Archive for the ‘Table of Contents’ Category from the book.
Table of Contents
Saturday, February 28th, 2009 by dangracely
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: The First Problem of Theology ………………………..p. 32
Charles Darwin and the problem of evil. How many Evangelicals assign all events to God’s ‘absolute sovereignty,’ but then try to excuse Him from the problem of evil. Why a better answer is needed.
CHAPTER TWO: Framing the Debate ………………………………………p. 36
Why consistency of viewpoint is no test of the truth.
CHAPTER THREE: Defining Doublethink ………………………………..p. 40
The dangerous contradiction of believing two ideas that are diametrically opposed to each other. How Evangelical apologetics has resorted to this ‘foundation’ of doublethink. How doublethink is recognized even in some secular literature as a precarious problem.
CHAPTER FOUR: Dialecticism: Like a Rocking Horse …………………p. 51
How the positing of God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s free will form a contradiction, and how it parallels Hegelian relativism. Its similarity to a rocking horse ride, as described in my own experience as a former believer in God’s absolute sovereignty.
CHAPTER FIVE: Man and the Origin of Sin ……………………………..p. 63
The agenda of God and the addendum of man. How God wanted Joseph to be sold as a slave, but not through the sinful jealousy of his brothers. What the word “it “ means in the statement, Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good.
CHAPTER SIX:Translation as Interpretation …………………………….p. 68
How the ‘passive’ participle “fitted” in Romans 9:22 (vessels of wrath fitted for destruction) is spelled the same way in the middle voice in Greek, and what it suggests for interpretation. How the traditional interpretation of Romans 8:28 (in the KJV) is in conflict with 2 Corinthians 6:14-15. The biblical importance of maintaining the first principle of logic (A cannot equal non-A ) when approaching the issue of God’s absolute sovereignty.
Interlude: A Personal Journey ………..p. 81
CHAPTER SEVEN: Is Divine Sovereignty One or Two Wills? ………..p. 84
How Calvinism is irrational, since it claims that God’s sovereign will directs all events, but not sinful events. Examining Jerry Bridges’s claim that God is blameless, since man’s disobedience is merely against God’s revealed will. How Calvinism thus posits the contradiction of two different wills, i.e., an absolute sovereign will and a revealed will, while saying there is only one (absolute sovereign) will.
CHAPTER EIGHT: The Importance of Context ………………………….p. 89
How false assumptions are made by taking Scripture out of context, and how they give an appearance of supporting the Calvinistic doctrine of divine, absolute sovereignty. Taking Lamentations 3:37-38 out of context, as seen in Jerry Bridges’s book, Trusting God Even When It Hurts.
CHAPTER NINE: The Limits of a Sovereign God ………………………p. 97
Job 1—2 discussed to show that God was incited by Satan, and that Job’s trials were not God’s ‘perfect plan’ for him. The Devil’s specialty—presupposing and accusing his enemies of selfish motive. How God is thus accused of bribery if He blesses man, or accused of mean-spiritedness if He judges him.
CHAPTER TEN: Does God Rule OVER or IN Everything? …………..p. 115
Biblical passages explored where God is present but not directing specific weather events. The reason Calvinist-leaning pastors are glad to promote God’s sovereignty. The Church’s dismissal of certain gifts of the Spirit, such as proclamation and knowledge, which are designed to protect the Church from false doctrine. How Loraine Boettner and R.C. Sproul exemplify Christians who ought to operate within their own spiritual gifts and not try to usurp other gifts for which they are not fit.
CHAPTER ELEVEN: Does God Control Everyone’s Heart? …………p. 144
More examples from Jerry Bridges designed to prove that God’s sovereignty reigns over the hearts of kings and therefore over the hearts of everyone else. How the (generically considered) king of the Solomonic Proverbs and Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, are taken out of their biblical contexts to try to prove that God is absolutely sovereign.
CHAPTER TWELVE: Does Voting Count in God’s Election? ……….p. 159
Comparisons in Romans 9 which show Paul’s attempt to continue his Romans 4 argument about the distinction between grace and works. The contrasts are 1) unbelieving Israel with believing Israel; 2) Abraham’s behavior prior to the birth of Ishmael versus Abraham’s subsequent behavior surrounding the birth of Isaac; 3) Ishmael with Isaac; 4) Esau with Jacob; 5) Pharaoh with Moses; and 6) vessels of wrath with vessels of mercy. God’s ‘election’ specifically stated as conditioned not upon works, but upon His calling. How this calling is biblically defined not as bare calling, for such calling must assume the provision of the Son, which Paul does not expressly state, but which must be assumed if the calling is be effective. So too, by extension, may it also be inferred that the Provision may be received, i.e., as demonstrated by Abraham’s faith (Rom. 9:7-8), as suggested by the context.
