Is “hypothetical knowledge Calvinism” vulnerable to the same grounding objection which makes Molinism problematic?

Is “hypothetical knowledge Calvinism” vulnerable to the same grounding objection which makes Molinism problematic?

When Calvinism Goes Bad (Part 2) - Tim Conway

Evangelism Explosion, and Calvinism

Mark Dever writes,

"And then came Evangelism Explosion. D. James Kennedy, a native of Augusta, Georgia, became the pastor of a little PCUS church in Ft. Lauderdale in 1959.  He began training his people to do evangelism.   And by 1962, he had organized this as a program called Evangelism Explosion.  The book continues on, in its 4th edition.  It has been used literally around the world.  It is the subject of much debate and criticism among evangelicals.  Missional types dismiss it as a modernistic sales job, assuming too much to be of any use today.  Reformed types dismiss it as one-sided, coercive, or decisionistic.  Nevertheless, neither of those sets of discussions need to detain us as a matter of history.

My suggestion is that Evangelism Explosion (and the subsequent dramatic growth of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, especially in the 1960's) became a quiet, but telling piece of counter-evidence against the stereotype of Calvinism killing evangelism.  Kennedy was unashamedly Calvinistic in the soteriology he presented in his sermons.  He later joined the PCA, with the Westminster Confession as its doctrinal standard.  Regardless of how consistent or inconsistent one takes aspects of EE to be with Reformed theology, a church that clearly meant to be Calvinistic pumping out evangelism, and evangelism training throughout the 1960s and 1970s was a telling argument in pragmatic America.  I'm not sure anyone thought of it at the time.  But I think that it substantially weakened the ground of the opponents of Reformed theology.  A pastor born in the 1920s, coming to maturity in the 1940s may have assumed that Calvinism was as gone as the horse and buggy, and partly he may have assumed that because of the "evangelism-killing" argument.  But a pastor born in the 1960s, maturing in the 1980s, would have a hard time taking it for granted that a Calvinistic theology always (slippery slope) leads to killing missions and evangelism.  There would be too many churches around him using Evangelism Explosion."(1)

I have come across, quite recently, criticisms of evangelism explosion (EE) questioning James D. Kennedy's Calvinism, and method. (2)

Anyone familiar with EE can understand why fellow Calvinists would be suspicious of it. EE is not a detailed gospel presentation that emphasizes the wonderful truths of limited atonement, unconditional election or irresistible grace. Primarily because James D. Kennedy took the Scriptures seriously that milk comes before meat. Deep, wonderful, magnificent, beautiful, doctrinal truths that glorify God cannot be received before the doctrinal basics. However, James D. Kennedy did stick to his calvinist convictions, like limited atonement, by outlining EE closely to scripture (e.g. Romans 5:8). Where EE gets off track, in the eyes of some calvinists, is its insistence upon, misquoting texts as exegesis instead of application, and what appears to be decisional regeneration. The former criticism is simple to correct. The latter criticism is serious if in fact true. Does EE reduce the gospel to easy believeism? I think not. Look at what the presenter asks the presentee. First, he explains that eternal life is a gift offered from God to all in Jesus Christ. Second, he proclaims this gift is received by saving faith. Saving faith is defined as (continually) trusting in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. Third, he instructs the gift is received through faith in Christ with evidence of, transferring trust from self to Christ alone, acknowledging Christ as personal Lord and Savior over all, and repentance. After this, a person is told to pray to God to acknowledge the gospel, trust Christ for salvation and ask for help in repentance. Clear necessary characteristics of the gospel are preached. The EE emphasis is salvation is justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone--not a mere prayer. Although at times it may seem like it, since EE gets lumped in with the Four Spiritual Flaws of Campus Crusade for Christ.      

EE is great because it is flexible, can be personalized, and yet there is still room for improvement. As Calvinists we can make EE more doctrinally precise without sacrificing its simplicity. But we must stray away from, being too afraid to use the plain language of Scripture or, belaboring doctrinal truths to the expense of presenting meat before milk (e.g. Emphasizing unconditional election, or limited atonement). We should be open, if conscience permits, to use analogies (e.g. A gift for all who receive it) and terminology (e.g. offer, accept, receive, embrace ) that even Arminians use with the understanding that Calvinism lies at the foundation for both.  















