the Westminster Confession. Vines and Burroughs were members of the Westminster Assembly. Turretin and Witsius are the authors of two major works in Reformed dogmatics. And so on.

All of these figures maintain that God desires the salvation of all and genuinely and sincerely offers himself in Christ to all in the proclamation of the Gospel. Moreover, they all do this against the backdrop of the infinite sufficiency of Christ's atoning work to save all men, even if in God's eternal counsel he intends that atoning work for the salvation of the elect.
garver | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 7:59 pm | #

BTW, even a strict Calvinist should agree with your quote (though perhaps not precisely as it was intended):

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

"nothing else?" If even faith is required, it would be semi-pelagianism, if that "faith" were understood as something that the sinner positively contributes rather than a gift from God.

Take another look at your quote. All the canons of Trent are written in strictly rigorous language, and you fail to understand them if you go beyond the literal and logical meaning. The literal meaning of this anathema is negative, not positive. "and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, "

I understand the temptation to go beyond the strict meanings of the words...to say "well obviously Trent means THIS way..." either to try to impute to Trent semi-pelagianism, (which is the conclusion I used to jump to) or to defend Trent against semi-pelagianism (which is unnecessary since semi-pelagianism is elsewhere explicitly condemned).

But either way you are jumping to a conclusion. The particular canon in question doesn't address semi-pelagianism. It is addressed elsewhere.
Steve P. | 09.29.03 - 8:04 pm | #

Just a few scattered thoughts: I think the idea of everyone being Calvinist or Arminian was labeled ludicrously stupid because it's anachronistic. I wouldn't have said it's ludicrous though. From what I understand of Arminian theology, little as it is, it comports well with what preceded it (e.g. Catholicism).

"Gerstner would not argue with the truth that everyone should be told that they must believe or they will perish. He would argue against telling everyone that Christ died for them." Well then. Perhaps we're not in such disagreement after all, since I also believe that the purpose of Christ's death was to make salvation actual, not just merely potential. However, paradoxically enough, the Scripture said Christ wept over Jerusalem and that He longed to gather her under His arms but she was not willing. It can be said, why did He not make her willing if He desired it? But the only answer we can give is that there is another desire which is greater.

I suppose what really raised my ire was the title of the post and the hypothetical exchange since it seemed about as abstruse as conceivable. It would be about as useful in evangelism as Van Til's "Why I Am a Christian," in my opinion.

I didn't mean to suggest that everyone desired an encounter with the true God. That, obviously, is not the case. My argument was simply that the general offer of the Gospel - which is _not_ primarily a command, "Do this or perish", but which is rather an offer of grace in Christ - goes out indiscriminately, since all of humanity is in the same fallen condition.
Evan Donovan | 09.29.03 - 8:27 pm | #

Mr Curtis, your analogy of the man with the money seems problematic to me. Are you saying that the atoning work of Christ is not sufficient for the salvation of all, that it's worth is not infinite?

If God is the man in the analogy and the money is the grace available in Christ, then you seem to imply that God is in short supply.

But this is not the teaching of orthodox Calvinism and, indeed, the Synod of Dort which outlined the "5 points" maintained the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work for all.

As A.A. Hodge says in his work The Atonement, "All Calvinists agree in maintaining earnestly that Christ's obedience and sufferings were of infinite intrinsic value in the eye of law, and that there was no need for him to obey or suffer an iota more nor a moment longer in order to secure, if God so willed, the salvation of every man, woman, and child that ever lived...We unite with all other Christians in glorying in the infinite sufficiency of the satisfaction of Christ to reach and to save all men who have been or who will be created or creatable."

The disagreement between, for instance, high Calvinists (such as Owen) and moderate Calvinists (such as Amyraut) concerns the way in which the efficaciousness of Christ's work is limited.

For the former, Christ's atoning work, though of infinite value, was intended only for the elect and thus Christ can be said to have died only for them in a substitutionary sense and the Spirit applies that work only to them, though Christ is offered to all.

For the latter, Christ's atoning work is not only infinitely valuable, but also universally redemptive, Christ dying as a substitute for all on the condition that they accept that substitution in faith, but the work of the Spirit in the application of Christ's redemption is limited to the elect.

In either case, your analogy doesn't seem quite to fit.
garver | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 8:28 pm | #

Garver,

To use your words, "For the former, Christ's atoning work, though of infinite value, was intended only for the elect and thus Christ can be said to have died only for them in a substitutionary sense and the Spirit applies that work only to them, though Christ is offered to all." -- The man's pockets are empty. He only brought enough for those who asked. I said nothing about the wealth of the man, only what he had to give out.

