"Forced to Believe" (3)

NOTICE:

This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.

The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.

 

 

We are continuing our discussion on inconsistent Calvinism, using A. A. Hodge as our example.

The doctrine of unconditional decrees presents no special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any form of co-action causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing, him to sin. (211)

This is against both the Scripture and the Reformers. I recommend my Commentary on Ephesians and "The Problem of Evil." Also see Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will. In fact, even the term "co-action" would be too weak to describe God's active determination of the sinful acts of men.

It is a frightful but undeniable truth that multitudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up in such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no possible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truth, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow up, he foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or revealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for. (227)

The question assumes that God sole purpose for a person is his holiness and happiness, but this is not true. It is as if this person is completely oblivious to what Scripture teaches, and what Calvinism affirms. Hodge did not write this paragraph, but he is quoting Archbishop Whately with approval. But then Whately must have never heard of a "system of religion" called CHRISTIANITY, and what it says in Romans 9 and other places.

The decree of election only makes the repentance and faith of the elect certain. But the antecedent certainty of a free act is not inconsistent with its freedom, otherwise the certain foreknowledge of a free act would be impossible. The decree of election does not cause the faith, and it does not interfere with the agent in acting, and certainly it does not supersede the absolute necessity of it. (228)

This paragraph made me laugh out loud, and I couldn't help but smile even looking at it again just now — it so badly begs the question. He says that certain foreknowledge must be compatible with human freedom, or else certain foreknowledge would be impossible. So the compatibility of the two are not logically demonstrated, but asserted by force because he is unwilling to let go of either divine foreknowledge or human freedom. As for "The decree of election does not cause the faith," either he has something very peculiar in mind that he fails to explain (I can't imagine what), or it is an outright denial of Calvinism.

There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great majority of those to whom he offers and upon whom he presses, by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer; especially when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly increase their guilt and misery. (229)

This is just a convoluted way of admitting that the unbiblical doctrine of the "sincere offer" is incoherent. Since Hodge falsely thinks that it is taught in Scripture, he is compelled to swallow it. But it is not an "apparent difficulty" — the problem is called schizophrenia. For Hodge, the difficulty is compounded when he considers that God foresees that the non-elect's rejection of the gospel will increase their guilt.

But the biblical doctrine is straightforward and coherent. There is no "sincere offer." God commands men everywhere to repent — the elect will obey and be saved, but the reprobates will disobey and be damned. Moreover, the reprobates were already sinful and destined for hell, and the hearing and rejection of the gospel increases that guilt, and this is exactly what God wants (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). There is no "apparent difficulty."

(to be continued)

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
(See www.rmiweb.org)

Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2

Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
(See www.monergismbooks.com)