-----------------------
(1) Mark Dever. Where'd All These Calvinists Come From? http://www.9marks.org/blog/whered-all-these-calvinists-come-part-4-10
(2)  George R. Jaffray Jr. Explosive Evangelism. http://www.the-highway.com/explosive_evangelism1.html

Apologetical Idolatry

One's interests can interfere with priorities. The same can be said for the Christian. One's interests in apologetics can interfere with the priorities of God in devotion, prayer, meditation and study of God's Word. Apologetics can become an idol, that consumes the affections of a Christian, in the place of God's Word.

Practical Steps: To Prevent Apologetical Idolatry

1.  Pray God would help you to cast aside any idols. 

2. Study the Bible (on any topic, including apologetics, as ones primary authority).

3. Be devoted, and nurtured by God's Word.

4. Memorize Scripture.

5. Seek to make reading the scriptures one's strongest desire. 

6. Seek to delight in God as He reveals Himself in scripture. 

7. Encounter Jesus and be captivated by Him to passionately love God and people as you ought.

8. Seek God to help you build a godly character with the help of the Holy Spirit. As He controls and empowers you to live for Him.

David Robertson v. Matt Dillahunty

Here are my thoughts on the Unbelievable Podcast debate. The first debate centered on Robertson’s articulation of the traditional proofs for God’s existence, namely the cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument, and argument from religious experience.

Dillahunty attacked Robinson’s formulation of the teleological argument on the basis that it’s viciously circular. He objected that the argument builds its premises on the assumption God designed, and fine-tuned the universe then uses empirical data to extrapolate order and design to the conclusion of God. Dillahunty asserted that any given claimed fact must be contrasted to other known facts, for any given fact, to even be considered a fact.

 Robertson presented a type of Leibnizian cosmological argument. But Dillahunty claimed it was an argument from ignorance. Since, he thinks, there can be vital undiscovered information that would naturalistically explain the origin of the universe. So according to Dillahunty one is too rash to logically take a stand, on the origin of the universe, where science is still advancing. Therefore, Dillahunty commends the listeners to suspend judgment until all the relevant data can be assessed.

Robertson used the Nazi concentration camps as an instance of moral evil that presupposes an objective moral standard. Dillahunty simply asserted morality is based on nonmaleficence or beneficence. However, he goes on to say it is situational.

First, the teleological argument is not viciously circular. Since it presupposes what science depends on—the order, and design for any continuity of human experience in the past, present, and future. Second Dillahunty’s criterion of facts is self-refuting. His criterion states that any given claimed fact must be contrasted to other known facts, for any given fact, to even be considered a fact. This criterion would also apply to itself. But what can it contrast with to prove it a fact? As I see it Dillahunty’s criterion of facts cannot stand against its own tests. Moreover such a criterion assumes knowledge possible given Dillahunty's viewpoint. Yet this begs the question. Furthermore, the same problems with correspondence and coherence theories of truth can be applied to Dillahunty's view of facts.  Third to criticize an argument on the basis of it being predicated on ignorance assumes there is knowledge, or alternative positions, which an argument overlooks. But if neither knowledge or alternative positions can be provided the criticism is groundless. If anything such an accusation appeals to the mere possibility of further knowledge or alternative positions but no actual knowledge or alternative positions. Therefore such a critcism should be regarded as a desperate attempt to revive a failed position, only to be left in resounding defeat.

How can one know what is relevant data and what is not? Especially considering Thomas Kuhn’s insights on theory ladenness?  When someone suspends judgment is not one making a judgment against those positions that require belief? Put in another way, if one suspends judgment on a viewpoint that claims it is always wrong to suspend judgment, is not one already judged the viewpoint in advance to be wrong?

If morality is based on the well-being of others, who or what defines what is ‘well’? In any case, regardless of how humanity “is,” what is it that determines how humanity “ought” to be?  How is it humans are morally equal? I think Dillahunty’s position reduces to relativism, ethical subjectivism, or moral nihilism.      

          

Atheism, Unicorns, Santa, and Pixies

Preliminary Remarks

I listened to the Unbelievable? Podcast this week; and to my surprise the atheist guest claimed the status of belief in God is equal to belief in unicorns (or Santa, and Pixies). 