"For the latter, Christ's atoning work is not only infinitely valuable, but also universally redemptive, Christ dying as a substitute for all on the condition that they accept that substitution in faith, but the work of the Spirit in the application of Christ's redemption is limited to the elect." -- The man has money left over. He had enough for everyone in town. Again, nothing is said about the man's wealth beyond what he brought to town.

Look at how these questions line up. "Did Christ die for me?" and "Does that man have a $100 bill for me?" In the case of empty pockets at the end, the answer is, "I don't know." In the case of money left over, the answer is "Yes."

It is worth noting also, that I have not stated my position. I only gave a simple illustration, which I find useful explaining this aspect of Calvinism to people unfamiliar with the doctrine.
Don Curtis | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 11:29 pm | #

Ussher wrote the Irish Articles that lie behind the Westminster Confession

I thought Bishop James Ussher lived in the 19th century, while the Westm. Conf. was composed circa Cromwell's time. Wasn't Ussher the divine who dated Creation to something like 4 am on 1 October 4004 BC[E]?

Or were there two people with the same surname in different centuries (like Samuel Butler and Francis Bacon)?
Tom Round | 09.30.03 - 7:34 am | #

There's only one Bishop James Ussher that I know of and he lived 1580-1655 and was bishop of the Church of Ireland. He was responsible both for the Irish Articles of Religion and dating creation to 4004 BC.
garver | Homepage | 09.30.03 - 8:19 am | #

I don't find the $100 bill illustration helpful. But perhaps if we tweaked it a bit, we could bring it into line with more traditional Calvinistic understandings.

Try this: If the atoning work of Christ is sufficient for all and if Christ is genuinely offered to all, then there are $100 bills held out to all. But the man with the money knows his audience and only uses his power of persuasion effectively with some. It is for those alone that the bills are intended all along.

Whether one or not one is a Amyraldian depends on whether or not one would add that last sentence.
garver | Homepage | 09.30.03 - 8:27 am | #

I don't think any of your Gerstnerian logic follows from unconditional election. Of course, I do believe that election is, in a sense conditional. It is conditional on God's grace, which is freely bestowed through the Word and Sacraments. Where these are not present, there can be no election. Where these are present, there is and will be found God's eternal election.

The problem in Calvinism is that, since he does not elect in Christ but rather abstractly, God is stingy with his eternal election.
Josh S | 09.30.03 - 11:46 am | #

David - thanks for the mention. I don't know why I get into these theological tussles ...

No, my theology is not Calvinistic (though I'm not so Arminian thanks to you!), and there's some things with Gerstner I don't agree with. I would like to caution you in what seems to be a pursuit of being right by having the most people/popular opinion on your side. There's only one you have to satisfy.

I am curious about this Calvinland park and the rides available. Are the rides free for some and others not allowed in? I've heard that the "Ye Olde Calvin Village" is quite authentic.
MarcV | Homepage | 09.30.03 - 12:40 pm | #

Garver,

Have you set a trap for me that I am walking into? Okay I am prepared to be slammed for the purpose of my own edification. You wrote:

"Okay. I'll name names: John Calvin,… and none of them are French."

Is my history of Calvin that bad? I was most certain of his unconditional frenchness.

Anyway, I didn’t want a list of names—what purpose is a pissing contest? We would immediately begin debating those names we each claimed, like the unseemly debate the amillennialists and postmillennialists have over which camp can claim Augustine.

Of course you know that Gerstner did not dispute the infinite sufficiency of the Atonement. Your argument, which I concede is probably the majority view, is that God sincerely offers Himself even though through his eternal counsel He intends that atoning work only for the elect. I find it amusing that this is considered the high ground when compared to Gerstner, who taught that God doesn’t cruelly waste the offer on those who will never have the moral ability, borne of regeneration, to accept it.

But regardless, the proof is in the scriptural pudding, not a list of theologians.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.30.03 - 1:58 pm | #

Yeah, Calvin was French. My blunder. I was thinking in terms of later Huguenot theologians.

As for the scriptural pudding, it's not as if these theologians weren't interpreting Scripture in their views. You know all the standard texts on the free offer of the Gospel, I'm sure.

