Absurdities in Action

Traditionalists are very funny to watch, often funny to read, yet, to use a phrase from Daniel of Doulogos, we must watch in "morbid fascination".

Take for instance Jonathan Moorhead's discussion over at his blog.

He wants to talk about "certainty" (something those of the Reformed persuasion necessarily can't have with relation to their knowledge of their own election or reprobation) and "boasting" as if someone receiving a free gift can now boast. He seems to not realize that there is a difference between legitamate boasting and absurd boasting. That we receive eternal life through the instrumentality of our faith precludes us from legitamate boasting; faith is not a work, as it is held in Reformed theology, but the intermediate agency, the instrument by which we receive the absolutely free gift of eternal life.

In his discussion of certainty, he implies that the word "certain" meant something different to Calvin than it does in "post-enlightenment" thought.

Come see the absurdities in this post and comment thread:

Are you 100% Certain?

The anti-intellectual musings here are repugnant! He asks what certainty is.

My dictionaries all say that it is "freedom from doubt" which has resulted from being convinced/persuaded upon consideration of communication and/or evidence. (By the way, being convinced that something is true passively brings faith which IS certainty--freedom from doubts).

Of course he is just rehashing the same position of the Traditionalistic religion: that one can have "infallible assurance" yet at the same time cannot be 'certain' (in the post-enlightenment sense, lol) that one has eternal life. If this is not absurd, please tell me what is.

In the comment thread I quoted John Calvin, who is at variance with modern Traditional doctrine and thought in these senses: Calvin's definition of faith and his declaration on where assurance comes from is lightyears away from the modern anti-intellectual thoughts on the same.

What was Jonathan's response? Certainty ≠ freedom from doubt but = something less than being certain. Click on the link above and view the absurdities.

Next we have the newest post by Jon Moorhead concerning boasting (which will quickly turn into a discussion on the nature of what 'faith' is; actually it is already turning out that way) where he says that to believe in the gospel is tantamount to "works-salvation".

Arminians (me and you) believe in Works Salvation

Along the lines of our beloved Rose~, who has instituted a blogger award for not being pig-headed, I must seriously consider instituting an award for blatant absurdity. The Bible says that we receive the Spirit by "the hearing of faith" (Gal 3:2, 5); that we are in the present state of already having been saved (the Greek perfect-periphrastic participle in Eph 2:8) through faith; that faith is in contradistinction from works (Eph 2:9); that boasting is precluded by "the law of faith" (Rom 3:27).

No. But believing the gospel for eternal life is works-salvation where we can legitamately boast that we saved ourselves, so goes Jon's logic.

Jonathan Moorhead, these posts deserve my Most Absurd Blogger Award (If I had one...)

Lastly, we have a chat room, message board thread that I want you to view. I often check where people are linking to my blog from and I found this thread. It is at Derek Webb's message board.

Anyone Here a Zane Hodges fan?

The topic started with the question : Did John Piper disavow a comment he made. Which comment? A comment that I quote often of him that the OP author read on my blog. The quote:

"...we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." (John Piper "TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism...", pg 25)

Many Traditionalists rightly distance themselves with this statement, finding it utterly repulsive and anti-biblical.

But still many others wish to identify with this quote and others from men like A.W. Pink:

"There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagated today to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ as his personal Saviour, no matter how he lives afterwards, he cannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variance with the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul's reaching heaven." (A.W. Pink as quoted by Iain H. Murray in "The Life of Arthur W. Pink" pgs 248-249)

In this thread the contributers are arguing that salvation is conditioned on works, but these works are non-meritorious. Where does that unbiblical and absurd notion come from?

Gerstner, in his book attacking dispensationalists, writes that virtually all dispensationalists do not see the elementary difference between non-meritorious "requirements," "conditions," "necessary obligations," "indispensable duties," and "musts," as the natural outworking of true faith, in distinction from faith in the Savior plus meritorious works as the very basis of salvation (Wrongly Dividing... 226).

Guilty as charged! I confess, I do not see this distinction in Scripture. In fact it isn’t there. It exists in Classical Calvinist/Lordship Salvation theology, but not in the Bible. Works are works; they either are or are not necessary for salvation. With the apostle Paul, I say they are not; we are saved "by grace…through faith…not of works" (Eph 2:8-9). If salvation is in any sense conditioned on works then "grace is no longer grace" (Rom 11:6).

Antonio da Rosa
Lakeside, CA