The amount of failure to comprehend what others believe can sometimes be staggering. As an example, I saw a sign in a protest against SB1070 here in Arizona. It was held by a small boy and it read, "Mommy, why is my skin color a crime?" Now, I was totally stunned by this question. I was unaware that anyone in Arizona was arguing that we ought to charge anyone with brown skin with the crime of having brown skin. I haven't heard of anyone going to jail with a charge of being brown (or black or white or whatever other color you may choose). I don't know anyone (I'm not saying they don't exist; I just don't know any) who are arguing, "All Hispanics ought to be arrested and deported." The sentiment on the sign, then, is ... a lie. No one is making any suggestion that everyone of a particular skin color is guilty of violating a law against that skin color. So either it is a stunning failure to comprehend a law under protest, or it is an intentional, bald-faced lie. Preferring to think the best of people when I can, I have to assume supreme stupidity over malicious false witness.
A blog I usually enjoy linked to A Quiz for your Calvinist Friends located on a site called "Evangelical Arminians". It was specifically labeled (on the site) as satire. Fine. It was very difficult to read it through with the words "Calvinist Friends" in the title because it was intended to be unkind. Like the small boy with his sign, it presents a horrible failure to comprehend the Doctrines of Grace. I mean horrible. The author, Kevin, didn't include a single truthful representation of anything "Calvinist", as if this kind of misleading satire proves any kind of point.
Here's the funny thing -- and I find it over and over and over in so many of these debates. It seemed to me that while he was laying down clever landmines for his "Calvinist friends", he forgot to mark them down very carefully because it looked like he was in just as much trouble as his intended targets.
Consider some of the standard objections in these debates:
1. According to Ezekiel 18:23, how much pleasure does the Lord take in the death of the wicked? Now, the "Calvinist" is assigned* the answer, "No revealed pleasure, but lots of secret pleasure." (I haven't heard a Calvinist offer such an answer.) But if the Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (as it plainly says), then what does the Arminian do with it? "Well, God takes no pleasure in it, but His hands are tied." Isn't that a problem?
2. According to Romans 11:32, God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on all men. The "Calvinist" is assigned some nonsensical response about "the first 'all' refers to everyone and the second 'all' refers only to the elect". But ... does the Arminian argue that "All means all" and, therefore, all men will receive mercy from God? Sounds like an argument for universalism to me, and I'm quite sure that the Arminians would not agree to that. Looks like there's a problem there for them as well as Calvinists.
3. According to 1 Peter 1:1-2, the elect "have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God". Now, how this contradicts anything "Calvinist" I don't quite know. In this little scenario, the "Calvinist" is assigned the answer, "Who are you oh man to talk back to Piper?" (Seriously, how is a "friend" supposed to take that?) But since Arminans like to argue against predestination and election, aren't they kind of stuck here? I mean, regardless of the means God uses (foreknowledge or divine edict or whatever), if some are "elect" in advance (you know, like "foreknowledge" would require), then some are chosen in advance and the rest are ... not. Haven't you just agreed with predestination?
If I were to lay out Arminian doctrine from these three examples, here's what I would (wrongly) conclude. "We deny the sovereignty of God. He is a gentleman, a deity that won't interfere in His creation without permission. Many things occur on a daily basis outside of His control and will. Too bad, God. Fortunately, God's plan is to show mercy to all, so while we affirm that some go to hell, we also affirm that God will show mercy to all, so at the same time in the same sense God will save all. Isn't He amazing? And we deny predestination explicitly. Just because God knows what will happen in advance doesn't mean it will happen in advance. Oh, wait ... hold on ..." (Let me repeat, that's what I would wrongly conclude based on this quiz.) I'm not so sure you want to go there.
Those were just a few examples. The entire quiz is intended to be a cruel misrepresentation of anything "Calvinist". I don't like it when Calvinists make their arguments by misrepresenting Arminian views. It doesn't work any better for me in reverse. More likely, however, is the possibility that lots and lots of Arminians are protesting what they think Calvinists believe ... but don't. It goes back to my calls in the past. Before you start arguing against something, be sure you understand it. Otherwise you'll just make yourself look foolish -- at best.