***Also, how Ray Stedman’s quote about Jacob essentially ignores Jacob’s personal faith. How personal faith in Christ is possible because man can choose between good and evil. How Jesus’ statement in John 6:44 about a man who cannot come refers to 1) man’s actual inability to provide his own atonement; 2) man’s willful inability to come due to his stubbornness; and 3) the Father’s protocol by which man may come toward the Son, contrasted (earlier in John 6) with the human protocol of man coming to the Son to make Him King, to gain for themselves miraculous daily feedings of physical food, while yet ignoring their own spiritual needs. Actual inability vs. willful inability distinguished. Paul’s statement in Romans 8:5-8, meaning that the mind set on the flesh cannot come, and how this refers merely to the impossibility of seeking God and sin simultaneously. Thus, how can a man come, if he is unwilling to come (as exampled in principle by another question—How can a man be a good husband if he is unwilling to be a good husband?). Further, how may (Gr. dunamai) a man come to the Son unless it be according to the Father’s, not man’s, protocol? For the Father’s protocol was that the Son should be lifted up on the cross to draw all men to Himself. This way man could take of the Manna from heaven and not live by physical bread alone. But man’s protocol was (and is) far different. It is seen in the multitude described in John 6, who, having received a miraculous feeding from the Son, intended to take Him by force and lift Him up immediately to Kingship (apart from the cross). For, as Jesus noted, they sought to live by physical bread alone (see John 6, esp. vss. 15, 26-27).
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: ‘We Had to Destroy that Village to Save It’ p. 194
What the Bible really says about man’s sinfulness. Simon the Pharisee as an example proving that all men do not sin uncontrollably or intend to sin to the same extent. Acts 2:15-16 showing that even Gentiles justly excuse one another (in some sense) according to a proper conscience. Total Depravity (which denies the ability of a man to choose good) as an unbiblical view. Calvinism’s meaningless distinction between Total and Utter Depravity. How the words draw, drew, and dragged in the New Testament and Septuagint show a distinction in forcefulness regarding God’s drawing of men to a consideration of the cross (Jn. 6:44), compared to God’s haling of a man before Him in judgment (Lk. 12:58). How the word called means “to invite” in the phrase, Many are called, but few are chosen (thus, who truly invites by irresistible coercion?). How Calvinists conversely believe that God’s calling is a unilateral act of irresistibility (force). How this leads them to say that a man’s desire has been changed, when in fact it has been negated. Thus, a man’s new ‘desire’ is nothing other than the construct of God forcefully applied. How this defines ‘man’s mind’ as merely God’s constructs upon a certain physical creation. How the man, for that matter, could be a laundry basket for all the distinction that Calvinism requires. How such a view equates man’s mind to God’s.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Pharaoh and the Hardened Heart …………p. 242
The Calvinistic doctrine of Reprobation examined. How God’s foreknowledge actually includes contingent histories (Mt. 11:21), and how Calvin, Luther, Edwards, and Pink all conversely claim that God has foreknowledge solely because he has predetermined what shall come to pass. The clever but misguided lingual method of argument Calvinists employ to justify their general position.
Examining how three distinct Hebrew words were improperly reduced to meaning one English word, i.e., to harden, in the KJV exodus narrative. The idiomatic use of language that describes God as the causal agent in events where it is contextually understood He is merely allowing others to act in deference to His wishes (Job 1—2; 1 Ki. 22). The significance of God ‘hardening’ Pharaoh’s heart at the exact point when Pharaoh’s magicians could no longer stand before Moses. Two outlines showing the three Hebrew words that were translated ‘to harden’ as they occur in the exodus narrative.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN: The Potter and the Pot ………………………….p. 308
A.W. Pink in an extended quote describing Pharaoh and the doctrine of Reprobation. Why Pink’s five points supporting Calvin’s view of reprobation are unbiblical. How Pink (unwittingly) uses a subtle lingual method to achieve irrationality. How Calvinists ignore the detailed contexts of Isaiah 29, 45, and Jeremiah 18 when interpreting Romans 9. How the Old Testament metaphor of pots on a potter’s wheel is contextually understood as God acting in instances of judgment against man’s will, not in eradicating man’s will through divine, irresistible force or decreeing all phenomena. The connection between ‘yet’ in Romans 9:19 (Why doth he yet find fault) with the word ‘endured’ in Paul’s answer ([So] what if God endured vessels of wrath…?).
CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Predestination Unto Adoption …………………p. 366
How the Bible defines “adoption” in Romans 8:23 as the future glorification of the body, which believers who already have the firstfruits of the Spirit await. The proper doctrine of adoption as explained by Andrew Telford and T. Pierce Brown in extended quotes. How adoption in Galatians 4 cannot mean ‘a coming into God’s family’ without the term ‘heir’ flip-flopping in adjacent verses to mean an unbeliever in Galatians 4:1. How predestination pertains to the future glorification and inheritance of believers, not to unbelievers ‘coming into the family of God.’
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: Some Remaining Questions ……………….p. 406
Certain important biblical passages not addressed elsewhere in this book discussed here in Q & A format. These include John 15:15 (Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you); Acts 13:48 (As many as were ordained unto salvation believed); and Acts 4:26-30, where a fine distinction is drawn between the idea that everything done by Herod et al. was predetermined by God, and the fact that God determined everything they should do. Also, what the phrase to will means in Philippians 2:13 (For it is God who worketh in you to will, and to do of his good pleasure), and what the Greek words thelo and boulomai respectively mean.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: The Freedom of the Will ……………………..p. 448
Examining whether man is born with a sin nature that 1) guarantees a deterministic condemnation and 2) predetermines his moral intentions. Observing whether there is any theoretical difference between man inheriting a sin nature and man inheriting the knowledge of good and evil. Romans 5:12-21 and the doctrine of Original Sin examined. The correlative conjunction, and epi ho, in verse 12. Pauline context of “flesh.” Psalm 51:5 discussed.
CHAPTER NINETEEN: Jn. 1:13’s Historico-Grammatical Context ..p. 544
Why the phrase in John 1:13 “not of bloods nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man” indicates three categories of essential distinction, and how these categories are not maintained in traditional Evangelical interpretation. The importance in understanding that (a) the historical-grammatical approach to the biblical interpretation of John 1 is necessary, and (b) John’s intended audience involved Greeks. Why, in one aspect of flesh’s polyvalent meaning, the word “flesh” ought to remain essentially consistent between verses 13 and 14. Why an accurate interpretation of this verse does not support the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity.
CHAPTER TWENTY: Calvinism and Other Pseudologies …………….p.573
The similarities between Calvinism and certain other mystical theologies and ideologies (pseudologies). How such ideological systems (when correctly critiqued) reveal that their propositions were put into an untestable realm, so that belief is based on belief’s sake only. Some comparisons between Calvinism and certain ideologies, including Latter Day Saint theology, evolutionary theory, Existentialism, Catholicism, Multi-culturalism, and Eastern mysticism. Also, the common problem all ideologies face—the problem of the One and the Many.
CHAPTER TWENTY ONE: Answering the Problem of Evil ………..p. 596
A case history of whether God foreordains all human activity. Also, various arguments by Reformed professor James Spiegel considered, such as (a) whether God could have created a universe in which men could only choose good, and (b) the idea that evil does not have absolute being. The call for all Evangelicals to recognize that man is the uncaused, first cause of his sin, that God rules over all things, not in all things, and that only with this understanding can Evangelicals really know that God is removed from the problem of evil.
SUPPLEMENT: On John Piper’s “Are There Two Wills of God” ….p. 620
Piper’s failure to distinguish between the wicked of Ezekiel, who are described as able to repent, and the wicked of Deuteronomy who are described as beyond remedy because of their unrelentingly stubborn will. Also, the wicked two sons of Eli whose worthless behavior in their positions of high responsibility made divine judgment appropriate. Similarly, the importance of understanding that “death” in the phrase “the death of the wicked” refers in Ezekiel to “the sinner’s way” prior to divine judgment whereas the context of Deuteronomy shows that the word “death” in the phrase “death of the wicked,” if we are to introduce that thought into the context of Deuteronomy 28, would refer to “the sinner’s way” under divine judgment. Examining Piper’s view that God damns some in order that He might save others. The assumption by Calvinist commentators to take all appearances of Gr. hina (that) as referring to irresistible Divine decree. Why the use of irony in Scripture in cases involving fulfilled prophecy at God’s expense requires the conjunction hina instead of kai. Piper’s refusal to recognize contradiction by calling it “different,” not “contradictory.” Piper’s definition of not from the heart (reluctance) as non-compassion. How Piper’s theology of two divine wills enables Evangelicals to move toward ecumenicalism, since (as shown by Piper’s irrational, theological method) a theology may contradict the Bible but merely be regarded as ‘different,’ not ‘contradictory.’ How Paul speaks of false teachers who were not even aware of what they affirmed.
Footnotes Within Footnotes: …………………………………………………p. 705
Calvin’s espousal of parental-transferred depravity. Why ignorance of the law IS an excuse (Lev. 5 and Deut. 19). Problems with Arminianism. The deconstructionism of Karl Barth.
SUBJECT INDEX: ……………………………………………………………..p. 718
SCRIPTURE INDEX: ………………………………………………………….p. 722