Presuppositions

What are we to reply to atheists with such a claim? First, any reasonable atheist would not conclude belief in God is the same as the belief in unicorns. Since such a claim entails the absurd conclusion that the most brilliant Christian philosophers (e.g. Alvin Plantinga) are deluded. Second, for an atheist to claim that two beliefs are equal requires justification. Anything short of justification for a claim is mere arbitrariness. Third, why think belief in God is like the belief in unicorns? Why not think of belief in God is like belief in other minds, the law of contradiction, or the external world? 

In fact, to the Christian, belief in God presupposes the creator/creature distinction. God is necessarily: triune, infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omnicient, and omnibenevolent. God created man in His image to be personal, relational, rational, moral, and administerial. Thus man is contingent, finite, limited and dependent upon God for everything. God extends some of His attributes to man. In such a way that God is necessary for knowledge, truth, goodness, and beauty. In other words, man must presuppose God (and borrow from Christianity) to make sense of knowledge, truth, goodness, and beauty.

  

Evangelism and Definite Atonement

As a Calvinist open-air preacher, I  occasionally find myself saying things I wish I could retract. Since open-air preaching requires one to think and speak quickly. It is easy for a preacher, unintentionally, to preach something doctrinally unsound. Quite recently, I did precisely that. I began to preach on the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, but when I got to the subject of the atonement, however, I unintentionally preached universal atonement. In retrospect, this occurrence was due to simplicity and ambiguity (i.e. the necessary distinctions and nuances to clarify precise doctrine was not made). I preached that Christ died for the sins of all those that----will repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation. The way in which this statement is phrased, isolated from all the other precious truths of God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Tim 2:25; Eph 2:8-10), gives the false impression that Christ's death on the cross is ineffectual apart from man's contribution of repentance and faith. 

So how can one rightly preach definite atonement in the open-air? Let's look at how some do it.

Tony Miano writes,

"God is also merciful, loving, and kind in that He provided one way to escape that punishment; and that was through the gift of His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ: fully-God and fully-Man, without sin. He died on the cross a death He did not deserve, in order to take upon Himself the punishment you rightly deserve, for your sins against God. And then three days later He forever defeated sin and death when He rose from the grave. What God requires of you is that you repent (turn from your sin and turn toward God) and by faith alone, receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior."(1)  

Matt Slick explains,

"The gospel is historical event where Jesus died for sinners on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4).  His death was a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God (1 John 2:2).  This is the only way to be saved from God's righteous judgment upon those who have sinned by breaking his Law.
Jesus is the one who died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2).  He is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6).  He alone reveals God (Matt. 11:27).  He has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18).  It is only through Him that you can be saved from God's wrath (Eph. 2:3).  He can forgive you of your sin (Luke 5:20; Matt. 9:1-8).  He can remove the guilt that is upon your soul.  Jesus can set you free from the bondage of sin that blinds your eyes, weakens your soul, and brings you to despair.  He can do this because He bore sin in His body on the cross (1 Peter. 2:24) so that those who trust in Him would be saved."(2)

James D. Kennedy states,

"He [Jesus] died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay the penalty for our sins and purchase a place in Heaven for us."(3) 

John Piper declares,

"The good news is that Christ died for sinners like us. And he rose physically from the dead to validate the saving power of his death and to open the gates of eternal life and joy (1 Corinthians 15:20). This means God can acquit guilty sinners and still be just (Romans 3:25-26). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). Coming home to God is where all deep and lasting satisfaction is found." (4)

Paul Washer further expounds,

"Motivated by Love

• God is love. By this the love of God is manifested in us, that God sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:8-10

The Cross of Christ

• For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:23-26"(5)

Thoughts on how to preach definite atonement.

1. Stick to the text. If you continue to quote Scripture on the subject you can't go wrong. Simply because you are not trusting in your personal formulations but on God's formulations.
2. Don't be afraid to clarify parts of the gospel by carefully articulating how it relates to the whole gospel.
 




---------------------------------
(1)Tony Miano. http://www.shop.onemilliontracts.com/Are-You-Ready-Gospel-Tract-50ct-25x35-075.htm
(2)Matt Slick. http://carm.org/jesus-saves
(3) James D. Kennedy. Evangelism Explosion International: New Testament NKJV (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982)B15.
(4)John Piper. Quest For Joy.  http://www.crossway.org/tracts/quest-for-joy-2838/
(5)Paul Washer.  http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/the-gospel