Post Script: Before I leave this quiz, I do need to comment on the "Bonus Round" question in the quiz. He quotes Revelation 3:20 -- you know, "Behold I stand at the door and knock ..." -- you know that verse. He shows three pictures. One is the famous picture of Jesus standing at a door. The second is a picture of a soldier (apparently in Iraq) kicking down a door. The third is a picture of a soldier pointing a gun at a father and his son. (I'm not sure if he's trying to take the son, trying to keep them subdued, or trying to position them all to shoot them.) The question: "Which one best depicts that verse?" I know lots of people really like that first picture and lots of people see that verse in the light of Jesus gently offering Himself to anyone who wishes and, frankly, I'm not opposed to the concept. But, please, if you're going to be true to Scripture, go back and read that passage. The context is a letter to "the church in Laodicea". The letter is the harshest of all the letters sent to the seven churches. It is a blatant call not for salvation, but for repentance. And the door outside of which Jesus is standing and knocking is not the unsaved, but the church in Laodicea (or any church of the same type). It is a call for believers to repent, not for sinners to be saved. The call for sinners to be saved is throughout the Bible, but this isn't one of them. Please be careful about how you read the Bible.
_______________________
* I used the term "assigned" for the answers for Calvinists. If you read the quiz, you'll find that "C" is the answer that labels you a "Calvinist", so all "C" answers were the "assigned" answers for Calvinists.
9 comments:
It is a not un-typical ploy to paint an opponent in the most negative context in order to overshadow any negative aspects of one's own position, whether there are any or not (usually there are and the position holder knows it, but won't admit to it). We see it all the time. Those who oppose "rights" for homosexuals are "bigots". The same goes for those who oppose open borders, as your first example tries to imply. In a recent post here, I have been wrongly accused of having a "bloodlust" and being "fearful" for my belief, based on truth and reality, that war and violence have their place and can be righteous and justifiable (ever hear of "righteous anger"?).
Such is the common propaganda tool of those who haven't truly found complete confidence in their own position, but are drawn to that position nonetheless. I believe that more often than not, it is indeed intentional and thus most definitely malicious, as well as a most heinous example of bearing false witness.
Unlike the other side of these issues, they are implications unfairly drawn. That is, there is never any concrete evidence for such assumptions (how does one get from securing the border to the preposterous notion of skin color being a crime, particularly when ANY person of any race crossing the border illegally is equally rejected as having broken the law?). The urge to use such tactics should be a tip-off that one is on the wrong side of the issue.
"It doesn't work any better for me in reverse. More likely, however, is the possibility that lots and lots of Arminians are protesting what they think Calvinists believe ... but don't. It goes back to my calls in the past. Before you start arguing against something, be sure you understand it. Otherwise you'll just make yourself look foolish -- at best."
Well, this Calvinist appreciates this approach to our difference very much. Thank you.
Brad
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
Well, actually, the immigration issue wasn't the point of this post. It was the intentional lies people tell to make their point.
But, going with your comments, the law is not right because a majority thinks it is. The law, in fact, is simply an enforcement law. It seems as if you're saying that the government is wrong for having immigration laws. It seems as if you're saying that, according to our founding fathers, the basic premise of this country is that everyone has the right to whatever we have. It seems as if you're saying that no country has the right to limit access. And, it seems as if you're saying that the only possible reason that anyone would want to either have immigration laws or enforce immigration laws would be on the basis of (racial) discrimination, and that "men of good will" must always allow anyone access to anything they want because all people have the right to do whatever they want to be happy.
Are these accurate portrayals of what you are affirming?
(Again, I'd like to point out, none of this was the intent of the post.)
I think Benito's comment is a computer genereated form letter comment. I could almost swear I've read it somewhere before. I find it difficult to believe that Benito read this post.
Dan,
Wouldn't be surprised. I don't anticipate, either way, that Benito will be back to answer my questions.
I thought Marshall gave Benito 40 illegals and they were going to start some sort of a commune with Dan T. (from an immigration post a couple weeks back).
Really odd! Apparently Benito knows how to cut and paste because he said exactly the same thing on a website encouraging the music industry to boycott Arizona and elsewhere (over and over ad naseum, as it turns out). Oddly enough, it appears to be ripped from a speech by JFK, modified for this use. I wonder if JFK would have appreciated that?
It's ok, he's liberal and so therefore infallible.
Post a Comment