Part of the difficulty with Gerstner is that he seems to be taking regeneration off the table of the Gospel offer and separating it from Christ as some kind of necessary precondition for receiving Christ.

If the free offer of the Gospel is genuine, then salvation is offered equally to all through Word and Sacrament, including all the means necessary for receiving it.

The damnation of some does not lie in God's withholding anything from them, but in their own unbelief. But the salvation of others is wholly from God and his grace.

There is an important assymmetry between salvation and reprobation. That may not all fit nicely together, but I think the Bible refuses to draw the "logical" implications from election that Gerstner seems to want to.
garver | Homepage | 09.30.03 - 2:58 pm | #

"Taking regeneration off the table and making it a precondition for receiving Christ." I don't like the idea of that. Isn't Christ our regeneration, our justification, our sanctification?
Evan Donovan | 09.30.03 - 5:07 pm | #

Garver: Okay, you're right re Ussher.
Tom Round | 10.01.03 - 12:42 am | #

David
I think that there is a bit of cirular logic going on in your argument.
I agree that only the Holy Spirit can save somone, by the way as straight forward bibically correct as that statement is, most evangelical christians dont actually believe it. They think THEY can save someone. But that is another argument.
If you take the point that only the Holy Spirit can save, that the Holy spirit is eternal AND omniscient plus he is he one that saves....I think this renders the whole argument of whether God decided ahead of time who was the elect, of merely knew before he created them who would choose to be the elect as a meaningliess excercise. Essentially they are the same thing speaking from our limited perspective. The armenians can simply argue that God knew ahead of time that some of his creation would choose death and some would choose life, since he chose to create both, choice was allowed as well as predestination. I hope no one really expected God to create a universe with mindless slaves who chose him, or one completely evil where NO one chose him.
John | 10.01.03 - 4:32 pm | #

I think the part that really gets folk like Josh S. and myself riled up is the way you seemingly separate God's work of regeneration from the objective means of grace available in His Church. To my mind, God regenerates through Word and Sacrament, not somehow before and apart from them.
Evan Donovan | 10.03.03 - 2:03 pm | #

Evan, How would you explain the regeneration of the apostle Paul?
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.03.03 - 3:55 pm | #

Simple, the regeneration of the apostle Paul happened when Christ appeared and spoke to him.

Where do you get off saying that "call sinners to repentance" means "call the regenerate to repentance?" If anything, it means "call the unregenerate to regeneration?" How can a man receive new life in Christ (regeneration) without faith? How can he have faith without repentance? And how can he repentant without the call of Jesus? How can ANYONE who has not yet been called to repentance but still needs to be called be considered regenerate?
Josh S | 10.03.03 - 5:47 pm | #

What Evan said: "through" versus "before and apart".

If one can be baptized and still not elect or regenerated, then baptism does precisely nothing. If your sins are not remitted and you are not justified at the moment of the event, then what does it do? That is why I say Calvinist theology is anti-sacramental.

Oh, and Calvinland advertises heavily and sells tickets to all, but they're lottery tickets: you don't know until you buy them whether they're worth anything or not. Calvinland also sells Cokes in machines that randomly either give a free Coke and money back, or give no Coke and keep the money.
craig | 10.03.03 - 6:28 pm | #

Well, for one thing the apostle Paul is a special case. Using his encounter with Christ in an attempt to disprove that the ordinary means of regeneration is through the proclamation of the Word is like using Christ's words to the thief on the Cross, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" to show that entrance into the visible Church really isn't that important after all. And for another, the apostle Paul had the Word Himself speak to him. We are not so privileged, but the Word of Scripture is just as sure and just as full of power by the Spirit. "How will they hear without a preacher?" I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Evan Donovan | 10.06.03 - 12:00 am | #

Evan

Be careful, it looks like you're hurtling towards Lutheranism. Better go into a slide or you may overrun the base; then who knows where you might end up .
Christopher Jones | Homepage | 10.06.03 - 9:43 am | #

I don't feel like I'm hurtling anywhere. I think that at least on this issue Lutherans and Calvinists make up a spectrum,rather than a harsh either/or. That's why generalizations are so obnoxious, like "all Calvinists must believe in double predestination."

And to get back to something earlier, I don't think you, Chris, can call unconditional election a heresy when the Formula of Concord say that man is passive in his justification. If this is true, than no work that he does, not even repentance and faith itself, can be the cause of God's election. Thus, it can rightly be said to be unconditional.
Evan Donovan | 10.06.03 - 8:30 pm | #